Sitting of 21 November 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

    QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
    THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
    Order for consideration read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    A1
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings have been held by the group of officials from his Department, the Department of Transport and highway authorities to monitor improvements to the A1.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The Al steering group, which I have set up, had its first meeting on 21 June. A working group of officials has also been established and has met twice.
    Mr. Beith: Will those groups be able to consider the terrible accidents that result from head-on collisions on the lethal single-carriageway sections of the Al and will they consider the strategic importance of the Great North road to Scotland and northern England? Will the Minister keep an open mind to the evidence that they may provide of the need for a dual carriageway along the whole length of the Al?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not rule out the possibility of a dual carriageway in the long term, but, as traffic levels are only between 5,000 and 7,000 on the road between Dunbar and Newcastle, I cannot give an indication for the short term. That would mean diverting resources from more pressing road projects elsewhere in Scotland. We expect to proceed with positive action on accident remedial schemes and with five schemes for overtaking opportunities on the road between Dunbar and
    274
    Newcastle. In addition, we are spending about £50 million on a dual carriageway to Haddington and eventually to Dunbar.
    Sir Hector Monro: Given the interest shown in my hon. Friend's document, "Roads South of Edinburgh", will he bear in mind the priorities mentioned by many people regarding the A7 between Hawick and Carlisle? What improvements may take place on that road in the near future?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have had the experience of being driven by my hon. Friend at considerable speed on that road and I saw for myself its problems and the necessity for overtaking opportunities. We shall produce a publicity document stating exactly what improvements will be in the programme in the near future. We see that as an important project for roads south of Hawick and down to the borders.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister accept that having only one cross-border carriageway at Gretna is insufficient to carry the growing road traffic between Scotland and England? The Secretary of State for Transport has accepted the logic of a dual carriageway link with the AI route. Will the Minister announce a date for the dualling of the dangerously congested stretch between Musselburgh and Dunbar?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Work is being carried out urgently on the statutory procedures for the dual carriageway to Haddington. About five times as much traffic uses the A74 as the Al. As Edinburgh is west of Carlisle, we must be realistic about present traffic flows and apply our resources accordingly.

    Brussels Office
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans for establishing an office of his Department in Brussels.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Representation of Government Departments through the United Kingdom permanent representation—UKREP—is working very satisfactorily and we have no proposals for change.
    Mr. Bruce: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Scottish Constitutional Convention's proposals take account of the rapid development taking place in the European Community? Is he aware that those proposals recognise that it is of paramount importance not only for Scotland to have its own Parliament but for the voice of Scotland to have a direct input into the bureaucracy of Brussels as well as through the Council of Ministers? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that Europe will develop through direct representation and that if Scotland does not have that access, it will lose out compared with, for example, the länder of Germany?
    Mr. Rifkind: Scotland already has that representation. For example, only yesterday, the Scottish Fisheries Minister attended the Council of Ministers. Staff of the Scottish Office are seconded to the United Kingdom permanent representation in Brussels. There is every opportunity for Scotland's interests to be taken fully into account.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Scotland has gained substantially from grants from European Community sources? Will he outline to the House how Scotland's benefits compare with those of other Community countries?
    Mr. Rifkind: An interesting example is access to the regional fund. Through the work of the United Kingdom Government, Scotland has received six times more money than has Denmark, although Denmark has separate representation in the Community. That is an example of how the United Kingdom representation has worked extremely successfully in securing resources for Scotland.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, with the imminent demise of the Prime Minister, the time is ripe and the atmosphere is right to set up effective Scottish representation in Brussels? Does he recognise the success of the efforts of the German states, which are lobbying so powerfully for their interests by combining the strength of a major European power with the status of a devolved unit of government representing a distinctive indentity? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really saying that the German states have got it totally wrong and that we can afford to stay out of the business of getting our voice heard in that way in Brussels? Is he really ruling out the possibility of a direct Scottish mission or presence in Brussels?
    Mr. Rifkind: Comparisons with the German Lander are spurious and irrelevant. The Lander have no representation in the federal German Government and therefore have no other opportunity of having their voices heard. Through the office of the Secretary of State, Scotland is directly involved in the United Kingdom representation in Brussels. If the hon. Gentleman is not aware of that, he clearly has not done his homework properly. No Lander Minister can attend the Council of Ministers on behalf of the federal German Government, so that comparison is of little relevance to the hon. Gentleman's point.

    Empty Council Housing
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the most recent figure for empty local authority housing for up to six months, 12 months, and over one year, respectively; if he will list the local authorities concerned; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: On the basis of information returned to the Scottish Development Department, some 26,000 local authority houses are estimated to have been vacant at the end of March 1990.
    Information on the length of vacancies is not collected in the form requested, but a table giving details by authority of vacant houses available for reletting has been placed in the House Library.
    Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving those figures. Is not it a scandal that there are so many empty houses in Scotland? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the worst examples are in Labour-controlled councils, which should put their houses in order and put the homeless first, rather than dogma?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend has a point. About 40 per cent. of the empty houses in Scotland are used for decanting, but a large proportion of the
    276
    remaining 60 per cent. could be brought back into use. In view of the homelessness problems and the particular problems of roofnessness, I particularly request local authorities that have this statutory responsibility to take great care to ensure that they have available sufficient emergency accommodation. We have taken the initiative of making sure that authorities will qualify for housing support grant if they have a deficit on their hostel provision.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister aware that many of those houses are riddled with rising and penetrating damp or severe condensation, that many more require urgent and costly repairs and that almost all have no form of central heating? As neither the Minister nor his hon. Friends would for a moment be prepared to subject their own families to such appalling conditions, they should either shut up with their loathsome hypocrisy or put up, by voting for the restoration of the housing support grant and thereby allowing councils to tackle those appalling housing conditions.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I might have some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman were it not for the fact that the Labour Government had an infinitely worse record. In the five years of the last Labour Government there was a real terms reduction in capital spending of 36 per cent., whereas we have increased it in real terms by 7·4 per cent. and this year are spending £923 million on local authority, new town and Scottish Homes stock. That amounts to very considerable funding.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that Labour-controlled local authorities in Scotland cannot manage their housing stock is an argument for reducing local authority housing stock by means of the right to buy, rather than increasing it, as Opposition Members suggest?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. If local authorities have empty stock which, for one reason or another, they cannot fill, it should be brought back into use. If the local authorities cannot do that themselves, they should involve housing associations or developers. When that has been done, local people have usually gone back to live in the houses.

    River Cart (Flooding)
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what special financial provision he is prepared to make in order to avoid a repetition of the evacuation of homes and damage to property caused by the recent flooding of the River Cart in Glasgow.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Regional and islands councils have powers under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 to carry out works to protect against flooding. Grants are already available towards the eligible costs of approved flood prevention schemes.
    Mr. Watson: That response displays a cynical disregard for my constituents in Langside and Battlefield, who last month once again suffered disruption from flooding. The Minister knows that Strathclyde regional council is being forced to cut £60 million from its budget over the next two years and that it cannot even meet its statutory

    277
    obligations, never mind perform discretionary activities such as flood prevention. Why will not the Minister agree to exceptional grant assistance being made available to deal with this urgent matter?
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that White Cart water would certainly be carefully considered if Strathclyde included such a proposal in its plan. The hon. Gentleman gives a misleading picture of Strathclyde's resources. At the end of the present three-year period, the council's budget for water and sewerage will have risen to £71 million—58 per cent. higher than it was last year. It is up to the regional council to decide whether to give the scheme high priority.

    Hill Farming
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to complete the autumn review of hill farming; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Scottish National Farmers Union to discuss the future of hill farming in Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: I met the farmers' unions on 23 October to discuss the economic situation in the hills and uplands. We are considering the arrangements that will apply to next year's hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme and will announce details as soon as possible.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that farmers in the hill and upland areas have suffered a particularly rough autumn, with a big fall in prices for store lambs and calves? Does he agree that that has serious implications not only for the livelihood of those who work in the area but for the viability of communities in such areas? Will he consider increasing the HLCAs to the maximum allowed, thereby compensating for the heavy losses incurred in this important sector of Scottish agriculture?
    Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is certainly correct that, both this year and last, there have been significant falls in income, for the reasons to which he referred, although that follows two years during which there were considerable improvements. This is a difficult situation and that is why Agriculture Ministers are considering the whole question of the level of HLCAs.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that the latest estimates suggest that net farm income has dropped by 20 to 30 per cent. in the current financial year? That constitutes a crisis in the upland farming sector in Scotland. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman heed carefully the words of the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and use the HLCA payments, which he has it in his gift to increase by £20 for a hill cow and £4 for a hill ewe? That help is essential to keep farming communities in Scotland alive.
    Mr. Rifkind: Farm incomes in the sector fluctuate significantly from year to year. In 1987–88 and 1988–89, they rose in real terms by 45 per cent. and 16 per cent. respectively. But I do not seek to conceal from the hon. Gentleman or the House the fact that, for the reasons that he suggested, this is a difficult year.
    Mr. Macdonald: May I support the call by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) to increase the allowances to the maximum? Does the Secretary of State accept that 25 per cent. of any increase would be funded by the EEC and only the remainder would have to be met by the United Kingdom Government? Such an increase is necessary to help sustain the morale of communities that are facing considerable hardship.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct about the funding arrangements. I acknowledge that the health and viability of the hill farming sector are important not only to those who work in the sector but to the viability of the rural economy as a whole, especially in Scotland where more than 90 per cent. of land is in the less-favoured areas.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although it has been a particularly difficult autumn in the livestock sector, the maximum increase in the suckler cow subsidy was a substantial help, as was the advance payment of sheep premium? However, will my right hon. and learned Friend do everything possible to help hill farmers, bearing in mind, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, their importance to the rural community?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. More than £20 million has been made available to specialist beef producers under the suckler cow premium. The increase to which my hon. Friend referred was worth £1·6 million to farmers in Scotland, where over 90 per cent. of the suckler herd is located in less-favoured areas.

    Scottish Constitutional Convention
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received any representations concerning the Scottish Constitutional Convention; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: In the past six months one letter about the Scottish Constitutional Convention has been received. It was from the National Union of Mineworkers.
    Mr. Trimble: The Minister may agree that devolution on a purely Scottish basis might be divisive within the kingdom. However, does he also accept that the existence of the convention shows that there is a wide desire for reform which is not confined solely to Scotland? Will he consider reforming the government of the regions on a United Kingdom basis as that would have the advantage of enabling the Government to apply within the United Kingdom the principle of subsidiarity to which they appeal in their relationship with Europe? It would allow an effective devolution of powers to local authorities and regions.
    Mr. Lang: Surely it is a strength of our present constitutional arrangements that, with separate territorial departments, the Government can address the different problems of each part of the United Kingdom in different ways. It is not for me to comment on the position in Northern Ireland. However, in Scotland the interest in devolution is considerably exaggerated by those who

    279
    support it. During the general election the interest in devolution rose from 2 per cent. at the beginning of the campaign to 4 per cent. at the end.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the convention has concluded its deliberations, we can now look at the details? As with all constitutional change, Parliament takes an interest when the details are known. Any proposals that cannot and will not go through this Parliament because they do not receive a majority in the House have no hope of being adopted. Any hon. Member who supports such proposals is either supporting fraud or is fraudulent.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend puts the point extremely well. Unfortunately, the constitutional convention cannot be the source of detailed information, as it has ducked every serious question relating to devolution. It has not addressed the fact that Scotland would suffer considerably as a result of the creation of separate tax-raising powers. Its additional funding from the United Kingdom Parliament would be in considerable jeopardy.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Minister tell me—I promise faithfully that I will not breathe a word of it to anyone else—whether, on this day of all days, he does not wish that he could get the same unity in the Tory party as we managed to get in the convention?
    Mr. Lang: It is no sort of unity when every single question of any substance is ducked, ignored or swept under the carpet. The so-called constitutional convention is operating on a bogus prospectus and has totally failed to address the real issues.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend think that the people of Scotland would benefit from having the United Kingdom broken up and that their economy would benefit from it? Would they be better off with a United Kingdom Parliament? What would happen to the Labour party, whose Front Bench is stuffed with Scotsmen speaking on English matters?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely vital point. If one were to invite the opinion of business men in Scotland, the almost unanimous view would be that a Scottish assembly with tax-raising powers would be immensely damaging to Scotland economically.

    Textiles and Knitwear
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the future of the textile and knitwear industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend and I have received representations from a number of hon. Members, textile firms and organisations representing the textile and knitwear industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister. Is he aware that, our having lost 4,000 mining jobs, the textile, clothing and knitwear sector is now the main employer in my constituency? Will he therefore make representations to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that the multi-fibre arrangement continues for at least 10 years and that the general agreement on tariffs and trade rules are strengthened? If that does not happen, imports from newly industrialised countries which are not poor
    280
    will devastate the industry and create unemployment in my constituency, which has the highest unemployment of any travel-to-work area in Great Britain, as the Minister of State should know only too well.
    Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the textiles negotiating group is in almost continuous session at present. It is hoped that the present round of GATT talks will end in Brussels in the first week of December. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the MFA imposes a costly barrier with significant costs, running into billions of pounds, for consumers in this country. That sort of distortion to trade is not in the best interests of any industry in the long run. It is important that the industry should become competitive and efficient, use the best technology and modern methods and improve quality and design, thus securing strong new markets.
    Mr. Lambie: I am sure that the Minister is aware that I have sent petitions signed by the whole work force of major textile companies in my constituency—Strathclyde Knitwear and Queen of Scots Hosiery—appealing to me to try to get the Tory Government to maintain the multi-fibre arrangement. I am sure also that the Minister of State knows that I have received a very distressing letter from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry saying that on no account will the Government maintain the multi-fibre arrangement. Unless the Scottish Office and Scottish Ministers speak up for Scottish hosiery and knitwear workers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said, we shall see the complete demise of the industry and greater unemployment in our area. If the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot get the Government to change their policy, should not they resign and stand up for Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: Of course, it is important that in the new GATT arrangements provisions have to be strengthened to ensure that Scottish industry is protected from dumping and surging and that markets in developing countries are opened up to our producers. Scottish circumstances have been taken fully into account in pursuing the negotiations.
    Mr. Dickens: How can we rely on the sincerity of the Opposition, with their tears for the textile industry, when they have cancelled an important debate this week on the textile industry in which I was hoping to speak? Indeed, many people intended to come to the House of Commons to lobby Members. The Opposition also cancelled a debate on the Scottish economy. When they are sincere, I shall believe them.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a very persuasive point. What the industry should be doing—the best companies are doing it—is pursuing a positive approach to find new markets. I saw that when I met the Scottish Wool Publicity Council on my recent visit to Japan and when I met the National Wool Textile Export Corporation in Korea.

    Agriculture
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the current state of agriculture in Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have received various representations on aspects of Scottish agriculture. In particular, I met the president of the Scottish National Farmers Union on 23 October to discuss the circumstances of farmers in the hills and uplands in the light of the weakness in the livestock markets this autumn.
    Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State has heard concern about the hill farmers in earlier questions. Does he accept that those fears are compounded by the proposed cut in commodity support? Can he confirm that, despite the cut in production support, there remains a surplus of income which could he channelled to support other than for production? If that is so, what constructive proposals have the Government put forward to ensure that that money is channelled towards the family farms, particularly in the upland areas?
    Mr. Rifkind: If, as I assume, the hon. Gentleman is referring to the 30 per cent. reduction in subsidies as part of the GATT negotiating process, he will be aware that part of the Council of Ministers announcement was that the total level of support to the less-favoured areas of the Community would not be reduced. As 90 per cent. of Scotland is in the less-favoured area category, that was an encouraging announcement. Precise details on how that might be achieved are being considered by the Commission and we expect proposals in the relatively near future.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Minister agree with the statement by the president of the NFU that Scottish agriculture faces its worst crisis since the 1930s and that he fears a spate of bankruptcies in the hill and upland sector? What input, direct or otherwise, did the Minister and his Department have in this week's GATT talks between Ray MacSharry and the American Agriculture Secretary? If there was none, will he tell us why?
    Mr. Rifkind: Obviously, we would not be directly involved in talks between the American Secretary of State and a European Commissioner—in the circumstances, it would be rather odd if we were. The British Government are very much involved in the GATT negotiations and played a prominent part in the conclusions reached by the Council of Ministers a few weeks ago.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Secretary of State agree that, on top of all the other problems pressing in on agricultural and rural Scotland, none is more serious than the disproportionate impact of the poll tax? Does he accept that rural Scotland and urban Scotland are waiting to hear where he stands on that great issue? Is he to be a born-again Heseltini, demanding an instant review, or will he cling to the sinking ship and maintain the Thatcherite line that nothing is wrong? Will he tell rural and urban Scotland today where he stands on the poll tax?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman was interested in the subject and concerned about the plight of those in the rural sector, particularly the farming community, and the impact of local government taxation, he should do what he can to change his party's policy to end the derating of agricultural land. He must know perfectly well that the introduction of a farmers tax by a Labour Government would devastate the rural economy. He might, therefore,
    282
    explain to the House why the Labour party is proposing, in Scotland alone, such a penal form of taxation directed against Scotland's farming community.
    Mr. Bill Walker: While my right hon. and learned Friend is listening to the NFU's representations, will he bear in mind that the raspberry and soft fruit industry in the Tayside area is an essential part of the Tayside economy and that the dumping which has taken place over the years from eastern Europe, particularly of pulp, has had an impact? When the Council of Europe is looking into such matters will my right hon. and learned Friend remind it of the importance of raspberries to Tayside?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I am aware that that industry makes a significant and important contribution to the well-being of the rural areas of Tayside. It is important, particularly when access to EC markets from countries outside the Community is being considered, that the impact of any such proposals on those who depend on that product for their livelihood should be fully taken into account. My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to that matter.

    Devolution
    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Government policy on the devolution of powers of legislation to Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: The Government believe that the present constitutional arrangements affecting powers of legislation meet Scotland's needs.
    Mr. Taylor: As some 25 per cent. of the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland support political nationalism, and as a constitutional reform is topical subject in both territories, why do the Government discourage inter-party dialogue through the convention in Scotland while at the same time encouraging inter-party dialogue in Northern Ireland? Why do the Government, on the subject of constitutional reform, as on so many other subjects, have two different policies?
    Mr. Lang: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be one of the first to welcome the fact that the Government can make special provision for the needs and circumstances of Northern Ireland, just as I welcome the fact that the Government can make special provision for the needs and circumstances of Scotland. I must make it clear to him that the self-styled constitutional convention is not a body to which the Government give any credence or authority. It was set up by several interested individuals who believe that they can thereby advance a cause—a cause with which I do not have a great deal of sympathy.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister might have had more impact in the House if he or any of his colleagues had attended even one meeting of the constitutional convention. They were invited to each and every one. The Minister must know that the convention reports on its deliberations next Friday. That will give him and his colleagues, in particular the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), a last opportunity to save face. Do they intend to attend to see

    283
    whether they support the views agreed on by the convention or do they propose any other alternative before next Friday?
    Mr. Lang: It is almost impossible either to agree or disagree with the views expressed by a body which has failed to address any of the significant points of the debate on devolution. For example, does the convention believe that Scotland should continue to have a Secretary of State in the Cabinet? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Does it consider that the number of Members of Parliament should remain the same? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Does it believe that it is possible for Scotland to continue to enjoy additional funding from the United Kingdom while it has power to raise taxation at home? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] How does the hon. Gentleman justify asking English Members of Parliament to vote for higher spending on specific areas in Scotland when taxation would be voted through a Scottish assembly to establish a different position?
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the type of home rule suggested by the convention is home rule paid for by English and Welsh taxpayers?
    Mr. Lang: In so far as the views of the convention are comprehensible, that is certainly one interpretation.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Minister agree that it is a contradiction for the Government to claim to oppose centralisation in the European Community when they have been the most centralising Government in the United Kingdom since the war?
    Mr. Lang: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. The Government believe in decentralisation, but we decentralise in reality rather than through posturing legislative proposals.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while Opposition Members may believe that they could get away with a form of devolution for Scotland paid for by English and Welsh taxpayers, it would be simply intolerable? Does he agree that the only possible financial outcome of the convention's proposals would be a far higher level of taxation in Scotland than in England and Wales?
    Mr. Lang: That is absolutely right and I am certain that once that fact is brought home to the people of Scotland they will change their view radically and withdraw any support that they might give to a separate Scottish assembly. Certainly, the business community is well aware of the considerable danger that a separate Scottish assembly would create in Scotland.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister reflect that what we really desire in Scotland is legislation based on the sovereignty of the Scottish people? Is he aware that if we had that, we would not have the poll tax, because it rests on the sovereignty of the British Parliament? Currently the British Parliament does not have a majority in favour of the poll tax. Therefore, the people of Scotland would be perfectly entitled, having expressed their views on the legislation in 1987, to stop paying the poll tax now.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is living in cloud cuckoo land. The last time questions of devolution were put to the test in Scotland was in the referendum of 1978. It was clear that only about a third of the Scottish people supported devolution.
    Mr. Worthington: One area in which we already have separate powers of legislation is education. Can the Minister clarify his legislative plans for student unions? Last Friday at 3.25 pm a statement was issued by the Minister of State which mentioned separate legislation on this for Scotland, but at 4.40 pm that was withdrawn and deemed not to exist. On Sunday, a handwritten statement——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. What has this to do with devolution of powers?
    Mr. Worthington: It is to do with separate legislation for Scotland, which is what the question is about, Mr. Speaker.
    On Sunday a handwritten note came out omitting any reference to legislation or freedom of speech. What are the Minister's plans for legislation on student unions, and why was the initial statement withdrawn?
    Mr. Lang: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman tables a question to that effect it will be answered at the appropriate time. As he is aware, the present question is not about students or the issue that he raises. As the hon. Gentleman raised the matter of education, however, he may like to know that education is one of many areas in which we in Scotland enjoy substantially higher central Government expenditure than is made south of the border—a situation which would not continue in the event of a tax-raising Scottish assembly being created.

    Lothian Health Board
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the net projected savings of Lothian health board in the current financial year.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Action taken by the board should bring monthly income and expenditure into balance by the end of the year.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister of State not realise that he and his vile policies have brought Lothian health board to the brink of bankruptcy and that this year it faces cuts of £12 million on top of ward and hospital closures? Why is it that, during all the years of stewardship by the Secretary of State, during which he has appointed Tory party hacks to preside over Lothian health board, there has been a financial crisis every year? When will the Minister of State encourage his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to sack Lothian health board and resign?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should seek to attack the record of Lothian health board in that way. As he knows, there is a new hospital—St. John's—in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). There has been a series of new developments in Lothian and the board has rationalised services. During the period to which the hon. Gentleman refers, more patients than ever before have been treated and the board has employed more staff who have seen their salaries go up by more in real terms. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seeks to decry the record of the board and to demoralise the staff and those who are doing so well in Lothian as a result of the board's work.
    Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with the statistics that he trots out. He must be very well aware that, virtually without exception, the medical profession in Edinburgh has said that if Lothian health board persists with its cuts—not savings—it will harm hospital care in the Lothian region. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the proposals by Lothian health board for rationalisation of services and bringing expenditure into line with income had the support of the area medical committee and the medical profession. That is because people recognise that the proposed closures are part of proposals to bring modern facilities and modern hospitals into being. That must be right if the board is to be able to meet the demands of the next century and beyond.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister agree that part of the reason for Lothian being in trouble is that it had to spend a large amount of money on the bureaucracy to set up the internal market? By April 1991, it will have wasted £50 million on bureaucracy to set up a market which is unworkable, extremely expensive and intensely bureaucratic. Would not it be better to spend that £50 million on patient care rather than on employing more bureaucrats to push more paper around?
    Mr. Forsyth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to local management. He is arguing that decisions should be taken at local level, that patients should be allowed to go where they can best obtain treatment and that resources should follow them. That is an internal market. The independent consultants' report showed clearly that Lothian health board's problems had arisen from financial mismanagement. If anything, that vindicates our determination to ensure proper accountability of funds in the health service.

    Family Housing
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional resources he estimates are required by district councils to meet the needs of families who are overcrowded, living in damp houses or are homeless.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If authorities consider that additional resources are required they should include their expenditure proposals in the housing capital programmes which are due to be submitted to the Scottish Office this month.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister aware that that is a totally unsatisfactory answer? Anyone who read the special article in The Scotsman on Saturday—I take it that the Minister did—about homelessness and various other problems could not conceivably accept that answer as a suitable reply to a crisis that especially faces our young people. Does he recall from that article that homelessness among the 16 and 17-year-old group has increased 85 per cent. in the city of Edinburgh and 95 per cent. in the city of Glasgow? It is now estimated that 10,000 young people are sleeping rough on the streets of Scotland in places known as cardboard cities. Will the Minister take emergency action this side of Christmas to bring those people into shelter?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously I agree that it is unacceptable for a single person to be without a roof, That is why I strongly recommend local authorities to state whether they have emergency accommodation available. The Hamish Allan centre in Glasgow, part of which the hon. Gentleman represents, does that job extremely well. Local authorities, together with housing associations, should negotiate nomination rights. I know that Scottish Homes is now actively encouraging housing associations to provide short-term, furnished bedsit accommodation. Local authorities should look at all the possibilities as well as bringing back into use the many vacant houses in their possession.
    On homelessness costs, we have come forward with an initiative to make certain that, in future, local authority costs will be borne by the taxpayers at large—the community charge payers—so that they no longer fall on rent payers alone.
    Mr. Darling: Is not it a disgrace that on the streets of the capital of Scotland people are sleeping rough every night of the year? Will the Minister heed the fact that only a quarter of Edinburgh's total housing stock is in the public sector? Unless we expand the total amount of cheap, low-cost housing, the plight of the homeless is likely to get worse. We should pay attention to that problem throughout the year, not just at Christmas.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A considerable proportion of Edinburgh's public housing stock is empty—more than 7 per cent., which is much higher than that of other Scottish cities. I strongly urge Edinburgh to do everything in its power to bring more of that stock into operation. Nobody should be without a roof and I believe that Edinburgh will take its statutory responsibilities seriously. If it needs more hostels, it should make that absolutely clear in the housing plan that it submits and which we shall consider urgently and sympathetically as soon as we receive it.
    Mr. Maxton: Is not there something sickening about a Minister who ensures that his own family are properly housed but shows such callous disregard for the misery caused by homelessness and by dampness and overcrowding in housing? Those problems are a direct result of the cuts that the Government have imposed on housing in the past 10 years.
    Is not it true that total expenditure by central Government for local government housing has been cut by more than 50 per cent? Is not it also true that the Minister voted for his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)? If so, does he agree with his right hon. Friend that a much more interventionist policy should be pursued in terms of housing?
    Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI voted for the Prime Minister— [Interruption.] Like Monty, she is a victory-winning general.
    Since 1979 we have increased resources by 7 per cent., whereas the Labour party reduced resources by no less than 36 per cent. I do not believe that it is necessarily appropriate to take responsibilities away from local authorities. Given that they take those responsibilities seriously, we shall respond quickly and effectively to their requests in relation to housing.

    Natural Heritage Agency
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources will be allocated to the planned natural heritage agency; and if he will list its responsibilities.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish Natural Heritage is expected to come into being only in 1992 and therefore decisions on resources for it will be taken in next year's public expenditure survey.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about certain species of Scottish wildlife? Would he care to tell the House whether he thinks that 1992 might be too late to take care of members of one particular species in Scotland, who have been observed pecking each other to death and only last night tearing their hair out? I refer, of course, to Scottish Conservative Members.
    More seriously, may I ask whether the Minister will ensure that, when Scottish Natural Heritage is formed, it will be composed of people who genuinely care for the countryside and are genuinely representative and not merely of yet more Tory placemen?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady has made a serious point. I accept that the people concerned must be experts in their field, and that they must form a representative cross-section. I have no doubt that, led by Magnus Magnusson—who is exceptional and outstanding in this regard—a much stronger environmental body will prove to be wholly in Scotland's interests.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend must be aware, there is a series of proposals, including his own, concerning the future status of an important natural environment area—the Cairngorm mountains. As there is certainly no unanimity on the question of the structure that should evolve for it, would not it be better to leave decisions about the matter until Scottish Natural Heritage is established as the best body to assess and conclude what the status of that important part of Scotland should be?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have considerable sympathy with what my right hon. Friend has said. World heritage listing is a great honour for an area, but it creates strong expectations that management will be in harmony with the status of the area, which is one of the most beautiful in Europe.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's strategy for the steel industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Scottish Development Agency has, at my request, commissioned consultants to look at the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland. British Steel has undertaken to consider carefully any commercial opportunities which may be identified by the study.
    Mr. Ingram: I am tempted to ask the Secretary of State, "Is that it?" That does not seem much of a strategy to the thousands of workers and families who will be affected by the closures at Clydesdale and Ravenscraig and who will see it as a complete sell-out of Scotland's interests.
    288
    Has the Secretary of State seen the investment proposals put forward by the Clydesdale work force? If so, what does he propose to do about them? Is he prepared to argue the case with the board of British Steel? And if British Steel is not prepared to adopt the proposals, what action will he take to find an alternative buyer for the plant?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am aware of the investment proposals presented by the trade unions concerned and I understand that they are with British Steel, which will no doubt consider them. As for the question of an alternative purchaser, British Steel has said that it might, in certain circumstances, be prepared to consider an alternative purchaser for the Clydesdale works. Obviously, we shall all be anxious to know whether a purchaser comes forward who is prepared to consider such an option.
    Dr. Reid: Will the Secretary of State publicly welcome the decision by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to investigate the circumstances surrounding the proposed closure of the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig and the Clydesdale works? Will he regard that Committee not as a rival, but as a partner in all our efforts to have the decisions reversed? Will he provide the Committee with any information—however preliminary—that the Scottish Development Agency study has already produced? Will he impress on its members the need to call Sir Robert Scholey as a witness to answer the questions that he has so far refused to answer? Will he ensure that the eight or nine questions that the Ravenscraig shop stewards have already put to the Secretary of State are given to the Select Committee, which can then use its powers to ensure that Scholey answers the questions that so far he has been avoiding?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am happy that the Select Committee wishes to consider the matter. My Department and I will give our full co-operation to the Committee in response to any requests that it may make.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government report arguing the case for Dalzell as a site for the British Steel plate mill development has been passed to the consultants, Arthur D. Little? On 17 October, I asked the Minister whether he was still trying to persuade British Steel to reconsider its closure plans at Ravenscraig and Clydesdale, and he replied, "Yes, I certainly am". Can he say what steps he is taking in that enterprise and whether he intends to meet Sir Robert Scholey in the immediate future?
    Mr. Rifkind: The consultants have access to any information that they require and any future meetings with the chairman of British Steel will depend on whether I think such a meeting likely to be fruitful.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland since May 1979.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Since April 1979, well over 200,000 public sector houses in Scotland have been sold to sitting tenants, including 148,000 by local authorities to sitting tenants.
    Mr. Knox: What percentage of the council house stock in Scotland has been sold to sitting tenants? If the figure is still significantly lower than the figure in England., what steps is the Minister taking to increase sales in Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The figure is 20·4 per cent. and the gap between Scotland and England is narrowing—it was 4 per cent. earlier this year and has dropped to 3·2 per cent. We are ensuring through publicity that people in Scotland are well aware of the opportunities before them and of the trial rents-to-mortgages scheme which will be extended to a total of 370,000 tenants. We are taking steps as quickly as possible.
    Mr. William McKelvey: How many houses have been repossessed because the sitting tenants could no longer afford the mortgage repayments because of the Government's policies?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In Britain, the figure is less than 0·1 per cent. and in Scotland it is believed to be considerably lower because, on average, market values are considerably lower in Scotland than south of the border. It is not a great problem and building societies are taking every possible step to meet the legitimate wishes of those in trouble.

    Health Boards and Councils
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he intends using to appoint people to the new health boards and local health councils when these are set up.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Criteria for appointments to the new health boards are included in the consultation letter issued to nominating bodies. Members of local health councils are not appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Marshall: Is not the Minister ashamed of his present policy of almost always appointing Tory party lackeys to health boards, all of whom should be removed by the incoming Labour Government? How does he justify the fact that the eastern half of Glasgow, where there is a population of several hundred thousand, does not have even one local person to represent it on the Greater Glasgow health board? When will he end that disgraceful situation?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the Member of Parliament for the relevant district were to nominate someone, which he has not done, we could give consideration to the matter.
    Mr. Hood: I know that next Monday the Minister will be busy running round getting votes for his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but will he make himself available at St. Andrew's house in Edinburgh at 12 noon on Monday to receive a petition from the Clydesdale constituents opposing the elimination of acute medical services in the Clydesdale region by the closure of Law hospital in Stonehouse?
    Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the approval and principal proposal has yet to come to
    290
    Ministers. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall take account of the representations that he and others have made about the outcome that they would like to see.

    Heart Surgery
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients in Scotland have suffered from heart attacks while they were on national health service waiting lists for heart surgery during the last 12 months.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: This information is not available in the form requested.
    Mr. Martin: The Minister must know that many medical people in Glasgow and Scotland are extremely worried because angiogram examination waiting lists are so long and some patients have died from heart attacks before receiving examination. Surely it is sad if people die because waiting lists are too long.
    Mr. Forsyth: The Government have considerably expanded the number of cardiac operations carried out in Scotland, in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen where cardiac surgery is provided. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have also set targets to reduce the number of premature deaths due to heart attacks by more than 1,000 per annum by the end of the century. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern and shall certainly give urgent consideration to the waiting list problem.

    National Health Service
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take action to improve the national health service in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Yes. Since 1979 an extra 723,000 patients are being treated every year, an extra 8,849 nurses have been employed at salaries which have risen by more than 40 per cent. in real terms and 68 major new hospital projects have been completed. That is a record to be proud of.
    Mr. Canavan: Most of the members of the Forth Valley health board are the Minister's constituents and were appointed by him. Is he aware of the public concern about the increasingly secretive and autocratic way in which the board is behaving, especially since he appointed his Tory friend Mrs. Isbister to chair the health board? Is not it high time that she and her Tory henchmen were sacked from the health board as they are undermining the national health service and threatening standards of patient care?
    Mr. Forsyth: I think that it is high time the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the real achievements of the Forth Valley health board, including the splendid new £18 million extension to Stirling royal infirmary, and to its splendid efforts to cut waiting lists and extend patient care. The hon. Gentleman should also pay tribute to the transformation that has been brought about in the Royal Scottish National hospital at Larbert in his constituency, at which mentally handicapped patients have benefited from greatly improved standards.

CSCE Summit
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)rose——
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important statement which the House is anxious to hear.
The Prime Minister: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the meeting in Paris of the 34 Heads of State and Government of the conference on security and co-operation in europe which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I attended from 19 to 21 November.
The text of the final document of the summit has been placed in the Library of the House. I shall draw the House's attention briefly to its main points.
First, the final document enshrines the basic human rights and fundamental freedoms which are indispensable for the functioning of a democratic society based on the rule of law. As well as guaranteeing political rights, it commits the 34 Helsinki states to the principles of the market economy and it calls for the protection of the rights of minorities in Europe.
Secondly, the final document provides for regular political consultations between the 34 countries at ministerial and official level. A small secretariat will be set up to service these consultations.
Thirdly, there is a commitment to find better ways to encourage peaceful solutions to disputes. The United Kingdom has put forward a proposal for voluntary conciliation. This will be among the matters to be discussed at a follow-up meeting on the peaceful settlement of disputes in Malta in January. With the new freedom in east and central Europe, after a long period during which national feelings were suppressed by force, we have to reckon with a resurgence of nationality and minority problems.
Fourthly, we established a conflict prevention centre, which is intended to reduce the risk of conflict resulting from misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the intentions of others. It will also have the task of overseeing the measures agreed at the summit to strengthen confidence and security between nations in Europe.
Fifthly, we decided to set up an office for free elections—[Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The Prime Minister—which will facilitate contacts and the exchange of information on elections within participating states.
Lastly, there was agreement on the need for a CSCE parliamentary assembly covering all 34 Helsinki countries. Obviously it is right that parliamentarians themselves should take the lead in setting this up. The Spanish Parliament will host a special meeting of parliamentarians next year to discuss the arrangements.
Another major achievement of the summit was the signature by the 22 states of NATO and the Warsaw pact of the treaty to reduce conventional armed forces in Europe. This is the most substantial and far-reaching agreement for the reduction of armaments which has yet been achieved. It requires the countries of the Warsaw
292
pact, and in particular the Soviet Union, to make massive reductions in the numbers of their tanks, artillery, armoured vehicles, helicopters and aircraft.
The overhang of vastly superior numbers of Warsaw pact forces, which has for so long been a threat to western Europe, will be eliminated. There will in future be broad parity in forces between east and west. The Soviet capacity to launch a surprise attack and large-scale offensive action will also be removed. The treaty has very extensive verification provisions.
The steady resolve of the United Kingdom and the United States to maintain strong defence during the years when the Warsaw pact represented a direct challenge to our way of life and our refusal to give way to military threats were crucial in securing this excellent agreement.
A declaration on friendly relations between the members of NATO and the Warsaw pact was also signed at the same time as the CFE treaty, making it clear that we no longer regard each other as adversaries. In addition, I had bilateral meetings with among others, President Bush, President Gorbachev, President Mitterrand, Chancellor Kohl, President Ozal, President Zhelev and the United Nations Secretary-General. They provided the opportunity to discuss the whole range of current European issues, the situation in the Gulf and other regional problems.
The word historic tends to be used extravagantly these days, but I believe that this summit was an historic gathering. It marked the end of the cold war in Europe and the triumph of democracy, freedom and the rule of law.
The Helsinki agreements played a crucial part in achieving this. They gave encouragement and inspiration to the brave individuals—people like Dr. Sakharov, Mr. Orlov, President Havel and many others—who had to struggle for basic human rights in the darkest days of totalitarianism. They had a charter to which they could appeal to show that not only was their course a just one but that the Governments and authorities that were denying them their rights were in breach of specific obligations. At the same time, the agreements gave Governments and people in the west a locus to inquire into what would otherwise be regarded as strictly internal matters and to insist on observance of human rights in the then communist countries.
Britain has throughout been in the forefront of those who supported the struggle for human rights in those dark days and it was this Government's suggestion that we should have a new Magna Carta for Europe which led directly to the declaration on human rights at this summit.
We should not expect too much of the CSCE. It is not a defence organisation and we should not try to make it one. NATO will remain the core of Western defence, but the CSCE can serve as an example of observance of human rights, of how countries should behave towards each other and of how to settle disputes peacefully. In short, it should be a model for peace, stability and good neighbourliness.
I believe that the outcome of the summit is one of which this Government, this House and this country can be proud.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Prime Minister for that statement. This is an occasion when the whole House, together with the country and the wider international community, can truly celebrate the ending of the cold war. It is also an occasion on which it is right for us all in the House to commit ourselves to building, through negotiation and co-operation, an enduring system

293
of common security, with all its great opportunities and challenges. May I therefore join the Prime Minister in warmly welcoming the signature of the treaty on conventional forces in Europe and the charter of Paris for a new Europe.
This is the time when it is right to pay particular tribute to former President Reagan, President Bush, President Gorbachev and all those who not only desired but helped to create opportunities for the historic progress that is now being made. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the Prime Minister."] And, as the Prime Minister said, it is time, too, to recognise the contribution made over the years by the people of Britain in achieving that objective. It is also time—[ Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very important matters of great interest to the nation. I ask the House to listen quietly.
Mr. Kinnock: It is time, too, to join the Prime Minister in recording admiration and gratitude to those who, from the beginning of the Helsinki process, and indeed for years before it, placed human rights and freedom at the centre of international relations and pursued that cause even at times of difficulty, great frustration and personal danger. The effort for full freedom must continue until all peoples truly enjoy the rights of national and individual self-determination.
Does the Prime Minister now accept that the new architecture of Germany and of the whole of central and eastern Europe makes the presence of short-range nuclear weapons redundant and that they therefore should be removed as soon as a negotiated settlement can be achieved? In that respect, will the Prime Minister confirm that action is being taken to give effect to last July's NATO summit agreement that new negotiations on the reduction of short-range nuclear forces in Europe should begin shortly after the CFE agreement is signed?
May I tell the right hon. Lady that we welcome the decisions that strengthen the institutions of the CSCE and give it a more active role in seeking to assist in the resolution of inter-regional and international disputes? I recognise the role of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government in trying to achieve that objective.
Can the Prime Minister envisage the possibility that, in addition to the vital role fulfilled by NATO, the C'SCE might have a part to play in the verification of arms reduction in Europe? Does she share the view that the best way to ensure future European security is to encourage the advance of sustainable economic growth across the continent, including eastern Europe? Will she acknowledge, however, that, while freedom is essential for that advance, it is not by itself enough? Does she agree that freedom in central and eastern Europe must be accompanied by substantial support from western countries if that freedom is to be certain and sustained? What new proposals does she have, therefore, for increasing Britain's programme support to the levels achieved by several of our allies and European Community partners?
Finally, will the Prime Minister report progress in efforts to maintain effective pressure on Iraq so that the United Nations objective of securing the unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait can be achieved?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It was a very good day—an excellent agreement for the whole of Europe, the United States, Canada and, indeed, the whole of the western world.
Four points arose from the right hon. Gentleman's questions. Negotiations can start on short-range nuclear weapons as the CFE treaty has been signed and starts to be implemented. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that at the NATO summit last year we made it quite clear that short-range nuclear weapons will continue to fulfil an essential role in the overall strategy of the alliance to prevent war by ensuring that there are no circumstances in which nuclear retaliation in response to military action can be discounted. We can negotiate to reduce those weapons, but they nevertheless continue to play a fundamental part in the flexible response. It is vital, from that communiqué, that we keep some of them.
Verification is dealt with in the CFE treaty; it is between NATO and the Warsaw pact and that is where it must remain. There are very sophisticated ways of dealing with this and very intrusive methods of verification, but it is right that they should stay with those 22 countries which signed the agreements. The future of the Warsaw pact is a matter for those countries. Many of them think that it will become more of a political organisation and that it has very little relevance to armaments for the east European countries.
With regard to support, we have know-how funds and we recently announced a new one for the Soviet Union. We shall consider the matter further with regard to the Soviet Union when we have the IMF report, which will be considered at the economic summit at the end of this year, and when we have the full report from Europe, which similarly will be considered in December.
With regard to Iraq and Kuwait, it is vital that the United Nations resolutions are all implemented in their entirety. If they are not, the military option would have to be exercised.
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend has rightly spoken of our steady resolve in the 1980s which brought about this welcome reduction in arms in Europe. Will she comment on the role played in the 1980s by those who supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? Could she have been reporting to the House today if those people had had their way?
The Prime Minister: The nuclear deterrent has been a vital part in our sure defence and in our being able to negotiate the conventional force reductions which I announced. It is still a vital part of NATO and will remain so. Had not we been absolutely staunch—we were the first to station cruise missiles in this country—we would not have been in a position to have a disarmament agreement and to see the amazing changes in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I congratulate the Prime Minister and her colleagues on the historic agreement, to which she set her hand yesterday in Paris, for the peace of Europe. Its only flaw is that it does not take account of the Baltic states; perhaps the right hon. Lady will comment on that aspect. Nevertheless, this is an agreement which the right hon. Lady will be entitled to regard with a certain pride and satisfaction as she looks back on the twilight days of her premiership—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will direct their questions to the substance of the statement and not to anything else.
Mr. Ashdown: As the Prime Minister turns her attention to the next important meeting on Europe, the intergovernmental conference in three weeks' time, will she reflect on the thought that it cannot be good for our country to be represented at that meeting by a Prime Minister who has lost her authority and a Government who have lost their way?
The Prime Minister: First, the position of the Baltic states will be dealt with in respect of minorities and possible conflicts. We are very much aware that in the new Europe many minorities will be feeling their nationalities once again. The old Helsinki accords still exist and they provide that there can be no change in borders without agreement. That is why the Baltic states and President Gorbachev and his Government are negotiating. We hope that those negotiations will end satisfactorily. We are well aware of the sensitivity of this matter not only from President Gorbachev's viewpoint but because of the origins of those Baltic states, which were transferred to Stalin at the beginning of the last war. The old Helsinki agreements and the new one deal with that.
On the intergovernmental conference, I seem to remember the Liberals supporting a socialist Government long after that Government had lost authority in the House and keeping it there for years. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman speaking in that way. The first eleven and a half years have not been so bad—and with regard to a twilight, please remember that there are 24 hours in a day.
Mr. William PowellDoes not my right hon. Friend deserve the wholehearted congratulations of the House and the country for her massive and sustained contribution over a long period which enabled this historic treaty to be signed yesterday?
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Defence Ministers. Our staunchness in defence and our resoluteness have brought this about—a staunchness in defence in which we were not supported by the Opposition. I do not believe that the agreements could have come about had we not been in power and had we not taken that view.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The creation of a CSCE mechanism is undoubtedly a historic step in the pursuit of European stability and security. But does the Prime Minister agree not only that its capacity to provide true European security lies in the far distance and that, as she said, NATO as a proven instrument will continue to be needed, but that the NATO of the 1990s will need to widen its focus and be more responsive to regional responsibilities?
The Prime Minister: Yes. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must continue to have NATO. It spans the Atlantic and brings United States and Canadian interests into Europe. It is vital that our defence is dealt with under NATO. It is also vital that the alliance should think about out-of-area problems of the kind that we face in Iraq and Kuwait following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I mentioned that at a NATO summit in Scotland earlier this year.
296
I do not think that the CSCE can deal with defence matters in the same way as NATO does. It can discuss the political aspects and I think that its great significance is that it involves the 34 nations and is the only forum in which the United States, western Europe, eastern Europe and the Soviet Union meet to discuss together. We can have a great deal of influence on one another through the discussions that will take place regularly among Foreign Ministers, probably once a year among Heads of Government and among officials. The activities of NATO and the CSCE are complementary.
Mr. Nigel Forman: I, too, welcome the historic agreement in Paris—especially that aspect of it which made clear the primacy of the market economy as the best means of creating pluralist societies in former communist countries. But does my right hon. Friend accept that if she and her colleagues in the Community are to help the eastern Europeans successfully and effectively, it is most important that they should follow a policy of constructive engagement and assistance to the Soviet Union, as it is upon the Soviet market that so many of the other countries depend for their export trade and hard currency?
The Prime Minister: Yes. I thank my hon. Friend. The market economy is the essential economic underpinning of political freedom. Political freedom would not last long if it were not underpinned by a market economy. On east Europe, we follow a policy of very constructive engagement. We have know-how funds and support those countries through the European Community. We have recently announced a new know-how fund for the Soviet Union. We are in great demand when it comes to trying to teach those countries about privatisation. They know that we have succeeded. This is again something in which we have led the world and they are anxious to come and learn from us and to learn more about management, so we shall keep closely in touch.
Dr. David Owen: As the Helsinki process would never have achieved as much success without the values of the western democracies, will the Prime Minister now carefully reflect on how best to safeguard the essential need for a large European Community—democratic and market orientated—that respects the nationhood of the countries that are members?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. In some ways, the declaration of Paris was a declaration of fundamental values to which we should all put our name in terms of not only description but enforcement. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important that we do not regard the Community as an exclusive club but go on to widen it. We must therefore consider the strong nationalist feelings of the countries of eastern Europe that would like to join. The EC was never meant to be an exclusive club; it was meant to provide an example of liberty and the free market economy in practice so that its borders could be extended and so that we could take into the Community the countries of eastern Europe when they wished to join.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I express my warm appreciation to my right hon. Friend and for the work of all her Secretaries of State for Defence and Foreign Secretaries who contributed to the happy event yesterday—the signing of the treaty? Will my right hon.

297
Friend comment on the statement of the Hungarians in Paris about the demise of the Warsaw pact as a military institution? Does she welcome Hungary's wish to join the Western European Union as an associate nation?
The Prime Minister: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was a very impressive meeting and clearly the newly free countries of eastern Europe feel that they will get a great deal of support from this new organisation and its regular meetings. With regard to the Warsaw pact, the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian people feel that it has outlasted its military usefulness. They were saying that it should be turned into an organisation that should discuss more political things. Some, I think, would wish to be associated with the Western European Union, but I think it advisable further to consult the WEU and those east European countries before we make any undertakings about it.
Mr. James Lamond: In trying to take to herself the credit for this historic agreement, has the Prime Minister forgotten that when Harold Wilson signed the Helsinki Final Act in August 1975, the right hon. Lady, who was Leader of the Opposition at the time, took that opportunity to attack the Helsinki Final Act in the most scathing terms and denounced Harold Wilson and the Labour Government for having agreed to it? Does she now regret that?
The Prime Minister: I believe that, at that time——
Hon. Members:Ah!
Mr. Speaker:Order.
The Prime Minister:—the scepticism was justified. I must place in the Library or send to the hon. Member a copy of the speech that I made on that point. We seemed to have agreed with the division of Europe including the de facto position of the Balkans, the Baltic states, as part of the Soviet Union in return for commitments that were unlikely to be carried out. The hon. Gentleman will recall that for a very long time after Helsinki people remained in prison or psychiatric hospitals simply for the crime of claiming their basic human rights. There was no significant increase in travel. The Brezhnev doctrine continued to apply, and so on. It was not until President Gorbachev came to power that the Helsinki accords really began to have possibilities. It is also because some countries, especially the United States and ourselves, always, but always raised fundamental human rights cases whenever we met the Soviet Union. For a very long time, it looked as though the Helsinki accords would not be carried into practice. With regard to the long-term effect, I am the first to admit it and say that that was very good indeed.
Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who serve on the Council of Europe and therefore have contact with eastern and central Europe are perhaps more aware than many of the drive and commitment that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has put into ensuring this successful conclusion? Will she recognise that although the know-how fund and EC aid are important, countries like Bulgaria and Poland face a very difficult winter? Did anything come out of the charter agreement in Paris to provide particular help in the short term to those countries?
The Prime Minister:Not especially from the charter. I think that Hungary has already applied to join the Council of Europe and a number of others would wish to do so, to give them more contact with people who espouse western ideas, the ideals of democracy, human rights and the market economy. They are anxious to have far more contacts. With regard to aid, we are doing that through the EC. I saw the President of Bulgaria, which is urgently in need of practical advice and help on how to turn from a communist regime to a market economy, and I promised him that we would consider extending the know-how fund to Bulgaria.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the most welcome passages in her statement is the commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes and to conciliation and that that is in marked contrast with the attitude that she and the President take towards the dispute in the middle east? Even during the cold war, when President Reagan spoke of an "evil empire", there were summit meetings, Foreign Ministers' meetings, hot lines, negotiations and discussions, but, in the case of Iraq, none of that is permitted. There are no negotiations, no discussions and no diplomacy, although the view that there should be is widely shared in the world by, among others, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), Nelson Mandela, Willy Brandt and a range of world statesmen. Is the Prime Minister aware that the latest indications from the United States suggest that nearly three quarters of the American people do not want force to be used against Iraq? Is she aware also that the United Nations resolutions on Israel have been totally disregarded and not implemented at all and that this matter should also be handled by peaceful negotiation and conciliation?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that there was a brutal invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and that brutality and horrors continue. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there is any parallel between the invasion of Kuwait and the terrible brutalities that are taking place there, Grenada—the United States came out when democracy was restored—and Panama? It is totally, utterly and palpably wrong. Fear stalks the streets in Kuwait. There is murder and brutality. Force has taken place. There was a military invasion. It is sheer appeasement and total thoughtlessness for the plight of those people that lead the right hon. Gentleman to say what he does. The situation must be reversed. The suffering of those people must be ended. We must release Kuwait and end the suffering of those people who are in hiding and who are waiting day by day to be brought back to freedom once again.
Sir Bernard Braine: Does my right hon. Friend recollect the clear statement that she made a few moments ago about the state of the Helsinki accord and respect for it in the late 1970s and early 1980s? Mr. Vaclav Havel, now President of the Czech and Slovak Republic, was thrown into prison for telling the truth—that President Husak of Czechoslovakia dishonoured his signature of the Helsinki accord. Czechoslovakia at that time had one of the worst human rights records in Europe. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The Prime Minister: Yes. Not only President Havel but people in those organisations that were set up to monitor

299
the Helsinki accords to see that they were applied were thrown into prison and we had to plead for them time and again to get them out from those countries so that they may once again enjoy freedom. Indeed, in 1980 the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan, totally and utterly against the spirit of the Helsinki accord.
Mr. David Trimble: I, too, was in Paris yesterday at the CSCE conference. We welcome the establishment of machinery to resolve and to deal with border disputes. I noticed that the Spanish Government raised the Gibraltar issue at the conference and I wonder whether the Prime Minister will indicate how she was able to respond to it.
Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of the Irish Republic contain a territorial claim against the United Kingdom as a claim of purported legal right. It is now the only constitutional territorial claim in Europe and it is clearly contrary to the Helsinki and other agreements. What steps will the Prime Minister take, through the CSCE process, to have that claim withdrawn?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been in continued negotiation with regard to Spain and Gibraltar, but the Government of Gibraltar are self-governing and we have not been able to resolve the problem satisfactorily. We shall continue to try to do so.
The matter of the Irish Republic has been raised, but not in this forum, and it is not thought that that infringes the Helsinki accords.
I hope that people in the Irish Republic and others in the EC will realise that Northern Ireland has full democracy and that everyone there has full rights to vote for representatives in this House and in local authorities. The problem there is different from some of the problems in other parts of the world.
Mr. James Kilfedder: As the representative of a separate political party, I congratulate the Prime Minister on her gallant efforts which have contributed to the ending of the cold war. I doubt whether there are many in this House or outside who would have believed that the cold war would have been ended in 1990. She confirms her position as the most eminent Prime Minister of this century.
Did the Prime Minister discuss with the other representatives at the Paris summit the latest offer from President Saddam Hussein, who is trying to play a cat-and-mouse game with human lives?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that it was the staunchness of countries such as Britain and the United States, our belief in the values of fundamental human rights, democracy and the rule of law, our knowledge that socialist economics did not produce prosperity, but only central control which denies liberty and prosperity, and our willingness to fight the battle of ideas which eventually led to the crumbling of communism in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe.
Saddam Hussein's offer gradually to release hostages between Christmas and March was utterly rejected as yet another example of playing games with human lives. We called for the release of all hostages immediately. No civilised Government should take hostages at all.
Mr. Jim Sillars: The Prime Minister is aware that she and I are ideologically and politically poles apart, but it would be churlish not to recognise that she has played a role in the rapprochement between west and eastern Europe, particularly as she was one of the first to spot that the west could do business with Mr. Gorbachev as he emerged to effective power in the Soviet Union. But why is it that, at the end of the cold war, when all over Europe people are rejoicing at the reduction in conventional and nuclear weapons, on the Clyde in Scotland there is to be an increase in nuclear capability, with a "Thatcher", a "Hurd", a "Major" or a "Heseltine" Government putting four Trident submarines on the Clyde or a Kinnock Government putting three Trident submarines on the Clyde? Where is the logic in that now? Who will those submarines target—those poor people in the Soviet Union queuing for a loaf of bread who threaten no one in western Europe or Scotland?
The Prime Minister:I know that we are politically different. I did not know that we were theologically different, but one always learns something in this place. It is a fundamental part of NATO strategy that we keep the nuclear deterrent in submarines and in short-range nuclear weapons and we shall continue to do that. We do not know what may happen in the future and what changes may come about. If we had not maintained our defences we should not have been able to respond to the needs in the middle east, and if we do not retain our nuclear deterrent, there may come a time when we need it and it would be too late then to obtain it. It is vital always in defence of liberty and justice to keep one's defences strong, including nuclear.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that she deserves much more praise than the Leader of the Opposition afforded her today for the part that she and her ideas have played in the liberalisation and freeing of eastern Europe? Will she confirm that at the Paris conference it was agreed that the CSCE secretariat would be located in Prague? If that is so, does she recognise that that would greatly help to bring the east European democracies into the new architecture and the new order of Europe?
The Prime Minister:I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Every country in eastern Europe and the people of the Soviet Union know the part that Britain has played. They are aware of our staunchness in defence and they are grateful to us for what we have done to help them to achieve their liberty. The CSCE secretariat will be in Prague. It will be very welcome in that great city. Once again, it will involve eastern European countries much more actively in the whole conciliation process.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Given the agreement to withdraw Soviet forces from East Germany, upon whom are the short-range nuclear weapons now targeted? As they were originally intended to hit East German or possibly Polish targets, are not they now wholly meaningless and irrelevant?
The Prime Minister: That must have been the language of the early 1930s. We do not know what will happen in the future. The weapons will be targeted on any invader or aggressor. We do not know what may happen. If an

301
invader or aggressor appeared or a great change took place but we had let the weapons go, we should be defenceless instead of having a strong nuclear deterrent.
Mr. Roger Knapman: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and the leading role that she has played in the negotiations? On that form will my right hon. Friend continue to bat for Britain with all the energy, vigour and determination at her command?
The Prime Minister: Yes. It requires great strength and great resolve. I believe that this Government have and will continue to have both.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the greatest problems in converting eastern European economies from controlled, centrally managed economies to market economies is the non-convertibility of those countries' currencies? When will something be done about that issue? Until something is done there will be precious little movement in the conversion programme.
On the institutionalisation of the CSCE, does the Prime Minister agree that we should give the matter further thought and discussion? Existing institutions in Europe, notably the Council of Europe, have facilities for including the Commonwealth countries and the United States in debates on OECD reports. There is absolutely no reason why the Council of Europe could not operate on behalf of the CSCE. Is the Prime Minister aware that if it does not, Europe will be littered with parliamentary institutions, such as the Western European Union, the Council of Europe, the EEC, the parliamentary body for the European Free Trade Association, the North Atlantic Assembly and now the CSCE? We really must have another think about it.
The Prime Minister: On the first question, convertibility of the currency is not the most difficult matter in eastern European countries. It is the fundamental change of attitude among people who have always been instructed to do things, have never been allowed to take any responsibility and are now being asked to change their whole approach. It is very difficult, even when talking to them, to put over the idea that they must find out what they can market, make it and then go out and sell in a way in which they have never done before. The change of attitude is the single most difficult matter.
The CSCE is the only institution which goes right across from the western coast of the United States to the eastern coast of the Pacific. I hope that the Council of Europe will take in the countries of eastern Europe. It will certainly do so before the European Community can do so. I doubt whether it will absorb the Soviet Union because that would make it so large, but I hope that the eastern European countries will join in. The importance of the CSCE is that it spans the United States, western Europe and the Soviet Union. Therefore, it gives us a greater debating and discussion role than any other forum.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated. After many years of hard work we have achieved an extremely good agreement which has a tremendous impact on Europe. Perhaps I may ask about a possible parliamentary assembly for the CSCE. I agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) that too many institutions are growing in Europe. Sometimes their work overlaps and sometimes
302
they are extremely wasteful and costly. Would it be possible in future to centre on the CSCE, perhaps giving roles in it to the WEU and the Council of Europe? At all times we must bear in mind the need for a credible parliamentary assembly outside the European Parliament to speak for the rest of Europe.
The Prime Minister:I thank my hon. Friend. None of the remarkable events that have taken place would have come about if Mr. Gorbachev had not become General Secretary of the Soviet Union. He came with a completely different approach and saw that communism denied both dignity and prosperity. He realised that fundamental changes had to be made and he had the courage to make them and persist with them. Time and again we all repeated that that could not have come about without him. We played quite an important role by giving him platform in the western world and saying that we could do business with him.
I agree that we have rather a lot of parliamentary institutions. It would probably be more appropriate to say that there should be meetings of parliamentarians, perhaps once a year, rather than another institution. It was felt that if we had meetings at Head of Government level and regular meetings at Foreign Ministry level, parliamentarians could perform a role in teaching others. That is precisely how our Parliament works and it is, after all, by far the oldest Parliament and has the most fundamental parliamentary and democratic institutions of all Parliaments.
Mr. Max Madden: The Prime Minister rightly condemns brutality by occupation forces. May I appeal to her not to forget the suffering of the people of the Punjab and Kashmir at the hands of Indian security forces? In that respect what agreement did the conference reach on safeguarding and enhancing the rights of those seeking political asylum?
The Prime Minister: I am very well aware of the problems in the Punjab and in Kashmir. We must earnestly hope that they will be solved peacefully. They have been trying for a long time in Kashmir, which has great problems. What was the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question?
Mr. Madden: Political asylum.
The Prime Minister: We did not raise political asylum as such, although new problems arise because, whereas there used to be perhaps a few thousand people a year seeking political asylum, now there are many tens of thousands and the process is not really meant for such numbers. Perhaps many of them are not genuine refugees and we have to sort them, one from the other. There was considerable concern about enormous movements of peoples, enormous waves of immigration, from either north Africa or eastern Europe straight into western Europe in numbers with which we could not cope. That matter was discussed, but it is easier to discuss the problem than to deal with it. We shall continue to discuss the problem there and in the European Community. It is therefore also relevant to border controls in the Community.
Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cohesion of NATO has been fundamental to the achievement of the signing of the

303
conventional arms reduction treaty and that that treaty is a milestone in the history of the 20th century of which my right hon. Friend and other leaders can be proud? Does she also agree that the time may have arrived for us to start discussing the reduction of naval forces, particularly those of the Soviet Union and, in return, of NATO countries?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the cohesion of NATO has been absolutely vital. It has been the most successful defensive alliance in history and must therefore continue. That staunchness in defence, including the nuclear deterrent and the insistence of President Reagan on the strategic defence initiative, made the Soviet Union realise that, technologically, we would always stay ahead. It made the Soviet Union realise that it could not expect to achieve its objectives militarily and must turn round and start to negotiate in a totally different way.
We are not negotiating on naval forces. There would be considerable dangers if we did so, because, after all, the sea is our highway. We would have to bring reserves across the sea, whereas the Soviet Union could quickly bring materials up to the front from behind the Urals. We are realising now the immense difficulty of removing armour from West Germany to the middle east and the length of time it takes.
We should remember that we are in a different position from the Soviet Union with regard to our maritime fleets. We have a far greater need of them for reinforcement purposes than does the Soviet Union.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Prime Minister has very eloquently and rightly talked about the new-found freedoms and democracy of eastern and central European countries. We all welcome those developments. By the same token, does not she also recognise the desire for self-determination by the historic nations of these islands, including Wales and Scotland?
The Prime Minister: I think that Wales and Scotland have done very well economically and in terms of their freedoms as part of the United Kingdom. I believe that the majority of the Welsh and Scottish wish to stay that way.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in effect, this week's treaty marks the end of the ideological division of Europe that has existed since the war? The end of that division also represents the triumph of the western values of freedom and liberal social market economics. Does she agree that that is a tribute to the European Community and NATO, which the Conservative party has supported steadfastly and consistently? Would she also issue a warning to many of the socialist parties on the continent——
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. Taylor:—that are already investing in the CSCE process as some form of alternative to NATO for the resolution of disputes in the future? That can never be the case, as the League of Nations proved. We must keep NATO and continue to be its staunch defender as there are still risks ahead.
The Prime Minister: I agree that we must keep NATO. Given its tremendous success since the war in defending peace with freedom and justice, it would be quite absurd if
304
it were to be disbanded. It also has the purpose of keeping American and Canadian forces in Europe, which is absolutely vital to keeping the peace in Europe. We are extending NATO's purposes to political ones, but it is our main defence organisation and main contact with the other side of the Atlantic.
We must recognise that it is easier in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to give and to get political freedom than it is to achieve economic liberty. Political freedom can be conferred in response to demand, but economic freedom cannot. One must learn how to practise it. Therefore, it means that those in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe must learn habits that many of them have never known. There is no history of smallholding land ownership in many parts of the Soviet Union and no history of private property. It will take quite a long time to achieve economic freedom and people will require a good deal of help and tuition before they are able to do so.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us are totally unconvinced by the role that the Prime Minister is ascribing to NATO in the new Europe? Given that NATO was created to defend western Europe against the threat from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, and acknowledging some of the comments that the Prime Minister made about the Warsaw pact in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, would not it be prudent to take on board the possibility that the CSCE might develop some responsibilities for collective defence?
The Prime Minister: No, I still think that it is best to do defence through NATO and that it should continue to be done that way. The CSCE consists of 34 nations and NATO and the Warsaw pact represent 22. It is much better to achieve defence through a well-tried and familiar structure that has a proven record of success. I believe that most people would follow that course of action.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that support for what she is doing, on the CSCE and generally, was, at my constituency executive committee last night, warm, strong and positive and that they very much want her to carry on?
The Prime Minister:I thank my hon. Friend; I think that he will fight for those things as fiercely as he fought to keep the military band in his constituency. I want exactly what he wants.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the policy of constructive engagement—in the form of lessons on privatisation, moneys from the know-how funds and other moneys from the European development bank—sufficient to deal with the problems of a former eastern Europe that might, in certain conditions, revert? Should not we look to what is happening in Germany, where the links between east and west give east Germany an inbuilt advantage? Should not we consider developing direct links between western and eastern European countries at every level—local government, national Government, business and professional—to drag the eastern European countries through the hoop before they have the chance to revert, given the difficult political conditions that exist there?
The Prime Minister: One could go on proposing many more things that we would like to do. There has never been a period when so many demands have been made on the

305
west for help and finance; however, we cannot meet them all. In addition to privatisation and know-how, there are a number of joint ventures, but it -is not always easy for those to operate between a free economy in Britain and the controlled economies that remain in some of those countries. Such countries cannot easily obtain the supplies that they are accustomed to obtain by simply ordering them from this country.
We are trying to arrange association agreements between the countries of eastern Europe and the European Community which will start to be negotiated next year. Beyond that, a good deal will come from companies in this country tying up with some companies in those countries. East Germany was very fortunate to be able to plug straight into a banking system, a legal system and a law of contract and tort—all the structures of democracy and the market economy. Those things are not yet in place in Czechoslovakia, Poland or Hungary.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Paris charter effectively announced the end of not only the cold war but the second world war? Does she accept that the resolution of and co-operation between the United States and the United Kingdom were crucial to the achievement of that goal and that it is likely to remain vital to the achievement of peace in the years ahead—especially in the countries outside the NATO area? Does she also accept that many millions of people think that her personal role was and remains vital to that achievement and hope that she will remain at the helm? They feel that, if she does not, the likes of Saddam Hussein—and other enemies of the United Kingdom—will heave a huge sigh of relief.
The Prime Minister: This year we have seen two fundamental developments. First, with the negotiations between Germany and the other countries involved in the last war, we have seen treaties and agreements that ended that war and the occupation of Berlin and East Germany after so many years. In a way, that was the post-war settlement for Germany.
In the CSCE talks, we saw the conditions that have come about as a result of the attitude that the communist countries took from the time of the Berlin airlift—an expansionist ideology, which they wanted to extend all over the world. Instead of coming out of the war into a disarmament period, we had to keep our armaments, set up NATO and keep our defences very strong. The lesson that we learnt is that we must always keep our defences strong, because we do not know what changes may come about—either in Europe or elsewhere in the world—which will be vital to our commerce and supply lines. My hon. Friend is right: this year, with President Gorbachev's new Soviet Union, we have seen Germany's post-war settlement and the end of the cold war.
Mr. David Winnick: During the discussions on the Gulf was there any mention of remarks by the Defence Secretary that British troops in the Gulf would not understand the leadership challenge to the Prime Minister? Will the Prime Minister confirm that British troops in the Gulf are there to resist criminal aggression and to try to ensure that Kuwait is liberated and that they are not, in any circumstances, there to support one particular faction inside the Tory party?
The Prime Minister: During the CSCE process we did not in fact have much discussion on the Gulf. Those discussions occurred mostly during the bilateral talks when we all agreed that United Nations resolutions must be upheld and Iraq must leave Kuwait. I am proud that our forces in the Gulf will play a part in that, should the military option be used, and are already doing a superb job, as we would expect from the professionalism of British forces anywhere and everywhere.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on her magnificent contribution to those important agreements. What would be the contribution of the declaration on human rights in the event of deadlock between the Soviet Union and countries such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia if, in establishing their legitimate claims to sovereignty, those countries could not agree with the Soviet Union? What are the mechanisms, through the CSCE, for resolving and monitoring the inter-ethnic and inter-racial disputes that are becoming increasingly endemic throughout eastern Europe?
The Prime Minister: The differences between the Baltic states and the Soviet Union would already be part of the original Helsinki accords, when we said that no borders could be changed without agreement. My hon. Friend knows the specific position of those Governments and countries, which are quite different from the rest of those in the Soviet Union. The differences are covered by the original Helsinki accords, which will also cover conflicts that may arise. Some such conflicts do not involve separate countries or countries that, like the Baltic states at present, are part of another country de facto, but not de jure. It is to resolve those differences that we wish to set up the conciliation and assessment of conflicts centre to see precisely what can be done about those problems so that we genuinely keep negotiations going until the conflicts are resolved.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that while she was attempting to sign away the cold war in Paris, an Exocet missile was ripping its way through Committee Room 12?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask questions about what went on in Paris.
Mr. Skinner: I am keeping the Prime Minister informed.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the Prime Minister needs that.
Mr. Skinner:Is she aware that Ministers were coming out with guilty eyes? Is she also——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This does the hon. Gentleman no credit. He must as a question about the substance of the statement.
Mr. Skinner:When she was speaking to the people over there, did she establish enough contacts to enable an ex-Prime Minister to travel the world? Is she prepared to accept the governorship of the central bank?
The Prime Minister:I note what the hon. Gentleman said. I also noticed that he seems to be training as a pollster—perhaps he thinks that he will lose his seat at the next Tory election, which we shall win.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: We are pleased to have the Prime Minister back in triumph from Paris and to have her running the shop again, but I have to report that one or two people have been tampering with the stock in her absence. Is the Prime Minister absolutely satisfied with the verification of arms? Are our military advisers and yourself, Prime Minister, satisfied with the verification arrangements?
The Prime Minister:First, we are satisfied with the verification arrangements, which are detailed and some of them much more intrusive than ever before. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that stock control is vital to the running of any successful business.
Mr. Dave Nellist: What did the Prime Minister mean when, during the Paris conference, she said that more British service personnel were to be sent to the Gulf—when and how many? Does the Prime Minister realise that, given the latest estimates of a full-scale war meaning 400 British dead each day, drafting a political epitaph pales into insignificance compared with the real epitaphs now looming on the horizoin for tens of thousands of young men and women on all sides in the Gulf?
The Prime Minister: We are considering sending more troops to the Gulf. The United States is sending a great many more and it is entitled to expect that Europe will send some more. We should not leave it all to the United States. It is in all our interests to uphold international law in the Gulf. We have not yet decided how many troops to send, nor their composition. My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as we have decided precisely how many.
One can never make an assessment of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has given, entirely of his own accord. When the forces went down to the Falklands, we were very worried, as were all right hon. and hon. Members, but this country recovered the Falklands from invasion with the sad loss of 257 troops. We could not have foretold that number before our forces went down there. The hon. Gentleman should remember that if an aggressor gets away with this terrible invasion and brutality, he will do it again and far more lives will be lost than if he is stopped now.
Mr. Barry Field: While this historic agreement should be seen as a living memorial to those who perished while fleeing from political and religious tyranny to freedom in the west, will my right hon. Friend comment on reports in the press today that the number of artillery pieces reported by the Soviet Union was greeted with scepticism?
The Prime Minister: We have a problem with the data that must be verified if the agreements are to be carried out. As my hon. Friend knows, quite a lot of equipment has already gone behind the Urals—more than 65,000 pieces. There is a subsidiary agreement under which we should be able to see that a considerable number of them are destroyed, although they may be allocated to the Asian part of the Soviet Union. We have to watch the database very carefully and we shall do so.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is not the Prime Minister guilty of double standards when she comes here talking about a treaty signing away the cold war, with its
308
emphasis on the retention of fundamental human rights, while resolutely turning her face against the fundamental human right not to be threatened with mass extermination by nuclear weapons which are pointing at a country that is yet to be determined and announced by the Prime Minister? Are we safe in assuming that our nuclear weapons are not pointing at the Soviet Union? If the Prime Minister is so proud of having nuclear weapons, what does she say to the 139 non-nuclear nations which signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty and which refuse to manufacture and deploy such weapons? Does she believe that she should honour and obey the treaty, which she says she supports, or does she recommend that those nations, too, should have nuclear weapons?
The Prime Minister: It is a question not of signing away the cold war but of recognising the end of the cold war, which I should have thought even the hon. Gentleman would welcome.
Nuclear weapons are the world's strongest deterrent. As Winston Churchill said, we should not give them up until we have a stronger one. Most people would agree that terrible though the dropping of both nuclear weapons on Japan was, the loss of life if they had not been dropped would have been infinitely greater.
Five countries already have nuclear weapons, besides possibly one or two more. We accept the nuclear non-proliferation agreement; the countries that have these weapons keep them under considerable restraint. They are a deterrent and I believe that they have been successful. They have made NATO successful and we should never have achieved the agreements that we have now unless NATO had been staunch, and that includes keeping nuclear weapons.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the citizens of this country who despaired during the decades of the cold war owe much to her and to Presidents Reagan and Bush and that they also remember how her policies and integrity were continually attacked by those who did not agree with the policies? Now that we see the Soviet Union holding out the hand of friendship and attempting to follow the road that we have travelled, should not we remember that the world still has lots of nuclear weapons and that——
Mr. Speaker:Briefly, please.
Mr. Walker:—although the agreement is very welcome, while there is instability we must keep up our guard?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It was strength and resolve, particularly during the last decade, which led to the agreement that we so successfully brought to a conclusion this week.
Mr. Harry Barnes: What was wrong with the Prime Minister's statement was its ideological tinge. Does not she realise that market economies do not have to be capitalist economies? One can have socialist market economies and mixed economies. Capitalism is compatible with monopoly capitalism and dictatorship. If we are to build up unity in Europe, should not democrats be concerned about building up pluralism in economic as well as political affairs?
The Prime Minister: Capitalism is a necessary condition of a market economy and of liberty. It is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of liberty.
Mr. John Marshall: May I thank my right hon. Friend for her longstanding interest in human rights in the Soviet Union which has secured the freedom of many refuseniks? Does she agree that the present exodus from the Soviet Union would not be taking place without her determined pressure since she first met Mr. Gorbachev in 1984?
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. As he knows, we have managed to get a lot of people out of the Soviet Union by raising cases. Both he and I know that a considerable number of people are still held in the Soviet Union who are unable to take advantage of the human rights clauses. We continue constantly to raise those cases.
Mr. John Fraser: Without overlooking blemishes, does the Prime Minister agree that during the cold war Turkey was a loyal and front-line ally and that she remains a loyal and front-line ally? What encouragement was the Prime Minister able to give to the Turkish Prime Minister about Turkey's admission to the European Community, subject to the very important question of human rights? Does she agree that it is important, as a matter of substance and of symbolism, that the European Community should accommodate Muslim as well as Christian countries?
The Prime Minister: I agree that Turkey has been a very staunch and absolutely vital member of NATO. As for the European Community, we have an association agreement with Turkey. It was one of the original association agreements that carried with it the right to membership. Turkey has applied for membership, but the hon. Gentleman knows that all the applications have been put on one side. We are prepared to operate the full association agreement, including the financial protocol. It is Greece which blocks the financial protocol. It has therefore deprived Turkey of a good deal of the help that would otherwise have been very beneficial to her.
Mr. David 'Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the signing of the historic treaty in Paris which effectively brought to an end 40 years of cold war? Did my right hon. Friend discuss with President Gorbachev the possibility of Russian troop movements near the Iraq border and the impact that that would have on the thinking of President Saddam Hussein?
The Prime Minister: We did not discuss that matter, but I did discuss the United Nations resolutions with President Gorbachev. He supports fully the position adopted by the United Nations that Iraq must leave Kuwait.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I say that the whole House will admire the Prime Minister's guts, although I am not sure that they will look so pretty when they are spread out all over the floor. In view of the nice and welcome things that she said about President Gorbachev, is she aware—she certainly must be—that his political future is probably as uncertain as her own? With the coming of the Russian winter, which will create great food distribution and supply problems in the Soviet Union, can the Prime Minister tell us what talks took place in Paris about providing the Soviet Union with the aid that it so desperately needs if President Gorbachev is to stay at the head of the Soviet Union and maintain the momentum for peace in Europe?
The Prime Minister: We have taken the view that instead of just giving loans to the Soviet Union for the purchase of more consumer goods, we should concentrate any help that we give on such things as oil exploration, in which we have a good deal of expertise, and food distribution. That is one of the matters that will be considered when we have the IMF report.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 7 DECEMBER
Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. David Amess
Mr. Ian Stewart
Sir Nicholas Bonsor

BILL PRESENTED
  COMMUNITY CHARGES (SUBSTITUTE SETTING)
  Mr. Secretary Patten, supported by Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Parkinson, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Michael Portillo and Mr. Robert Key, presented a Bill to amend the law about setting substitute personal community charges under section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow. [Bill 15.]

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Ordered,
  That the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 14th November 1990 relating to the Uruguay Round of multi-lateral trade negotiations shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day

  Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.46 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill concerns disabled people and their needs—not only their need for help from the benefit system but, no less important, their wish for greater independence and for greater control over their own lives. The two new benefits that the Bill introduces are further building blocks in a strategy that began with the commissioning from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys of a number of wide-ranging surveys of people with disabilities. In response to those surveys, we have already made many significant improvements in the help available to disabled people. This Bill will extend help to over 300,000 people, at a gross additional cost by 1993–94 of some £325 million.
  In doing so, it breaks new ground in shifting the benefit system away from focusing exclusively on incapacity—on what disabled people cannot do—towards doing more to encourage people with disabilities to make the best of the capacity that they have—the things that they can and wish to do. In assessing entitlement, it seeks to give to disabled people a greater role, rather than relying almost exclusively on the assessments of professionals.
  It is right to put the Bill's proposals in the context of other developments in social security policy for disabled people. When I introduced to the House in January of this year the Command Paper entitled "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People", I said that the Government saw three main strategic needs for benefits for disabled people. The first was to improve the balance of benefits available to people who are unable to work, and in particular to do more for those who are disabled from birth or early in life. The second was to improve, for those of working age and below, the coverage of help with the extra costs associated with disability. The third was to help those disabled people who can and wish to work by making it easier for them to take up and to keep jobs.
  On the first objective, the intervening months have seen a wide range of important improvements. In April, we increased the disability premiums and income-related benefits by more than double the rate of inflation, giving an increase of £1·70 for a single person and £2·60 for a couple, to improve the help given to some 400,000 people. We also increased the disabled child's premium from £6·50 to £15–40 a week, thus giving substantial extra help to 20,000 families. At the same time, we scrapped the rule that prevented the payment of attendance allowance to children under the age of two. That directed a further £37·55 a week to 3,000 families with severely disabled babies. Also last April, we extended the mobility allowance, at £26·25 a week, as of right to people who are both deaf and blind.
  Last month, we introduced a carers' premium of £10 into income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit, helping 30,000 people. Attendance
  312
  allowance was made available to the terminally ill without the normal six-month waiting period. We expect 58,000 people to be helped by this measure.
  Next month, we are introducing age-related addition to severe disablement allowance, which will give up to £10 a week extra at current rates to some 100,000 severely disabled people who do not qualify for the national insurance invalidity benefit and who are not receiving income-related benefits. Another 150,000 people will receive this amount as of right instead of a comparable amount of income-related benefit.
  The House will recall that in my uprating statement last month I was able to announce five small but useful improvements in our provisions: an increase in the funding of the independent living fund to £62 million next year, making a twelvefold increase in less than four years; an additional grant of £1 million to Motability which has been widely and warmly welcomed; the extension of mobility allowance so that it can be paid to all double amputees from next April; a further increase in the invalid care allowance earnings limit from £20 to £30; and, not least in practical terms, to cope with some of the problems of stress arising from bereavement, that the carers' premium in income support will be paid for an extra eight weeks after caring ceases—for example, after the death of the person being cared for.
  Against that background, the Bill introduces major measures to address the second and third of our objectives. The disability living allowance will restructure and significantly extend the help with the extra costs of disability.
  The disability working allowance, which we renamed from "disability employment credit" following considerable consultation with people who work in the sector and disability organisations, will, for the first time, enable people with disabilities to work without suffering a drop in their income. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and, without drawing attention to their location, to officials who have worked so hard on these proposals. I thank them for the work that they have done in taking us from the outline that we published in January to the Bill that is before the House today.
  Clauses 1 to 5 introduce the disability living allowance. An important finding of the OPCS surveys was that the two existing extra costs benefits—attendance allowance and mobility allowance—were well targeted on the most commonly occurring of the disabilities that entail extra costs. That is why we have retained the existing qualifying conditions in the new DLA. Since evidence for the survey was collected, there has been a further huge growth of more than 50 per cent. in the number of people receiving those benefits.
  Attendance allowance, which is currently worth £47·55 a week, is claimed at both rates by 795,000 people. Mobility allowance is claimed by more than 600,000 people. Allowing for the overlap in the case loads, about 1·3 million people are receiving extra costs benefits, and by 1992–93 we expect the figure to rise to 1·9 million. To put those figures in context—this is an important point, given some of the discussions that have taken place—the House should note that the OPCS found a total of fewer than 1·5 million people in its top four severity categories.
  The OPCS identified the problem, which many hon. Members had identified in common-sense terms from their general experience of disability benefits, that the current

  313
  benefit system is based on too sharp a distinction between people whose disabilities are severe enough to qualify them for attendance allowance and mobility allowance, and those who just fail to qualify and get nothing. To tackle this problem, we are introducing two new lower rates of disability living allowance to cover care and mobility needs. Instead of the present cliff edge, there will be something more like a series of steps, thus giving greater recognition to the fact that disability is a matter of degree.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the care component include visually impaired people, which is a matter of some concern?
  Mr. Newton: I shall mention visually impaired people, particularly blind people, in relation to the mobility component. The hon. Gentleman will realise that, because of the way in which the criteria have been drawn, it is difficult to be specific. They have not been drawn in relation to specific types of disability. Much, therefore, will depend on the working of the detailed arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will have heard the hon. Gentleman's question and may comment further when he replies to the debate.
  On the care component, people will be able to qualify for the new lower rate if they require attention for a significant portion of the day—in one or more aggregated periods—or if they are so mentally or physically disabled that they are unable to prepare a main meal for themselves. In the main meal test—I am aware that there has been some comment about this, so I shall say a word or two about it—we are seeking to adopt a new and more practical approach to bring into benefit an important group who do not have care needs related to their bodily functions but whose disabilities cause them difficulty in performing what to many of us are routine but important daily tasks.
  The main daily meal criterion will provide a relatively simple test that is amenable to self-assessment and rapid adjudication. I should emphasise—I feel quite strongly about this, for a reason that I shall reveal in a moment—that we are talking about an assessment of whether a person could undertake such a task if he wished to do so, not about making him try to see whether he could do it. As the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People who abolished the old household duties test, which was associated with the benefit that was known as HNCIP to those of us who are familiar with the acronyms in this sector, I do not intend to reintroduce something like it in the context of these benefits.
  For mobility, the new lower rate will be payable to people who are physically able to walk but who are so severely physically or mentally disabled that, when walking outdoors, they require the guidance or supervision of another person for most of the time. This will extend the mobility component—to some extent, this answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—to people who are mentally handicapped or blind and to those who have a very limited physical capacity to walk.
  The Bill provides for the new common qualifying period of three months, and for a test of whether the disability is likely to continue, for both components. The special rules for the terminally ill, waiving the need to
  314
  satisfy the qualifying period, are extended to the mobility component so that, if the claimant qualifies, both components can be paid immediately.
  New section 37ZD—I apologise for this, but at an early stage we hope to consolidate these matters, otherwise it will be increasingly difficult for anyone to follow disability benefits legislation—provides for the age limits in the benefit. As the House is aware, the aim is to target resources on younger disabled people, and DLA is aimed at people who become disabled before 65. However, people receiving DLA at 65 will continue to receive it and the Bill abolishes the upper age limit for mobility allowance. We shall also extend, across the board, the current provision whereby mobility allowance claims can be accepted up to the 66th birthday for disabilities commencing before 65.
  Clause 5 gives wide powers to deal with transitional matters. Those are needed so that the Department can undertake the sizeable task of amalgamating and extending the two existing benefits while making sweeping changes to the adjudication system and bringing almost a further 300,000 people into entitlement to new rates. We shall do that and allow all potential new claimants an opportunity to claim the new lower rates from day one. That is, if I may say gently in the presence of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), a much more ambitious approach than that adopted when mobility allowance was introduced in 1976. The arrangements made by the then Labour Government meant that it was several years before all age bands were permitted to claim, with the result that fewer than 100,000 people were receiving mobility allowance when we took office.
  Clause 6 introduces disability working allowance, which represents an important initiative to promote the independence of people with disabilities, giving sizeable numbers a new option of working without risking a drop in their income. Over the years, many of us have seen, as a matter of common sense, that too often people with disabilities who could do some work but could not earn enough on which to live were forced to remain entirely dependent on incapacity benefit. The aim of the disability working allowance is, for the first time, to offer the chance for disabled people to work to the full extent of their capacity and to have their earnings topped up by benefit. Even people who are so disabled that they can work only 16 hours a week will be able to qualify, which means that many part-time workers will be eligible.
  The qualifying conditions for the benefit will be as easy as possible for potential claimants and staff to understand, so that claimants can work out whether they should claim and staff can put the benefit in payment quickly. The groups who will qualify for DWA will be identified by a simple qualifying benefit test whether they have been on a long-term incapacity benefit or are receiving an extra costs benefit. After satisfying that test, all the claimant will have to do on his first claim is certify that he has a disability or an illness that puts him at a disadvantage in obtaining employment. For subsequent claims, the claimant will be asked to fill in a simple self-assessment test, to show that he has one of a list of functional disabilities which are likely to make working difficult. Many people—those with the most severe disabilities—will not even have to do that, but will be automatically passported through it. Such an

  315
  approach will provide a quick and straightforward method of identifying disabled people who are at a disadvantage in the labour market.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am sure that this new allowance will be very much welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that people who have to risk giving up an existing benefit if they take a job are not likely to suffer if the job does not work out? Will he clarify the extent to which the cost of the new allowance will be offset by any reduction in benefits caused by people going back to work?
  Mr. Newton: When I published "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" and made a statement on it, I said that in broad terms we thought that the cost would be about neutral and that there would be savings on incapacity benefits offset by the payments of the new DWA—it is difficult to make a precise estimate, because we are talking about behavioural changes.
  I hope that I carry my hon. Friend with me when I say that this is very much a benefit for which the case is not made in the simplistic terms in which we sometimes debate matters in the House—for example, that we are spending more money for a purpose. We are creating a more sensible benefit structure, giving disabled people an opportunity that is closed to them under the present system. It is on that basis that I should like primarily to argue the case for the benefit. It is not a great additional spending measure, but it will significantly improve the operation of the social security benefit system for disabled people. I shall comment later on the linking rule.
  The income test for disability working allowance will be based on the family credit model, with the addition of an amount equivalent to the single person's disability premium in income support. Because of the addition of the premium, DWA will always be more advantageous than family credit for a disabled person with children. We were particularly anxious to ensure that there was not one of those tiresome "better buy" problems which mean that people have to weigh up which benefit they are better off claiming.
  A key feature of DWA is the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), with his usual acute perception of these problems—the linking rule. At present, a person receiving invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance who decides to try his hand at work has, in effect, only eight weeks in which to decide whether he can cope. After that time, if he finds that he cannot cope and has to give up work because of incapacity, he has to spend 28 weeks requalifying for this old incapacity benefit. That rule can undoubtedly be a significant disincentive for disabled people who are contemplating a return to work.
  We therefore propose a much more generous two-year linking rule. This will be a great help in building up the confidence of people who have never worked and in underpinning the confidence of those who are fearful of a return to the labour market after a long spell of incapacity. Such people will be able to try out the world of work, or re-try it, even for as little as 16 hours a week, reasonably secure in the knowledge that they will not have to suffer a drop in income through having to requalify for their old benefit if the attempt does not work out. I should like to
  316
  make one simple but important point: no one who is on incapacity benefit will be forced to take up DWA—indeed, DWA will be available only to those who have found work and, by definition, wished to do so.
  I should like to comment on a particularly important aspect of the procedures for assessment and adjudication where we are also proposing some significant improvements. The various differences—often extremely technical and obscure—between the assessment and adjudication arrangements for the existing mobility allowance and attendance allowance have long been a source of criticism by individuals, carers and disability organisations. That considerable number of current beneficiaries who get both existing benefits at the very least will have undergone two entirely separate medical examinations—often more. Despite the best efforts of the doctors who do that work, to whom I pay tribute, the process is sometimes seen as unnecessarily humiliating or intrusive.
  Our emphasis in the Bill is very much on claimants' own perception of the problems that their disabilities cause them. I am convinced, as is my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, that it should be possible to determine a sizeable proportion of claims without the need for a special medical examination, let alone two.
  For the new benefit, we want to make the whole thing easier for claimants in three main ways: first, by enabling them to make a single claim covering their mobility and their care needs, instead of two separate claims; secondly, by giving them the opportunity to give us a fuller account of the effect that their condition has on their lives; and, thirdly—this particularly important point picks up recommendations that have been urged upon us over a period—giving the opportunity to marshall evidence about their condition from third parties who are involved in their care—their GP, health visitors, district nurses, relatives or other carers.
  We believe that this will also give us a better picture of the circumstances than the snapshot of a Department of Social Security medical examination, which is frequently all we have now, so that adjudication officers have a better basis for their decisions. It will, of course, still be open to a claimant to seek a medical examination if he wishes, rather than filling in what will inevitably be, in the light of what I said, a rather longer claim form. I acknowledge that, in a proportion of cases, we shall still need some further evidence which may be obtainable only by a specially conducted medical examination.
  I am encouraged, as is my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, by the helpful and positive response that our first outline of these new assessment proposals and adjudication procedures received when we sent out a consultative document a few months ago. As we turn this legislation into practical working mechanisms, I want that consultation process to go further, so that people with disabilities and the groups who represent and lobby for them can help to fashion strictly practical elements such as the claims pack and the claiming process, which will be important to the success of the new benefit.
  Sir David Price: My right hon. Friend promises excellent progress. Will he go one stage further and tie that up with the personal assessment that will be required under care in the community by local social services? There could be one major assessment of the

  317
  individual concerned, the family and the carers, so that one could get a passport of entitlement through social security benefit and local authority care alike.
  Mr. Newton: That is a characteristically interesting idea from my hon. Friend, who takes such a close interest in these matters in his Select Committee role. I shall certainly consider what he has said, although I should point out that, whereas I hope that the new benefits will be introduced in April 1992, the new care in the community arrangements are not now due to be introduced in their full form until April 1993, so there is a slight disjunction. I can give my hon. Friend the general assurance that we are most anxious to reduce the hassle—perhaps a word I over-use in the Chamber—that the assessment and adjudication of help for disabled people so often entail. For that reason, I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion, even though I cannot "go snap" on it this afternoon.
  As a related and further improvement which has been widely welcomed, we will be introducing a right of appeal to an entirely new form of social security appeal tribunal—a disability appeal tribunal—which will be the third tier of adjudication for both benefits, the second being a new form of quick review of initial decisions where they are queried. Again we are determined that, besides the legally qualified chairperson, who it is right to have, and medically qualified member, who it is right to have, there should, wherever possible, be a third person who either has practical experience of the needs of disabled people or is himself disabled. The essence of our approach at all levels is that, in many cases, it is not highly technical or difficult medical judgments that need to be made—it is, above all, judgments about the effect that a condition ha .s on a person's life.
  We are, of course, aware that there will sometimes be a need for specialist medical knowledge—in particular about entirely new conditions or syndromes—which goes beyond what we can expect of the Department's medical advisers. Clause 3 provides for a Disability Allowance Advisory Board to provide expert advice on specifically medical matters relating to DLA and residual attendance allowance only. The board will have no adjudicative function, unlike the current attendance allowance board. It will help to write a disability handbook for adjudication officers and provide ad hoc advice to the Department's medical advisers.
  In the 11 years since the Government took office, we have already seen a huge improvement in the spread and coverage of social security help for disabled people. The number getting attendance allowance has risen threefold, from 265,000 to 795,000. The number receiving mobility allowance has risen sixfold, from 95,000 to 615,000. The number of carers getting invalid care allowance has risen more than twentyfold, from 5,000 to 130,000. This expansion, with other changes and improvements, has helped to more than double social security spending in this area, after allowing for inflation, from just over £4 billion to well over £8 billion.
  This Bill, together with the many other improvements of the past year, builds on that——
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I gather that my right hon. Friend is reaching his peroration. Before he does so, may I thank him and acknowledge the immense achievements that he has chronicled? I also ask him to take on board the further point that, in addition to providing
  318
  disability living and disability working allowances, we should, as far as possible, help the voluntary sector, which also assists disabled people. That is particularly true in respect of disabled sports, and I hope that he will encourage those who are trying to assist disabled people, through voluntary efforts, in sport and recreation—whether in the special olympics or in other activities.
  Mr. Newton: I can unhesitatingly give my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) that assurance. When I was Minister with responsibility for disabled people—it is now nearly six years ago—I actively sought to encourage and promote such activities. On one occasion, I went to the games for disabled people at Stoke Mandeville hospital. I know that the present Minister for Social Security and Disabled People puts a lot of his time into the matter. I have no doubt that there will always be requests for increased Government grants to such organisations and we shall not be able to satisfy all those demands, although we shall certainly continue to do everything that we possibly can.
  As my hon. Friend rightly divined, I was approaching the end of my speech; indeed, I was in the middle of my last sentence, which I shall now repeat. This Bill, together with the many other improvements of the past year, builds on the achievements that we have already made in a way which I believe the whole House will welcome.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I am sorry to disappoint the Secretary of State, but I must tell him that when I had finished studying the Bill I recalled what was said of Napoleon III—that the most impressive thing about him was his name. The same could be said of the Bill. It seems that the less a measure contains, the more grandiloquent is its title.
  The first part of the Bill is largely concerned with the amalgamation of two existing benefits. The second part is so significant as to involve no net extra expenditure, however much it may improve the ability of disabled people to get back into the labour market, which was the gloss that the Secretary of State put upon it. Having waited 10 years for the Bill—five years while the Government attended to the economy and another five while they procrastinated with half a dozen Office of Population Censuses and Surveys studies—disabled people expected a great deal more from it. They will be bitterly disappointed that it is so thin and misleading.
  The only people who come out of the matter really well are those in the Government's public relations battalions. To think up the title of a new disablement living allowance to describe the existing attendance and mobility allowances is a stroke of evil marketing genius. The aim was presumably to put across to the general public the idea that a sort of disablement benefit or disablement costs allowance is being introduced, even though the Bill clearly does nothing of the kind. In fact, the extension of two existing benefits, paid to more people but at a lower rate, along with the common assessment and adjudication procedure—which the Secretary of State spent some time explaining and which we welcome—could have been achieved without the need to sell the provision as a new benefit. I submit that it is only the PR exercise that required the measures to be dressed up as a new benefit and sold as a package within a Bill.

  319
  Although it is a star turn for Government propaganda, the bundling together of two benefits will produce many difficulties. People will be puzzled about which part will be available for them to claim after the age of 65, whether parts will cease to be paid after 65 and why, if one can apply for one part after 65, one cannot apply for the other. Moreover unbundling will still be necessary. Motability, the independent living fund and local authorities will all need to know who is receiving what part of the mobility allowance and the attendance allowance. As the Secretary of State knows, Motability can only finance contracts based on the existing mobility allowance, the independent living fund will only help someone who is on the higher rate attendance allowance and local authorities treat mobility allowance and attendance allowance differently in their means test. That is why the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) is worth considering. The bundled benefits will have to be unbundled so that everyone knows what the components are, and it does not appear that that information will be automatically supplied.
  Another major flaw in the Bill is its failure to recognise the range of extra costs that disabled people have to meet. That is a fundamental point. The two modest extensions of mobility allowance and attendance allowance acknowledge the existence of care-related and mobility-related extra costs alone, but disabled people have a range of other costs which cause them higher expenditure, and people with other types of extra costs are left wanting by the Bill. There are several other causes of extra higher extra costs besides disabilities of locomotion and personal care. The OPCS referred to a long list of problems including digestion, disfigurement, behaviour, continence, reaching and stretching, and dexterity. As the Secretary of State follows the OPCS so slavishly with regard to costs because that suits his and the Treasury's interests in terms of lower public expenditure, why does he ignore the OPCS's more fundamental point about needs just because it would cost much more to recognise the truth about needs?
  The levels of proposed benefit entirely contradict any illusion that the extent of extra costs facing disabled people is recognised by the Government. Many people would argue that existing levels of mobility and attendance allowance are already insufficient to meet the extra costs associated with just those two types of need.
  Far from increasing the levels to cater for other forms of extra costs, there is a new lower level for each component at the derisory rate of just £10 per week. That new rate of £10 per week does not cover people who are marginally disabled and require just a small topping up of income. With regard to mobility allowance, it covers people who are able to walk but who, as the Secretary of State said this afternoon, are so severely physically or mentally handicapped that to take advantage of that faculty out of doors they require guidance or supervision from another person most of the time. They will get £10 per week. With regard to attendance allowance, the Government apparently believe that £10 is appropriate for people who require help from another person in connection with bodily functions for
  "a significant portion of the day"
  or who
  "cannot prepare a cooked main meal for themselves if they have the ingredients."
  320
  How many Conservative Members who support this Bill believe that they could get by with that degree of disability on only £10 per week?
  I recognise that the Government have based the figures on the extra cost data set out in the family expenditure survey and the OPCS report, both of which found that disability-related expenditure was low. The Government initially greeted that with glee, but when we think about it there is a good reason for the conclusion. The family expenditure survey in particular made the stunning discovery that
  "spending on disability is constrained by income."
  If we put that crudely, it means "If you haven't got it, you can't spend it." I imagine that even the housewife from Grantham would have agreed with that until she was seduced by the Lawsonian credit binge. That is an important point.
  Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman says, "If you haven't got it, you can't spend it," but is that not exactly what the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said when she described how Labour would fund its proposals? Did she not say that these were desirable aims and something that Labour would hope to do as resources allowed? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make clear how much money the Labour party would put on the table to fund its proposals.
  Mr. Meacher: We are discussing the Government's Bill. I will refer to the Labour party proposals later. I assume from the hon. Gentleman's intervention that he is embarrassed that the Government are being so niggardly in terms of the amount that they are putting on the table. It is the Government's responsibility to lay out their proposals for the disabled. Their proposals are extremely mean and I believe that the hon. Gentleman probably agrees with me.
  The OPCS found that disabled adults spent on average only £6·10 extra per week. Other research, however—I will not say independent research as I shall refer to the source in a moment and the Secretary of State is aware of it—has considered the actual extra costs of disabled daily living. In particular, I refer to a pamphlet published by the Disablement Income Group in February entitled, "Short-changed by Disability," which found that the real extra cost was five to seven times that quoted by the OPCS. I am not so naive as to suggest that the Secretary of State will readily accept the DIG figures, but he would be ill advised to dismiss them out of hand. No one who knows anything about disability would accept that the OPCS figures are closer to the reality of the position.
  There are several other disturbing aspects to the structuring of the misleadingly entitled disablement living allowance. For instance, the Bill provides that awards of both the mobility and attendance allowance components must be for the same period. I imagine that that will mean that some disabled people will find that the award of an attendance allowance for a shortish period will preclude their getting a Motability car. Another distressing point, which is meant no doubt to keep costs down rather than to meet need when it arises, is that people have to become disabled before the age of 65 in order to benefit. The needs of people who become disabled after that age—the majority—are simply ignored.
  It is also dismaying to realise that the Bill offers nothing more for severely disabled people receiving both the mobility and attendance allowances, although it has been

  321
  widely shown that many of those severely disabled people incur many other extra costs. If the Secretary of State needs proof of that—I do not suppose that he does—payments from the independent living fund show It to be true. Yet the Bill contains nothing more for those people.
  The Government's objective for the DLA was, above all, simplicity. In section 4 of "The way Ahead," the Secretary of State wrote:
  "We must be confident that when it is introduced, the Disability Allowance is easy to understand."
  That has been echoed in ministerial replies to correspondence stating that the Government
  "aimed to provide a more simple and coherent system of financial help."
  I can only observe that three levels of attendance allowance and two levels of mobility allowance will involve 11 different benefit combinations.
  Mr. Newton indicated assent.
  Mr. Meacher: I note that the Secretary of State assents to that. The combinations range from being ineligible for both benefits to being eligible for both at the top range. Even that might be relatively easy to accommodate if there were only one criterion for assessment with 11 different levels or degrees, but there are nine different criteria, several with different degrees. If the Government wanted to scale new peaks of complexity, they have succeeded in this Bill.
  Mr. Newton: I know that the Gentleman is seriously interested in the problems that we are discussing today, and I would not wish to pretend otherwise. However, I must make the point that this is an area in which we must draw a balance between an administrable benefit which can be made to work in practice and one which takes into account every conceivable factor. How does the hon. Gentleman square what he is saying now with what: he said 10 minutes ago about how this, that and the other had not been taken into account in the structure of the new benefit? If we were to follow the track that the hon. Gentleman urged on me 10 minutes ago, we would have ended up with a benefit so complicated that it could not be understood or administered.
  Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. Ten minutes ago, I said that several other facilities could have been provided by the disablement living allowance but they have clearly not been provided because it would cost considerable extra sums of money. I am talking now about a quite different matter—the way in which the measure has been structured. Although I am sure that the Government wish it to be simple, the right hon. Gentleman must realise that it is far from simple and it is complex. Of course, that may also have someting to do with money. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman constantly has to struggle to improve the benefit structure and the social security system with virtually no new money from his colleagues in the Treasury and the Government. I see from the right hon. Gentleman's expression that he assents to that and I am sorry about his position.
  Mr. Newton: I am not having that, and I am not assenting to it. In the next two or three years, the Bill will involve more than £300 million of new money. In the past decade there has been an increase in expenditure—I touched on this and gave the reasons for it—of about £4 billion per year at today's prices.
  Mr. Meacher:I shall refer to money later. Perhaps I should move on. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about three years' time. That is the point at which extra expenditure reaches a peak. In fact, it is just under £300 million. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman does not go on to say that, thereafter, the net extra amount for the disabled, taking account of cuts through reduced earnings allowance and, in particular, the additional component of the invalidity pension, will produce a remarkable falling off and a negative effect in the next century. It is fair to mention the £300 million extra in three years, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it will be down to nothing by the year 2000 and that we are talking about a minus figure of £1 billion per year 10 years into the next century? Those are the facts.
  With regard to the disablement working allowance, in the section on the financial effects of the Bill—again, the right hon. Gentleman hinted at this although he did not use these words—the Government say that
  "the gross cost of around £85m by 1993/4 will be offset by a reduction in payments of other benefits."
  In other words, it is such an important new measure that it requires no new net expenditure. I repeat that to get significant numbers of disabled people back into work—not just a few thousand but a few hundred thousand—requires considerably more than no new net expenditure.
  The principal defect of this part of the Bill—I may be wrong, but I will argue it both ways and we shall see which is right—is that it appears to use passporting benefits, that is, attendance allowance, mobility allowance and constant attendance allowance, to identify disabled people. If that is so, many blind or partially sighted people and many deaf people who do not receive any benefit on account of disability will not be entitled to disablement working allowance either, even though their disabilities unquestionably put them at a disadvantage in obtaining work. Other disabled people—and there are many others—will also be left out.
  I recognise that that interpretation of the Bill, which I believe is correct, is slightly different from that which appears in the note on disability working allowance that the Government published this month.
  Mr. Newton rose—
  Mr.Meacher:Perhaps I anticipate what the Secretary of State will say. That suggests that a self-declaration, which the right hon. Gentleman emphasised today, of disadvantage in obtaining work is all that is required for the first six months of an award if a claimant had been receiving invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance or income support with a disability or severe disability premium. Perhap that is the correct version.
  Mr. Newton indicated assent.
  Mr. Meacher: In that case, I shall argue what I believe to be the Government's motive. If that is the case, as I thought that it probably was, it suggests that the Government's agenda is to get as many disabled people as possible off invalidity benefit because, as we know, following the National Audit Office report, the Government are alarmed at the cost and the number of those on invalidity benefit. That is somewhat different from what the Secretary of State said a moment ago about his pleasure at how many extra sums are being spent on the disabled. The Government are very concerned about the rising number of people getting invalidity benefit. Having

  323
  made it very easy to sign away the right to long-term benefit, the Government then made it much more difficult to sign back on. That is probably a major motive behind the disablement working allowance, and disabled people need to take that point clearly on board.
  The other major point that I stress is that the applicable amounts are far too low. You would expect me to say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I repeat it because I believe it and I know the disabled people whom the measure affects will say it with great feeling. For example, there is just over £37 for single claimants. That is extremely low by any standards. Equally, the proposed threshold levels are extremely low—just over £34 for single claimants and higher, of course, for married couples. Also, the capital disregard with its £8,000 cut-off point takes no account of the extra need for capital that many disabled people have compared with non-disabled people.
  It has been carefully worked out to my satisfaction that the illustrative figures for the disablement working allowance show that, for a single person, earnings as low as £87 per week would still result in no disablement working allowance. In effect, the disablement working allowance will give some people who are partially capable the option of exchanging poverty-level benefit for poverty-level wages. That is the net effect of the way in which the measure is construed.
  The Bill is not impressive and it must be seen against the background of the major overall cuts in benefit, to which I have already alluded, that the Government are planning in the next decade. I have made the point that, although there will be an immediate increase in the next three years, the total will steadily decline to a net loss of more than £500 million per year by the year 2000, declining further into the next century until, by the year 2025—that is a long way off, but the Government plan that far ahead, just as they did when they tried to abolish the state earnings-related pension scheme—according to the Government's own figures, the net cut in all benefits to the disabled will be £1·5 billion per year. That is the background against which we must judge the Bill—a £1·5 billion per year cut by the time we reach the second and third decades of the next century.
  Not only is that a scandal but the scale of the cuts calls into question the Government's motive in announcing the proposals in "The Way Ahead" and introducing the Bill today. The proposals can now be seen as little more than a smokescreen to conceal the most savage cuts in disability benefits on record. The Bill not only fails to provide the comprehensive disability income to which we are pledged, but it does not even begin to match up to its title. It does not offer a disablement living allowance and it does not offer a disablement working allowance—it is merely a limited gesture from a dying Government.
  5.38 pm
  Sir David Price: In supporting the Bill, I draw the attention of the House to the last report which we on the old Select Committee on Social Services presented to the House in our series on community care. Those who follow our work will know that it was our seventh report on community care and that it was entitled "Social
  324
  Security for the Disabled". It bears directly on the substance of today's Bill. I should like, therefore, to remind the House of some of the things we said.
  We welcomed the statement of principles for social security help for disabled people contained in the Government's policy statement entitled "The Way Ahead". We supported the Government in their stated aims. I shall remind the House of the three most important. They were, first, to improve the coverage of help with the extra costs of disability; secondly, to create incentives for disabled people to take paid employment; and, thirdly, to provide income for disabled people who cannot work. It is against those three agreed aims that the House must judge the Bill's relevance and efficacy.
  The Select Committee's biggest concern was the extra costs incurred as a direct result of disability and how they are assessed—a matter which was touched on by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys produced figures on the extra costs of disability which all the disabled organisations found, in the words of the Disablement Income Group, to be "surprisingly low". They were all critical of the methodology adopted by the OPCS in attempting to assess those extra costs.
  Ian Bruce, the director general of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, summed up the matter well when he said:
  "So many disabled people have low incomes, if you say to them, 'How much more money do you spend on things because you are disabled?', they may never have had the opportunity to spend the money to start with … a lot of blind people do not go out very much because they cannot afford taxis. Now if you ask them how much extra they spend on travel or transport, they might say not very much, but that is because they have never had the money to do it."
  The same view has been expressed recently by the DIG, which said:
  "It is certainly inappropriate to base proposals on an interpretation of research into the extra costs of disability that judges the need for extra cash by reference to the extent to which the extra cash is spent. Obviously, if you don't have the cash, you can't incur the cost."
  The same point was made by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, which criticised the Bill because it
  "fails to address the costs of disability other than care and mobility cost."
  It said:
  "Disabled people incur many other costs"—
  the hon. Member for Oldham, West made the same point—
  "besides care and mobility e.g. diet costs, high laundry costs, higher than normal heating costs, the cost of help with communication, the cost of domestic help and clothing costs."
  Despite all that, paragraph 4.3 of "The Way Ahead" says that the Government are satisfied with the present levels of attendance allowance and mobility allowance. They say that they are "more than sufficient" to cover the extra costs associated with disability, as identified in the OPCS reports.
  In paragraph 4.6—it is not my view—it says:
  "The Government considers, and the OPCS findings confirm, that for the great majority of disabled people the rates of Attendance Allowance and Mobility Allowance make generous allowance for variations around the averages"—
  of extra spending associated with disability—
  "identified by the OPCS."
  The Select Committee was clear that the rates of those benefits could be considered a "generous allowance" only if the low estimates of extra costs made by the OPCS are

  325
  accepted without question. I do not accept them without question. All my experience tells me that they are gross under-estimations, arising largely because of the methodology adopted by the OPCS—that is, trying to identify extra expenditure for people who have not got the cash to spend in the first place. It is a measure of what happens—I accept that—not a measure of need. That is the fundamental difference. I am therefore disappointed that the Government propose to set the rates for the new disability allowance, as for the old allowances, on the basis of the OPCS research.
  The Select Committee was convinced that there were sufficient reservations, not least from the OPCS itself, to warrant further research specifically into the extra costs of disability. That is why we made the specific recommendation that the Government should conduct and publish ongoing research on the actual and potential costs of disability, in conjunction with various organisations representing disabled people, to inform future policy decisions about assistance for disabled people. I hope that the House and, above all, the Government will accept our recommendation. We all know how difficult it is to be precise in this matter, so it is not being unduly controversial or aggressive to ask the Government to accept our recommendation.
  We could not accept the logic used by the Government in making changes to the severe disablement allowance. As the House knows, SDA is paid at only 60 per cent. of the rate of invalidity benefit. We welcomed the decision to pay age-related additions to people disabled in earlier life, but we fail to see the logic in denying that small bonus to people receiving SDA for other reasons whose needs, through disability, are presumably just as great. We therefore recommended that SDA should be increased to the same level as invalidity benefit.
  That would concentrate resources on the most severely disabled people and would create more equal treatment in the social security system for people prevented from working by the same degree of disability whether or not they qualify for invalidity benefit. Our recommendation is in accordance with the Government's strategy, as identified at the beginning of my remarks, to redress the balance of help for disabled people which is at present heavily weighted on the side of those who have worked for a reasonable time.
  Therefore, I hope that during the Bill's passage the Government will accept the logic of our recommendations. Such measures would not need primary legislation. They could be simply implemented during the annual uprating of benefits.
  Our fifth report was devoted entirely to the role of carers and their problems. We concluded that the proposals in the community care White Paper and their greater emphasis on informal care at home would, among many other things, require the continuing extension of benefits for carers. The evidence that we received and the experience of the independent living fund suggested that there was a large amount of unmet need. Those of us who have been involved in caring will know that from our own experiences. We recommended that as part of their longer-term consideration of benefits for disabled people the Government should consider a number of important proposals for improving the lot of carers as resources permit. Those are outlined in the report.
  First, we suggested that invalidity care allowance should be paid at the same rate as invalidity benefit and the
  326
  retirement pension. It would have to be decided whether that would be available only to carers with contribution records, such as IVB, or to all carers on a noncontributory basis. I recommend the latter. If the latter, logic and fairness would demand that the noncontributory severe disability allowance should also be uprated. I have already outlined the reasons for that.
  Secondly, eligibility to invalid care allowance should be extended to all those caring for disabled people for 35 hours a week or more. That is to define the criterion in terms of the characteristics of the carer rather than the pure medical condition of the cared-for. Attendance allowance and the new lower rate of disability allowance should provide automatic evidence that that criterion is fulfilled—again trying to reduce the bureaucracy—but a direct test of caring could also be accepted. That is the direction in which we should move.
  Thirdly, we should pay invalid care allowance at the rate of sickness benefit to carers during the six-month qualifying period for attendance allowance—three months under the new disability allowance.
  Fourthly, we should extend the time period for invalid care allowance to include the six-month period after caring ceases. We hear some sad stories about people who have devoted many years caring for a relative whose allowance is terminated immediately their relative dies.
  There are many other proposals with which I shall not detain the House now. I merely recommend our report to the House. If I may humbly suggest it, it is worth debating in its own right.
  I could say a great deal more, but I promised to be brief. In conclusion, I welcome the Bill as far as it goes. I have identified at least three major matters on which the Government should go much further. I shall continue to press the Government, as I have always done since I came to the House, to maintain the momentum of progress. Nevertheless, it would be churlish of me not to recognise the progress that has been made in developing public policy for the disabled in the thirty-five and a half years during which I have had the honour to be a Member of the House. I am reminded of the words of Arthur Clough:
  "For while the tired waves, vainly breaking, Seem here no painful inch to gain, Far back through creek and inlets making Comes silent, flooding in, the main."
  The incoming tide is in favour of the disabled. The Bill is
  one wave in that tide, but we need many more.
  5.50 pm
  Mrs. Sylvia Heal: The debate has a thread in common with other debates in the House. Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and make statements about their concern for the disadvantaged groups in our society—the sick, the elderly or people with disabilities. The Government may have commissioned reports. They may await the results of surveys and reviews. Needs and problems are identified. Solutions and suggestions may well have been offered. Professionals and voluntary groups may or may not have been consulted, sometimes to find that the advice they offer is ignored.
  Successive Ministers have spoken of the aim
  "to introduce a coherent system of cash benefits to meet the cost of disability."
  Yet their actions fall far short of that. The OPCS survey, which has already been referred to, and voluntary groups such as the Spastics Society, Disability Alliance, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Royal

  327
  National Institute for the Deaf and the Royal National Institute for the Blind have highlighted the need for a comprehensive disability benefit. Yet the proposals in "The Way Ahead" do not represent a full review of the benefits system for people with disabilities.
  I appreciate that the disabled living allowance and the disabled working allowance will help some individuals, but they are not comprehensive enough and, as has already been said, do not meet all the extra costs incurred by people with disabilities. I regret that pensioners over the age of 65 who develop difficulty with walking—as the result of either an accident or the onset of some disease or illness will still not receive any extra financial help. Such people may have to remain housebound. The Bill contains no changes that will help them. They may have a friend or neighbour who is 64 years of age or younger and qualifies for additional help. Is there any fairness in legislation if it treats people in that way?
  What of elderly deaf people whose sight becomes impaired after their 65th birthday? That is not unusual. It may happen as a result of the onset of diabetes and glaucoma. They will not be eligible for the additional benefit. They will receive no extra help from this Government. Will people who are deaf and blind still be eligible for the higher rate of attendance and mobility allowance?
  The disability working allowance is means-tested—we are becoming used to that under this Government. Do the Government deliberately set out to add to the difficulties and humiliation of people with disabilities? I ask that question because, until the end of last month, people could apply for reduced earnings allowance if they were injured at work or following the onset of a prescribed industrial disease. They could obtain that benefit as of right, whether or not they were working. It was not means-tested.
  The proposed benefit—the disability working allowance—is intended to encourage people to return to work. Despite some of the thin assurances that we have had this afternoon, I and many others fear that it could also be used to take people off incapacity benefits such as invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance and put them into low-paid jobs.
  The emphasis will be less on dealing with poverty among disabled wage earners and more on providing an incentive payment for people with disabilities who are not working but who are thought to be partially able to do so. It will reduce some disincentives and financial penalties for some people entering the work force but the numbers will be small. It remains to be seen whether it will help those who wish to work and can find suitable work, or whether it will be a means of putting pressure on people to work regardless of whether it is truly helpful to them.
  The way in which the disability working allowance will work may lead to inequitable treatment of poor disabled earners who have not come within the benefits system and those who have received benefit. As it is a means-tested top-up, the allowance contains certain inherent difficulties. The withdrawal rates, especially when combined with other means-tested benefits, will impose a poverty trap if they are too rapidly imposed, so people will gain little from an increase in earnings. Help from the Department of Employment with the extra costs of employment falls far short of the needs of some individuals with disabilities.
  328
  Such people may include those with cerebral palsy and communication difficulties. Again, that is not an unusual combination. The availability of a communicator alone may not be sufficient. Often, another person is needed to act as a facilitator. In no way are those costs met by the Department of Employment.
  The current legislation applies only to people who can work for 16 hours or more. What about those who are capable of working for less than 16 hours per week? Some people with disabilities are capable of working perhaps no more than two hours a day at the beginning, if one allows for the time and discomfort that travelling to and from the place of work may involve. To bar such people from the allowance will provide a total disincentive to work, because people would hardly be able to earn more in, say, 12 or 15 hours a week than they would receive from benefits alone.
  What about some of the difficulties and delays in processing claims for the disability allowance? It has been compared to family credit. I am only too well aware that many people are having great difficulty in obtaining family credit. Will people have to provide wage slips, as they do for family credit, for at least five weeks before they can claim?
  Many people with disabilities may be reluctant to experiment with working in case they lose future entitlement to the long-term disability benefits. I am thinking in particular of the severe disablement allowance. People are entitled to that allowance if they could not work before the age of 20. Are they also to be barred?
  The Bill specifies that previous benefit can be protected for a maximum of two years, and the Minister has reassured us about that. That in itself is no more generous than the eight-week linking period which may still prove to be a disincentive to experiment with work. Perhaps the real problem to be tackled—and it is certainly not tackled by the Bill—is much more fundamental than the problem that we are discussing: it is about improving access to employment opportunities and about obtaining from the Government a guarantee that the existing rehabilitation and training services will be maintained and improved. We need a guarantee about the introduction of anti-discrimination legislation, and the quota system needs to be enforced. We also need a national minimum wage.
  6 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) speaks from great experience, and to that extent her contribution is welcome. However, she was a little churlish in not recognising many of the changes that the Government have made to help disabled people on low incomes and to remove the barriers to work. She said that the Bill did nothing for pensioners but, of course, there have been measures to provide disability premiums and higher pension premiums for people on low incomes. She could have spoken about that. It is helpful to remove barriers to work, and if it can be done in a way that does not incur a net cost, extra money is available to be spent elsewhere.
  I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He did not give his promised answer about how much money the Labour party would put on the table. He adopted a spurious method of jobbing forward and calculating that there was

  329
  a reduction of £1·5 billion, even though the Government's track record is of increasing expenditure. He said that such a reduction was scandalous. When we job backwards, we see that in real terms the Government are spending £4 billion more than Labour did when it was in office.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Government are being "extremely mean", but we are spending twice as much as Labour did when it was in power, so how would he describe expenditure at half the current level? Instead of spuriously jobbing forward and trying to invent a reduction in spending when the Government's track record is of increasing spending, the hon. Gentleman should look at his own record, try to figure out exactly what he would spend and tell us the amount that a Labour Government would put on the table.
  All we have to go on at the moment are the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). She said that Labour hoped to implement its policies as resources allowed. She has not specified any sum. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that he would come to that in his speech, but he never did. I do not know whether he was afraid to come out with it, or whether he has not been able to do the sums. Perhaps his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has told him not to give any figures because the right hon. and learned Member would be embarrassed when he came to fund the policies. It is spurious nonsense to talk about the Government reducing future expenditure on the disabled when the whole pattern has been of increasing spending.
  The Bill is an important step forward. Of course we all want to see more money spent on the disabled. It is probably the greatest unmet need in my constituency, where we have severely mentally handicapped adults with challenging behaviour living at home. We should welcome the Bill as another step on the road to more spending. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said, it is another wave on the ocean.
  Given that we have a record of a continuous increase in spending, I do not understand how the hon. Member for Oldham, West can give such spurious projections and say that there will be a reduction of £1·5 billion. All hon. Members accepted that SERPS was the wrong way to allocate scarce resources. If we are to spend more, surely it is right to ask how we should spend the extra money.
  Mr. Meacher rose—
  Mr. Thurnham: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to tell us how much he would spend?
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman keeps repeating the same point. The £1·5 billion per year cut is based on Government figures which are to be provided in Hansard and which the hon. Gentleman can consult. When he looks back, as he is perfectly entitled to do, at the increased expenditure on the disabled, he will see that these are not new benefits introduced by the Government but further take-up of benefits that were introduced by the last Labour Government. We are committed to comprehensive disability income. I agree that the cost will be considerable, but we have clearly said that we will introduce it as soon as resources allow. We are responsible about that and intend to do it. The Government do not.
  Mr. Thurnham: It is obvious that, under socialism, the money was not there. As Sir John Wilson said recently,
  330
  "Communism has failed because it is incompetent and it is surely important that the enterprise culture should not fail because it is inhumane. The provision society makes for people with disability is surely one of the most sensitive points in that issue. There must be some way of rewarding winners without victimising disabled losers."
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West was not generous enough to recognise that the Government have introduced many new measures. It is not just a question of all the old measures that a Labour Government tabled but could not afford to implement. There is a thicket of new measures and the Bill lists some strange alphabetical clauses such as 37ZA, 37ZB and 37ZC. If we had not had a change in this week's business, I would have gone further into the Bill before the debate, which was originally scheduled for tomorrow. Perhaps I can leave it to later stages of the Bill to find out more about it.
  I turn now to employment issues. The recent survey showed that there are close on 1 million disabled people in work, and that 250,000 are unemployed. I am sure that the new allowance will help to create conditions in which the unemployed can he brought back into work.
  I was pleased by the Government's newly introduced logo for employers who adopt good practices. It has a double tick, and that is a double tick for the Government's policy on the disabled: that double tick means double spending. I am pleased that employers will be able to adopt that code, thereby showing that they are willing to employ disabled people to the maximum extent of a company's resources, even though the quota may not be applicable to an employer's particular industry.
  I recently discussed several matters with members of the Bolton and Wigan committee for the employment of people with disabilities. I hope that the prospects of people employed by agencies of the Department of Employment, such as disablement resettlement officers and others, will benefit from their work in this important area. They should in no way feel that their career will not develop in that Department as well as it would in any other Department of the Civil Service.
  People who get sheltered placement scheme opportunities in the Civil Service should also be able to develop their careers. There should be a progression of people from day centres through sheltered workshops to sheltered placement schemes and then into industry. That is better than staying in, for example, Remploy for years on end. People should be seconded to industry so that they can move into employment as soon as possible. I am sure that the new allowance will help to make that much easier.
  It is interesting to consider the position of overseas companies with factories in Britain and the extent to which their employment practices here may develop upon legislation in their home states. It would be worth seeing a study showing the extent to which employers, whose head office is subject to legislation in a foreign country, adopt a different practice here. However, I understand that there is no evidence to suggest that German companies, in whose head offices there is supposed to be a 6 per cent. quota, endeavour to employ 6 per cent. here.
  That suggests an area in which we could develop more freely, and the Government's present policy based upon voluntary methods is the best way forward. Other methods used abroad have met with mixed success, but one might expect foreign subsidiary companies in this country to follow the same line. There is no evidence that they do, so I believe that the Government are pursuing the right policy.

  331
  I received a brief note from RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—and I should like to comment on the issues it raised. My right hon. Friend was right to introduce the independent living fund, which has grown to a current value of £60 million. It has proved extremely useful and has helped some of my constituents with great unmet needs. There is some doubt about the future of that fund, however, and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could tell us what is intended.
  RADAR also raised the problem of Motability when mobility awards are given for a short period. I have written to my right hon. Friend about a constituent who is facing that problem. The length of time for which the mobility allowance is awarded is insufficient to fund a car under the Motability scheme. The mobility allowance contains the equivalent of cliff edges, with which people are unable to cope. I hope that my right hon. Friend can say something about that problem.
  We must also consider carefully the incentives for people with disabilities to register as disabled when seeking employment. For one reason or another, many people do not do so, as they feel that there is no incentive to register as such. The disability working allowance should address that problem. In addition, those people registered as disabled should benefit from transitional relief on the community charge.
  Disregards are also important when attempting to encourage people back to work. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire should have paid some attention to disregards and the fact that they have been increased. If people are able to work for a short time only—the hon. Lady mentioned people who can work alone for less than 16 hours a week—disregards represent one of the easiest ways back into work.
  RADAR has also questioned the capital rules for people who will benefit from a disabled working allowance. It believes that there should be no capital limit and that the proposed limit of £8,000 is too restrictive on those people who need additional funds to help them to meet the costs of their disability. If they have such capital, it is unreasonable that they should be ruled out from benefiting from the new allowance. People need that capital to meet the cost of their additional needs.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to raise such important issues, and I look forward to the successful passage of the Bill.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who has a good track record on this subject. The experience that he brings to the House means that our debates on it are all the better.
  I shall try to be a little more generous than the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) when deciding whether the Bill is good or bad. Some may say that that would not be too difficult, but I should qualify my generosity by saying that what I welcome most about the Bill is the approach behind it. The Secretary of State underlined that the purpose of the Bill is to try to open up opportunities for people with disabilities so that they can seek greater independence. That is extremely welcome.
  332
  In principle there should be no such thing as a disabled person. Governments and political parties spend too much time discussing the difficulties encountered in providing for people with disabilities. We often get caught in the bind of assuming that there are problems associated with all people with disabilities, but many of those people have a great deal to contribute. Society's attitude to disability and the way in which we provide for people with disabilities must be turned round. I hope that the Bill will have a positive impact on that important matter.
  The way in which we take decisions on how to provide for people with disabilities should be examined carefully. Such decisions should be taken within the political decision-making process. I am heartened by the contribution of access panels to the public discussion of the local provision that must be made for people with disabilities. Long may that contribution continue.
  Although I welcome the general approach of the Bill, the costs involved have not been properly addressed. It is a waste of time, however, to trade insults across the Floor about how much each party would spend in the future. I have no doubt that the Minister's intentions are right and honest and that he does a great deal to promote the interests of people with disabilities within the machinery of government. However, whether the right hon. Gentleman succeeds with his Treasury colleagues is not nearly so certain. I do not believe that the Minister has got as good a deal as the Secretary of State tried to make out. I do not believe that £325 million, to be spent over three years, adds up to an awfully big row of beans. I exonerate the Minister from blame, however, as I know that, in his heart of hearts, he knows that that sum is not enough. I know that there are nods and winks in this game and if the right hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared to go back to the Treasury and to pray in aid hon. Members' belief that the resources are insufficient, I would support his campaign. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that this Bill is the first block in a building project that has a long way to go before it is complete.
  The survey undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys was an excellent opportunity to review the extent of the problem throughout the country. I do not believe, however, that the Government have satisfied the expectations of the pressure groups that are responsible for promoting the interests of people with disabilities. The work undertaken and the evidence produced have not been properly assessed or taken into account in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East argued about how much money is necessary and how much will be devoted by the various political parties. I believe that all of us, including the Government, should commit ourselves to the principle of moving towards a comprehensive disability income. I do not care how long it takes—the pressure groups are realistic about it as they do not believe that a Government of any political complexion can deliver what they need immediately. It would be of great assistance to those groups, however, if we could say that, in principle, the long-term goal is a comprehensive disability income, no matter how long it takes or at what cost. That commitment would be a positive contribution to our discussions. I hope that the Minister will say something about that when he replies.
  Additional costs for heating, laundry, clothing and domestic care have largely been put to one side in the Bill. The additional costs that will result from the recent

  333
  privatisation of the water industry in England and 'Wales and the privatisation of the electricity industry will exacerbate the problem. The decision to set the lower rate of attendance mobility components at £10 only from next April will not begin to meet the problem.
  The mobility allowance is too restrictive. I know that it would not be cheap, but, as I have argued before, it is wrong to use cost as a reason not to take on board the possibility of extending the allowance to those over the age of 65. That, more than anything else, causes heartache to those who attend my surgeries.
  I see the Minister raising his eyes to the ceiling. I am well aware that we are talking about a large amount of money, but there is no justification in principle for the existing position. If we continue to allow such a position, we are in effect saying that disability is synonymous with being old, and that is neither true nor fair. The Government should address the problem, but they do not seem to have done so; even worse, they do not seem to be prepared to do so in future. Never mind the amount of money involved: if the Government could say something constructive about a new approach, I should be happier.
  The Bill is unclear about those with severe learning disabilities or challenging behaviour. That is another problem that I find in my constituency: apparently such people might qualify for the lower but not the higher rate of mobility allowance. Perhaps that is a Committee point, but I hope that the Minister can clarify it at some stage.
  The Secretary of State earlier referred to the extension of mobility allowance to deaf-blind people. That was warmly welcomed, but there remains the problem of take-up. Far too many people are turned down at the assessment stage. I make no complaint, as it is a difficult judgment to make, but I do not think that adjudication officers are being given the training that they need to cope with the needs of sensory disability. If the problem were addressed, deaf-blind people could probably obtain the benefit and allowance that they are not obtaining at present.
  I was disappointed by the Government's decision to extend the qualifying period to three months. Perhaps the Minister could say a word about that. In my experience, medical people are usually definite about the extent of any given disability, and about whether it is chronic or temporary. The Minister may say that that administratively is easier said than done, but in my experience doctors are quite clear about whether a condition will continue.
  I am on all fours with the philosophy of the disability working allowance. I believe that the threshold levels and the maximum benefit rates are too low, but I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and wait and see what emerges in future public expenditure survey rounds and in Conservative conferences at various seaside resorts—where, no doubt, Ministers meet in the room of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; more power to their elbow, say I.
  The question of most importance to carers is whether eligibility for invalidity care allowance can be linked to both levels of the new disability living allowance, rather than just the higher level. That is causing real concern, and it would be welcome if the Government could say something about it.
  The Bill as a whole deserves the support of the House. I intend to study the figures given by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about the cuts, some of which seem to be fairly sizeable.I shall read what he said
  334
  in the Official Report very carefully. Certainly, in terms of costs the Government have little to crow about. Some aspects of the Bill can be improved upon in Committee, and the debate will unquestionably continue—although I suspect that the public debate will concern what is not in the Bill rather than what is.
  In so far as the Bill will help disabled people in the future, I support it, and I hope that the House will do the same.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Bill is a step forward, although it is a much smaller one than many of us hoped. Much of the agenda was well brought out by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and in the excellent Select Committee report, to which I pay tribute. It is sad that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is not with us for this debate, as he has played a leading role in the work done for disabled people; he is indisposed at present, but I hope that he will be back shortly—in time for the Committee stage.
  I think back to the Conservative manifesto of 1979, which said that
  "a coherent system of cash benefits"
  would be introduced for disabled people
  "as swiftly as the strength of the economy allows."
  We have been told repeatedly by Ministers—not least by the Prime Minister—that the economy has gone from strength to strength; presumably, therefore, we should now be looking for the fulfilment of that pledge. Using that measuring rod 11 years on, however, I am not sure whether the Bill is as substantial as many of us hoped. To some extent, it merely tinkers with some problems, and does not deal with others at all.
  We must see the Bill in the context of the delay in the community care legislation—which has been put off for another two years—and the non-implementation of several parts of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. Parts I, II and III of that Act are relevant to some of the matters that we are discussing here, and I have no doubt that we will deal with that in Committee.
  Before I get too critical, I should like to pay tribute to the fact the Bill contains one provision for which many hon. Members from both sides of the House have pressed for a long time—the extension of mobility allowance components to those, especially mentally handicapped people, who can physically walk, but are unable to do so independently. There was a time when mentally handicapped people were receiving benefit, until several court cases raised doubts about that. It is good to see that that has now been cleared up—although the Bill seems to suggest that it may be provided at the lower rate of £10. If that is the case, I suspect that it will be inadequate in many instances, and that we may need to return to the matter. I also regret the three-month waiting period. I thought that, in the context of attendance allowance, we were getting away from that. The whole thrust last year was to try to do away with waiting periods. Now we are introducing them, and that is unfortunate.
  Perhaps the Minister can clarify the position regarding the extension of mobility allowance to people with agoraphobia—people who, because they have problems in going out, need assistance. MIND has lobbied hon. Members about that.

  335
  A number of hon. Members referred to the position with regard to mobility allowance beyond the age of 65. I have a number of difficult cases in that category in my constituency. If community care means anything, there must be adequate support for those beyond the age of 65. That is when so much disability occurs and so much help is needed. We should not be pulling out and failing to provide assistance where it is most needed. RADAR made a strong point about that in its representations to us. It said:
  "RADAR totally rejects the restriction of the new levels of allowance to people who become disabled before age 65. The current rules for Mobility allowance are possibly the single issue on which RADAR receives the most complaints. We do not advocate the extension of Mobility allowance to pensioners as a priority, but a properly constructed disablement costs allowance payable to meet costs of disability rather than payable on the basis of age and cause of disability."
  That is the level at which the argument should be put—there should not be an automatic cut-off at 65, but people should be judged in the context of their disabilities and needs.
  In the past, I have had an opportunity to mention in the House my own family circumstances and our awareness of the costs of disability. I know the great benefit that comes from attendance and mobility allowance. We received two attendance allowances and two mobility allowances simultaneously. That was enough to provide one full-time person to cope with our disabled children when they were alive. Our circumstances were better than those of many people facing similar difficulties. I urge the Minister to look in some depth at the level of resources needed to help disabled people. Some 4·5 million disabled adults—two out of every three—live in households in which there are no earners. Those people are dependent solely on benefits. The proposed extension of mobility and attendance allowance to a wider group, albeit at reduced rates, addresses only two of the extra costs of disability—the attendance and mobility costs.
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys study found that the most common item of additional expenditure on normal items was fuel for extra heating or hot water. More than half—51 per cent.—of those surveyed thought that they spent more on fuel than they would have done had there not been a disability in the household.
  Mencap undertook a survey on the needs of children and adults with profound retardation and multiple handicap. It confirmed the need for additional financial support to cover heating costs. Some 79 per cent. of parents of children with such handicaps and 74 per cent. of the parents of adults with such handicaps needed more money for heating costs. Disabled families face additional costs for heating, diet, laundry, communication, clothing and domestic help, which all add to their bills. However, the legislation does not improve the living conditions of such people. Deaf people often face additional costs of aids and adaptations, and we should make more progress to help them.
  As well as the revenue costs, many disabled people have to pay out for capital cost items, which can be expensive. There should be flexibility in the system to deal with their requirements. The Social Security Advisory Committee sent a report to the Secretary of State urging him to
  336
  increase the rates of income support to take account of some of those costs. People now face additional costs such as the poll tax and water rates, which will certainly increase in future years.
  It does not say much for the affluent Britain of the 1990s that disabled people are unable to afford the fuel to heat their houses or have hot water. They are not luxuries but basic necessities. The proposed disabled living allowance must make provision for those extra, basic living costs. Hon. Members have received representations from the Spinal Injuries Association underlining that need, and from Deaf Accord. Those organisations say that, for deaf and hard-of-hearing people, the introduction of an element in the allowance to look after such additional costs is essential. All the representations that we received underlined the need for us to make progress.
  I fear that the disability working allowance may not be providing enough incentive for those wishing to return to work or go to work. It should be enough to ensure that there is extra income as a result of the allowance to cover the cost of traveling—which in a region such as mine can sometimes be large—eating away from home and working clothes. The allowance should contain elements of pension rights and certainly a margin of motivation to make the exercise worth while.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) mentioned the 16-hour minimum limit. Many disabled people may wish to start at a much lower level and build up the number of hours. Having a cut-off of 16 hours does not help us to get the maximum out of the allowance.
  We in this country have waited 11 years for progress to be made on disability allowances. There is a contrast between our priorities and those shown by some small European countries. In the Netherlands there is a non means-tested benefit that is adequate to live on, payable to all those who have never been able to work or who become unable to do so during full-time education up to the age of 30. In Denmark, the contributory system has been entirely abolished and there is no discrimination between any group of disabled people. For any single person totally incapable of work, the benefit rate in Denmark on 1 January last year was the equivalent of £106 a week purchasing power. If we compare that to the rate of invalidity benefit, let alone the SDA, we see that the United Kingdom is way behind. There is tremendous room for us to improve. If small countries such as Denmark, Holland and Sweden can do so much more for disabled people and meet their real needs, we should do so here. It is a matter of priority and values.
  I do not challenge the wishes of the Ministers present today to make progress, but I only wish that the message would get home to Treasury Ministers so that we have the right priorities on expenditure in these islands.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. John Hannam: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for my absence at the beginning of the debate. I was attending and speaking at a meeting upstairs on compensation for haemophiliacs, which I am sure the House will agree is an equal priority.
  Like the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), and as secretary of the all-party disablement group, I welcome the opportunity afforded by the Bill to improve the benefits system for disabled people. I particularly welcome

  337
  the fact that the Government have used the opportunity to change the assessment procedures for the attendance and mobility allowance, away from the much-criticised medical system towards self-assessment. I welcome the attempt to devise a system to give assistance to people partially capable of work. However, the disability allowance needs much more work, consultation and change, which should be coupled with legislative protection for disabled people in employment, if it is to provide the incentive to work that we all wish.
  Last October, a 10-point plan of improvements was announced, which was welcomed. I particularly welcomed the extension of mobility allowance to deaf and blind people, about which the all-party disablement group, hon. Members present and I have been concerned for many years. It took about eight years to get the message through.
  The Government have published a consultation document containing their illustrative levels of benefit for the disability working allowance. I regret that that was not published in advance of the Bill to enable disabled groups to assess how the benefit would work. I hope that the Secretary of State will give a guarantee that work on that benefit will proceed in full consultation with the relevant disability groups, so that we can come up with a workable system for disabled people at the end of the Bill's passage. If the working allowance is to be of real benefit to disabled people, we must take their circumstances into account.
  The two benefits—family credit and disablement working allowance—have fundamentally different aims. Family credit assists families on low incomes, and the disability working allowance should be of benefit to enable disabled people who are unable to work full time because of their disability to work part time. It is vital to ensure that we do not lose this opportunity to make a workable benefit system for partially capacitated people. My right hon. Friend will know of my long campaign for that objective.
  I can identify a number of issues on which we should work during the Bill's process. First, as other speakers have mentioned, the current limit on the capital disregard of £8,000 simply replicates family credit, and should be much higher. Disabled people need substantially more capital than able-bodied people because many items of essential equipment—such as powered wheelchairs and communication equipment—are not available on the NHS.
  As advancing technology produces improvements, there is also a dramatic increase in the price of equipment. The cost of such equipment uses up capital that many able-bodied people have to spare for other luxuries of life. Disability often precludes many do-it-yourself jobs that able-bodied people can carry out, which means that disabled people have to pay someone else to do them. Capital often has to be consumed to pay for assistance while a spouse is on holiday.
  I urge the Secretary of State to use the example of the independent living fund, where any capital earmarked for expenditure occasioned by disability can be disregarded. Disabled people often receive lump sum payments because of their disability—for example, industrial injury, or compensation for personal injury or redundancy. For many of those people, the opportunity to rehabilitate through part-time work should not be denied them because of restrictive capital limits.
  My next query concerns recipients. The allowance should not be limited to people in receipt of certain
  338
  passporting benefits. It should, for example, be available to deaf people and partially sighted people who are not in receipt of any disability benefit. A functional test of capacity will exist for some claimants when they renew their claim after six months. That could easily apply to new claimants who are not in receipt of any passporting benefits.
  On threshold levels, the illustrative figures given by the Department for the working allowance will not provide an adequate incentive for disabled people to work. I quote a true example which came through on the very day on which benefit levels for the working allowance were announced.
  Sarah is 32 and lives at home with her parents. She has not worked since 1983 because she has multiple sclerosis. She has a science degree and has worked in industry, and her current benefit income is £58·70 in invalidity benefit and community charge benefit. If she goes to work and earns £34·60 a week, she will get £37·20 in disability working allowance—a net gain of £13·10. However, out of that she will have to meet work-related expenses—fares, working clothes and eating away from home. She lives at home now, but if she were to live in rented accommodation she would pay at least £20 a week in rent and would finish up gaining only 7p in housing benefit—so she would actually lose benefit.
  We must examine the thresholds carefully and consider higher ones. We need not grumble about them too much at this stage; I always regard the establishment of new benefits as the beginning of a process. We should be able to consider the thresholds in Committee, and I hope that we can raise them to proper levels over the years ahead. On the hours rule, I welcome the fact that the requirement to work a minimum of 24 hours has been abolished in favour of 16 hours. We have long argued that 24 hours excludes and would exclude many people who are partially capable of work, but I still believe that we need to revise the rule further. What will be the position of someone who has had an accident and who needs to build up his hours gradually until he can work 16 hours or even more? Such an example needs to be accommodated in the system. Nicole Davoud, who has campaigned so much on behalf of multiple sclerosis sufferers, has written to me today—other hon. Members may have had the same letter—confirming that the rule needs revision.
  As for the disability living allowance, as one who has campaigned for a number of years on behalf of the deaf-blind, I welcome the new system. Proposals to drop the humiliating and much criticised assessment procedure for the combined mobility and attendance allowance have been welcomed by all the organisations working in this area.
  However, it is misleading and confusing for the claimants to call this a disability living allowance, because it is not a new allowance; it is a combination of two existing benefits, plus a new lower rate of attendance and of mobility allowance. There is no doubt that the extra money each week will be welcomed by disabled people who now receive nothing, but it is misleading to imply that a completely new benefit is being introduced. I regret that we have not yet been able to take the step towards a comprehensive disability income scheme that has been advocated for so many years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) pointed out, the Select Committee produced an excellent report which made a number of useful recommendations in this direction.

  339
  My long-term objectives include the hope that this is the first stage of a process and that the Government aim in the long term to introduce a disablement costs allowance. As pressure mounts on my right hon. Friend every time we have these debates, and as the budget grows ever larger, we are approaching the point at which we can effect the changeover. I should like to press this matter and ask again about the long-term plans of the Government to upgrade the severe disablement allowance to the level of invalidity benefit. Initial steps were made in that direction in the previous Social Security Bill, which introduced age-related additions to the severe disablement allowance. What are the long-term plans to meet the high costs of severely disabled people and of elderly disabled people? These are pertinent questions about our continuing policies, and we should discuss them in the context of this good Bill.
  I hope that my comments on this progressive Bill have been constructive. I hope too that it can be improved in Committee and thereafter. I congratulate the Government on the advances that they have introduced for disabled people, and I look forward to many more years of improvements, under successive Conservative Governments.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: too, apologise for missing the Secretary of State's speech—I was engaged on business similar to that described by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). Other hon. Members have covered many of the issues, so I shall concentrate on the cut-off at 65.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) and other hon. Members have pointed out that there are many categories of disability among people aged over 65. The House will be well aware that I have campaigned for many years on the problems of the severe chest diseases suffered by mineworkers. Five times, I have presented Bills to highlight the problem, and arising out of those Bills, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council held an investigation which reported about two years ago—1but it still did not find it possible to recommend to the Secretary of State that emphysema be described as an industrial disease. That was alarming and regrettable, given the large amount of in-depth medical research and evidence which shows that mineworkers are 10 times more likely to contract the disease than members of the general public.
  I recognise that the council's failure to prescribe emphysema as an industrial disease has nothing to do with this Bill. The problem is that the disease tends to progress more rapidly in men over 65. It is a severe disability. Miners reach the stage when they cannot walk more than a yard and find it difficult to lift a cup of tea to their lips. They cannot look after themselves. Most of them live in bungalows or in local authority dwellings that burn solid fuel because they have always enjoyed concessionary fuel.
  With each passing year, the miners' wives, who are as much victims of the disease as the miners, become a year older and thus less able to cope. They can no longer carry their husbands to the toilet. They can no longer dress them. However, if these people apply to live in dwellings in which they do not need to carry buckets of coal to mend
  340
  their fires and warm themselves, British Coal immediately stops their concessionary fuel allowance, because they have converted to gas or some other form of heating. So these unfortunate miners miss out in every way and do not get their rightful compensation. If the disease does not become severe until after they are 65, as often happens, they are cut off and left with this chronic disease. Their plight is distressing indeed. They cannot live without oxygen masks, applied continuously. If that does not happen, they are not classified as disabled.
  I appreciate how much more it would cost if those over 65 were included—there is no bottomless pit. However, the medical profession knows that eventually these men will die. That is known before they reach the age of 65. However, they do not qualify for benefit, because their disablement is not so severe when they are below that age.
  I ask the Minister to take account of these men. The medical profession ought to be able to take action before they reach the age of 65. The care allowance ought also to take into account the fact that the wives of these men hardly ever think about applying for assistance. They deem it to be their duty to look after their husbands. To have this cut-off at 65 means that many categories of disabled people, not least those to whom I have referred, are treated unfairly.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I give a general welcome to the Bill. It should be an improvement on the present position of certain disabled applicants. Any improvement, however small, must be supported so that we can continue to encourage Her Majesty's Government to target benefits properly on those who are most in need.
  Surely the starting point for dealing with the problems experienced by the disabled should be to make sure that they are on a par with their able-bodied neighbours in the community. To do that, we must look at the extra cost incurred when a person is disabled. In other words, if an equal amount of benefit were given to two claimants—one disabled and the other able-bodied—by the very nature of things the disabled person is at a distinct disadvantage because of the extra costs incurred as a result of disability.
  Every representative body speaking on behalf of the disabled has given a list of the extra costs that the Bill does not seem to take into account. Many disabled children and adults require additional help with higher heating, diet, laundry and clothing costs. They also incur costs involving communications and domestic help. At least in Northern Ireland we do not as yet have the problem of the poll tax and the higher water charges predicted for Great Britain, but all the other additional costs that I have mentioned apply equally throughout the kingdom.
  It is doubtful whether the £10 per week lower attendance component will meet the needs of claimants needing help getting out of bed in the morning or retiring for the night, or preparing even one cooked meal each day. While I welcome the extension of the mobility allowance to those who can walk but are not independently mobile, it is unlikely that for £10 they could obtain the services of a car and driver, let alone someone to be with them when they go out. I have not forgotten the independent living survey, which meets some of the higher costs arising from disability, but the future of the fund seems uncertain and the Bill provides no long-term assistance for such people.

  341
  I give a warm welcome to the provision which allows a disabled person to try out a job for up to two years before losing the right to return to the full benefit level that he or she received before commencing work. I hope that there will be no attempt by employers to pay low wages to disabled people because such people will be eligible for the disabled working allowance. It is not unknown for some employers to make disabled persons feel that it is a great favour for them to be allowed to work in their firms and that, by implication, they should expect lower wages. What a great insult that is to the many disabled people who are an example to other workers in dedication, hard work, common sense and excellent time keeping.
  I am concerned about the means-tested nature of the disability working allowance for disabled people who are anxious to work. The DWA must create the right circumstances 1:o provide sufficient extra finance to cover travelling to work, working clothes, meals at work, savings, building up a pension and, I hope, an increased income when all those things have been looked after. When work-related expenses are taken into account, the disabled person must believe that it is an advantage, not a disadvantage, to take up employment.
  I ask the Minister to reconsider the £8,000 capital limit. If we wish to encourage the disabled to save, it is a mistake to impose a capital limit of £8,000. It would surely be fairer to increase that figure, or even to disregard all capital. Situations can arise, through accidents or terrorist action, which make citizens, through no fault of their own, disabled for life. Sadly, we have many such cases in Northern Ireland. Let us not add insult to injury for those unfortunate people. Let us show our compassion by disregarding sums of money awarded to them which. if the truth were known, they would gladly give away if they could only return to their former way of life.
  It is disappointing that the Bill will not apply equally to all citizens, regardless of age. Surely those over 65 ought to be treated in the same way as all other citizens. I ask the Minister to ensure that local offices are fully aware during the implementation of the measure that the disablement working allowance cannot be applied for until a person has a job. At that point, disablement benefit ceases. While the claim is being processed, therefore, no benefit is payable. I urge the Minister to ensure that all local offices process such claims as speedily as possible.
  I have mentioned the various improvements that we should like to be made to the Bill. I hope that in Committee the Minister will be persuaded to consider constructive suggestions which I know would improve the lot of many disabled people.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Allen McKay: My speech will be brief because I hope that the contents of the Bill will be fully explored in Committee. The fact that we do not intend to divide the House suggests that we believe that the Bill contains some good things. However, it does not go far enough. The Minister could reply that that is always our argument, but if we did not put forward that argument continually no improvement would be made to social security and welfare benefits.
  The point has already been made that the £10 allowance is inadequate. If hon. Members think about the things oi. which they spend £10, they will realise how insignificant a sum it is in terms of additional social security benefits. I do
  342
  not believe that the allowance will be successful in encouraging people to return to work. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction. One only has to think of mobility costs. It costs £2 per day in bus fares to travel into town from where I live. If disabled people are able to travel to work, most will do so by bus. They will need help to get to town, but many will try to do so if they believe that they can succeed.
  The Bill places more pressure on DSS staff. I have received nothing but help and co-operation from the office with which I have dealt since becoming a Member of Parliament and I am conscious of the pressures under which it works. During the recess, I took the opportunity of visiting the office. I informed the manager of my visit, not as a Member of Parliament but as a member of the public, with some of my constituents, to see what happens. I was appalled at the indignity that claimants suffer and the long waiting time. I was even more appalled at the pressures on the people behind the counter. If our constituents who, through no fault of their own, depend on benefits are to be dealt with in a proper and dignified manner, the system should enable the people behind the counter to provide such a service.
  We shall explore the Bill further in Committee. It is a step in the right direction, but certain parts of it need amending and some benefits need increasing. I hope that when it emerges from Committee it will be a better Bill.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) ended his speech on a poetic note, referring to a wave coming in on the top of a tide. That metaphor is perhaps more helpful to Labour Members, as the present tide has defied the laws of nature and taken eleven and a half years to come in, whereas normally tides come in twice a day. Tides often have another unfortunate effect—they not only come in but go out, leaving a mudscape that is unsightly and ugly.
  We must consider what is behind the Bill. One hates to be accused of being churlish, but much of it is cosmetic and its main effect is to recycle money. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), like many other hon. Members who have participated in the debate, has made a distinguished contribution and has a deep commitment to the needs of disabled people. Unfortunately, as he confessed, he was in some difficulty because he was expecting to speak tomorrow and had to rely on a handout from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation for most of his speech. He unfairly attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for referring to the finances of the Bill, which are absolutely crucial. Our 6·5 million disabled people have been waiting a long time for a Bill that is radical, progressive and fundamental. Those people, who have been short-changed by life or cheated by nature, have a right to expect something far better than the Bill. Without question, there are improvements in the Bill. Hon. Members have complained about how disabled benefits have worked, but some of the Bill's provisions will be effective.
  There are two parts to any Bill—first, the philosophy of whether it will work and whether it is the right thing to do and, secondly, how it underpins measures and the generosity behind it. We hear daily from Conservative Members about the improving prosperity of our society,

  343
  but what share of that is going to disabled people? The Bill paints a different picture. It is a means of recycling money. All disabled people have a complex income structure from multiple sources, but the Bill attempts to rob Peter to pay Peter.
  "The Way Ahead" was part of the Government's much trumpeted process of targeting. The Government are brilliant at targeting income tax handouts on the best off, but the improvements in benefits for disabled people will be financed from existing benefits. That must be understood. Projecting forward is the only sensible way of gauging their benefits. These are wedge-shaped cuts. The point of the wedge is felt immediately and, although it may be thin and slight, it expands over the years and an enormous amount of money is involved.
  If we are to make a sensible judgment, we must consider the other changes that the Government have made, often to little known benefits of which people are unaware. A Bill of this kind is heralded with much publicity and adjectival assault from the Government, but what effect have their other little cuts had? The disability working allowance is expected to be self-financing. The total cost of the allowance will be covered by the loss of other benefits paid to disabled people. From the Government's point of view, it is even better than that because the Government will profit from the additional £10 million income tax that recipients are expected to pay.
  The disability living allowance will involve an estimated additional cost of £120 million in 1992–93—not a huge sum of public expenditure—rising to £240 million by 1993–94. After the first few years, that additional cost will be more than outweighed by the savings resulting from the other proposals in "The Way Ahead".
  The biggest cut, which was made in the Social Security Act 1990, is the abolition of the earnings-related element of invalidity benefit. That is a bit of a mouthful and is little understood, but it is a vital lifeline to many disabled people. The earnings-related element was introduced by the Labour Government's Social Security Pensions Act 1975, which had all-party support but was savagely cut by the Social Security Act 1986, the effects of which were expected to save about £400 million per year by 2013 and £1 billion by 2003—far more than the amount needed to cover the entire cost of this Bill. According to Government figures in parliamentary answers, the abolition of what remained of the earnings-related invalidity benefit is expected to save a further £1·3 billion net by 2025–26.
  The second major cut made by the Social Security Act 1990 as part of "The Way Ahead" package was the abolition of reduced earnings allowance for the victims of industrial injuries and diseases. Again, this was the culmination of a series of salami cuts in that benefit over the years. The abolition of what remained is expected to cut a further £130 million by 2001–02.
  Much play was made of the changes in the disregard to help disabled people back to work. The Bill may have that effect, but another Bill which is to be brought before us next week cuts statutory sick pay and shifts the burden to employers. That must be a disincentive for employers to employ disabled people and will have a further balancing effect on any benefit from the changes in disregard.
  The Government are entitled to argue, as I am sure that they will, that the money has to come from somewhere, but
  344
  there are far better ways of obtaining it. The lady who was Prime Minister at 3.30 pm—so far as I know, she is still Prime Minister; I would not want my remark to cause alarm among Conservative Members—explained how the Government would make changes in terms of the waste of money on armaments in past 40 years. Despite the Gulf crisis and other dangers in the world, the peace dividend will result in major savings. Surely, therefore, the worst possible way to raise money to improve conditions for people with disabilities is the way that has been used by the Government, whereby benefits to which those people were already entitled have been taken away. That is like providing a starving child with a meal by taking away his shirt, or mending the walls of a house by taking stones from its foundations. The disability groups and the bodies which represent them will judge the Bill and the Government's record as unhelpful and ungenerous.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The Government's case in promoting the Bill, even before it appeared, has been an inverted pyramid of ministerial claims that rest on but a pinhead of fact. The pyramid was tottering to destruction long before today, as Ministers' claims for their proposals were scrutinised and rejected by all the major organisations of and for disabled people. In the words of the briefing for this debate from the House of Commons Library, their reaction is one of "extreme anger and disappointment".
  The Secretary of State in his speech talked about the "cliff edge". In doing so, he reminded me that Peter Large of the Disablement Income Group—than whom no one in the voluntary sector is more widely respected in this House—described "The Way Ahead", the policy paper on which the Bill is founded, as
  "nothing but a narrowing stony ledge".
  As for the Government's claims about bringing some coherence into cash provision for disabled people, he comments,
  "the future promises to be a worrying mess";
  and he concludes that ministerial
  " … talk about a more coherent system is a sign of delirium."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), in opening the debate from this side of the House, comprehensively demolished the Secretary of State's case for regarding the Bill, in any meaningful sense, as a bright new way ahead for Britain's 6·5 million people with disabilities. What they and their organisations seek, and the Bill fails to provide, is urgent relief from the hugely increased gap in living standards that divides people with disabilities from those of most other people in Britain today. Average male earnings have increased by 20 per cent. while the present Government have been in power, yet the basic level of benefits for disabled people has risen by less than 1 per cent. Ministers can juggle the figures as much as they like, but that is the unvarnished truth about the priorities of this Government as they affect people with disabilities and others more fortunate.
  Let us consider the pinhead of fact in the Government's inverted pyramid. It is incontrovertibly true that, taken together, the Government's proposals as set out in the policy paper which they published in January will, as they claim, increase expenditure in the short term, but even this claim is subject to major qualification. The qualification is not mine or that of the organisations of and for disabled people, but one made by Ministers themselves in reply to

  345
  parliamentary questions since "The Way Ahead"—heralded as a policy to take us into the next century—was published in January. What their replies to my questions and those of other right hon. and hon. Members show is that, in 10 years, the net increase in spending will be only £6 million. I leave it to any senior wranglers in the House to decide what percentage contribution that will make to narrowing the huge gap in living standards between disabled people and those in our society whose needs are much less compelling.
  Yet the claims made for the Government's proposals are still uncritically accepted even by news editors of high standing. After all the dust thrown in their eyes by Whitehall's news managers, how many news editors are aware of the Government's own admission that virtually all "extra" spending on social security benefits for disabled people has been the result of more people becoming entitled to benefits, not least the attendance and mobility allowances, that were introduced before they came to power? Again, how many recipients of the "facts" churned out by the Government's news managers are aware that there were 1 million disabled losers from the so-called "reform" of social security that took effect in April 1988?
  Many thousands, even of the most severely disabled people, have had no increase in their incomes since that date, notwithstanding the effect of inflation over the past two and a half years. They are people who were receiving help for their additional requirements under the supplementary benefit scheme which terminated with the change to income support. The help that they have lost was for extra heating, the high laundry costs that increasing incontinence can cause, special diets and paid assistance to enable them to go on living in their own homes. I have drawn repeated attention in the past two years to the idiotic myopia in Richmond house where the Department of Health provides expensive drugs for people with AIDS, while the Department of Social Security cruelly undermines them by failing to give them enough money to afford recommended diets.
  The living standards of people with disabilities have also been further reduced by the poll tax. A recent survey carried out by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation showed that nearly a quarter of the disabled respondents were over £400 a year worse off, while over half were over £300 a year worse off. Many of them are using the attendance and mobility allowances to meet the poll tax.
  We have had some very well-informed speeches about the Government's record and proposals in this debate, notably from my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal), for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). We had important speeches as well from the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). Sadly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has not been able to intervene in this debate, but he will soon be back—I hope tomorrow—ready as always to argue the claims of disabled people.
  What emerges from the debate is that to bundle together the attendance and mobility allowances, in spite of the alterations that the Government propose, and to call the combination a new benefit is to mix truth with propaganda. The Government want to give the impression that they have now tackled the extra costs of disability.
  346
  Their so-called disability living allowance does no such thing. It is an extension of existing allowances and the new components, set at £10 in each case, have been dismissed as "derisory" by the organisations that speak for disabled people. Even whatever meagre help with their attendance and mobility needs can be bought with £10 will be denied to the vast majority of disabled people by the age bar.
  The Government argue that more pensioners are benefiting through occupational pension schemes and have higher incomes with which to meet their needs. The Social Services Committee, of which the hon. Member for Eastleigh is a distinguished member, looked at the evidence and in paragraph 29 of House of Commons Paper 646 concluded:
  "The Government should not assume that disabled people over pension age have necessarily enjoyed the same income rises as other pensioners."
  Indeed, common sense tells us that it is younger pensioners who have the higher incomes and older pensioners who are most disabled. Just because some people have better incomes does not remove the Government's responsibility to direct help at those most in need.
  If the disability living allowance lived up to its name, all would be well. It would recognise the other costs of disability, including special diets, extra heating, the need to employ domestic assistance and help with communication, of which disability organisations are constantly providing evidence but which the Government continually fail to recognise. The OPCS reports themselves reveal that, although only 18 per cent. of adults reported extra expenditure on food—OPCS 2, table 4.7—this was, at £6·20 per week, by far the single most expensive item; and expenditure was almost identical in all severity categories—OPCS 2, table 4.9. Equally, the small number of children with digestive disorders cost their parents four times as much as others—OPCS 5, table 4.16. What does the Bill do for them?
  Nor does the so-called disability living allowance help disabled people with exceptionally high costs. The experience of the independent living fund has shown that there are several thousand people who need a lot of money to live independently in the community. Average payments made by the fund are £64 a week, but some payments exceed £400. The type of help now provided on a discretionary basis by the ILF should be a statutory right of disabled people.
  One aspect of the allowance causes me particular concern. The House will know that I was instrumental in setting up the Motability scheme. The Bill states that, where a claimant is awarded both a mobility and an attendance component, they should be awarded for the same period. If this means that someone who would normally be awarded mobility allowance for three years or more would have the length of allowance reduced, they would no longer be able to use the Motability scheme. Will the Minister be commenting on the concern that this is causing among disabled people?
  Even the most charitable person must describe the DLA as seriously flawed. It is difficult to find anything as complimentary to say about its siamese twin, the disability working allowance. This DWA bears no relation to the partial incapacity benefit for which disability organisations have campaigned for over 20 years. It bears no relation either to any of the schemes that have been operated successfully by several of our European partners—if the Prime Minister will allow the phrase—for many

  347
  years now. The DWA is little more than family credit without the families and incorporates all the poverty and unemployment traps of that misbegotten benefit.
  As the Government readily concede, the DWA is, in their colourful language, "cost-neutral". That means, of course, that it will involve no extra spending by the Government. In practice, there will be no help, and thus no incentive to leave invalidity benefits for people with capital of over £8,000—even if it comes from a compensation award—or for those whose partners are working. DWA would begin to qualify for the name of a partial incapacity benefit only if the sole income taken into account were that from the claimant's own earnings. The list of access benefits is also likely to exclude entirely many deaf or partially sighted people. Again, the need to work 16 hours will exclude many people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire said, wish to build up their hours slowly, for example, after a serious accident.
  Even people who do qualify will receive precious little incentive. RADAR has provided examples of how people currently claiming invalidity benefit would gain from the allowance. A single person who takes a job with net earnings of £50 a week will gain a little under £16, after taking loss in community charge benefit and housing benefit into account. A married person with earnings of £100 will gain under £20 a week. Once the costs of getting to work and other expenses are taken into account, there will be little left to provide disabled people with any improvements in their lifestyles. Moreover, both RADAR and Nicole Davoud, who, as the Minister knows, has worked long and hard over many years for a partial incapacity benefit, have pointed out that the absurdly steep taper will cause marginal tax rates of over 94 per cent. after loss of housing and community charge benefit. How can the Minister possibly defend that kind of mockery in the treatment of disabled people?
  It is not in the Bill, but I understand that the additional partial incapacity test proposed by the Treasury for renewal claims refers not to earnings loss due to disability but to difficulty in finding a job. This is an incredible commentary on the abject failure of the Government's employment policies. Research and the experience of countless thousands of people with disabilities have shown that difficulty in finding work is predominantly caused by discrimination. If we cannot have a partial incapacity benefit, would it not, as the Disability Alliance has suggested, be more effective to introduce antidiscrimination legislation plus an extended linking rule for everyone?
  The Prime Minister no doubt considers this to be an even more dangerous socialist policy than those espoused by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). Yet she has been hob-nobbing for the past few days with George Bush, that other notorious leftist, who signed into law this summer the Americans with Disabilities Act. That very important Act extends the hugely successful anti-discrimination legislation that the hotbed of socialism that is the United States has operated successfully over 15 years.
  I recall the time, 15 years ago, when the Labour Government introduced their legislation for mobility allowance, invalid care allowance and non-contributory invalidity pension. Of course, we were criticised for not
  348
  going far enough, but we were setting the framework on which we would build. One of my most earnest hopes was to smash the contributory principle and end the wholly unjust exclusion from benefits, as of right, of those unable to pay insurance contributions. It was an important breakthrough even to start down that road, just as we led the world on access to the built environment for disabled people.
  Today, we lag behind other countries. Where might we have been now if, in the past 11 years, there had been a Government who, instead of reallocating resources from the poor to the very rich, had fulfilled their responsibilities to those most in need? Fortunately, the chances of this Government now enduring to write the regulations under the Bill are not good. In truth, as they know, their extensive research and consultation since January have resulted only in a change of names for longstanding benefits, to the bitter disappointment of everyone in the voluntary sector who knows the facts.
  We have all, on both sides of the House, as the Minister must know, been flooded with angry representations about the Bill. So I give notice this evening that we shall do everything we can, from this side of the House, to improve the Bill in Committee. By common consent outside the Government, there is much to improve.
  In his resignation speech last week, the former deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), said that, in the mouth of the present Prime Minister, words have lost their meaning. This Bill does not provide for a disability living allowance properly so-called. In the words of the Disability Alliance,
  "the Disability Living Allowance is clearly nothing of the kind. Why its name was changed from the original Disability Allowance is quite inexplicable. Both names are completely misleading. The new name of Disability Living Allowance if anything compounds the confusion."
  Nor does the Bill provide, in any real sense, for a disability working allowance worthy of the name. We shall do our level best in Committee to improve the Bill in the direction which Britain's 6·5 million disabled people overwhelmingly now want this House urgently to proceed.
  7.29 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) ended his speech with Clough's well-known words and drew attention to the improvements that have been possible in the quality of life of disabled people over recent years. Having borne my present responsibilities for three and a half years, I believe passionately that the 1990s are likely to see more substantial advances in the quality of life and opportunities for disabled people in several different areas.
  Demographic pressures will compel employers to look beyond the disabilities that confront them to the abilities of so many disabled people. Improved access to homes, offices, workshops and leisure facilities will also improve dramatically. We shall also have improved and more coherent delivery of services for the disabled and technology will enable many more of them to live independently and earn their own livings.
  The Government are determined to press on with all that and to encourage it to the greatest possible extent so that we can achieve that improvement in the next 10 years. There is also a role to be played in an improved, more generous and more coherent structure of benefits for

  349
  disabled people. Contrary to the moaning minnies on the Opposition Benches, I believe that the Bill is an important step in that direction.
  I recognise that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has a duty to oppose our legislation because that is the role of the Opposition under our constitution, but he was far less generous than I expected when he considered the Bill's provisions. His criticism of us for marketing the two new measures was blatantly absurd. He takes great pleasure in saying that most of the increase in expenditure on disabled people under this Government has come about as a result of increased take-up. We market the benefits and make people aware of them because we want people to take them up. We have also made many of those benefits more generous and flexible while we have been in office. I fully recognise that we need to market the new benefits effectively so that people take them up and benefit from them.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West also said that the disabled living allowance was not simple or easy to understand. However, he apparently plans to return to a system with the complexities of additional requirements or to a points-based comprehensive disability allowance which would be immensely complex to operate and enormously dependent on medical assessments, which we are seeking to move away from. That would not begin to meet the needs of disabled people. I shall refer later to the improvements in assessment and adjudication that we have in mind, but the hon. Member for Oldham, West has it the wrong way round.
  What is the philosophical approach of the hon. Member for Oldham, West to the disability working allowance? Does he want to encourage disabled people who can and wish to work to do so? We aim to do that, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that we were trying to force people off invalidity benefit on to DWA. That is not true. We want disabled people to have the opportunity to achieve the dignity, independence and self-respect which comes from being able to earn one's own living.
  The change in the linking rule is as important as the introduction of the allowance. I can take the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) with me when I say that if someone gets a job and then finds that he cannot hold it down or the employer feels that that person is not up to it, the person can retain the underlying entitlement to invalidity benefit or to severe disablement allowance. That will be an important encouragement.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West also criticised our general approach to disability and, I suppose, our generosity. I have referred to the figures before and I do not apologise for repeating them now. The last Labour Government managed, commendably, to increase expenditure for the long-term sick and disabled by £220 million per year during their period in office. We have improved that expenditure by £370 million per year during our period in office. That demonstrates our commitment to meeting the needs of the disabled.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West also used a slightly complicated phrase about unbundling which I think that I eventually grasped. The hon. Gentleman was correct to say that beneficiaries will need to know what they are receiving. The new arrangements, which bring together procedures for the care and mobility components in the new benefit, will bring to the beneficiary a single award
  350
  notice which will make it clear exactly what the person is obtaining when the award is made. There is no great problem about that.
  The hon. Gentleman was concerned that blind and partially sighted people would not get the new allowance. Many blind and partially sighted people will be getting invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance before they start work, and registered blind people can receive the disability premium in income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit. Both those groups would satisfy the qualifying benefit test for the disability working allowance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh referred to the momentum of progress, reinforcing Clough's words. I compliment the Select Committee on Social Services and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh on the work that they have done in relation to disability. We consider their advice most carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh mentioned his aim and that of the Select Committee to bring the severe disablement allowance up to the level of invalidity benefit. Legislation would not be necessary to achieve that. I have no objection in principle to that, but it is a matter of resources and priorities and I cannot see an early prospect of achieving it. Nevertheless, I have noted carefully what my hon. Friend said.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh also asked us to extend the scope of invalid care allowance. I am sure that the whole question of carers will have to be addressed more carefully in future than in the past. The growing awareness of disability and care for the elderly and the role that carers play in our society is recognised in our introduction of the carer's premium in income support, through our improving disregards for carers and extending the premium for eight weeks after bereavement. Those may be small steps, but they are steps in the right direction to a wider recognition of the role that carers play.
  Sir David Price: In his response to the fifth report of the Select Committee on Social Services, will my right hon. Friend bundle his views about the Government's intentions in a Green Paper? As members of the Select Committee on Social Services technically no longer exist, I am sure that our ghosts would lie happy if we felt that a full response was to come in the form of a Green Paper outlining the Government's future intentions
  Mr. Scott: I will ponder that suggestion and discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh also tried to persuade us to link the assessment for disability benefits to the assessment for community care. The new system will make use of any existing evidence about a disabled person's condition. We want to make the process more coherent and interrelated.
  The hon. Members for Mid-Staffordshire, for Oldham, West and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) referred to a comprehensive disability benefit of one kind or another. Obviously cost is involved. One of the schemes put forward before we published "The Way Ahead" could not have been introduced for less than £3 billion per year. I must reinforce the point that I made to the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Such a benefit would inevitably be complex and it would inevitably depend heavily on medical manpower. In moving to a new system, there

  351
  would be many losers. There would have to be a considerable period of transitional protection. The hon. Member for Oldham, West is aware of the complexities
  Mr. Kirkwood: Why should there be substantially more losers?
  Mr. Scott: As we discovered when we introduced the new social security benefits, if the pattern is changed there will inevitably be many gainers, but if the cost is to be controlled at the point of change there will inevitably be losers. Our study showed that there would be a substantial number of losers and we would want to avoid that. I warn Opposition Members that if they are thinking of going down that route, if ever they have the opportunity, they should bear that point carefully in mind.
  I was asked why we settled on 16 hours. We did so not least because we were persuaded in that direction by the many disability organisations which commented on our proposals in "The Way Ahead". I promise the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire that I understand her point about those unable to work to that extent. If they are on invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance, they can earn up to £35 per week under the therapeutic earnings rule. Then, perhaps, by gaining experience with that opportunity, they may get beyond the 16-hour limit and be able to work to a greater extent. It is a stepped approach to encouraging people to get back into work and the therapeutic earnings provision is important.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) congratulated us and recognised our efforts to improve the pattern of benefits. I think that my hon. Friend was the author of the original phrase targeted at the Opposition—that it is all very well for them to promise the earth and to deliver the International Monetary Fund. He recognises that steady improvement in meeting the needs of disabled people is being achieved in a structure within which we are playing our part in the Government's overall economic strategy.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the independent living fund and recognised that we have doubled provision for next year to £62 million. The arrangements for community care are planned to come into operation in April 1993. That will obviously have an impact on the caseload in terms of those helped by the independent living fund. We shall obviously have to consider what transitional arrangements to make for existing beneficiaries and perhaps a small number of new cases. In general, beyond 1993 the ILF caseload should be looking towards local authorities under the community care provisions rather than to central Government.
  My hon. Friend and others mentioned the problem with Motability when mobility allowance is granted for less than three years. Well over 70 per cent. of mobility allowance awards are made for life. Clearly, there is no problem in any of their cases. If problems arise as a result of the new arrangements, I will certainly discuss them with Motability to see whether there is some practical way of overcoming them.
  I was grateful for one speech from the Opposition side of the House which gave a general welcome to the proposals, but went on to raise several points which were properly recognised as being more appropriate for
  352
  discussion in Committee. Several hon. Members seemed to volunteer to serve on the Committee, and I look forward to welcoming them aboard in due course.
  I know of the problems that were raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and of his devotion to the cause of miners who suffer from the three terrible respiratory diseases associated with that industry. People under retirement age could qualify for the various benefits that are available. Over retirement age, they could qualify for the care components of the new benefits. I hope that that will be of some support for them. As I have said, I know of the hon. Gentleman's long campaign and how much it is appreciated by those who suffer from those debilitating conditions.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned agoraphobia. I cannot say that every person who suffers from agoraphobia would qualify for the mobility component, but that is certainly one of the groups we had in mind when we designed the extension of mobility allowance within the new benefit. I slightly disagreed with the hon. Gentleman at one point when he seemed to be suggesting that we were trying to bribe people back to work. In three and a half years of meeting and discussing with disabled people, I have found that the vast majority of them want to work. They have a driving wish to be able to earn their own living and acquire the dignity and self-respect of which I spoke earlier. The disability working allowance will be a tremendous encouragement for them to do that.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) referred to awards of compensation, and in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, with which I am familiar, to compensation perhaps for terrorist activities. If money is given to someone in compensation for a personal injury or accident, there is a simple answer—to put the money in trust as it is then not regarded as capital for the purposes of income-related benefits
  Mr. Wigley indicated assent
  Mr. Scott: The hon. Member for Caernarfon nods in agreement.
  I said that I wanted to make a particular point about the improvements that we plan to make in adjudication and assessment procedures. Since I have been in the Department, there has been considerable dissatisfaction with some aspects of those procedures. The new system that we intend to introduce will be more speedy and more streamlined and will provide a simple and effective service to the public. We are anxious to achieve that. There will be one claim form, one adjudication system for both components, and a significant reduction in medical examinations, thereby improving the scope for dealing with claims more speedily. A second-tier review means that dissatisfied claimants will be able to have their decisions looked at again quickly by another adjudication officer, without going straight to a tribunal with all the delays implicit in that procedure.
  I believe that we shall be able to reduce the medical input by making the decisions by administrative adjudication officers—reflecting the policy intention that the important factor is not the medical condition but the effect that it has on people's care and mobility needs. We intend to place the emphasis firmly on self-assessment and on supplementary evidence from those in contact with the

  353
  claimant, giving proper weight to the judgment of those in the best position to know the effect that a claimant's condition has on his or her life
  Mr. Allen McKay: Will more notice be taken of the general practitioner? Time and again, there is a difference of opinion between the general practitioner and the departmental officer, with a lot of controversy and in some cases loss of benefit, although some claims are later deemed to be correct
  Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that point in his opening speech. In essence, the best that an examining medical practitioner can do is to take a snapshot of the person's condition on the day on which he sees that disabled person. Many conditions relapse or progress at different times. It is much better to rely on the evidence of someone continuously in touch with the disabled person who can give a much better and longer-term assessment of their condition and the effect on their way of life. That will be an improvement. It will also make the best use of scarce medical resources. When we need an examination or judgment of one sort or another, we shall be able to have higher standards. The system will be cost-effective. For the first time, too, we shall be introducing a system in which people with attendance needs will have independent rights of appeal. The balance of membership of the disability appeal tribunals again shifts the emphasis from medical conditions to considerations of care and mobility needs. All those matters will result in substantial improvements, and they have been warmly welcomed by many disability organisations.
  The full package of measures in "The Way Ahead" and in the Bill will mean extra help for 850,000 disabled people, and £300 million added on in 1993–94 to the £8·3 billion already being spent on the long-term sick and disabled. We shall remove the rigid distinction in the present benefit structure between ability and inability to work and have a more comprehensive, generous and coherent system of disability benefits than ever before. I believe that we are laying down firm foundations for the future structure of our benefits system which will considerably benefit disabled people. The two allowances in the Bill are wholly beneficial and should be welcomed by the whole House. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE AND DISABILITY WORKING ALLOWANCE BILL [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) disability living allowances;

  (b) disability working allowances;

  (c) any increase attributable to the introduction of disability living allowance and the establishment of disability appeal tribunals in the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State or other government department in carrying the Social Security Act 1975 into effect which are payable out of money provided by Parliament;

  (d) any increase attributable to the introduction of disability working allowance in the expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the Social Security Act 1986 which are so payable;

  (e) any sums payable by the Secretary of State in respect of the expenses of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board;

  (f) any increase in the sums payable by way of severe disablement allowance which is attributable to a provision of the Act relating to persons who cease to be entitled to disability working allowances;

  (g) any sums payable out of money provided by Parliament into the National Insurance Fund in consequence of the operation of any enactment or regulations relating to disability working allowances;

  (h) any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under section 70 of the Transport Act 1982 in respect of applicants for exemption from wearing seat belts.—[Kirkhope.]

  DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE AND DISABILITY WORKING ALLOWANCE BILL [Ways and Means]
  Resolved,
  That any Act resulting from the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill may make provision—

  (a) amending the definition of disabled person in sections 74 and 89 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984;

  (b) for payments by way of adjustment to be made out of the National Insurance Fund into the Consolidated Fund in consequence of the operation of any enactment or regulations relating to disability working allowance.—[Mr.Kirkhope]

  Armed Forces Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.49 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The main purpose of the Bill is, like its predecessors, to continue in force for a further five years the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 which together form the statutory framework for discipline in the services. Unless renewed by Act of Parliament by the end of December next year, those Acts will expire.
  Clause 1, therefore, is straightforward. It provides, as I have mentioned, for the service discipline Acts to continue in force for a further year and for their renewal thereafter on an annual basis by Order in Council for a maximum of four further years.
  Much of the rest of the Bill, however, contains provisions designed to bring service law closer into line with changes in civil law over the past five years in so far as it is sensible and practical to do so. Consequently the Bill covers a range of subjects and in the time available tonight I shall concentrate on its main provisions.
  Clauses 2 to 5 make amendments to existing provisions relating to the passing of custodial sentences on young offenders under 21 to bring service law into line with the current provisions of civil law in this area.
  Under the discipline Acts a court martial and standing civilian court—which is equivalent to a magistrates court trying civilians overseas—already have sentencing powers in respect of young offenders which mirror the powers of civil criminal courts in this country. However, the grounds on which such courts may pass a sentence on a young offender of custody for life or make a custodial order which provides for the detention of the offender in an appropriate civil institution in the United Kingdom do not reflect changes to civil law made by the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
  Consequently, clause 2 introduces new grounds which must be satisfied before a service court can impose a custodial sentence. Those are that the circumstances, including the gravity of the offence, are such that had the offender been over 21 he would have been sentenced to imprisonment and that the offender qualifies for a custodial sentence.
  Further provisions made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 require the court to record the grounds on which it believes that the offender qualifies for a custodial sentence, to announce them in open court and to explain to the offender in ordinary language why it is imposing a custodial sentence. We have similarly adopted those provisions for service courts.
  Clauses 7, 8 and 9 are all concerned with extending the power of service courts and of commanding officers in the Navy in respect of personal injury cases. They introduce a new sentencing power which for some years has been available to civilian criminal courts in England and Wales and which reinforces the belief that it is right and proper that an offender should compensate his victim personally to the extent that he is able to do so.
  Clauses 7 and 8 deal with the sentencing of service personnel and extend the power of courts martial and of
  356
  commanding officers in the Navy to award stoppages from pay as compensation to cover personal injury as well as for expense, loss or damage.
  The inclusion of commanding officers in the Navy in the proposals but not those in the other two services is due to their greater summary powers. Select Committees dealing with successive armed forces Bills have recognised the operational requirement for commanding officers in the Navy to have quite extensive powers of summary jurisdiction.
  Clause 9 makes similar provision for civilians sentenced by court martial or standing civilian court. There is no power to award stoppages, but there is already a power to make compensation orders and again this is being extended to cover personal injury.
  For that new power, the Bill makes provision for the amount of compensation that may be awarded to be limited, initially at £2,000. The powers of the standing civilian courts will always be limited to that which magistrates courts in this country could award.
  A further provision which derives from the Criminal Justices Act 1988 is made in clause 10. That provides for the first time for a statutory right to compensation for miscarriages of justice before courts martial. The grounds and conditions on which such compensation will be paid are the same as the civil law provisions.
  It is clearly proper that such a statutory right should exist in service as well as civil law and that we provide for the appointment of assessors of such compensation in the same way. I add that, like the Home Office, we will be retaining our existing ex gratia arrangements for the payment of compensation for miscarriages of justice which fall outside the scope of the statutory scheme. Overall we do not anticipate any increase in public expenditure, but because the clause introduces a separately defined charge on public funds, I will be asking the House separately to approve an appropriate money resolution.
  I return to the subject of civilians. In particular, I shall concentrate on the significant changes that we are making in service law affecting children and young people under the age of 17. It often comes as a surprise to people to learn that civilians can be subject to service law. That is not new—arrangements have existed since 1748. Under current law, many of the provisions in the current service discipline Acts are applied to certain civilians.
  The number of civilians accompanying the forces abroad, either as dependants or in a professional capacity, is considerable. There are more than 30,000 in Germany alone, although, of course, that number will be reducing. Given that number, it is inevitable that some breaches of the law occur. Nevertheless, it has long been the view that civilians should, as far as possible, be subject to the laws and punishments provided for at home and that they should not be disadvantaged by virtue of their connection with the armed forces. This is the basis for clause 6, which abolishes the power of courts martial and standing civilian courts to make a reception order. Those orders are the service law equivalent overseas of a care order as a criminal disposal and place the offender in local authority care in the United Kingdom. As hon. Members will know, such orders are being abolished by the Children Act 1989 and we therefore see no justification in allowing service courts to continue making them.
  It is, however, part III of the Bill which introduces the most significant changes in the current provisions in service law in respect of children. Clauses 17 to 23 deal

  357
  with the children of service families at risk overseas. Those provisions are a response to the changes in the civil law enacted in the Children Act.
  The detail of the provisions is perhaps best discussed in the Select Committee to which I shall propose that the Bill is committed, although I can assure the House that we have at all times been concerned to ensure that the welfare of the child is paramount.
  I shall now take a little time to explain some of the thinking behind the proposals to introduce orders providing for the assessment and protection of children at risk. Those are closely based on child assessment orders and emergency protection orders under the 1989 Act. I would like in particular to acknowledge the considerable assistance we have had from the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association in the framing of the proposals. It will, of course, continue to play a key role in dealing with these matters.
  In this sensitive area, and even though the number of cases involved is, thankfully, small, it is right that such matters are dealt with under the law rather than administratively in order to protect the rights of both the children and the parents involved. Since 1981, service law has provided for the removal of children from their families overseas where they were believed to be at risk. The provisions largely mirror those of existing civil law.
  We are building on these provisions by giving certain officers new powers to make orders for the assessment and protection of children. The assessment order is completely new, as it is in civil law, and provides in certain circumstances for an assessment of the child to determine whether he or she is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. We envisage such orders always being made with some parental involvement and provision is made for certain people to be notified in advance that an application for such an order is being heard. The protection order is designed to deal with a case which is so serious that the child must be removed from his family as an emergency measure. The grounds for making such an order are the same as will apply to a court in this country making an emergency protection order. In these and a number of other respects, the provisions that we are making mirror those in the Children Act.
  We are, however, retaining certain features of existing orders relating to places of safety. The most obvious difference between our provisions and those in the Children Act 1989 is the possible maximum length of the order set out in clause 21. This will remain at 28 days as opposed to the 15 days that will be allowed for under the Children Act. The decision to retain the 28-day limit has been taken after careful consideration and consultation with interested parties.
  As the House may know, under current procedures children overseas who are removed to a place of safety under service law may be returned to the United Kingdom, where the order automatically expires after 24 hours. Thereafter, the provisions of the relevant domestic law apply. We are clearly concerned that service parents should be properly involved in those processes in the United Kingdom which determine the longer-term care arrangements for the child. In exceptional cases it can take a few weeks to make all the necessary arrangements with a receiving local authority and for returning the family from overseas. I am satisfied that it is right to provide for such cases.
  358
  We expect that few orders will be made for the maximum period and do not envisage that any will be made for that length from the outset. Clause 22 makes special provision for the periodic review of protection orders and for their discharge. No period of over six days will elapse without a requirement for the order to be tested by a review, a request for an extension of the order or an application for the discharge of the order. The fundamental aim is that a protection order will remain in force for only so long as the conditions exist which must be satisfied for such an order to be made in the first place, and never beyond 28 days. I hope that the House will welcome these changes as a sensible and practical response to developments in civil law.
  Finally, I should like to mention briefly two of the other clauses in the Bill. Clauses 14 and 15 are designed to bring up to date the existing provisions in the discipline Acts for making deductions from pay in respect of maintenance. Although there are longstanding provisions protecting the pay of service personnel, we have no wish that they should escape their obligations to pay maintenance for wives and children, particularly when ordered by a court. Recent changes in the civil law have changed the power of courts in the United Kingdom to make orders, and the changes that we are making simply ensure that where courts have the power to make orders there is corresponding power to make deductions from the service man's pay.
  I do not propose to comment specifically on the other provisions in the Bill. Some make small changes to rationalise or update provisions in Acts relating to the armed forces, while those of a minor editorial or technical nature are set out in schedule 2. All are covered in the memorandum printed with the Bill.
  I hope that the House will agree that we have used the opportunity of renewing the service discipline Acts to make some significant and useful steps to improve them. We in the House rightly pay tribute to the work of the armed services in the responsible and sometimes dangerous work that they do. We have many reasons to be indebted to them. It is our responsibility to ensure that the special codes of law to which service men and service women are subject and which are central to the maintenance of discipline and morale provide a proper framework to enable the services to continue to operate fairly, effectively and efficiently. The Bill is primarily designed to ensure that the system enshrined in the service discipline Acts best serves those purposes.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I thank the Minister for his clear exposition and explanation of the Bill. I must admit that, since the debate was scheduled, I have agonised over what many of the clauses in the Bill mean. The Minister has helped me enormously this evening, and I am sure that he will help us enormously as we progress through the deliberations of the Select Committee.
  I begin by echoing the Minister's tribute to our armed forces, who work in such difficult conditions, often in danger of their lives, in this country and abroad. The Opposition join the Minister in paying tribute to service men and service women. The peculiar nature of the Bill is that it comes round every five years, so it gives an opportunity for hon. Members to address the problems of service life and discipline in general. The various clauses of the Bill contain amendments to existing Acts. Perusal of

  359
  the Bill is undertaken not by a Standing Committee but by an ad hoc Select Committee. The Select Committee can consider all aspects of service life and discipline, not only the specific matters dealt with in the Bill. Those specific matters will be dealt with in greater or less detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) later in the debate if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in the Select Committee.
  Whatever we might do or say specifically or generally, we must always remember that our service people are first of all citizens and that our armed forces do not exist in a vacuum. They must be seen in the context of society at large. We should accept the need to parallel, wherever practicable and possible, military and civilian law. When a person joins the armed forces, his civilian status is modified by the superimposition of military status, with certain rights and freedoms restricted to preserve military discipline and readiness.
  When the previous Bill was considered five years ago, it was clear from the proceedings of the Committee and discussions during the remaining stages of the Bill that there were several difficulties and disagreements about the work of the Committee. Some hon. Members were deeply unhappy about the procedure followed. May I give the Minister an assurance that the Opposition do not want a repetition of that? We hope to be able to work closely with the Government in examining the Bill.
  However, we have some points to make on issues which were raised five years ago and are still matters for concern. My earlier remarks that the services do not operate in a vacuum and about the need, wherever possible and practicable, to bring military law into line with civilian law are pertinent. The matters that we may well want to consider in the Select Committee are the operation of emergency powers, the establishment of service personnel organisations, the composition of courts martial, drug and alcohol abuse in the services, homosexuality, the death penalty, racial discrimination, the rights of ethnic minorities and the problems of bullying in the armed forces.
  I shall not rehearse the arguments about the composition of courts martial; I hope that we can finish fairly quickly. However, I wish to give the reasons why we want to discuss the composition of courts martial in the Select Committee. At the last review of the armed forces, there were strong calls for senior non-commissioned officers to be included in courts martial. That was rejected by the Government on various grounds. They used as their argument the Lewis committee report published in 1946, which, on the basis of statistics gathered at that time, said that officers who had risen through the ranks could fairly represent the other ranks.
  But, of course, as a result of the war, the composition of the forces was different in 1946. According to the statistics of the Ministry of Defence, it is certainly no longer the case that many officers have risen through the ranks. In 1986, only 22 per cent. of officers had risen from the ranks. Those of us who have served in the armed forces know that only in specialised areas and specialised trades do officers rise from the ranks. Therefore, there is every reason to suppose that officers are now far more remote from the other ranks than when the Lewis committee reported.
  360
  Another argument advanced for not allowing NCOs on to courts martial was that officers had greater experience and knowledge than other ranks. Again, those of us who have served in the armed forces realise that that is not the case. I do not think that many senior warrant officers in the Army would give way on experience to any other rank. Without our NCOs, our armed services would be in great difficulties. I shall not labour the point now, but we should like to examine the matter in Committee.
  The second issue is the establishment of service personnel organisations. I emphasise that we are not talking about trade unions in the armed forces, because we realise that trade unions could not play an active part in such a disciplined area. Some service men are members of trade unions, and those in trade sectors are actively encouraged to join unions, especially prior to departure from the armed forces, in order to help bridge the gap between service life and civilian life.
  It is obvious to all hon. Members that many service people are disgruntled about not being able to express themselves. I am sure that we have all received letters from service men who ask us to keep their names confidential for fear of reaction from their superior officers. Obviously, that means that there is something wrong in the armed forces. I can see no reason for any Government opposing the development of some form of personnel organisation.
  I have said that I recognise the difficulty of trade unions operating in the forces, but we need some organisation for consultation. I do not suggest that out of political dogma, but in a profound belief that such organisations could help to prevent the considerable haemorrhage from the forces of skilled men and women, who have been trained at great expense to a high standard of competence.
  For example, in 1982, the premature outflow of personnel from the armed forces was 16,000 a year. The present rate is 27,000 a year, which means that the figure has almost doubled over the last seven years. There are obvious problems. They are not caused simply because people cannot express themselves freely, but perhaps personnel organisations could stem that outflow.
  Homosexuality in the armed forces was dealt with by the Select Committee five years ago. Unhappily, it led to some acrimony and differences in Committee. I am sure that the difference between the treatment of homosexuals in civilian life and those in a military context will again be brought up in Committee. Perhaps the Government could attempt to harmonise civilian and military law on homosexuality. In Committee, we shall also want to discuss suspended sentences, because the power to impose such sentences does not seem to have been extended to Army or Air Force courts martial or to standing civilian courts, although I understand that clause 12 of the Bill proposes to give Navy courts martial the power to impose suspended sentences. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why that is so.
  Drug and alcohol abuse was also discussed in the Select Committee five years ago. The Committee did not come to any substantial conclusion, and there is now an increasing need to look at this matter again. All those issues affect morale.
  I represent a Welsh constituency and served in a Welsh regiment, and I have been greatly lobbied by people in regular and volunteer services in Wales about the possible elimination of the Welsh district. I know that that is not a matter dealt with in the Bill, but it relates to morale, so we are concerned about it. The Minister will know about the

  361
  tribal and national loyalties that are used in recruitment to our regiments. We shall want to discuss that in Committee. Perhaps the Minister could have a word with the Secretary of State about the reorganisation of Army districts.
  Other problems brought to our attention recently relate to families in Germany who have to relocate to Britain. They encounter problems about education and housing, and young married women face severe problems with their families in Germany and in Britain when their husbands are abroad in the Gulf and they find difficulty in coping.
  We are disappointed that the Government are not responding immediately to the important issues raised in the recent Stephen Anderson case, especially in view of the release last January of the Peat, Marwick, McLintock study of racial discrimination and ethnic minorities in the armed forces. The study was commissioned because of universal concern about racial discrimination in the Army, especially in the elite guards regiments. We accept that the Government are not standing still on the issue, and I praise them for what they have already done. However, they are not proceeding quickly on the matter and substantial shortcomings are evident in the Government's ethnic monitoring. Those shortcomings were outlined in the 1987–88 report of the Select Committee on Defence.
  The case of Stephen Anderson demonstrates that the carrying out of surveys and studies at the point of recruitment does little to outline or monitor discrimination and abuse at later stages of a service man's career. Lord Justice Taylor and Mr. Justice Morland were quite right to ask the Army Board to look again at this matter in a freshly constituted board, so that fairness and justice can be achieved. Just as important as achieving justice in this case, the judges said that the Army internal procedures were "seriously defective".
  We shall look to the Government in Committee to suggest amendments to the Bill and to those procedures so that the serious defects in procedures can be rectified as soon as possible. In seeking that, we are not trying to make a political point but are trying to ensure that racial abuse, bullying and discrimination are exposed and rooted out to the ultimate benefit of all, not just the victims but the poor, twisted, pathetic perpetrators of these crimes.
  The Calcutt report was published just after the Select Committee on Defence last reported to the House. I remind the House that the committee inquired into the activities of the service police in Cyprus, which led to service men being brought before a court. It was established that the activities, standards and code of practice of the police needed to be revised. The Calcutt recommendations were concerned with practice rather than the law. The Opposition were pleased to see the issue of a code of practice. Again we congratulate the Government on implementing that in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
  Calcutt made only one recommendation that might be embodied in legislation—in paragraph 6.6, about the potential conflict between the need to learn the nature and significance of a breach of security and the need to bring the offender to justice. Perhaps in Committee the Government can suggest some possibilities in that area.
  My last general point is about the problems of the largest regiment in the British Army which, oddly enough, operates in a limited area of Britain. That regiment is, of course, the Ulster Defence Regiment. The last time the Committee considered this matter there was some aggravation about it. We want to return to it, because the
  362
  main problem is the controversy surrounding the UDR about allegations of collusion with loyalist paramilitaries and the harassment of nationalist civilians. The Stevens inquiry, set up to investigate those allegations, reported in May, but, in the event, it concentrated more on ways in which to prevent future problems rather than assessing the scale of the existing problem.
  The Stevens inquiry made a number of recommendations concerning the Army and the UDR. The key recommendations relate to better screening of recruits and members and the investigation of complaints against members of the Army. Given the tense and difficult situation that pertains in Northern Ireland, agents of the Crown must act fairly and properly. We are extremely concerned about the criminality differential between the civilian population and members of the UDR. It is significant that the level of criminality among members of the UDR is twice that of the general civilian population.
  Obviously, the UDR operates under great strain and it is composed mainly of part-timers. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has suggested that the regiment should consist of full-time members as soon as possible to effect better training and discipline.
  The events of the past year and the past few days have created a new backdrop for any deliberations on defence. Those political changes will have a profound impact upon the future shape of our armed forces and our service men. Morale in the Army, Navy and Air Force as they numerically decline is a vital factor. That is why we must take this opportunity to ensure that the laws governing service life and discipline are framed for the 21st century, rather than bogged down in the 19th.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: I welcome clause 2, which relates to sentences for young offenders, and clause 14, which deals with maintenance payments. I also welcome the general effect of the Bill, which means that the discipline Acts relating to the Army, Air Force and Navy are brought closer into line with each other and civilian law.
  The present three armed forces Acts do not cover the grey area relating to injuries to people when they may or may not be on duty. Often, it is only after the event that it occurs to an individual that he was off duty and therefore not entitled to the various types of compensation available when he is on duty. There should be a tighter definition of the terms of duty, so that all our service men know what to expect in certain circumstances. Problems often occur, for example, as a result of sports injuries.
  Although problems relating to insurance are not directly related to the Bill, they have a bearing on it. Most types of insurance for people in the services are slightly more expensive than for their civilian counterparts. Those who fly, for example, carry a loading on their insurance. In the past few weeks, a number of people who have been sent to the Gulf have had great difficulty in discovering whether their insurance policies provide adequate cover.
  Insurance business is changing all the time, and we should ensure that service men have a better idea about whether their policies are adequate when posted to a particular area. They should receive more advice before such postings, so that they do not take out various types of insurance that turn out to be absolutely hopeless.

  363
  I agree with what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said about drugs. We are lucky, because we do not have anything like the problem suffered on the other side of the Atlantic. We should not be complacent, however, because many of our young service men will mix with young people who are likely to take drugs. We must ensure that our young service men receive the best education on drugs so that they know the risks they run from them and are aware of the extra problems that drugs pose for them as service men.
  In civilian life, it may be possible to take certain drugs that do not have an immediate effect upon one's job, but that is not so in the services. If someone services a high-performance aircraft while they are not in a tip-top condition, the results can be catastrophic for the hardware and the pilot. It is important that young service men are aware of the risks they run if they indulge in drugs.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Rhonnda that, in times of change, it is important to pay attention to morale. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the armed forces now—units may be amalgamated and loyalties must change. Most service men are only too ready to make such changes, and many understand that change is part of their everyday life. They must, however, be kept informed about what is happening. Nothing annoys service men more than to be kept in the dark, only to find out indirectly what is to happen in the next weeks or months.
  Separation can also have an effect on morale, especially when we consider the lengths of tour of service men in the Gulf or in the Falklands. People in different arms of the same service or in different services serving alongside one another may find that they have completely different conditions of service. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently toured the Gulf, an announcement was made about changes in the tour lengths decided upon by the Air Force and the Army. When people in different services work with each other it is important to ensure that tour lengths do not lower morale.
  Another cause of poor morale is allowances—given their complicated nature, we must ensure that, when people move from area to area, they do not suffer as a result. A service man cannot refuse to go to a particular part of the world, but he may not realise that that posting has a significant change on his allowances and pay, albeit for a short time. It is important to explain any changes beforehand. If such explanations had been made before the deployment of our armed forces to the Gulf, we would not have faced the problems that arose—which, although not great, may affect morale.
  It is a pleasure to welcome the Bill.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: You will have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the atmosphere in the Chamber this evening is rather calmer than it is elsewhere in the building. That is perhaps a significant reminder to us that, whatever political battles may take place outside, the business of the House still requires to be transacted, and perhaps no business of the House is more significant or important than the Armed Forces Bill. We discuss the Bill on the eve of a debate about confidence in Her Majesty's Government. Some of
  364
  us may feel that that makes our proceedings like the porter's scene in "Macbeth", but without the textual or dramatic significance.
  We should not, however, take these proceedings as a matter of course. What is happening this evening is deeply rooted in the constitutional history of the United Kingdom, involving as it does the supremacy of Parliament and the suppression of what was once the Royal Prerogative. The fact that an Armed Forces Act is required every five years to prevent the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 from lapsing is no mere administrative inconvenience; it reflects the fact that control of our armed forces and their disciplines is part of the exclusive responsibility of this honourable House.
  Thus, every five years, we are given an important opportunity to review military law. I hope that the House will conclude that this is not a matter to be lightly cast aside. In the past it has been suggested that the statute should have permanent effect, but I am reluctant to allow that to happen as the opportunity that we are given every five years allows continual scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of service life.
  Although the Bill deals with discipline, the invoking of its provisions—or those of the three service discipline Acts—is invariably due to a breakdown in discipline. The success of any armed service, or any unit within it, depends on self-discipline, not on statutory provisions. Reference has already been made to the special loyalty that attaches to some regiments in connection with their association with certain parts of the country. Coming from Scotland, I readily appreciate that, and there is no doubt that such geographical associations frequently make a substantial contribution to loyalty and morale. I hope that, in the changing circumstances that we all perceive, any proposals that are made will be sensitive to those associations, on the understanding that to remove them insensitively could well affect the loyalty and, indeed, the efficiency of those serving in the armed forces.
  Of course, a special case cannot be made for every regiment or every regiment ever formed would have continued to exist. I hope, however, that in view of the difficult and changing circumstances that will necessarily follow the adoption of "Options for Change" or any similar proposal the Government will show the necessary sensitivity.
  As has already been said, the Bill gives us an opportunity to consider more than just the proposals that it contains. My approach, which springs as much from my interest in legal affairs as from my interest in defence, is that the distinction between civilian and military justice can be justified only if it is made necessary by the special circumstances of military service as opposed to civilian life. Two examples have already been mentioned—the continued existence of the death penalty, and the law relating to homosexuality. In both regards, there is a sharp distinction between civilian and service life.
  I hope that the Select Committee will examine with great care the arguments for the retention of the death penalty in service discipline. For my part, I find it very difficult to see how that penalty can still be justified in 1990, no matter how extreme the circumstances. I am in no doubt about its application in civilian life, which I have consistently opposed. Of course, I have no direct experience of service life.

  365
  As for homosexuality, there is little doubt that the climate of opinion in civilian life is much more tolerant than that reflected in the statutory provisions relating to the services. I recognise that specific considerations and difficulties may arise from the proximity in which service men are forced to work, and the nature of the relationships that are formed. It is possible for members of one rank to take advantage—both literally and metaphorically—of members of a lower rank. None the less, I feel that we should consider this issue with great care and sensitivity.
  The Bill raises some very complex legal issues. I do not think that it is appropriate to deal with all of them in detail on Second Reading. I welcome the provisions relating to children. I am also particularly interested in those concerned with compensation—especially the creation, under clause 10, of a statutory right to compensation for wrongful conviction by court martial. I hope that the Select Committee will examine both the conduct and the constitution of courts martial.
  I have had two experiences of courts martial, one professional and one relating to a constituent. As a civilian lawyer, I defended a naval rating and was particularly impressed by the extent to which the service lawyers went out of their way to ensure that a civilian lawyer who might not necessarily be familiar with the procedures was properly advised and, to some extent, properly instructed. I was also impressed by the skill with which the judge advocate conducted the part of the proceedings which lay within his responsibility. I came away with a high regard for naval discipline as reflected in the conduct of that court martial.
  My constituency experience involved a service man sentenced, in the first instance, to seven years' imprisonment for an offence that I need not detail. By the time he had exhausted the appeal procedures available to him, his sentence had been reduced to six months and he had to be released immediately because he had already, in effect, served a six-month sentence.
  As I have said, it is important to examine the constitutional implications of courts martial. A civilian on trial before a jury on a serious criminal charge is tried by a group of people drawn by lot—at random—from the electoral register. Such a person is truly tried by his peers. It may not be appropriate to institute in service discipline a system that parallels that precisely in the form of courts martial, but we should surely ask whether it is possible to ensure that the constitution of courts martial more effectively reflects the overall constitution of the armed forces.
  We must also try to achieve some consistency in sentencing. I have already mentioned the experience of one of my constituents. It cannot be right for a person to be subject in the first instance to a seven-year sentence, and then find it reduced to six months. I know of no parallel in civil criminal justice—certainly I have encountered none in my professional experience—and I feel that we should devote some consideration to the way in which the powers available to courts martial are exercised.
  Those are just a few of the issues that the Bill will allow us to consider. In some respects, it confers a constitutional imperative—if it did not pass into law, service discipline would cease to have any proper statutory basis. For that reason, in the House this evening, the Bill can hardly be regarded as controversial. I am happy to support it and, if
  366
  the lot falls to me, I look forward to raising some of the issues to which I have referred briefly on an occasion when they will be given deeper and wider consideration.
  8.40 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is invariably a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who speaks with not only great wisdom and insight, but superb knowledge of the law. I am happy to say that I have a knowledge only of basic aspects of the law which keeps me out of trouble. Therefore, I was surprised to hear that those who serve in the Army are subject to the death penalty. I served for five years in the Army and was unaware of that. I thought that the only threat to my life was from the enemy, not from lack of service to the law. As someone who strongly opposes the death penalty, I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman well in his crusade in Committee.
  As the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, there is no doubt that we must remember that we are dealing with a different society in the armed services when considering homosexuality. Much as I welcome the Bill, the armed services society is different from that of civilian life and, where that difference is apparent, it must show itself in the law.
  The Bill is extraordinarily welcome. It comes as a surprise to many of us that civilians can be subject to military law. We can understand that in some "combat areas"—a phrase introduced by Hollywood—that application of military law should rightly apply. However, when there are so many families abroad and civilians helping with important maintenance tasks, it seems remarkably archaic that they should not have the protection of the law that we have helped to establish and create through the proceedings of the House.
  The Government are to be particularly congratulated on the special attention paid to children in part III. One of the best pieces of legislation passed by the Government in their eleven and a half majestic years of administration was the Children Act 1989. It received widespread support from both sides of the House and showed the House at its best. It is particularly important that the changes introduced in the Bill will represent children's interests. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we must at all times hold in special consideration the welfare of children, which is paramount. We would expect children resident in this country to enjoy the care and protection of the Children Act.
  We all welcome the fact that the changes in the law bring military law more into line with civilian law. I certainly welcome it. I have already exhibited my comparatively scant knowledge of the law. The Bill will help to give greater clarity; it will help the soldier, sailor and airman and those who advise them to understand what the law is about.
  The Bill is significant because for the first time it makes it a statutory right for members of the armed services to receive compensation for miscarriages of justice before a court martial. That was the very point made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. I have been involved in a court martial and have great respect for the procedures. In many respects, those who come before a court martial seem to get a fairer hearing than they would in some civilian courts. We do not want to destroy that spirit, but a court martial can make an error, so it is a wise

  367
  step to give people the statutory right to receive compensation for miscarriages of justice. I welcome the initiative taken by the Government.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I welcome any overhaul of military legislation. Courts martial are important—my experience as a Member of Parliament points to that.
  Several years ago, for a former constituent, I raised on the Floor of the House the matter of bullying in the British Army of the Rhine. He came to me and said that he had bruising on his back and was absent without leave. He said that his wife and mother were worried that if he went back to his regiment in West Germany in those circumstances he might face death. The bullying consisted of him and his comrades in arms being tied to the back of a lorry and being hit with a sledge hammer. As a result, he suffered serious injuries, the consequences of which he still suffers.
  I raised the matter with the then Minister and received a guarantee that my constituent would not be sent back to West Germany pending a full inquiry, which was carried out. There were courts martial and this apparently outlandish story, told to me in a local hall at an advice surgery, was proved beyond peradventure. A number of people were disciplined by court martial; some were imprisoned, some expelled with dishonour from the Army and some fined. It did not bring that sort of bullying to an end because repetitions of it have been reported in the papers. I am not as familiar with them as I was with that case. The soldier who had gone absent without leave and so committed an offence was fully justified in taking the case to court martial.
  As a consequence of the begrudging and unkindly attitude of the Army to what might be termed a whistle blower, an attempt was made to charge him for his uniform with which they had issued him after arrangements had already been made for him to be discharged from the Army. As I understand it, discussions continue about compensation. The Army did not bring the matter to a gracious conclusion because the soldier had exposed a sore point, a difficulty. At that time, the cold war was still being maintained and the soldier was more frightened of the British Army members involved in the bullying than of the Russians, which was not exactly a bull propaganda point for the maintenance of the nuclear deterrent.
  I recognise the importance of military law, but I share the reservation that the death penalty should be removed as in civilian life. If there were a referendum on the issue I do not think there would be a majority to restore the death penalty. Arguments deployed against the death penalty are overwhelming and have been accepted by succeeding generations growing into adulthood without the death penalty. They accept it as a more just application of the law that, where mistakes are made, they can be rectified. That was not so in the infamous case of Timothy Evans, who was hanged in error. Military law should be brought into line with civilian law, and that is why I welcome the appointment of a Select Committee. It is an unusual procedure, but one that will provide an
  368
  opportunity for such alterations to be made to the Bill. There should not be double standards—one for civilian life and one for military life.
  I certainly support proposals in the Bill for the standardisation of the Children Act in nearly every respect within military legislation. When the Minister boasts of doing that, he should consider the validity of his assertion and examine the death penalty being retained in military law, as against civilian law.
  Questions should be asked about the application of law in the armed forces. In our age the use of armed might has much wider consequences than ever before. The Minister can advise the Prime Minister to use nuclear weapons that would bring death and destruction on a scale hitherto unknown which would reduce some areas of the planet to a radioactive desert. What if someone objects to the deployment and use of nuclear weapons? What would be his position under military law and under the alterations in this Bill? What would be the position of a member of the armed forces who said that the Government were not carrying out their obligations under clause 6 of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty—a solemn and binding obligation? What if such a person refused to carry out his superior's orders to load nuclear weapons into an aircraft carrier or plane? I note that the Minister is smiling; when I first mentioned that treaty he thought that we were not signatories to it. Now he knows better because of my pressure, and I am pleased to have educated Ministers in this and other ways.
  These are important matters and I want to suggest some alterations to the legislation that would help to take account of these great difficulties.
  We know that it is an offence to give military secrets to the enemy, whoever he is now. Temporarily, the enemy is Iraq and Saddam Hussein, but in the longer run the Government are fast running out of targets for our nuclear weapons. What right does a service man or woman have to discuss dangers arising from cracks in the Polaris fleet, for instance? On Monday this week it was widely reported that the Ministry of Defence
  "would confirm only that one Polaris boat is still at sea. 'We do not comment on the operational deployment or technical state of our submarines,' its spokesman said."
  If a service man or woman is worried about cracks in the primary water-cooling circuit of the nuclear power plant of a submarine and goes to his or her superior officer, that officer can say, "Shut your mouth." The service man in question might start glowing with radioactivity halfway through the voyage, but that could not be taken into account as reasonable justification for raising the point or blowing the whistle to the newspapers. Presumably it would be regarded as an act of treachery, even though it might save lives.
  The same report continued:
  "According to the independent nuclear engineer, John Large, the defect appears to be cracking in the primary watercooling circuit where it re-enters the reactor pressure vessel, an appallingly difficult place to effect repairs because of radioactivity and the cramped situation—especially if there is no time to remove the reactor fuel and let the system cool off first."
  It appears that someone in the services may have provided this information so that something could be done about it. There should be some means of ensuring that people who use dangerous equipment can raise these issues without the threat of punishment. They should be able to question the use and deployment of the nuclear deterrent. That is their

  369
  moral right because there are no more immoral weapons on the face of the planet than nuclear weapons. I shall not go into that now because it is a little wide of the Bill; I merely point out that service people might be involved in the deployment and testing of weapons that are to be sold to countries to which the Government were urged by a United Nations resolution of 1988—passed in the General Assembly—not to sell such weapons. What are service people to do in such circumstances? The binding nature of military legislation, as amended by the Bill, places a heavy burden on them.
  The United Nations resolution made it plain that member states were to reinforce their national systems of control over the arms trade. All hon. Members agree that that is splendid, but when the Opposition highlighted the supplies of arms to Iraq and the channel of arms through Thailand from western European countries, including from allies such as West Germany, people raised their eyebrows and said that these weapons could be used against our boys in the Gulf, which would be quite wrong. What should a service person, who has raised such issues with his superior officer but feels that nothing is being done and that a cover-up is taking place, do? How long have the cracks in the Polaris fleet been known to the operators of the submarines?
  I urge the Minister to consider a report by the Common Market assembly. I call it an assembly because I do not give it much credence. It was a good Government job creation scheme when I found myself resting after 1983, but that is about all. The Government, however, refer to it as a Parliament. That was the title that they gave it in the Single European Act 1986. The argument in the Conservative party is about the degree of commitment that we should exhibit to the Common Market. I merely mention this to show that the European Parliament is a source of information that the Government does value.
  The report, dated February 1984 and numbered PE84.688/fin./Ann II, concerns the right of members of the armed forces to form associations. I hope that this legislation can be amended later to allow trade unions to be formed in the armed forces. They already exist in the armed forces of other countries. We may not wish to emulate those countries, but I think that they provide useful examples. I note that the Minister of Trade has just come in for a chat about other matters, which no doubt are concentrating his attention and that of other Tory Members in clumps and congregations throughout the House. None the less, he will be interested to know that the right to form associations is not granted only in a minority of member states—Greece, France and Italy. In Ireland the right is available but not exercised, and in the United Kingdom the right to form an association is granted, but without the right to be consulted. The Minister said earlier that the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association had been consulted, and I welcome that useful development. I urge the Minister to go a little further. Associations have a valuable part to play, but it would not be a long step, after associations, to form independent trade unions. Service men and service women would be more likely to trust trade unions to deal with these matters.
  The Minister said—I do not dispute it—that the House and the nation at large are indebted to those who serve in the armed forces. If we are indebted to them and if there is a move to form trade unions, why not recognise our indebtedness by providing the armed forces with the opportunity to form independent trade unions? In some of
  370
  the member states of the Common Market professional organisations have the right to be consulted. However, they have no negotiating rights. In Belgium, Germany, Netherlands and Luxembourg those organisations have the right to be consulted. Denmark is the one member state in which professional organisations have negotiating rights.
  When I asked the Prime Minister whether she had been to Denmark, she said that there had been useful talks and negotiations with Denmark. She did not tell the Prime Minister of Denmark how wrong it was for the professional organisations to have negotiating rights. She said that Denmark was a loyal member of NATO. The armed forces personnel in Denmark have the right to enter into negotiations. If that happens in Denmark, it could happen in the United Kingdom.
  In the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, another member state, article 11.5 of its constitution guarantees the freedom, by law, to form trade unions. Service men are allowed to organise or join non-political unions. The majority of them are members of the Syndicat Professionel de la Force Publique, which is part of the Confederation Generale de la Fonction Publique. If it is good enough for Luxembourg, it should be good enough for other member states. The Minister may say that there is only a tiny number of people in Luxembourg, but it is a member state of the Common Market and is represented in all its institutions.
  The report makes it clear that in Denmark service men have the same negotiating rights and the same right to conclude agreements as all other Government employees. There are various groups of professional organisations for serving officers, reserve officers and serving soldiers. Those associations negotiate on general pay and working conditions with the Ministry of Defence. They voluntarily renounce the right to strike. Agreement has been reached, therefore, with the trade unions that the right to strike should not be exercised.
  In the Netherlands, as in the Federal Republic of Germany, officials and service men are not entitled to take part in negotiations. However, the associations must be consulted when the legal status of service men is affected by ministerial rulings, and so on. A central consultative committee has been set up for this purpose with the Secretary of State of the Netherlands as chairman. It meets twice a month and discusses all legal conditions and provisions which affect service men and the policies, guidelines and general principles of the personnel programme. That is exactly the kind of body which could provide effective negotiating and consultative procedures, if they were enshrined in the sort of legislation that we are discussing.
  At a lower level in the Netherlands, there are consultative committees in each navy unit, at company, battalion and barrack level for the army and for each air force base or unit. They consider individual cases or questions relating to working conditions. That is exactly the point that I made about the cracks in the Polaris submarine power plants. Instead of courts martial and the panoply of military law bearing down on people, thus intimidating them into not presenting important information, consultative committees would allow such matters to be raised without confrontation. In the Netherlands, there is freedom of the press, including the right to distribute

  371
  broadsheets. There is no right to strike, but soldiers in uniform may stage demonstrations when they are not on duty.
  The Netherlands is a member of NATO and of the Common Market. Provision is made in other member states of the Common Market for dealing with these matters, thus reducing the need for the confrontation that is created by the application of military legislation. In the Federal Republic of Germany, which is even stronger following unification,
  "the right to form associations to safeguard and improve working and economic conditions is guaranteed to everyone and to all trades, occupations and professions."
  That quotation is from article 9(3) of the basic law. Article 17(1) says:
  "The right to form associations is therefore a fundamental right under the constitution and this right may not be restricted by laws concerning military service."
  The idea of trade unions for our armed forces is not new—they operate in some EC countries.
  The Government should seriously consider that. Indeed, they may have to do so. The Conservative party is arguing about the advance of unification. The Prime Minister, having capitulated on everything else, is saying, "We do not want economic and monetary union as a step towards a federal state." There may be a measure in five years' time to harmonise all these standards. Make no mistake, the Common Market is shifting towards a common foreign policy and a common defence policy, but hon. Members do not seem to understand what is happening.
  Our service men and women should have at least the same trade union rights as those of our EC partners. That would ensure proper and adequate representation where the first procedures of discipline are used and at courts martial. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) spoke highly of the procedures in courts martial because he attended one as an impartial observer. Some courts martial are not impartial because accused persons' representatives are part of the military. However, that would be improved by an independent body for the armed forces.
  I therefore offer a critical welcome to parts of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will at least examine my proposals, but I say that with little hope because, until last week, one of the characteristics of this Conservative Government was complacency. Circumstances have a funny way of catching up with people and their complacency is blown to shreds, as happened to the Government this week. I hope that they will closely consider my suggestions because they will help to improve the law. I do not deny that the Bill makes improvements, but there is always room for improvement, even in this broken-backed Conservative Government.
  9.7 pm
  Sir Alan Glyn: I welcome this composite Bill. I well remember that some 30 years ago we had to have such a Bill every year and to deal with each service separately.
  I particularly like the provisions for compensation and for children. I emphasise the importance of bringing civilian law into line with military law, in so far as that is
  372
  possible. Most people agree that civilian life is not the same as service life. Service men are confined and live in special circumstances.
  Two things will have to be considered very carefully—the death penalty and homosexuality. The conditions in which service men live are so different from those of ordinary people, except possibly prisoners.
  Leave in the three services is different. Perhaps there could be equality of leave for troops serving in the Gulf in the different services, although I know that that might be difficult because the three services are so different.
  When I served on courts martial, I always thought that more civilian expertise should be involved. That now happens and is an entirely satisfactory procedure. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would explain how disciplinary action will be altered when there are more women in the services.
  The Opposition referred to loyalty. It is important that men from certain areas have particular affiliations. So far as it is humanly possible, Scottish regiments or county regiments should be preserved. That will be an extremely hard task. I come from a regular cavalry regiment, members of which were drawn from all over England. Preserving the regional character of a cavalry regiment is not so important, but it is particularly important to have loyalty to territorial and yeomanry regiments. Men like to be with their comrades. There is tremendous loyalty to the regiment to which one belongs. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that point.
  I am afraid that trade unions are not to my liking. They may be suitable in civilian life, but they are certainly not suitable for the Army. On that point, I disagree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
  Great thought has been given to the changes in the Bill and I welcome it as a whole.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill. I should like to make three observations. First, it was a tradition in most Government legislation that, wherever members of the armed services subject to military discipline happened to be, they were treated as far as possible as though they were in this country. For example, under the Representation of the People Act 1983, service men have the right to vote, wherever they may be. That happened long before the voting reforms introduced by the Government.
  There has been an extraordinary two-sided division in the tax and allowances system. In the case of a service man subject to full military discipline and serving in Germany, Cyprus or the Gulf, his wife and his dependants pay the same income tax and national insurance contributions as their civilian counterparts, but they are not eligible for the same social security benefits as their civilian counterparts. Last year, I dealt with a case involving the wife of a soldier who had served 22 years and had been subject to full military discipline. The wife would normally have been eligible for severe disablement allowance, but because her husband had served abroad for so long she found that she was ineligible. That is an injustice. It is hard that service men who have been paying the same taxes and national insurance contributions as their civilian counterparts should be ineligible for certain social security benefits because they have served their country abroad.

  373
  Secondly, I wish to refer to military discipline as it affects NCOs—especially senior NCOs—and warrant officers in the Territorial Army. There is a curious anomaly whereby officers serving in the Territorial Army are subject to military discipline in the same way as their regular counterparts but other ranks—still, I believe, even including warrant officers—are subject to military discipline only when they are training. That has a perverse effect and in some circumstances undermines the status of those TA personnel vis-a-vis their regular counterparts, the permanent staff instructors who serve with the unit.
  To take an example, let us suppose that an exercise is planned for a small group of soldiers involving the use of weapons or explosives or some other form of activity which could lead to difficulties. In some units, it is extremely difficult to gain approval for such an exercise if neither an officer nor a member of the permanent staff is present because there is no one who can be made legally accountable if anything goes seriously wrong. I therefore suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that we might consider the possibility of making warrant officers and senior NCOs in the TA subject to the same military discipline as their counterparts in the Regular Army.
  Finally, regimental affiliations were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn) and touched on by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and are extremely important to discipline. The Government are absolutely right to examine the number of sites that we occupy at present as not only the armed forces themselves but the defence research establishments are spread over far too many sites. Nevertheless, although I was not an infantryman during most of my territorial service, I believe that we should tread wearily when it comes to the eight infantry depots, two of which gave exceptional value for money during the Falklands war. A very large proportion of soldiers who fought in the Falklands had come recently from two of those depots—the airborne forces depot at Aldershot and the Guards depot at Pirbright. Some of them went straight into action only weeks after leaving the depots and performed extremely strongly.
  The culture and disciplines in the various regiments tend to vary and the two depots to which I have referred are at the extremes. The Brigade of Guards whose depot is at Pirbright consists of admirable regiments—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister was a distinguished member of one of them—strongly based on firm, old-fashioned discipline. At the opposite end are our airborne forces, who have always based their principles on self-discipline, initiative in service and, if my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) is to be believed, quite a lot of fighting off duty.
  I understand that it has been proposed that the airborne forces and the Brigade of Guards should be put into the same depot, so that they would share the same NAAFI, the same canteen. That is the surest recipe I can imagine for a breakdown in discipline, fighting off duty and the destruction of both cultures. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that, of all the ways to save land and improve efficiency, the review of the eight infantry depots is the last that he should consider if he wants value for money and wishes to encourage the fighting culture of the armed forces—by which, of course, I mean fighting of the kind in which we want them to engage.
  374
  Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I welcome the Bill and look forward to hearing the outcome of the Committee's deliberations.
  9.18 pm
  Dr. John Reid: This is one of the relatively rare occasions on which we have the opportunity to review the workings of the machinery of discipline in the armed forces. Although our debate is overshadowed somewhat by events taking place elsewhere in the Palace, it is none the less an important debate, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, because discipline—both individual and collective—lies at the heart of the efficiency and effectiveness of our armed forces.
  We have had a brief but wide-ranging debate. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East mentioned the sensitivity about and attachment to the regimental system, and several hon. Members took up the same point. The Opposition are well aware of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) pointed out in a recent debate that, when the "Save the Argylls" campaign was running strongly in Scotland, many of his friends were so attached to the Argylls that they signed the petition five or six times.
  The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) referred to homosexuality and the death penalty, although I hasten to add that he did not link the two. He revealed that he had been "involved" in a court martial, although he did not reveal in what capacity. Perhaps it is just as well that, until this evening, he was unaware that the death penalty was still in use in the armed forces.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) made possibly the most wide-ranging speech. He managed to discuss the death penalty, the important issue of billing, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, cracks in the cooling systems on Polaris submarines, the representation of service men and women throughout Europe, the European Commission and the leadership contest in the Conservative party—all in a debate on a Bill that deals with Army discipline. That was a testimony to his skill.
  The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) raised the important issues of inequalities in taxation conditions and the anomalies in discipline regulations in the Territorial Army. He gave us all food for thought. The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn) emphasised the importance of bringing civilian law and military law together. He made it plain that he is opposed to trade unions in military life, although I suspect that, if we pushed him a little further, he would be opposed to trade unions in civilian life as well; but I might be wrong about that.
  We have had a wide-ranging discussion tonight, but many of the Bill's details will be discussed later in the ad hoc Select Committee. This quinquennial review occurs so rarely that it is vital that the Government use the occasion to address problems related to morale and discipline that are persistently raised in the intervening years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, there are a number of issues—such as service personnel organisation or the composition of courts martial—which we feel the Bill fails to address. We have mentioned them briefly tonight, and we will return to them in Committee.
  It is important that we get the Bill right, because another major review is unlikely for another four or five

  375
  years. Of course amendments can be made from time to time, but the Bill essentially sets the course for the next five years. The Opposition approach the Bill on discipline in the Army and in the other forces on the premise that has underlain that of successive Governments, namely, that military law should approximate to civil law as closely as possible, allowing for the particular need, which we accept, for discipline in the armed forces. We therefore welcome the fact that the Bill incorporates many of the features of civil enactments and in particular the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Children Act 1989.
  It is right that the standard of justice for our service men and women should be no less than that expected by civilians. The forum of justice and discipline may differ, but the standard must be no less. It is also right that the protection of children of service families should be no less than that for civilian families. We therefore welcome the regulations in clause 4 that extend to courts martial the requirement, to which civilian courts are already subject, that a court imposing a custodial sentence on a young offender should give reasons why it is satisfied that he or she qualifies for a particular sentence. A court martial will now also have to explain to the offender in open court why it is passing a particular sentence. That is as it should be.
  Clauses 7 to 9 similarly bring the service regulations into line with civilian practice by allowing the appropriate authorities the power to award stoppages as compensation for personal injury. It is right that, when an offender has insufficient means to pay a fine and compensation, compensation should take precedence.
  Clauses 17 to 23 reflect growing concern in the country about child abuse. We do not suggest that it is any greater in the armed services than anywhere else. Part of the reason for the growing concern about child abuse may not be an increase in child abuse in general but a greater recognition that abuse exists and a willingness to report it. We welcome clauses 17 to 23 and we support the extension of the provision of child assessment orders into the armed forces, but we will want to examine more closely in Committee the logistic arguments behind the difference in the period for which orders are granted in civilian and military life.
  If there are some aspects of the Bill to be welcomed, there are also some major omissions. In many ways, the Bill represents a lost opportunity—an opportunity that could have been used to tackle some of the persistent issues. I shall deal with one or two, which have already been mentioned by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. As my hon. Friend said, one issue is the vexed question of service personnel organisation and representation. We believe that morale and discipline in the armed forces are interlinked and that representation is crucial to morale.
  The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) spoke of the uncertainties about "Options For Change" and the insecurity that is felt by many service men because of the lack of information. Some form of service personnel organisation would help to overcome those difficulties through the provision of information, and would indeed contribute to morale. The persistent claim that officers can best and fully represent the views and interests of other ranks and that there is therefore no need for any other representative mechanism does not hold water. It may be
  376
  the view of the Government, it may be the view of the Ministry of Defence, it may even be the view of many officers, but it most definitely is not the view of the ordinary soldier, sailor or airman.
  The Minister of State may ask, "How do you know?" because he knows that I am far too young to have gone through conscription. With the courtesy of the House and with some assistance from the Minister of State, I managed to spend a month with the Army this year. It was not some formal ministerial visit, when the world smells continually of fresh paint, but a hands-on operation, courtesy of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. From my recent experience in the Army, I can tell the Government that the grievance that was most often and most loudly declared by the toms, apart from pay, accommodation and the poll tax, was about representation. When will the Government face the fact that complaints and grievances can be adequately dealt with only by proper consultative procedures?
  As my hon. Friend made plain, we are not calling for trade unions, although my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South did, and we are certainly not advocating any involvement of service personnel in political activity. However, there is scope for allowing service personnel to join a properly constituted organisation that can make representations on their behalf. Several organisations are highly effective in representing the views of ex-service personnel—for example, the Royal British Legion. Their loyalty to and support for the services is unquestionable and unquestioned. Why should similar organisations representing active service personnel be any less supportive? The people in today's professional armed forces are highly responsible; of course they can be trusted properly to run such an organisation. We shall return to that matter in Committee.
  There is another issue which the Government have ducked. It is a tenet of British justice that an accused person is entitled to a trial by his or her peers. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East raised that important principle. We accept the difficulties of applying that principle completely and directly to the armed forces. However, the Government have refused even to move in that direction. In refusing to include senior NCOs in courts martial, they are failing to take account of changes which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, have taken place in the past 44 years in the constitution of the officer corps of the armed services.
  As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, after the second world war, when the Lewis committee looked at the issue in 1946, most officers had come up through the ranks and could not be accused of being remote from other ranks. Nowadays, only one officer in five comes up through the ranks, so the Government have not moved far enough in the direction of allowing service men to be judged by a group of their peers as far as possible.
  Nor do we accept that senior NCOs are necessarily unqualified in terms of experience to sit on courts martial. Given the considerable experience that many NCOs serving in Northern Ireland have developed in dealing with questions of civil law, the Government's argument begins to look rather threadbare.
  The Minister may recall that, in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the report of the Select Committee on Defence in 1985–86, the Government were asked to consider giving courts martial or standing civilian courts the power to give suspended sentences. In clause 12, that has been done in

  377
  relation to naval courts martial, but there does not appear to be any such move in relation to the Army or the Air Force courts martial, or to standing civilian courts. I hope that the Minister will address that point and explain that selectivity, or will he do so at some future stage?
  Many other issues could be mentioned tonight. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East asked about equality of treatment for homosexuals, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South asked about bullying and the hon. Member for Wyre spoke about the problems of drug abuse. We shall return to those issues in Committee.
  One matter which merits attention now has only been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. It has been the subject of considerable attention and at least some activity since the last Select Committee report. I refer to racial discrimination in the Army. Following concern about racial discrimination surfacing in 1986, when the Commission for Racial Equality felt that it had to go public in expressing its anxiety, the Defence Select Committee reported on its investigation in a report entitled "Ethnic monitoring and the armed forces" and, as has been mentioned, earlier this year the Ministry of Defence published a study of the subject commissioned from Peat, Marwick, McLintock.
  Why is there no mention of that issue in the Bill'' When does the Minister expect to be able to bring forward proposals on that matter? In particular, does the fact that there is no mention of it in the Bill mean that the Government are satisfied with the present position? If not, why was the opportunity not taken to deal with the matter in this legislation.
  If the moral issues involved in racial discrimination were not compelling enough—I believe that they are—there are pragmatic considerations to which the Government should attend. Despite the cuts which might be expected with "Options for Change", there is no doubt that, during the next few years, recruitment will prove difficult. We must ensure a fair and equitable distribution of representation of the ethnic minorities in the Army. There are good moral, administrative and pragmatic grounds for that. That is another issue that we shall pursue in Committee.
  As I have said, earlier this year I spent about a month with the armed forces, and I wish to record my deep appreciation for all that they did for me and my colleagues. But Opposition Members also want to make plain their deep appreciation of the commitment and dedication of our service men and women. In many ways, that goes without saying, but it bears repetition tonight, when many of those same service men and women await the outcome of diplomatic and economic pressure on Iraq.
  They would not be human if they did not face the future with some trepidation. We know that they will also face the future with resolution, courage, determination and discipline which is the hallmark of the British armed forces. As we conclude the debate tonight, we are entitled to reflect that the Bill and the regulations on Army discipline will be applied only in a minority of cases. For the vast majority of our service men and service women, the normal discipline is self-discipline and dedication. We owe them our gratitude and commitment for their discipline and dedication, and the Opposition gladly give it.
  9.34 pm
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I first welcome the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), following what I believe was his first speech from the Front Bench. He will find that debates on defence are normally pretty friendly—too friendly, some of us would say. I have heard a terrible rumour that it was the Leader of the Opposition who recognised that his Front Bench spokesmen on defence needed sharpening up. That is why we are more than happy to welcome the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, who will add to the quality of our debates. He did extremely well this evening as he had obviously read the Bill, which put him in a somewhat exclusive minority.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, mentioned the composition of courts martial. The inclusion of service men below the rank of commissioned officer in courts martial was last fully considered in 1985, when it was concluded that such a proposal would not improve the quality of the court nor the prospect of the appearance of justice being done. There is no evidence of any desire in the services to change the composition of the courts martial and the present system enjoys a high degree of confidence from all ranks.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East mentioned the lack of consistency in sentencing. He particularly raised the case of someone who was sentenced to seven years and whose sentence was then reduced to six months. Sentencing guidelines are available to courts martial. In a serious case, for example in the Army, a judge advocate trained in sentencing would advise the court about the appropriate sentence. Sentences are subject to confirmation and review, again with the advice of the office of the Judge Advocate General. Permanent presidents of courts martial also receive training and advice from the office of the Judge Advocate General about sentencing. Without knowing the full facts of the case raised by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, one can only speculate as to why the sentence imposed was so drastically reduced on review.
  The hon. Members for Rhondda, for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Motherwell, North raised the old chestnut of whether the services should have their own trade union. We take the view that active involvement in trade unions or professional associations would run counter to the principle that service personnel should not engage in any activity which might conflict with their service duty.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda said that service men cannot express themselves, if I remember his words correctly. I found that a slightly patronising remark. When I have gone around talking to service men in all three services, I have found that the one thing from which they do not seem to suffer is an inability to express themselves. They have raised many complaints with me and have told me how they believe that their conditions should be improved, and so forth
  Mr. Rogers: I regret that the Minister has introduced such a discordant note. He has completely misquoted me and seems to have misunderstood what I said. I said that at some time all hon. Members have received letters from service men, many of whom asked to remain anonymous.

  379
  They expressed their problems without any difficulty, but wished to remain anonymous for fear of recrimination or retribution from their superior officers. If the Minister does not recognise that as a fact of life, he is living in cloud cuckoo land
  Mr. Hamilton: There is an understood chain of command through which people can register complaints. They use that, and they often register complaints to Ministers. The hon. Gentleman should look at the record tomorrow to see whether he said that service men cannot express themselves, because I wrote it down as he mentioned it.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East referred to homosexual activity. I believe that their general feeling was that there should be increased harmonisation between military and civil law on this matter. The Bill makes no change to the law on homosexual activity. It therefore remains the case that service personnel may be prosecuted under the discipline Acts for homosexual activity which would not be an offence under the civil criminal law. That is in recognition of the different circumstances in the services, where people live in closed communities on and off duty and often under stress. Such conditions and the need for absolute trust and confidence between all ranks require that potentially disruptive influence of homosexual practices to be excluded. That view was explained and endorsed by the Select Committee in relation to the last Armed Forces Bill, in 1986, and nothing has occurred since then to give rise to a change of policy.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda spoke of the military districts and the reorganisation about which he has heard rumours. I am afraid that I am not in a position to tell him what proposals we are bringing forward on that, but I hope that I shall be able to do so shortly. I can tell the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that under "Options for Change" we are taking a radical look at the whole infrastructure of the three armed services. There is no way in which we can do that painlessly. It will result in depots being closed and in restructuring of the armed forces in many areas of the country. I am afraid that if we are to get the so-called peace dividend and to make savings on the defence budget there will be local problems. We shall, of course, deal with them as sensitively as we can.
  The hon. Members for Rhondda and for Motherwell, North raised the question of racial discrimination. In particular, the hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned the Anderson case. We recently received the final judgment in the case of Stephen Anderson. The Ministry of Defence will consider that judgment to decide what changes are necessary in service procedures to conform with the guidance in the judgment or whether to appeal against the judgment on any aspect. In the meantime, a re-hearing of Mr. Anderson's case will be set in hand. As originally proposed by the Ministry of Defence, a board of inquiry will be set up to investigate all facts relevant to the case prior to consideration by the Army Board in the light of the judgment. Any changes required as a result of the Anderson case will not require primary legislation. The procedures involved are set out in Queen's regulations.
  On the general point of racial discrimination, I can tell the House that the services are fully integrated,
  380
  non-discriminatory organisations and that no discrimination is tolerated. Any complaint of racial discrimination by a member of the armed forces will be fully investigated under a redress of grievance procedure and, if proven, action will be taken against those involved. It concerns us that there is still far too low a percentage of people from racial minorities entering the armed forces and we are doing all that we can to address that problem and to stimulate recruitment in areas with large numbers of people from racial minorities.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda also mentioned the Stevens inquiry and the Ulster Defence Regiment. In his report, Mr. Stevens said that his was an extensive and thorough inquiry by some of the most experienced detectives in the United Kingdom. He emphasised that both the Regular Army and the UDR had co-operated fully and whole-heartedly with the inquiry. We welcome the conclusion that the passing of information was neither widespread nor institutionalised but was restricted to a small number of individuals. We have no difficulty in agreeing with Mr. Stevens's conclusions that procedures for screening recruits and handling information need to be tightened. We have already taken some initiatives and, as Mr. Stevens makes clear, further steps were taken during the course of the inquiry. A dedicated unit has been established to screen all applicants to the UDR, and transfers from the Regular Army will be subject to the same full screening process. The procedure for the control of recognition material was tightened up in June 1988 and further stringent methods were introduced last autumn. Mr. Stevens recognises those initiatives.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) spoke about compensation for injuries and the problems relating to whether an individual is on or off duty. My hon. Friend mentioned sports injuries. Service men are entitled to claim compensation for injuries caused during a service sports activity, which is treated as an on-duty event, in the same way as that person can claim for injuries sustained in the course of his employment. He would need to demonstrate that his injury was attributable to negligence on the part of the service, but the Department, provided that it is satisfied on that point, will offer an appropriate compensation payment.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the increased life insurance premiums charged to members of the armed forces. In normal circumstances, those increased premiums apply to personnel in high-risk occupations such as air crew or divers and we already refund 90 per cent. of the additional cost of their premiums within set limits. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that that scheme was recently extended to include all personnel serving or under notice to serve in the Gulf who choose to take out new policies. We have also negotiated special insurance schemes for such personnel.
  My hon. Friend also raised the question of drug abuse. I am aware that many hon. Members are much concerned about the extent of drug abuse in the armed forces. Although there are, almost inevitably, some cases of such abuse in the armed forces, it is not a major problem. Nevertheless, it is a subject which is treated with the utmost seriousness and my colleagues and I take a close personal interest in it. The services are well aware of the need for constant vigilance and steps have been taken to improve protection from and the prevention of drug abuse. A service education programme on drug abuse

  381
  includes information on the dangers of crack. I gather that 85 per cent. of those convicted of drug offences within the armed forces are dismissed.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the need to keep service men informed of the changes as a result of "Options for Change". I recognise that need, but we always have a difficulty because the House likes to be informed first about what is going on. It is difficult to ensure that the services are informed simultaneously, but we make every effort to do so.
  The death penalty is another old topic which came up for discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) did not realise that the death penalty is still valid for offences under the service discipline Acts. It might be of interest to know that the death penalty still applies for assisting the enemy, serious misconduct in action, obstructing operations, mutiny and failure to suppress mutiny. The important point about those five offences is that they require a positive act of treachery—for instance, deliberately assisting the enemy or actively preventing operations against the enemy. Such acts are likely not only to jeopardise national security, but to put the lives of other service men at direct risk. The nearest civil criminal offence of this nature would be an act of high treason, for which the death penalty is still mandatory.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned bullying and related a horrific story about a person he knew who had been bullied. The services take a serious view of bullying and it has been made clear throughout the forces that bullying and ill treatment will not be tolerated. A range of measures to combat bullying have been introduced, including the banning of initiation ceremonies. In the Army a new man-management training package has been developed. Of the 252 allegations of bullying in the Army reported since January 1986, 92 were substantiated and disciplinary action was taken. In 145 cases the allegations were not substantiated. Others are still under investigation. There have been three substantiated cases in 1990. Allegations of bullying substantiated by courts martial or summary disciplinary action are as follows: in 1986, 16 cases; in 1987, 31 cases; in 1988, 17 cases; and in 1989, 25 cases. The figures are bad and we should do something about them, but they are not so appalling as some might imagine.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn) raised the pertinent question, now that women are playing a much bigger role in the three armed services, as to whether there would be any change in the disciplinary arrangements. No change is necessary to take account of the increased number of women in the services. For a long time, female personnel have been subject to the same disciplinary provisions as their male counterparts. The only change is that a women's wing is being constructed at Colchester to take account of the larger numbers. In practice, as in civilian life, women are much less likely to commit crimes than men are.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury raised the question of unemployment benefit, and the difficulties that people in the services have in that respect. I reassure him
  382
  that discussions are continuing between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Social Security about the payment of unemployment benefit to spouses of service personnel overseas. I know that my hon. Friend will be glad to hear that.
  The hon. Members for Rhondda and for Motherwell, North raised the question of suspended sentences for courts martial and standing civilian courts. As the hon. Member for Rhondda rightly pointed out, clause 12 extends to naval courts martial the power to suspend sentences of imprisonment and detention, as recommended by the Select Committee on the last Bill. However, we have decided not to extend the power to courts martial in the Army and the RAF, or to commanding officers in those services exercising summary jurisdiction. Court martial sentences in the Army and the RAF—unlike those in the Navy—are subject to confirmation, and the confirming officer has wide powers to alter sentences, although he may not impose a greater or more severe sentence than that imposed by the court. To give courts martial the power to suspend sentences in their own right would inhibit the powers of confirming officers who have the final word on sentence, and who may already suspend sentences of imprisonment and detention
  Mr. Rogers: I do not understand the Minister's logic. If the court has the right to suspend sentences in the Navy, why cannot the same apply to the other two services? The argument that further confirmation is required does not hold water. We shall return to this matter in the Select Committee discussions, where we shall want to hear far more substantial arguments than the Minister has produced today
  Mr. Hamilton: I think that it would be right for the Select Committee to examine the matter in more detail. If it troubles the Committee, we shall be more than happy to examine the matter again.
  I commend the Bill to the House. It will do much to bring the legal system covering the armed services into line with their civilian counterparts. That is the least that we can do for them in recognition of the magnificent role that they play.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee.—[ Mr. Chapman.]

  ARMED FORCES BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any sums payable by the Secretary of State by way of compensation for miscarriages of justice before courts-martial; and

  (b) any sums payable by way of remuneration or allowances to a person appointed by the Secretary of State to assess the amount of any such compensation.—[Mr. Chapman.]

  Trade Statistics
  9.53 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order 1990 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 7th November.
  Towards the end of the 1980s, it was widely thought——
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Groups .of Conservative Members all over the House are busy plotting about next week's ballot, but I am sure that you take exception to groups of Conservative Members plotting in the Chamber and taking no notice of the legislation being discussed
  Mr. Speaker: I doubt whether the hon. Members are plotting; I should think that they are discussing with great interest the debate that is about to begin
  Mr. Roger Knapman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  During questions to the Leader of the House last Thursday, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that he believed in nuclear and other disarmament, so we cannot understand what interest the debate could have for the hon. Gentleman
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that all hon. Members remaining in the Chamber have an interest in the debate
  Mr. Maples: It is an exciting subject, Mr. Speaker.
  Towards the end of the 1980s, it was widely thought that the quality of the national accounts had deteriorated. Three criticisms were generally levelled: first, that wide discrepancies had opened up between the three measures of the gross domestic product; secondly, that successive measures of GDP and the balance of payments were subject to substantial revisions; and, thirdly, that the sector balancing items had grown unacceptably large, especially in the personal and the overseas sectors.
  Those weaknesses created difficulties for economic policy makers, particularly for the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in constructing his 1988 Budget. The problems were clear to Treasury Ministers. They were also obvious to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, which commented on the role that the poor quality of the statistics had played in recent economic policy making. The Committee recommended that the Government should undertake an investigation into the operation of the various Departments involved in the collection of national account statistics with a view to improving the reliability of those accounts.
  In June 1989, the Government announced the setting up of a scrutiny committee of economic statistics. That was carried out the following year, and led to the publication in 1989 of what has come to be known as the Pickford report. The scrutiny revealed an extensive awareness of the problems with micro-economic statistics, and reiterated the three main areas of concern—discrepancies between GDP measures, revisions and large balancing items. It concluded that the problems were
  "deep seated, pervasive, have multiple causes and have existed for a long time."
  384
  The scrutiny committee proposed a number of sectors where improvements were needed, or where further work was necessary, and made recommendations in three areas: first, to change the way in which macro-economic statistics are collected or compiled; secondly, to propose further work on statistical issues to identify improvements; and, thirdly, to create a statistical organization—[ Interruption.]
  Mr. Frank Haynes: Those Conservative Members should go outside
  Mr. Maples: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This is an exciting subject.
  The third improvement suggested was to create a statistical organisation more likely to meet the needs of users in a cost-effective manner.
  As a consequence of that third group of recommendations, we set up a review to examine the organisational issues. On 5 April 1989, the Prime Minister announced to the House the enlargement of the Central Statistical Office as a separate Government Department responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The reorganisation, on 31 July 1989, brought together the old CSO, the Department of Trade and Industry's business statistics office and the Department of Employment's responsibility for the retail prices index and the family expenditure survey. It enabled the new CSO to pay more attention to priorities for improving the national accounts.
  It soon became apparent to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that even those improvements would be insufficient to solve the underlying problems quickly enough. In April 1990, he told the Treasury and Civil Service Committee that he was
  "concerned about the statistical base".
  We needed,
  "the best level of statistics we can get for measuring precisely what is happening to the economy."
  Despite the Pickford improvements, he said that he was discussing with the director of the CSO what might be done to improve the general quality of economic statistics.
  Shortly after that, on 17 May, the Chancellor announced his package of further measures to improve the quality of statistics. Those were to be in three sectors—services, companies and the balance of payments. On services, there will be extensions to the quarterly turnover inquiries into the service industries and more information will be collected on external trade in services. To improve company statistics, the Chancellor announced that more quarterly information on capital expenditure, stock-building and profits would be obtained.
  On the balance of payments, the Chancellor announced that, in addition to improvements on trade in services, the quarterly direct investment inquiry would be expanded. More information would be collected about United Kingdom companies' financial transactions with overseas residents. Due to the very severe problems with the balance of payments accounts, which had shown large and persistently positive balancing items over the past four or five years, he announced that the CSO would give a senior member of its staff a year to undertake a thorough review of balance of payments statistics. Those additional inquiries, including that on company profits, will be undertaken as statutory inquiries.
  The powers available to the CSO to collect these statistics are embodied in the Statistics of Trade Act 1947. That Act enables "competent authorities"—certain

  385
  Government Departments including the CSO—to require undertakings to provide statistical information on specified areas of their activities.
  The Act includes a schedule which lists the topics on which competent authorities can demand information. Section 5 allows additions to be made to the schedule by Order in Council. Such orders have been made on two previous occasions. However, the schedule, even after these amendments, does not include profits. Therefore, I am seeking the approval of this House for a further amendment to be made.
  Company profits make an important contribution to the income measure of gross domestic product. They represent about 15 per cent. of the income measure of GDP. Perhaps more importantly, they are the most volatile component of income, accounting for a large part of the quarter-to-quarter or year-to-year changes in GDP.
  Statistics on company profits provide the base from which corporation tax receipts are forecast. They are also important in providing the Government with assessments of the financial position of the company sector. Finally, the statistics are used by Treasury economists in their analysis, modelling and forecasting of the economy.
  The Government already compile statistics on company profits, but there are some significant weaknesses in the existing statistical systems. The CSO currently estimates the profits of industrial and commercial companies from Inland Revenue data on assessments for corporation tax. Although substantial adjustments have to be made to bring them into line with the national accounts, these statistics are thought to be soundly based. These data, however, are inevitably not available until some time after profits are earned and also relate only to whole years, not to quarters. For monitoring, forecasting and policy purposes, quarterly data are needed.
  In an attempt to meet those needs, tax assessment data are supplemented by a quarterly inquiry asking a sample of companies for information on their profits. Results from those inquiries provide figures for the national accounts for the latest two to three years. The inquiry is voluntary, and many large companies exercise their right not to provide data. Despite several efforts to recruit more companies, the inquiry remains unrepresentative, and lacks a number of large company groups.
  As a result, estimates derived from the present quarterly inquiry are weak, and subject to large revisions when the tax assessments data become available two or three years later. For example, the 1987 estimates of industrial and commercial company profits were revised down by £10 billion between April 1988 and the summer of 1990.
  It is for these reasons that I seek approval for amending the schedule. By adding the words "profits" and "losses" the CSO will be able to collect up-to-date quarterly information from industrial and commercial companies about their profits on a statutory basis. It will be able to collect statistics from all the largest company groups in the country, not just those which agree to report voluntarily
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Many of us, like the Minister, serve on the Treasury and Civil Service Committee. Often private companies are asked to provide information at their own expense and to fill in one form after another, and junior people are asked to fill them in to satisfy the people who gather statistics——
  Mr. Cryer: In this Government
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: All Governments have had the problem of collecting statistics and this Government have done more to try to make them respectable and clinical than any other Government since the war. But how are we to make sure that statistics are pure? Until we have a fully computerised system—and the Government pay for it—why should private companies set their best people to collecting figures?
  Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Certainly the number of forms that businesses have to fill in has been greatly reduced by this Government. We have consulted the CBI and the stock exchange on this order and we think that the information that we shall request will be readily available from companies without their having to do additional work.
  Statistics from a statutory inquiry would be of much better quality, not just because of the greater size of the inquiry, but because of its better representativeness. A statutory inquiry would also produce an earlier and higher level of response.
  A general advantage of statutory inquiries is that they are more equitable than voluntary ones. Companies that respond to voluntary inquiries do so from a sense of public responsibility. The costs that they incur may be small, but they are still costs that will not be incurred by their non-responding competitors
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: It is important that the statistics on which economic decisions are made are correct, but my hon. Friend will be aware that there are considerable cost implications for businesses. He referred to the largest companies. However, it would be illogical if the consequences of his inquiries were to be limited to large companies, particularly as, under this Government, there is a booming middle and small business sector. What worries me is that this will be extended to the small business sector and will impose even more burdens on small business men, for which there will be no compensation. What does my hon. Friend have to say about that?
  Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend makes substantially the same point as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). We must make sure that we do not ask for information that we do not need. However, the Government must have proper economic statistics for the management of the economy. Moreover, industrial companies like to have reasonably accurate statistics about what is going on in the economy. Those inquiries are being sent only to about 1,500 companies. We are asking each of them for seven pieces of information. All that information is, we believe, readily available in their management accounts. We do not believe that we are imposing additional costs upon them, and our view is supported by the stock exchange and the Confederation of British Industry
  Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister confirm that some trade associations have approached the Government for information about their area of manufacturing activity? They do not have that information. As they wish to obtain it, they recognise that the only possible body who can provide it efficiently is the Government.
  Mr. Maples: There is certainly something in what the hon. Gentleman says. We receive complaints about the inadequacy of the information that is available just as often as we receive complaints about companies being asked to provide information that they would prefer not to provide.
  As the House knows, the Government are very sensitive to the reporting burdens that they impose on businesses. In this case, I believe that that burden must be slightly increased. The reward of better statistics is worth it. We have already consulted the CBI and the stock exchange about the proposals. Both accept the need for accurate statistics and support the introduction of such an inquiry
  Mr. Barry Field: If it leads to better statistics, can my hon. Friend assure me that gross domestic product figures will finally be made available in their entirety for the Isle of Wight? We have suffered for a very long time from being included in Hampshire's statistics. There is considerable prosperity and industrial growth in Hampshire. Our inclusion in those statistics has caused us considerable grief on a number of occasions, because we should like to know precisely how our own economy is doing
  Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend's sentimentality is admirable, but I am afraid that the answer to his question is no.
  The CBI believes that the reporting burden will not be too great as most of the required information can easily be provided from existing sources in most companies. That was confirmed by a number of large companies visited by the CSO a year ago. Any new inquiry is bound to involve some companies in extra work. I shall be discussing the details of the inquiry with the aim of minimising that extra work with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  That explains why the Government have sought the addition of the words "profits" and "losses" to the schedule, but we are seeking further additions: rents, interest and investment income receipts, dividends, interest and tax payments. The reason for their inclusion is mainly related to the collection of information from financial companies.
  For national accounts, there is a major difficulty in collecting profits information from financial companies. To the companies themselves, a substantial share of their profits is earned by making a turn on interest rates, or on the price of instruments traded, such as shares or bonds. For the national accounts, interest and dividend flows are viewed as transfers between institutions or people and are not therefore viewed as part of profits.
  There is therefore no point in sending out a survey asking financial companies for their profits. The results would be irrelevant to the national accounts. The only way to obtain the required data is to ask companies to provide certain components of their income and expenditure accounts and for the CSO to derive profits in the appropriate terms.
  That approach is adopted in existing surveys of various groups of companies. However, most of the surveys are confined to the collection of annual data. Figures for the lastest quarters are simply projections from the latest annual survey. They are subject to revision—sometimes substantial—when the next survey results come round.
  388
  For example, in August this year, estimates of financial companies' profits were revised down by £4 billion when annual data were substituted for the quarterly projections.
  The further additions to the schedule will enable the CSO to block this gap in its statistical base by collecting income and expenditure information from financial companies on a quarterly basis. I do not believe that expansion of collection would add significantly to the burdens on businesses. Most of the information that is likely to be sought is readily available from most companies' accounting systems.
  The phrase in the proposed amendment on services is included to make it clear that such information falls within the scope of the Act. Amendment of the schedule will enable the CSO to undertake statutory inquiries of companies to collect information on their United Kingdom profits. The information thus provided will be of significantly better quality than the present estimates. As part of the package of improvements announced by my right hon. Friend, this will be a further step in eliminating the three major problems in the national accounts. It will help to reduce the gaps between the GDP measures; it will reduce the scope for revisions; and it will lead to more coherent accounts for the company sector by reducing its balancing items, particularly for the early estimates. This will be an important contribution to the improvement in the statistical base for economic monitoring, forecasting and policy making.
  I commend the motion to the House.
  10.10 pm
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: It is ironic that the last business of the House before the censure debate should be an attempt to reform one of the principal culprits blamed for the Government's and the country's economic difficulties—the disparities and balancing items in the national accounts in recent years, to which the Economic Secretary referred.
  To avoid such major mistakes in economic policy as occurred in 1988, it is necessary to have reasonably good statistics, a reasonably good model and reasonable objectives. However, none of those can be blamed for the economic policy mistakes of 1988. It is also necessary for Ministers to pay attention to the evidence, and to use the system of policy analysis intelligently.
  I sent a paper to the Treasury shortly after the crash in October 1987, of which I sent a copy to the Economic Secretary this morning, reporting an exercise that I had done on the Treasury model using the Treasury's own policy optimisation programmes on the data and model available at the time. The policy adjustments required, on the Government's own priorities, to take account of the stock market crash were indeed a reduction of interest rates, but by less than 0·5 per cent. and for one year; and a reduction of income tax—but at 0·1 per cent., it was so small as to be effectively zero. The trouble was that the analysis of the situation before the stock market crash was already calling for increases in interest rates and income tax, but that was not acceptable to the Government and they were not prepared to listen. I am sure that comparable information was given to Ministers by Treasury officials.
  Certainly, better characterisation of the effect of the housing market, structural reform in housing finance and consumer behaviour were needed. Changes have now been made in the Treasury model. There are now fresh

  389
  problems—convergence within the exchange rate mechanism, to name but one. The Treasury has even refused to equip itself to model the problem of competing policy makers with different objectives. Whether it be between countries, within the United Kingdom or even within the Cabinet, the problem of conflicting policy makers would seem to be of some topical interest to the Treasury.
  The quality of the Treasury's economic policy analysis, and, more important, the use made of it by Ministers, is not so high as to justify the cut of two thirds, from £1·5 million a year to less than £500,000 in the next academic year, in the funding of external research on economic models by the consortium of the Economic and Social Research Council, the Treasury and the Bank of England. Those funds support the work of the London Business School, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Patrick Minford in Liverpool, other friends of the Government and the smaller projects that are producing the new ideas for the future. That is an essential service to the Treasury and the Bank of England, from which they have benefited enormously in recent years.
  On the "customer pays" principle, the Treasury and the Bank of England should have taken up the financing of their quasi-executive servicing when the ESRC found it hard to meet urgent new demands for work on the global environment and other matters.
  Certainly, however, better statistics are needed, too. Household and consumer behaviour is an important matter, with which the Economic Secretary did not deal and which is not our business tonight. We are dealing with company profits and finance, and services used. Four information systems describe the same activities in the corporate sector: company internal management accounts; company reports and accounts published under the Companies Acts; tax returns to the Inland Revenue; and Government statistical returns, not to mention the returns of banks to the Bank of England under the Banking Act 1987.
  It is easy to say that the different systems serve different purposes, but they interact and their incoherence reduces their efficiency and increases the cost to businesses of complying with them. It would be much simpler for companies if their management accounts giving a true and fair account of their companies' position could serve as the basis from which all the other requirements could be met. Attempts at economic and statistical analysis of companies' present reporting of their profits have fallen on stony ground. I doubt whether Government statisticians will be able to make much sense of them, with their jumble of different accounting conventions, varying from company to company. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and the London Business School have put a great deal of effort in this direction. If they are not able to make sense of the picture, I do not see how greater insight could be brought by the Central Statistical Office.
  In tabling the order, the Government do not seem to have informed or consulted the Financial Reporting Council and the Accounting Standards Board. The Bank of England recently submitted a paper to the Financial Reporting Council on corporate reporting, summarising three major United Kingdom research studies. Edwards, Kay and Mayer, in their book "The Economic Analysis of Accounting Profitability", have given a convincing economic rationale for accepting value-to-the-owner rules as the basis for the valuation of assets for both economic analysis and company taxation purposes.
  390
  The Government should use their powers, not just under the Statistics of Trade Act but, probably more importantly, under section 228 of the Companies Act 1985, to specify a form and content of company accounts which will tell a coherent story about the company to managers, shareholders, investment analysts, employees, creditors, the Inland Revenue and Government statisticians and economists. It will still be necessary to set accounting standards, but the new accounting standards bodies will be given a coherent basis on which they can work. The accountancy profession has not found it easy to agree on a number of conventions, and a lead is needed from the Government in the interests of economic management, good company management, efficient capital markets and realistic wage and pricing behaviour, which needs to be based on information on the profitability of individual companies.
  The claim to commercial confidentiality has always been used to resist every extension of disclosure in the interests of greater efficiency. We are talking not about personal information, where there is a basic right to privacy, but about the activities of corporate bodies. There should be a presumption in favour of disclosure. In any particular case, the onus of proof that the preservation of confidentiality is in the public interest should be on those who are arguing for it.
  This makes possible a different approach to the integration of the four information systems. The basic report should be the company report and accounts produced by the company for its own purposes to satisfy its own shareholders. Accounting standards working on the foundation of the updated requirements of schedule 4 to the Companies Act should make the published report and accounts a true picture of well designed management accounts within the firm. Statistical returns to Government should be consistent with these and stated to be so in the company report, with the statistical returns subject to audit at least on sample basis.
  Already, the Bank of England can call for the auditing of prudential returns required under the Banking Act 1987. If corporation tax definitions were brought within the same system, it would be possible to see much more clearly the effects of corporation tax and changes in it on company behaviour, as well as the response of corporation tax yield to changed economic circumstances. That would improve the quality of the tax base and provide a clearer climate in which companies could compete, take over and merge, and in which competition policy could be formulated and conducted.
  The concept of the national accounts should not be sacrosanct. Their purpose is to facilitate the analysis and management of the economy. The apparatus for economic policy analysis has developed enormously since the system of national accounts was conceived, essentially in its present form, 50 years ago. Modern information technology makes it possible to base macro-economic policies on micro-economic behaviour, examining the aggregate of effects on actual companies or on samples of actual households, which is what the Treasury, the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue do today. The concept of the national accounts has now been replaced by the much wider date set, with a variety of analytical and modelling tools that can be used to ask particular questions.
  Government use accounts for only a small part of the total use of business information and decision support

  391
  systems. But the Government have a vital part to play in developing the statutory and operational framework for such systems, most of which will operate, in a distributed way, throughout the economy.
  Opposition Members support the present order, but it is only a first and partial step towards giving business and the Government the modern information and decision support systems that they need. I gave the Economic Secretary notice of some questions with which I should like him to deal. I am grateful for the replies that he has given thus far, although I cannot say that they are very satisfactory or reassuring. Opposition Members believe that the House will have to return to these matters in a wider context.
  How frequently does the Economic Secretary propose to publish the profits and incomes statistics that he will be collecting under the order, what degree of disaggregation will he offer and will he distinguish between revenue in the United Kingdom and the international revenue of companies?
  Finally, let me say in the hon. Gentleman's support, on the question of the burden of the collection of statistics, that he is entirely right that, in some cases, it is more satisfactory to have a statutory basis than a voluntary one. Inquiries carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Central Statistical Office provide good evidence to support that assertion. Those inquiries were first reported in British Business on 21 July 1989. Following extensive telephone interviews, an attempt was made to appraise firms' attitudes to completing statistical forms. British Business states:
  "he results do not suggest that the majority of firms regard statistical form-filling as particularly burdensome. Only about a sixth of firms contributing to voluntary inquiries expressed any sort of negative attitudes in their answer to the most directly relevant question … The scrutiny team also noted that only 12 per cent. of all respondents experienced difficulties in completing forms."
  A survey of attitudes to reduced statistics of trade under the new Community provisions gave an even clearer picture. Only 39 per cent. of firms said that they were willing to provide voluntary data, but 71 per cent. said that the reduction in detail was damaging to their business. Some 50 per cent. said that it had no effects, and a further 21 per cent. no significant effects, on costs. Some 66 per cent. preferred monthly returns to quarterly returns, and 71 per cent. preferred regular periodic returns to occasional returns.
  Conservative Members, when speaking for small companies, often—quite understandably—reflect the views of owner-managers, who are immensely busy and do not want to be bothered, and who play a small part in the overall statistical collection system of Government. In bigger firms, and in many specialist small firms, information collected by Government is essential to the business, not on the secretarial or accounting side, but on the marketing and business planning side. If the Government and hon. Members asked them about their requirements for Government statistics, they would learn that those people would be entirely in favour of improved quality, greater accessibility and greater accuracy.
  I therefore hope that the Minister will not be discouraged by some of the reactions of his colleagues and
  392
  will press on with the improvements in statistics, bearing in mind that a very much more radical reform is required in the interests of both the Government and business.
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I note with interest, but without criticism, that the Minister tonight has the advantage of six advisers. The substance of the text of this order comprises seven lines, which I make gives 0·8571428 officials per line. That is of course an entirely useless piece of information, but it could be used for the preparation of statistics to show how many advisers Ministers have on the average night in the House. It is an example of the sort of methodology which political considerations could impose on statisticians under the politically dominated regime for the collection of statistics which we currently have.
  Useless statistics do no harm, but politically massaged statistics, of which we have seen much in recent years, can do great harm because they mislead. Above all, they can mislead those who need them most, in particular those concerned with managing industry or dealing with exports.
  It is clear from various reports, including the Pickford report to which the Minister referred and which was commissioned by the Cabinet Office, that the Government have had many problems with their economic statistics in recent years. Their forecasts have been seriously out and many measured indicators which should have been giving the same message have diverged. In particular, the measures of gross domestic product expenditure and GDP income have diverged.
  The changes proposed in the order, in addition to placing yet another form-filling burden on industry, fail to resolve the real problem underlying the collection of Government statistics and the regime in which Government statisticians operate. I would also be interested to know from the Minister how many of the pieces of information that are now going to be asked for, in the survey of 1,500 companies to which he referred, would be available from a proper examination of the accounts that companies file at Companies house. Is adequate use made of the information provided to Companies house? I wonder whether Companies house is rigid and severe enough on those who do not file their accounts in proper time.
  The Royal Statistical Society remains critical. According to Professor Peter Moore, the chairman of one of the Royal Statistical Society's working parties, there is some justification in the widely held public view
  "that much statistical information is not of the quality that many users would expect and that, in some instances, it is being used subjectively in the domain of public policy."
  That means it is being massaged for political reasons by Ministers.
  On 28 July, The Economist, a magazine which is frequently not unfavourable to the Government, reflected that
  "most international boffins reckon that Britain's statistics—once the world's best—have deteriorated more than anybody else's."
  That appeared in an article headed "Numbers not worth crunching", a title which gives a clear idea of the journal's view of Government statistics.
  I support several trenchant criticisms that have been made by the Royal Statistical Society. I can divide them into three headings, the first of which is autonomy. In terms of formal constitutional arrangements, the

  393
  autonomy of the United Kingdom's statistical system is poorly protected by statute and practice compared with most other developed countries. The order does nothing to improve the situation. In many countries, the statistical agency has total control over publications, with an embargo, generally, on anyone having access until the statistical results are publicly available. That embargo includes the Government and the Minister who is notionally responsible for the statistical agency. That should be the arrangement in the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom entry in the United Nations handbook makes it clear that the Government statistical service lacks control over publications. It states:
  "Decisions on publication of statistical results are the responsibility of the (policy) Department, but the Head of the GSS will be consulted on the more important issues."
  Thus it is the case that the Government statistical service is not proof against charges of bad news diversion because its operational environment denies it satisfactory control over the nature and timing of publications. The order does nothing to address that problem.
  The major functions of data collection, processing, primary analysis and publication should be ring-fenced and centralised away from ministerial interference. The head of the statistical service should manage the operations and the staff of the service, including his appointees in ministerial Departments. A statistics Act, such as exists in most western countries, is needed to guarantee the autonomy and constitutional posit ion of United Kingdom official statistics.
  The second heading is methodology—again something which is not improved in any way by the order. Questions of methodology, definition, scope and timing of publications should be the responsibility of the head of the statistical service. That would strengthen the perceived independence of Government statisticians and the line of professional responsibility to the head of the service on technical matters. Professional identity is weakened in this country because, unlike most other countries, we currently have a decentralised Government statistical service in which most statisticians are bound to have dual loyalty with the service on the one hand, but with line management responsibility to the policy departments— that is to say, the departments in which most of them are embedded—on the other.
  It is important that a research unit be set up to strengthen evaluation and methodological research. That would do more than the proposals in the order to improve the reliability of and the credence given to Government statistics.
  The third heading is accountability. To put it another way, to whom can the statistician run if he finds that the statistics that he has prepared are being massaged by policy departments for political reasons? At present, the only public mechanism available to the head of the Government statistical service in response to a ministerial decision which might compromise the integrity of the service appears to be a threat of resignation, whereas Government accountants, if they are asked to do something that conflicts with their professional principles, are entitled to ask the Minister for a written instruction which is brought to the notice of the Public Accounts Committee. What is really needed is a national statistical commission to be appointed to safeguard the objectivity, integrity, timeliness and scope of United Kingdom official statistics. It should report annually to Parliament via the
  394
  sponsoring Minister so that Parliament can be assured that it is free of ministerial interference at any time and at any level.
  This is an important order because such great use is made of Government statistics. They are used for the purpose of business, industry and the City in particular. They are also frequently used in the House for the justification of political argument. Unfortunately, they are not always accurate. There are ways of making them much more accurate, but the order fails in any way to address the ways in which that may be achieved.
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Maples: The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) referred to the cut in the budget for work on the Treasury model. That decision was made by the Economic and Social Research Council, not by the Treasury. We are committed to paying 20 per cent. of that budget and would have been willing to pay 20 per cent. of a higher budget. That was the council's choice and priority.
  Dr. Bray: Did the ESRC ask the Government's chief economic adviser whether the Treasury would increase its contribution to make good the cuts in the funding so that the ESRC could see its way to providing what was essentially a service to the Treasury?
  Mr. Maples: I do not know the answer to that question, but I will let the hon. Gentleman have an answer. My understanding is that the ESRC made the decision and the Treasury would have been willing to pay its 20 per cent. share, as it has done in the past, of whatever the ESRC chose to spend.
  It would be nice to have one set of company accounts rather than separate ones for corporate reporting, tax returns and statistics, but that would not be possible or practical. They serve different purposes and there is no such thing as a correct set of company accounts. Many different assumptions can be made, and for tax purposes there are particular rules on depreciation or what expenses are allowable for tax purposes. Therefore, it would never be possible to have the same annual accounts for shareholders as for the Inland Revenue.
  On statistics, there are major differences—for instance, on the inclusion of overseas activities of United Kingdom groups which have to be disaggregated for the national accounts, the treatment of depreciation which is properly deducted from company accounts but not from national accounts, and the treatment of interest and dividend flows which are different for national accounting purposes.
  The book to which the hon. Gentleman referred lays out a plan—largely for inflation accounting, as I understand it—but accounting standards bodies have not been able to agree on such matters for the past 20 years and it is highly unlikely that it would be right or proper for the Government to attempt to impose a particular standard of accounting and reporting which they felt would be suitable for the many different purposes. That is not a practical proposition.
  Dr. Bray: Has the Economic Secretary asked either the Financial Reporting Council or the Accounting Standards Committee for their attitude to increased legislation in this matter?
  Mr. Maples: As I have said, accountants and accounting standards boards cannot agree. The United

  395
  Kingdom Accounting Standards Committee does not agree on all sorts of things. Its biggest difficulty was on inflation accounting. Company accounts should be clear and explain through their notes how they arrive at the figures presented. It is perfectly easy for any reasonably numerate person to interpret such accounts in a way which gives access to a good deal of information about a company. But to put the accounts of leasing and manufacturing companies, overseas traders and banks into some straitjacket which applies to all of them is impractical. The information will be taken quarterly. The foreign and United Kingdom profits will be disaggregated and we are asking for seven items of information, all of which will be made available.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the burden of the collection of statistics. We have reduced by half the number of forms that businesses have to fill in—from 800,000 to 400,000. I regret that this order and the Chancellor's initiative will result in a few more, but we are confining it to the 1,500 largest companies and we expect to get from them the vast bulk of the information that we need because that is where most of the corporate profits are.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made a lot of the Central Statistical Office not being independent and of politically massaged and managed statistics. I work a lot with officials of the CSO, they are a thoroughly professional group of people and what he said is pretty offensive to them. There are absolutely no grounds for saying it. The Royal Statistical Society's report said that it found absolutely no evidence of what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. If he suggests that the statistics are manipulated politically, he is completely wrong
  Mr. Carlile rose——
  Mr. Maples: The hon. and learned Gentleman must let me finish. He made a serious allegation and I intend to convince him that he is completely wrong. There is absolutely no way in which Treasury or any other Ministers could interfere with statistics. We have no basis for doing so and we have no grounds on which to do so. They are collected by and analysed by professionals and the publications are put together by professionals.
  The dates on which the vast majority of statistics are published are laid down well in advance. If any Treasury or other Minister instructed a delay, it would rapidly become apparent. It has never been the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman should be extremely careful about making allegations of that kind, which cannot be substantiated
  Mr. Carlile: The criticisms that I made were directed not at the professionalism of the statisticians but at the regime in which they are forced to operate. Moreover, is the Minister aware that every word that I said in the debate is supported by the representations of a working party composed of senior officials of the Royal Statistical Society? Why is the Minister not prepared to pay attention to that distinguished body's representations on these matters? I can show him documentary evidence of their support, if need be
  Mr. Maples: The Royal Statistical Society said that it found no evidence whatever that
  "individual government statisticians operate to anything less than the best professional standards".
  Dr. Bray: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Maples: No, I should like to respond to that point. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery suggests that the statisticians allow themselves to be manipulated by politicians like me
  Mr. Carlile: No
  Mr. Maples: It is what he suggests because the statistics could be manipulated only by politicians such as myself telling statisticians to do something other than what they would professionally want to do
  Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I do not wish to prolong the argument, but does he not appreciate that the regime is such that if Ministers—I make no allegations against the Minister—wish to manipulate the statistics, there is no guarantee of the statisticians' independence? That is the complaint which the Royal Statistical Society rightly makes. Why are the Government not prepared to give the same guarantee of statisticians' independence as exists in most western countries, as he well knows? Why can we not have a Statistics Act to guarantee their independence?
  Mr. Maples: The hon. and learned Gentleman now makes an entirely different allegation. He says that the system is such that it is not clear that the statistical service is independent. He said before that Ministers manipulated statistics
  Mr. Carlile: No
  Mr. Maples: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman is no longer making that allegation. I was coming to the system.
  Dr. Bray: If the Minister had read on from the quotation that he gave, he would have read:
  "but we are not satisfied that the organizational framework in which they"—
  that is Government statisticians—
  "work offers the best protection against undue pressure."
  Earlier in the report the society said:
  "Integrity has not only to exist, but to be visible."
  It says further:
  "the lack of a standing mechanism within which government statisticians can have a constructive dialogue with producers and users and meet criticism is itself a comment on the existing arrangements."
  Ministers have frequently discontinued series of statistics and surveys which they found politically embarrassing. For instance, not only unemployment but the distribution of income and wealth have been scandalously treated by a Government who think that they do not matter
  Mr. Maples: We have certainly reduced the burden of some statistics collecting——
  Mr. Carlile: Ah!
  Mr. Maples:—but there was a strong call for us to do so. It is not necessary to continue to collect information by product categories as we did previously. Articles are published annually on the distribution of wealth. The most recent one was published last week. Articles on the distribution of income are also published annually. If the

  397
  hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that the regime under which the Government statistical service is managed does not exclude any possibility of interference, that is different from his original allegation
  Mr. Carlile: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Maples: No, I shall not give way again. I have given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman a lot. He made two separate allegations——
  Mr. Carlile: The Minister was not listening
  Mr. Maples: Of course I was listening.
  We believe that it is not necessary to change the system. We do not want a centralised statistical service because it is right to collect many statistics in the Departments to which that information relates. That is the way in which it has been done for a long time under Governments of all persuasions.
  One of the purposes of the collection of statistics on, for example, transport is to enable transport policy makers and Ministers to make decisions. The utility of that to the national accounts is obviously important. The business statistics office, the family expenditure survey and retail prices responsibilities were transferred to the Central Statistical Office, but it is not our intention to transfer any more. We do not think that a centralised service is the right way to proceed. It would be inefficient and expensive and it would not be as useful to Departments as the present system. [ Interruption.] It is independent as it is. The collection, publication and analysis of the statistics are carried out by professionals. I have repeatedly said that to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.
  The main, though not the only, purpose of the collection of the statistics is to help Government policy makers and forecasters. Everything that the statistical service collects is published as soon as it is ready. The delay in publication of the series in which most people are interested is between 24 and 48 hours after the information becomes available. There is no lengthy delay and the dates on which such series are to be published are set out well in advance. If there were any attempt to delay publication of the retail prices index or balance of payments figures, everyone would know. We do not think that it would be right for the Government to lose control of the process. The Government should be able to set the priorities and decide where resources will be allocated.
  398
  I was asked about independence. Many things would happen if a Minister attempted to interfere. The permanent secretary who is head of the Central Statistical Office has access to me, to the Chancellor and, at the end of the day, to the Prime Minister. There is no question but that in the long run remedies are available. As I have said, there is no way in which a Minister such as myself or the Chancellor could interfere in one of these series. What would one ask to be done? Could someone be asked to knock half a point off the retail prices index? That is simply not a practical proposition and there is no basis on which to do it. We do not have an alternative source of information on which we could or would seek to argue a separate case.
  The points made by the Royal Statistical Society are misconceived. That is not the way we run our statistical service, nor is it the way we want to run it. Statistics are not produced for the statisticians in the Royal Statistical Society. They are produced mainly for the Government, to enable us to operate our policies. I am happy with things the way they are and with the way matters are organised. It is right that matters should stay as they are.
  Dr. Bray rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I take it that the hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House to speak again.
  Dr. Bray: I did not refer in my speech to the report of the Royal Statistical Society, which was not directly germane to the debate, but I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to it. The Government's reply to that report and to technical questions about the development of statistics illustrated their incompetence in economic management and were quite appalling. The complacency with which they approach government and the needs of business lies close to the root of the Government's problems and the economic failures of the past two years. The House will have to return to these matters at greater length another time.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order 1990 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 7th November.

  Sport (Funding)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  10.48 pm
  Mr. David Evans (Welwyn Hatfield): I welcome this opportunity to debate the funding of sport. I also welcome to the Dispatch Box my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport whose appointment earlier this year was inspired. I am sure that he would agree. I wish him every success in his new post. I also pay tribute to the former Minister for Sport who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan). Sport in Britain benefited enormously from the energy and foresight that he brought to the job. At the Department of Energy he is known as the new Red Adair.
  Although my remarks are directed principally at my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, they are by no means exclusively directed at him. Sport transcends lines of class, race, sex, geography and physical ability. In government it is an issue that crosses departmental lines. Therefore, I hope that my remarks will be heeded by other Ministers in the Department of the Environment, especially those responsible for inner-city policy, and by those at the Home Office, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health, and, most of all, in the Treasury.
  We cannot escape the fact that we face a number of serious and deeply rooted social problems. Various Government initiatives have been taken which I welcome, but I draw the Government's attention to some of the reasons why extra funding for sport would have a huge social benefit.
  Law and order is obviously a major problem. One third of all crimes are carried out by young offenders under the age of 17. The vast majority of adults in our prisons were juvenile offenders. The number of crimes committed by those under the age of 10 is running at a staggering 6,000 a year. The peak age of offending is now 15 years.
  The national health service is strained to the limit because of an increase in the number of patients for which it cares—30,000 extra per week compared with the relevant figures in 1979—especially those suffering from heart disease and other major ailments caused by being unfit.
  When addressing such problems we tend to focus on the cure rather than prevention. Therefore, those who commit crime are sent to prison at a cost, which is borne by the taxpayer, of £250 per person per week. Our prisons are crowded, again at great expense to the taxpayer, and they afford little reward in terms of rehabilitation. People who suffer heart attacks are naturally cared for in hospital—often, depending upon the severity of the attack, in intensive care units. It is right that such care should take up considerable NHS resources and I accept that much of that expenditure is unavoidable. But much of it is avoidable. Surely it is vital to find the means of prevention rather than the cure. I want the Government to consider one means of prevention in particular. It is not the complete answer to the nation's health and social problems, but it could make a significant contribution to alleviating crime, particularly petty crime which most youngsters commit, and serious bad health. I refer, of course, to sport.
  Organised and unorganised sporting activity absorbs the energies and, equally important, the enthusiasm of those participating. Sport is socially and physically
  400
  healthy. Much crime is the product not of deliberate evil, but of boredom and peer pressure. Youngsters need to be offered activities to absorb their energies and families and schools can do much in that respect.
  Can the general community encourage young people to engage in sports? It can, but encouragement is not enough. We must ensure that the facilities exist to make such activity possible. I do not believe that the Government have taken on board the fact that in every family someone is interested in one sport or another. After all, we are a sporting nation and we unite easily when we have a national champion to support. During the World cup we united to support a team of which we could be proud.
  According to the latest Home Office news release—we are supposed to be proud of this—the Home Office is able to provide for a further increase in police establishments of 700 officers, together with 1,300 additional civilian staff. That means that in 1991–92 office establishments are expected to reach nearly 128,200, which represents an increase of 15,500, 14 per cent. over the last 11 years. Yet the crime figures are at an all-time high, which is an embarrassment not only to the Government but to the nation as a whole.
  As I said, one third of the crimes are carried out by young offenders. I believe that we should tackle the problem by directing more resources towards schools, thus enabling sports teachers to help us to help the "latchkey youngster". When I was at school, my sports master and his colleagues would stay behind after 3.30 and organise all kinds of games. Netball, football, hockey, cricket, athletics—you name it, they organised it, voluntarily and willingly. Nowadays, however, we live in a different society with different principles, and sports teachers should be rewarded for taking part in sporting activities after school.
  I believe that over the next few years the crime figures would drop dramatically if we concentrated our expenditure on that third of offenders who are under 17. It would establish a much better society in years to come
  Mr. John Carlisle: All hon. Members will agree with what my hon. Friend has said so far. But is not there a wealth of talent among youngsters and teaching staff in schools, and would not such people be keen to perform the very tasks of which my hon. Friend spoke with—regrettably—some nostalgia? Does my hon. Friend agree that what they need is encouragement, not only from the Government but from local authorities? It is a fact that many Labour authorities have actively discouraged team sports, thus discouraging teachers from taking part in worth while activities to the benefit of their pupils
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Local authorities seem almost hell-bent on preventing any development in sporting activities, especially when planning applications are involved. I agree with every word that he said.
  We have tried spending money on heavy policing, which—let us face it—does not work: the figures prove it. There must be another answer. What we need is not only a campaign to encourage youngsters and adults to take up sports; as a community, we must ensure that the means exist for everyone to participate in organised sport.
  How are we to do that? A recent report by the Audit Commission revealed that sports centres provided by local authorities tend to be used predominantly by the middle

  401
  class. That may be because they are more knowledgeable about the need to exercise, because they are more likely to be car owners or because the centres are too expensive; the fact remains that ordinary people do not use them. We must provide facilities for the vast majority of the population; it is not acceptable for only middle-class people to be involved in sports centres.
  The answer may lie primarily—although not exclusively—with the schools, for three reasons. First, schools already have sports facilities; it is therefore a case of developing what already exists. Secondly, most people—especially in urban areas—live within walking distance of a school. Thirdly, it is at school that most people begin to participate in organised sport, and they will therefore be familiar with the facilities provided. For an adult, returning to use the facilities of one's own school will not present problems of going to the unknown, possibly distant, certainly expensive sports centres that may be provided.
  A report published earlier this month by the Secondary Heads Association emphasised the problem faced by schools in the provision of sport and physical education. By channelling more resources into schools to provide sport and PE, one benefits the schools and the community generally. Ensuring that schools have good sports facilities is obviously good for pupils, but allowing the facilities to be more widely available benefits everybody. It is one of the most cost-effective and socially beneficial ways of proceeding. It will help schools in another respect. By hiring out their facilities for a modest fee, they will gain a much-needed source of income.
  Schools require improved resources, which can be provided in part by Government, but should ideally be provided in partnership with local industry, local authorities and local benefactors. At present, most of the financial assistance provided by Government for sport in this country is in the form of grants to the Sports Council, which does much fine work. It assists many sports directly—no less than 66, according to its latest annual report.
  As well as addressing such vital issues as the threatened loss of playing fields, the Sports Council has an established infrastructure and a strong regional arm and is best placed to liaise with local authorities and sporting organisations on the provision of sporting facilities. There is no better mechanism for using and distributing Government funds. Therefore, the question is: is the level of support sufficient? I do not believe that it is.
  My hon. Friend the Minister announced last week that he was to increase the council's grant in aid for 1991–92 by nearly £3 million over this year's grant. That is to be welcomed, particularly when public expenditure is under tight control. But it still brings the total assistance to only just over £46·5 million, which is not generous. In terms of public expenditure, it is a joke. That sum could be substantially increased if my hon. Friend would consider a scheme whereby every pound donated to the Sports Council by industry were matched by a pound from Government, up to a maximum of £250 million of Government money. That would give the Sports Council £250 million from industry and £250 million from Government which, together with the sum already granted, would provide sufficient resources to make a major impact on our social problems and, in the long run, on crime carried out by young people.
  Even if my hon. Friend is not convinced by those arguments, I hope that a hard-headed business reason may
  402
  convince him because I know that he is a keen business man. Sport in this country generates about 400,000 jobs. It contributes to tourism earnings and pays £3 billion to the Treasury every year in tax returns. Therefore, the case for greater spending is as practical as it is socially beneficial. It is simple: the more one spends, the more one gets.
  So far, I have put the case for an increase in public expenditure. I realise that that may come as a big surprise to my hon. Friend, as it runs contrary to Government policy and my own stated views. But what I seek is a comparatively modest investment, a long-term investment from which individuals, communities, the Government and ultimately society will benefit. But it is not just an increase in spending that I seek. The Government could also help by removing some of the obstacles that stand in the way of greater private sector involvement in sport.
  There is no time this evening to go into, in detail, the various proposals being put forward. My hon. Friend is already aware of some of the organisations advocating them, including the Institute of Sports Sponsorship and Business in Sport. I should like, however, to refer to two which deserve serious consideration and which, if implemented, could have a major impact on the provision of sports facilities.
  The first is exemption for qualifying sports organisations from corporation tax on income and gains. There is a case for sporting bodies being treated differently from their commercial counterparts. This measure would help to free funds for the development of sport at all levels, from the grass roots to national teams. For instance, the British Olympic Association would benefit by £750,000 every four years, and that would enable us to compete with other nations on a much more level playing field
  Mr. Barry Field: In 1993 the Isle of Wight will be hosting the fifth international inter-island games which will attract competitors such as Iceland, the Faeroes, the Falklands, the Orkneys, Greenland and, of course, a team from the Isle of Wight. With 3,000 competitors coming to the island we greatly need an all-weather tartan track. My hon. Friend's point to the Minister deserves serious consideration, not just for the Olympics but for the inter-island games on the Isle of Wight
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is better known as the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister of the Isle of Wight, and I agree with every word that he said.
  The second relief would take the form of capital allowances on the construction of buildings housing sporting facilities. Such relief is available now only for facilities that are an integral part of hotel complexes or that form part of industrial buildings. That is an anomaly and it should be removed. There is a further case for providing a special incentive for facilities that are to be located in decaying and inner city areas.
  These two measures, which would help to induce greater private investment in sport, would send out the right signals that the Government take sport seriously. I urge the Minister to consider them and I shall listen carefully to his reply to hear what hope it holds out.
  11.7 pm
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Robert Atkins): This is an auspicious occasion for me, in that I can discuss the matter for which I have ministerial responsibility—sport. I am

  403
  grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), who has done more for sport than almost any other hon. Member. That is well known inside and outside the House.
  I am delighted that my two old friends the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) are here, since I know that their interest in sport is as great as mine. I also notice that my esteemed and distinguished predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), has stayed up to participate in the debate. He performed with distinction the job that I now have. I also record the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) in his capacity as assistant Whip.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield raised a number of interesting points, and I am tempted to throw away my prepared speech and answer them in detail. He and I are equally interested in two areas particularly. The first is the financial structure of sport. Because he and I share a friendship with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will know that our right hon. Friend has already done a great deal to show his commitment to the funding of sport, and not only in an increase in the Sports Council's grant for this year. That increase, although small, is an achievement by the Government during a time of difficult financial restraints.
  My hon. Friend knows that matters of taxation are the responsibility of the Chancellor.
  My hon. Friend was also kind enough to say that since I have been in this job I have asked for contributions from various sporting bodies, including the Sports Aid Foundation, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the Sports Council and Business in Sport. I have asked them to send to me recommendations that they believe are pertinent to the financial structure of sport, particularly taxation. I think that my hon. Friend knows that I am extremely sympathetic, but this is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is only he who can make those decisions.
  However, past evidence suggests, particularly in relation to my right hon. Friend's commitment to reduce the pool betting duty from 42·5 per cent. to 40 per cent.—thereby providing £100 million over the next five years for the reconstruction, renovation and improvement of football grounds—just where his heart lies. I hope that my hon. Friend's contribution, in addition to those that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to make, will have some effect.
  My hon. Friend also referred to sport in schools. I have much sympathy for what he said. The matters that he raised are, for the most part, for the Department of Education and Science. He will, I know, be as delighted as I that the new Secretary of State, in whose constituency lies Trent Bridge and Nottingham Forest football ground, understands sport. The father of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), who has ministerial responsibility for schools, played first-class cricket. My hon. Friend also appreciates the importance of these matters. Any overtures that my hon. Friends and I make will at least be well received and well understood, even though it may not be possible immediately to implement all the decisions that we wish to be made.
  404
  School sport is arguably the most important area that has to be developed. As the parent of children aged 14 and 11, I see at first hand their sporting activities. Moreover, through our constituency interests, my hon. Friends and I know about the involvement of youngsters in sport. Since I took on this job, my prime objective has been to do whatever I can to develop and improve sporting facilities for young people, including those who are disabled. Sport can contribute a great deal to their long-term development, enjoyment of life and good health. Moreover, as my hon. Friend said, sport keeps them off the streets and away from crime.
  Anything that can be done to bring pressure to bear on local authorities must be encouraged. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North made a particularly significant point about the attitude of some local authorities. Some years ago, I had the privilege to be a London borough of Haringey councillor. It is regrettable that, in recent years, Haringey has decided not to encourage competitive sport. I was told only the other day by a correspondent who wrote to me from Haringey that the council no longer allows sports days in some of its schools. They have activities days instead. No one has to compete against anyone else, and everyone gets points
  Mr. Barry Field: Does everybody get a cup?
  Mr. Atkins: Probably.
  The points made about sport in schools are very important. The activities that will follow as a result of local management of schools will have a salutary effect upon attitudes. Many local people, because of their parental or local community interests, will want schools to do well in sport. I suspect that that may be a radical improvement.
  My hon. Friend was absolutely right to refer to those teachers who, after the school day is over, take youngsters into the nets, on to the rugby or soccer field or on to the athletics track or tennis court. Because of their interest in sport, they are prepared to give up their own time to coach youngsters and see them through at least to the school side, or even to a county or national side. I thank all those teachers who do so much to support and encourage youngsters.
  My hon. Friend touched generally on another matter to which I wish to refer. I have set myself another objective: at the very least to maintain, and, arguably, to develop and improve, standards of sportsmanship. We have invented many sports—rugby, cricket, soccer, skiing——
  Mr. John Carlisle: Fives
  Mr. Atkins:—fives, and many others. Americans use the expression, "It isn't cricket," without knowing what the game is, but they know precisely what the expression means. The standards of sportsmanship in this country, while always in need of improvement, are pretty good.
  I was disturbed, however, when I attended a Football League meeting in my constituency, where I was told that Lancashire football association, which is responsible for amateur soccer in the county, last year imposed fines of about £84,000. That is a stunning figure. It represents about 8,000 bookings, 3,000 sendings off and 17 assaults on referees, one of which resulted in hospitalisation. That is amateur sport. The next item on the agenda at the meeting was where to get more referees from.
  That problem encapsulates our difficulties in sport. I do not pick on soccer, which is at the forefront, because I have

  405
  a high regard for our national winter game. It has achieved much. Gary Lineker and the England team and, if I may say so in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, the Scottish team in the World cup contributed much to the improvement and understanding of sportsmanship, and we must build on that.
  I hope that hon. Members will support me, the Sports Council and the CCPR in our attempts to improve the standards of sportsmanship so that youngsters, to whom we have dedicated much of our discussion, have heroes to emulate such as Bill Beaumont, Tom Finney, Nick Faldo and Gary Lineker, who are ambassadors for their sport and who provide an example that we should all follow. The administrators must encourage such people. The
  406
  recent brawl between Manchester United and Arsenal is not the image that we want our youngsters to see. Anything that hon. Members and the administrators of our games can do to demonstrate the importance of sportsmanship will achieve much.
  I am delighted to have replied to the debate without referring to my notes more than once. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield has raised a topic of much importance, which is dear to his heart. I am delighted to be doing this job with the support and encouragement of my hon. Friends.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions he has had with trade union representatives regarding teachers' pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend would expect to meet the six teacher unions early next year to discuss the recommendations of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions.

  Table 1

  Expenditure per pupil 1 1984–85

  Cash (£)

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Local authority

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Barking

  24·73

  (6·79)

  52·01

  (11·92)

  Barnet

  28·71

  (10·41)

  51·02

  (17·00)

  Bexley

  19·23

  (6·01)

  40·90

  (13·02)

  Brent

  34·04

  (8·53)

  52·25

  (13·35)

  Bromley

  30·05

  (7·66)

  50·88

  (11·61)

  Croydon

  24·78

  (6·84)

  49·39

  (14·09)

  Ealing

  24·16

  (6·58)

  43·96

  (12·23)

  Enfield

  25·87

  (7·25)

  45·77

  (11·13)

  Haringey

  35·56

  (8·64)

  57·61

  (15·50)

  Harrow

  22·74

  (5·58)

  49·27

  (12·26)

  Havering

  26·06

  (0·00)

  58·36

  (0·00)

  Hillingdon

  23·93

  (20·05)

  45·27

  (36·59)

  Hounslow

  27·28

  (7·17)

  41·66

  (12·17)

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  29·11

  (7·10)

  60·56

  (12·13)

  Merton

  21·57

  (0·00)

  33·37

  (0·00)

  Newham

  22·79

  (7·10)

  41·90

  (15·24)

  Redbridge

  24·38

  (9·68)

  48·57

  (15·93)

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  21·96

  (2·33)

  55·74

  (2·13)

  Sutton

  26·71

  (12·19)

  38·41

  (10·02)

  Waltham Forest

  34·19

  (8·06)

  57·41

  (13·21)

  ILEA

  47·47

  (9·06)

  90·89

  (18·36)

  Birmingham

  13·76

  (3·84)

  27·47

  (6·40)

  Coventry

  25·57

  (2·14)

  53·57

  (2·37)

  Dudley

  21·15

  (0·00)

  35·65

  (0·00)

  Sandwell

  18·63

  (0·00)

  42·15

  (0·00)

  Solihull

  18·47

  (4·72)

  46·20

  (9·54)

  Walsall

  25·28

  (4·79)

  37·27

  (10·00)

  Wolverhampton

  26·48

  (7·41)

  43·35

  (12·44)

  Knowsley

  19·37

  (4·72)

  34·02

  (5·71)

  Liverpool

  25·53

  (7·08)

  47·51

  (11·52)

  St. Helens

  14·93

  (6·24)

  22·52

  (7·48)

  Sefton

  20·26

  (6·14)

  40·11

  (11·35)

  Wirral

  25·18

  (7·23)

  49·64

  (9·89)

  Bolton

  27·19

  (8·60)

  51·66

  (9·42)

  Bury

  20·65

  (20·47)

  52·41

  (52·41)

  Manchester

  23·79

  (6·80)

  56·48

  (12·39)

  Oldham

  27·43

  (3·31)

  40·65

  (0·51)

  Rochdale

  22·10

  (5·84)

  34·82

  (6·46)

  Salford

  27·42

  (6·03)

  46·59

  (9·74)

  Stockport

  23·66

  (7·24)

  47·65

  (10·84)

  Tameside

  25·36

  (10·18)

  40·42

  (12·30)

  Trafford

  22·63

  (5·18)

  32·41

  (1·34)

  Wigan

  22·35

  (6·42)

  45·36

  (12·13)

  Barnsley

  23·00

  (8·19)

  42·67

  (7·65)

  Doncaster

  16·86

  (5·06)

  35·78

  (9·37)

  Rotherham

  15·72

  (5·35)

  26·70

  (6·22)

  Books
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the level of expenditure on books at 1978–79 prices per child by local education authority in(a) 1978–79, (b) 1984–85 and (c) 1989–90.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information for 1978–79 is not available by individual local education authority, and the latest year for which figures are available is 1988–89. Cash figures for expenditure per pupil by local education authority for 1984–85 and 1988–89 are shown in tables 1 and 2. Table 3 shows the average expenditure per pupil in England at 1978–79 prices for 1978–79, 1984–85 and 1988–89.

  While some local authorities' expenditure returns to Government Departments show separate figures for books, these can be misleading because of differing practices in attributing spending as between books and equipment. The tables therefore show combined spending figures for books and equipment, with figures as returned for books only in brackets. Even on the combined totals, coverage from authority to authority is likely to differ.
  113

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Local authority

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Sheffield

  36·01

  (14·42)

  36·55

  (6·60)

  Bradford

  18·80

  (0·80)

  35·99

  (1·34)

  Calderdale

  19·38

  (6·30)

  34·07

  (8·05)

  Kirklees

  18·57

  (7·54)

  39·16

  (14·03)

  Leeds

  8·56

  (·16)

  13·17

  (·35)

  Wakefield

  21·72

  (10·21)

  30·10

  (11·79)

  Gateshead

  26·14

  (7·68)

  46·72

  (8·76)

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  19·26

  (4·92)

  38·64

  (10·42)

  North Tyneside

  27·99

  (10·03)

  50·30

  (13·82)

  South Tyneside

  20·87

  (8·07)

  54·13

  (11·75)

  Sunderland

  18·81

  (5·19)

  41·88

  (6·92)

  Isles of Scilly

  27·90

  (5·46)

  41·29

  (10·07)

  Avon

  24·19

  (6·55)

  40·67

  (8·32)

  Bedfordshire

  26·00

  (10·40)

  55·45

  (19·11)

  Berkshire

  23·30

  (10·21)

  43·67

  (16·73)

  Buckinghamshire

  30·99

  (13·60)

  50·99

  (12·19)

  Cambridgeshire

  25·34

  (9·65)

  43·14

  (13·22)

  Cheshire

  22·09

  (5·18)

  44·89

  (6·84)

  Cleveland

  19·99

  (5·22)

  38·09

  (8·02)

  Cornwall

  29·97

  (9·45)

  41·51

  (11·63)

  Cumbria

  21·26

  (5·73)

  32·88

  (4·05)

  Derbyshire

  28·03

  (8·36)

  48·37

  (11·75)

  Devon

  13·57

  (8·47)

  21·57

  (9·40)

  Dorset

  28·63

  (9·84)

  38·97

  (11·79)

  Durham

  17·22

  (7·14)

  28·37

  (9·45)

  East Sussex

  21·83

  (7·40)

  42·78

  (12·45)

  Essex

  21·12

  (7·08)

  38·21

  (8·15)

  Gloucestershire

  20·62

  (9·11)

  35·71

  (9·24)

  Hampshire

  19·54

  (6·83)

  40·92

  (10·36)

  Hereford and Worcester

  22·93

  (9·98)

  43·50

  (12·13)

  Hertfordshire

  23·31

  (9·88)

  42·15

  (11·74)

  Humberside

  24·08

  (6·71)

  40·80

  (9·43)

  Isle of Wight

  26·07

  (11·04)

  52·57

  (12·36)

  Kent

  20·68

  (7·03)

  38·74

  (9·60)

  Lancashire

  22·86

  (8·04)

  37·79

  (8·14)

  Leicestershire

  22·52

  (5·92)

  41·53

  (8·05)

  Lincolnshire

  18·02

  (5·65)

  43·05

  (9·08)

  Norfolk

  22·78

  (6·54)

  40·36

  (10·30)

  North Yorkshire

  24·60

  (11·47)

  39·45

  (11·66)

  Northamptonshire

  22·39

  (6·13)

  44·72

  (11·58)

  Northumberland

  26·00

  (9·59)

  43·31

  (14·31)

  Nottinghamshire

  29·80

  (9·44)

  44·96

  (12·13)

  Oxfordshire

  21·77

  (2·65)

  38·28

  (3·70)

  Salop

  15·80

  (6·65)

  33·80

  (9·33)

  Somerset

  27·22

  (5·59)

  46·49

  (11·93)

  Staffordshire

  19·56

  (4·90)

  36·53

  (8·63)

  Suffolk

  25·17

  (7·04)

  43·29

  (11·00)

  Surrey

  15·11

  (4·75)

  34·37

  (7·60)

  Warwickshire

  19·24

  (7·27)

  47·97

  (11·63)

  West Sussex

  23·26

  (8·24)

  41·89

  (10·57)

  Wiltshire

  23·05

  (10·53)

  37·34

  (11·39)

  Table 2

  Expenditure per pupil 1—1988–89 England2

  Cash (£)

  Local authority

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Barking

  32·65

  (11·50)

  80·58

  (22·72)

  Barnet

  35·17

  (11·99)

  68·96

  (17·52)

  Bexley

  31·98

  (7·38)

  99·22

  (1·92)

  Brent

  38·42

  (9·46)

  76·43

  (15·27)

  Bromley

  33·80

  (9·02)

  67·33

  (13·07)

  Croydon

  54·89

  (11·10)

  111·98

  (22·49)

  Ealing

  33·86

  (5·73)

  91·61

  (12·63)

  Enfield

  30·76

  (9·16)

  61·09

  (15·95)

  Haringey

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Harrow

  39·77

  (6·98)

  75·72

  (10·85)

  Havering

  30·02

  0·00

  91·34

  0·00

  Hillingdon

  40·45

  (11·99)

  80·08

  (22·30)

  Hounslow

  33·40

  (9·61)

  49·65

  (19·84)

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  55·50

  (12·92)

  106·58

  (18·63)

  Merton

  31·28

  (25·44)

  36·02

  (26·95)

  114

  115

  Local authority

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Newham

  26·35

  (6·44)

  65·87

  (11·34)

  Redbridge

  38·84

  (11·30)

  81·31

  (23·65)

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  29·95

  (8·25)

  62·88

  (13·76)

  Sutton

  34·64

  (13·39)

  71·17

  (17·01)

  Waltham Forest

  28·21

  (4·91)

  75·37

  (10·55)

  ILEA

  60·56

  (12·08)

  89·89

  (19·28)

  Birmingham

  22·74

  (4·70)

  51·42

  (9·50)

  Coventry

  26·08

  (2·01)

  92·00

  (2·95)

  Dudley

  35·72

  (6·79)

  76·36

  (2·44)

  Sandwell

  31·50

  (3·06)

  73·42

  (1·02)

  Solihull

  34·88

  (4·96)

  122·79

  (11·28)

  Walsall

  35·12

  (9·10)

  46·29

  (14·38)

  Wolverhampton

  24·54

  (7·23)

  56·08

  (13·99)

  Knowsley

  22·47

  (8·88)

  61·05

  (7·01)

  Liverpool

  32·61

  (7·76)

  66·56

  (12·13)

  St. Helens

  14·98

  (6·33)

  30·36

  (10·39)

  Sefton

  21·41

  (7·11)

  60·55

  (11·12)

  Wirral

  42·39

  (11·92)

  130·04

  (23·45)

  Bolton

  33·23

  (9·32)

  71·24

  (11·01)

  Bury

  30·75

  (8·65)

  93·06

  (15·21)

  Manchester

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Oldham

  30·45

  (7·19)

  75·02

  (10·58)

  Rochdale

  35·27

  (9·08)

  59·17

  (10·52)

  Salford

  32·70

  (0·23)

  73·65

  (0·07)

  Stockport

  35·87

  (10·15)

  96·37

  (12·13)

  Tameside

  27·91

  (5·74)

  43·96

  (8·06)

  Trafford

  37·75

  (12·54)

  70·39

  (11·37)

  Wigan

  17·87

  (5·42)

  60·39

  (17·03)

  Barnsley

  22·89

  (4·75)

  43·23

  (2·36)

  Doncaster

  27·08

  (6·67)

  55·45

  (11·14)

  Rotherham

  28·87

  (6·82)

  57·92

  (9·04)

  Sheffield

  12·11

  (5·33)

  23·46

  (7·98)

  Bradford

  28·71

  0·00

  71·73

  0·00

  Calderdale

  28·52

  (8·99)

  63·13

  (13·77)

  Kirklees

  25·17

  (7·90)

  63·89

  (20·93)

  Leeds

  15·30

  (0·43)

  28·26

  (2·45)

  Wakefield

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Gateshead

  29·26

  (4·89)

  75·22

  (11·65)

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  30·36

  (7·00)

  74·85

  (17·41)

  North Tyneside

  25·56

  (8·30)

  48·48

  (12·26)

  South Tyneside

  27·22

  (4·81)

  95·85

  (9·24)

  Sunderland

  23·19

  (6·15)

  76·03

  (9·12)

  Avon

  17·62

  (6·01)

  48·75

  (11·37)

  Bedfordshire

  28·28

  (9·53)

  86·88

  (23·60)

  Berkshire

  33·07

  (13·88)

  75·33

  (23·85)

  Buckinghamshire

  32·59

  (15·51)

  72·90

  (17·13)

  Cambridgeshire

  42·32

  (11·98)

  79·84

  (21·62)

  Cheshire

  25·80

  (8·86)

  56·49

  (18·39)

  Cleveland

  11·84

  (7·27)

  34·10

  (11·16)

  Cornwall

  37·15

  (12·32)

  63·84

  (21·77)

  Cumbria

  36·69

  (13·11)

  58·74

  (15·67)

  Derbyshire

  29·35

  (8·50)

  74·40

  (14·87)

  Devon

  37·40

  (12·12)

  65·14

  (20·11)

  Dorset

  38·56

  (11·63)

  80·62

  (13·72)

  Durham

  28·51

  (9·47)

  67·70

  (16·44)

  East Sussex

  32·56

  (11·04)

  77·26

  (17·78)

  Essex

  36·19

  (9·69)

  81·08

  (14·11)

  Gloucestershire

  29·42

  (11·93)

  59·02

  (19·40)

  Hampshire

  35·55

  (2·28)

  78·86

  (4·72)

  Hereford and Worcester

  28·44

  (11·13)

  57·92

  (14·98)

  Hertfordshire

  40·59

  (14·97)

  76·11

  (20·18)

  Humberside

  32·68

  (8·96)

  60·98

  (13·00)

  Isle of Wight

  32·74

  (11·92)

  54·37

  (11·61)

  Kent

  29·02

  (9·00)

  71·61

  (14·15)

  Lancashire

  30·13

  (9·59)

  65·70

  (13·22)

  Leicestershire

  31·59

  (11·26)

  81·42

  (16·36)

  Lincolnshire

  16·22

  (10·94)

  29·03

  (17·69)

  Norfolk

  29·63

  (8·27)

  56·04

  (12·29)

  North Yorkshire

  31·24

  (5·95)

  68·37

  (7·48)

  Northamptonshire

  33·41

  (7·81)

  74·41

  (18·34)

  Northumberland

  33·32

  (11·07)

  72·62

  (16·92)

  Nottinghamshire

  35·60

  (11·74)

  66·56

  (18·25)

  Oxfordshire

  43·28

  (8·01)

  103·89

  (17·59)

  Shropshire

  30·94

  (10·74)

  64·32

  (18·54)

  Somerset

  37·22

  (6·64)

  90·56

  (14·45)

  Staffordshire

  36·68

  (9·92)

  77·80

  (13·44)

  116

  117

  Local authority

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Suffolk

  29·28

  (8·97)

  54·73

  (14·02)

  Surrey

  21·48

  (5·45)

  94·51

  (11·93)

  Warwickshire

  25·68

  (8·82)

  98·23

  (16·12)

  West Sussex

  34·85

  (10·22)

  73·25

  (16·21)

  Wiltshire

  40·32

  (26·49)

  71·08

  (32·56)

  1 The figures are based on local education authority expenditure and pupil number returns to the relevant Government Departments.

  2 n/a denotes that an expenditure return has not been received from the local education authority, or that a separate figure for books has not been provided.

  Table 3

  E. Land Averages Expenditure per pupil

  Cash

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Year

  Books and equipment £

  (of which books) £

  Books and equipment £

  (of which books) £

  1978–79

  12·88

  (4·24)

  24·40

  (7·17)

  1984–85

  23·60

  (7·25)

  42·53

  (10·15)

  1988–89

  32·14

  (8·95)

  69·79

  (14·25)

  Real terms at 1978–79 prices

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Year

  Books and equipment £

  (of which books) £

  Books and equipment £

  (of which books) £

  1978–79

  12·88

  (4·24)

  24·40

  (7·17)

  1984–85

  13·24

  (4·07)

  23·86

  (5·69)

  1988–89

  14·61

  (4·07)

  31·73

  (6·51)

  School Budgets
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any estimate of the financial value of contributions made to school budgets by parents.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend is not aware of any reliable and up-to-date estimate.

  Schools (Charging)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of the charging regulation under the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend is collecting evidence from a range of sources about the operation of the relevant legislation. The results of a sample survey of schools will be available in January 1991 to supplement information from other interested bodies.

TRANSPORT

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department proposes to introduce any changes for the disabled(a) in driving test requirements and (b) in qualifications and requirements for driving instructors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I do not at present have any plans to introduce such changes. The Driving Standards Agency is,118
  however, considering possible ways to ensure that there are no unnecessary obstacles to disabled people who wish to become driving instructors.

  Trains (Accidents)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department has, and what representations it has received, about deaths and injuries caused as a result of faulty train doors, in British Rail and underground services.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the five-year period 1985–19891 there is no evidence to show that faulty train doors on British Rail and underground services were the cause of death or major injury. During that time, fatalities and injuries have occurred in accidents associated with train doors for the following reasons:

  (a) passengers slipping as they enter or alight from stationary trains.

  (b) passengers opening slam-type doors as the train enters the station, causing injury to persons on the platform.

  (c) passengers falling out of trains after deliberately or accidentally opening a slam door while the train is in motion.

  (d) incorrect operation of sliding doors.

  A number of hon. Members and members of the public have made representations about accidents in the last category. The railway inspectorate received a letter in October from a member of Liverpool city council concerning recent accidents on the west coast main line involving passengers falling from trains. After each accident on this line, BR examined all doors concerned and found them to be working properly.
  1 1989 details are provisional.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to safeguard the route of the extension of the Jubilee line to the royal docks in the London borough of Newham.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Bill for the Jubilee line extension provides for an underground step-plate junction south of Canning Town to allow an extension of the Jubilee line through the royal docks to be built at a later stage. As most of the land required for such an extension is owned by either British Rail or the London Docklands development corporation, no further action is necessary to safeguard the route.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding monopoly bus operation situations which have arisen as a result of implementation of the Transport Act 1986.
  119
  Mr. Freeman
  The Transport Act 1985 brought the bus industry fully within the scope of competition legislation, which is the responsibility of the Office of Fair Trading and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has so far been requested to investigate six cases involving mergers in the bus industry.

  Gyroplanes
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents have occurred involving gyroplanes in the last five years; how many have been investigated by the United Kingdom air accidents investigation branch; what have been the main causes of such accidents; and what arrangements have been made to monitor these aircraft to ensure that reasonable safety standards are observed prior to the marketing of gyroplanes for use by the general public.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority. I am advised by the authority that there have been 16 accidents in the last five years, six of which involved fatalities in which a total of six people have been killed. The six accidents involving fatalities have been the subject of field investigations by the Department of Transport's air accidents investigation branch. Of these six accidents, two have involved mechanical failure, two have been associated with weather conditions prevailing at the time of the flight, and two are attributable to pilot error.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans London Transport has to improve rail access to south and east London.

  Mr. Parkinson
  A Bill to extend the Jubilee line through south London to docklands and Stratford is currently before the House. This will do much to improve access to areas of Southwark, Bermondsey, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets and Newham.

  I recently announced the go-ahead for east-west crossrail, which will provide Stratford and points east with a direct rail link with west London and the west end as well as the City.

  London Transport is extending the docklands light railway to Bank and Beckton.

  I am pleased to report that I have authorised London Transport to deposit a Bill for the proposed extension of the docklands light railway to Lewisham. I have done this on the clear understanding that the project will only proceed if LT is successful in its efforts to arrange an acceptable privately financed scheme, and the powers are being taken in that behalf. This extension would provide a further important river crossing and allow the docklands regeneration benefits to spread south from the Isle of Dogs to areas of Greenwich and Lewisham.

  London Transport is also spending very large sums modernising the Central line as well as continuing to invest heavily in safety and in the general upgrading of the existing underground system. London Transport's investment programme over the next three years will approach £3 billion, an increase of about 90 per cent. in real terms over the previous three years. With such a large programme already in hand and largely funded by
  120
  Government grant, further extensions to south and east London could be afforded now only if they were privately funded or London Transport felt able to reorder its priorities.

  As it is, although a substantial private sector contribution has been offered towards a station on the proposed east London line extensions, the project as a whole would still require substantial public funding. Given the public expenditure constraints within which it must operate, London Transport has concluded that it has other more pressing priorities at present and has therefore decided, with my agreement, not to seek leave to deposit the necessary Private Bill in this Session of Parliament. I hope nonetheless that London Transport will continue to discuss the project with interested parties in case a way can be found of taking the project forward at less cost to it. We are discussing with London Transport the case for safeguarding the route of the extensions through the planning system so as to ensure that they remain an option for the future.

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress with the production of an official syllabus for learner drivers and riders.

  Mr. Chope
  I am pleased to announce that the Driving Standards Agency has produced a book containing the syllabus and guide to car and motor cycle tests. The book, called "Your Driving Test", is published today and can be obtained from HMSO and major bookstores. The agency also plans to produce a companion volume about driving tests for large goods and passenger vehicles.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales in which restraints have been used on inmates during the last three years; and how many times restraints have been used at each prison during this period.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The number of applications of restraints under rule 46 of the Prison Rules 1964, rule 49 of the Detention Centre Rules 1983, rule 49 of the Youth Custody Centre Rules 1983 and rule 49 of the Young Offender Institution Rules 1988 are given in the table.

  Restraints1 applied to violent or refractory inmates of prison service establishments in England and Wales: by establishment, 1987–89

  Establishment and type

  Number of applications

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Local prisons/remand centres

  Ashford

  —

  —

  5

  Bedford

  4

  3

  2

  Birmingham

  —

  10

  3

  Bristol

  —

  —

  1

  Brixton

  —

  —

  6

  Camp Hill

  —

  —

  5

  Canterbury

  1

  —

  —

  Cardiff

  5

  1

  2

  Chelmsford

  —

  1

  1

  Durham

  —

  1

  —

  Exeter

  2

  —

  —

  Hull

  7

  4

  9

  Leeds

  1

  1

  —

  121

  Establishment and type

  Number of applications

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Leicester

  5

  17

  4

  Lewes

  —

  1

  4

  Lincoln

  —

  5

  4

  Oxford

  1

  1

  —

  Pentonville

  2

  1

  —

  Reading

  1

  2

  2

  Risley

  —

  —

  2

  Rochester

  —

  —

  2

  Swansea

  1

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  5

  10

  7

  Wormwood Scrubs

  3

  2

  2

  Training prisons

  Acklington

  —

  —

  2

  Albany

  2

  —

  20

  Blundeston

  4

  —

  —

  Camp Hill

  2

  6

  —

  Chelmsford

  1

  —

  —

  Cookham Wood

  —

  —

  1

  Dartmoor

  1

  —

  —

  Frankland

  6

  7

  3

  Full Sutton

  —

  7

  9

  Garth

  —

  1

  —

  Havering

  —

  —

  1

  Lindholme

  1

  4

  2

  Long Lartin

  4

  3

  —

  Parkhurst

  6

  6

  9

  Preston

  —

  —

  2

  Shepton Mallet

  —

  3

  —

  Stafford

  3

  —

  1

  7Styal

  1

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  2

  —

  —

  Wayland

  —

  —

  1

  Young offender institutions/youth custody centres/detention centres

  Aylesbury

  —

  1

  5

  Buckley Hall

  —

  1

  —

  Dover

  7

  —

  5

  Glen Parva

  1

  1

  —

  Guys Marsh

  1

  —

  3

  Hatfield

  —

  1

  —

  Hollesley Bay

  1

  —

  —

  Onley

  1

  2

  —

  Rochester

  8

  —

  —

  All establishments

  90

  103

  125

  1 Loose canvas jacket, body belt, handcuffs and ankle straps. No leather wrist straps were used.

  Firearms
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Northumbria on the number of incidents involving the use of firearms dealt with by Northumbria police in 1990 and the number of officers trained in the use of firearms in the force at the present time.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of Northumbria that between 1 January and 15 November 1990 firearms were issued to his officers in 176 operations against crime. On 15 November, 149 of his officers were trained and authorised to be issued with firearms.

  Fresh Start
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the average sickness rates and (b) the average long-term sickness rates, namely over one year, for each prison in the United Kingdom for each of the two years before Fresh Start was implemented and the subsequent years.
  122
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The number of lost days due to sickness absence in prison establishments in England and Wales for the year ending March 1990 averaged about 13 days per officer. I will write to the hon. Member shortly with the breakdown by establishment. Information on long and short-term sickness rates and sickness rates in earlier years is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Suicides (Police Cells)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many self-inflicted deaths, suicides and attempted suicides took place among prisoners held in police cells in 1988, 1989 and 1990 to date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of deaths which occurred in police custody, together with brief details of the circumstances surrounding each case, are contained in the annual reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The number of cases in which the coroner's inquest has returned a verdict of suicide is as follows:

  Number

  1988

  5

  1989

  5

  1990

  11

  1 A number of inquests have yet to be concluded.

  Other self-inflicted deaths are not categorised separately and no details of attempted suicides are recorded centrally.

  Immigration
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the average and the maximum delays suffered by non-EEC passengers at passport check-ins at Heathrow and Gatwick over the past six months; and what are the comparable figures for EEC passengers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average and maximum delays at Heathrow and Gatwick during the six-month period 1 April to 30 September 1990 were as follows:

  Non-EEC Minutes

  EC Minutes

  Heathrow

  Average

  18

  1

  Maximum

  175

  10

  Gatwick

  Average

  14

  2

  Maximum

  90

  15

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the figures of crime rates in Dyfed, Wales, for each year since 1970; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information is on notifiable offences recorded by the police in the Dyfed-Powys police area and is published annually: for
  123
  1970–73 in "Supplementary Statistics Relating to Crime and Criminal Proceedings"; for 1974–89 in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales"—table 2.4 for 1989 and corresponding tables in issues for earlier years, and for the 12 months to June 1990 in "Home Office Statistical Bulletin" 31/90. Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's projected prison population for 1993, 1995, 1997 and 1999; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest projections of the prison population were published in a Home Office statistical bulletin "Updated projections of long term trends in the prison population to 1998"—issue 33/90, dated 24 October 1990—a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the sentenced and remand population in England and Wales for the latest date available; and how many prisoners were being held in police cells on the same date.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest available information is that on 30 September 1990, a total of 9,377 remand, 214 non-criminal and 34,888 sentenced prisoners were held in prison service establishments. A further 1,009 were held in police cells of whom the majority were remand prisoners.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the years between 1975 and 1990, the proportion of adults imprisoned per 100,000 of the population.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: The information is given in the table.

  Adult prisoners1 in prison service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June as a proportion per 100,000 of the adult2 population, 1975–1990

  Year

  1975

  83·6

  1976

  87·6

  1977

  88·7

  1978

  87·4

  1979

  87·2

  1980

  89·5

  1981

  89·3

  1982

  88·4

  1983

  89·3

  1984

  89·4

  1985

  95·4

  1986

  95·5

  1987

  103·0

  1988

  103·6

  1989

  103·9

  1990

  395·6

  1 Sentenced remand and non-custodial prisoners aged 21 and over including sentenced young offenders re-classified as adults.

  2 Aged 21 and over.

  3 Using projected mid-year national population.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what direction he has issued to the Governor of Hong Kong under section 1(3) of the British 124
  Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990, specifying the time scale and number of persons to be recommended for registration under section 1(1) of that Act during the first stage of the selection process.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have directed the Governor to make the following recommendations during the period beginning 1 December 1990 and ending 1 January 1994:

  not more than 32,700 in the general occupational class, of which not more than 400 are to be in respect of applicants in approved occupations;

  not more than 6,200 in the disciplined services class; and

  not more than 3,850 in the sensitive service class.

  However, I have made no direction for this period in relation to the entrepreneurs class and, accordingly, the Governor may make recommendations during that period in respect of all 500 places in that class.

  Victim Support Services
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department will review its current restrictions upon the use of its grant funding to victim support in view of the possible closure of local offices and reduction of services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 14 November 1990]: The Home Office grant-in-aid for local victim support schemes in England and Wales—£4·5 million this year—is administered by the funding panel of the national charity Victim Support under criteria which have been agreed with the Home Office and are reviewed annually. The 350 or so local schemes rely largely on voluntary help, but Home Office grant is available to pay for up to two co-ordinators in each scheme or to assist with running costs. There has been no reduction in Home Office grant which will, subject to parliamentary approval, be increased by 20 per cent. to £5·4 million next year. It is open to local schemes faced with loss or reduction of funding from other sources to apply to the funding panel for new or extra grant.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Judges
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General what powers the Lord Chancellor has to control public appearances in programmes of political content by judges.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's formal powers over the conduct of judges in England and Wales are limited to the power to remove circuit judges for incapacity or misbehaviour. It is, however, a long-standing convention that judges do not become involved in matters of political controversy, and the Lord Chancellor, as head of the judiciary, would advise any judge who sought his opinion that it would not be appropriate to appear in a programme with a political content.

  Distress for Rent Notices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to expand and simplify the prescribed notices given to debtors under the Distress for Rent Rules of 1988.

  The Attorney-General
  The Law Commission is at present undertaking a study of the law of distress, and a final report is expected early in the new year.
  125
  The Lord Chancellor's Department will be carrying out a review of the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 once that report has been received.

  Private Bailiffs
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to establish a register of certificated private bailiffs.

  The Attorney-General
  A register of bailiffs who hold a certificate granted by a county court judge authorising them to levy any distress for rent is maintained by the Lord Chancellor's Department at its London headquarters.

  The register is maintained for administrative purposes and is not open to public inspection, but each county court maintains a list of bailiffs who hold a certificate as at 1 February each year. The list is exhibited in the public area at the court office.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has for consulting community charge and advice agencies about charges made by private bailiffs.

  The Attorney-General
  The level of fees, charges and expenses which my be recovered from a tenant by certificated bailiff is set out in appendix 1 to the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 and is reviewed from time to time by the Lord Chancellor's Department, in consultation with other Government Departments and with the Certificated Bailiffs' Association. Charges by private bailiffs for enforcing liability orders—schedule 5 of the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989—are the same. There are no plans at present to extend this consultation process.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to establish a complaints procedure against private bailiffs.

  The Attorney-General
  Any person who wishes to complain about the conduct or fitness of a bailiff who holds a certificate granted by a county court judge under the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 may make his or her complaint in writing to the county court from which the certificate was issued.

  No such procedure is in place in respect of private bailiffs who do not hold a certificate granted by a judge of a county court. Such bailiffs are not authorised to levy distress for rent, but may operate in other areas such as recovery of community charge, fines or taxes.

  Bereavement Damages
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Government propose to increase the level of bereavement damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Following a review announced last year, the Government have decided that the statutory level of bereavement damages which may be awarded by the courts in England and Wales in fatal accident cases should be raised from the figure of £3,500 fixed in 1982 to £7,500.

  In accordance with the provisions of section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, the Lord Chancellor will shortly be making the necessary order, which is subject to the negative resolution procedure, to implement the increase
  126
  to £7,500 which will take effect in relation to deaths occurring on or after 1 April 1991. A separate order will be made at the same time, under article 3A of the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, to effect a similar increase in the level of the award in Northern Ireland.

  The proposed new level of £7,500 will also apply, with effect from 1 April 1991, to cases where a bereavement award is made under the criminal injuries compensation scheme in England and Wales.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intends to bring forward an order increasing the level of bereavement award to £7,500 under the statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme in the Province.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Norwich Union
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received any representations on the intervention order by LAUTRO to prevent Norwich Union from taking business with the Winchester Group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations. It is up to LAUTRO, and ultimately the Securities and Investments Board, to decide how to enforce the rules.

  Thames Water
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will meet the chairman of the stock exchange to discuss the failure of Thames Water plc to repay to stockholders the outstanding liability on Metropolitan water board 3 per cent. B stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. This is a matter for the company, its stockholders and the stock exchange.

  Machine Tool Industry
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the amount exported by the machine tool industry for each year from 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is as follows:

  United Kingdom Exports of Metal Working Machine Tools1 1979–1989

  Year

  £ million

  1979

  291

  1980

  367

  1981

  355

  1982

  353

  1983

  283

  1984

  320

  1985

  372

  1986

  379

  1987

  426

  1988

  524

  1989

  526

  1 Activity Heading 3221 of the Standard Industrial Classification (Revised 1980).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cot Deaths
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made by his Departmental inquiry into cot deaths; when he expects to receive it; and if he will publish it.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The expert working group is expected to report to the Chief Medical Officer soon. It has always been the intention to publish its findings.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Non-proliferation Regime
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals for the development of an extended regional non-proliferation regime under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council have been circulated recently by the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Soviet Union has circulated various proposals at the UN Security Council. As far as we are aware, no proposal for a regional non-proliferation regime has been made.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet his Soviet counterpart or officials of the Soviet Foreign Affairs and Defence Ministries, to discuss the development of new or extended non-proliferation agreements.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No plans at present.

  Nuclear Arms Reductions
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what indications he has received from the Soviet Government that in the next round of the strategic nuclear arms reduction negotiations United Kingdom Polaris and-or Trident ballistic nuclear missile systems will necessarily be included on the agenda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The conditions for the United Kingdom considering how best to contribute to the arms control process are already well known.

  United Nations Day
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government supported any events or facilitated the distribution of any literature to mark United Nations day on 24 October.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No.

  Nuclear Weapons Tests
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decisions have been taken pursuant to rule 44(4) of the rules of procedure for the amendment conference for states party to the treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere in outer space and under water.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are not aware of any decisions taken by specialised agencies and intergovernmental organisations pursuant to rule 44(4) of the partial test ban treaty amendment conference.

WALES

  Housing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was authorised for district councils in Wales for the purchase of houses from the private sector for letting by local authorities, in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and what the level of authorisation will be for 1991–92.

  Mr. Grist
  A total of £1 million was made available in both 1989–90 and 1990–91 for district councils to purchase land and houses in areas with a high concentration of second homes. This was in addition to their ability to spend, within available resources, according to their own priorities. Decisions about resources for 1991–92 will be announced very soon.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange to discuss with the chairman of the National Rivers Authority questions relating to the right of trade unions in the industry in Wales to refer disputes to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

  Mr. Grist
  No. This is a matter for the National Rivers Authority.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation regarding the cost and length of time required for carrying out the additional work specified by his independent groundwater consultant Mr. Roy Stoner.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. Much of the additional work recommended by Mr. Stoner is already being carried out by the corporation's consultants. The remainder will be undertaken as part of the further studies and should not, therefore, result in an extension to the 12-month period as laid down by the Committee which examined the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. Any extra costs involved will be met by the corporation.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what reply he expects to make to the report of Mr. Roy Stoner, placed in the Library on 12 November, relating to the Cardiff bay barrage.

  Sir Wyn Roberts:
  My right hon. Friend has thanked Mr. Stoner for his report and informed him that the issues raised in it will be taken up with Cardiff Bay development corporation and its consultants.

  Nature Conservation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those sites which (i) have been designated or (ii) meet the criteria for designation as(a) special protection areas under the European Community directive on the conservation of wild birds, or (b) Ramsar sites under the convention on wetlands of international importance.

  Sir Wyn Roberts:
  The designation of SPA and Ramsar sites is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Welsh sites are designated in consultation with me.
  129
  In Wales three SPAs, Skokholm and Skomer—part—Dee estuary and Grassholm, and two Ramsar sites, Dee estuary and Cors Fochno, have been designated.

  I understand that the NCC has so far identified 11 sites, in Wales, which it considers meet the SPA criteria and 10 which meet the Ramsar conditions. These are:

  Llyn Idwal (Gwynedd) Ramsar

  Llyn Tegid (Gwynedd) Ramsar

  Cors Caron (Dyfed) Ramsar

  Corsydd Mon/Lleyn (Dyfed) Ramsar

  Crumlin Bog (Gwent) Ramsar

  Migneint (Gwynedd) Ramsar

  Midland Meres Mires (Clwyd) Ramsar

  Burry Inlet (Dyfed/West Glamorgan) Ramsar and SPA

  Severn Estuary (part) (South Glamorgan/Gwent) Ramsar and SPA

  Carmarthen Bay (Dyfed/West Glamorgan) Ramsar and SPA

  Skokholm and Skomer (part) (Dyfed) SPA

  Glannau Aberdaron/Ynys Enlli (Gwynedd) SPA

  Ynys Feurig, Cemlyn Bay and the Skerries (Gwynedd) SPA

  Glannau Ynys Gybi (Gwynedd) SPA

  Traeth Lafan (Gwynedd) SPA

  Pembrokeshire Cliffs (Dyfed) SPA

  Elenydd Mallaen (Powys) SPA

  Berwyn (Gwynedd) SPA

  Agriculture
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives from the Farmers Union of Wales to discuss opportunities for young people entering the agriculture industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts:
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales on 11 September to discuss a range of agricultural issues, which included the opportunities for young people entering the industry.

  Music Teaching
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications for peripatetic music teaching of local management of schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts:
  We are not aware that music provision, including the peripatetic music service, has been adversely affected by the introduction of local management of schools. Parents will want to see music provision maintained in the schools their children attend, and so will governors. We confidently expect that the delegation of control to governors will lead to an enrichment in the education experience provided by schools.

  Mr. Rod Richards
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, further to his reply of 13 November,Official Report, column 106, if he will give specific details of the knowledge and experience of Mr. Rod Richards in respect of the public sector which will be relevant to his work as special adviser.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the answer he gave the hon. Gentleman on 13 November.

HEALTH

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil servants are currently employed(a) full time and (b) part time by his Department on civil defence; what the total costs of employing staff on civil defence duties were in 1989–90; what the total costs of employing staff on civil defence duties are expected to be in 1990–91; and whether he has any plans for these staff to be transferred to work on other duties.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of Staff and cost

  Number of Staff employed full-time on 19 November 1990

  Nil

  Number of staff employed part-time on 19 November 1990

  5

  Total cost 1989–90

  1£58,000

  Estimated total cost 1990–91

  1£57,000

  1 Approximate

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced on 16 October that he had initiated a review of the options for the future of civil defence arrangements in the light of east-west relations. Future levels of expenditure in civil defence will depend on the outcome of that review.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Injury and Disablement
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide statistics indicating the nature of injuries for which injury and disablement payments were made for 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  The table gives statistics distinguishing between industrial accidents and prescribed occupational diseases.

  Disablement Pensions in Payment—1986–1989

  Date

  Industrial Accidents

  Prescribed Diseases

  30 September 1986

  147,000

  37,000

  4 April 1987

  148,000

  37,000

  2 April 1988

  151,000

  37,000

  1 April 1989

  150,000

  35,000

  Notes:

  (i) Injury benefit was abolished in 1983.

  (ii) The DSS industrial accident statistics cover all possible physical injuries for which disablement benefit is paid in considerable detail.

  (iii) There are some 59 prescribed occupational diseases.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many civil servants are currently employed(a) full time and (b) part time by his Department on civil defence; what the total costs of employing staff on civil defence duties were in 1989–90; what the total costs of employing staff on civil defence duties are expected to be in 1990–91; and whether he has any plans for these staff to be transferred to work on other duties.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  None of the staff in the Department is employed full time on civil defence work.
  131
  There are 10 members of staff in the Department's headquarters and regional offices whose duties include civil defence matters but, since these represent only a very small part of the duties of the staff involved, it is not possible to identify separately the costs involved.

  Workplace Accidents
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the reported accidents involving lifting of patients taken from B176 forms received by his Department for each year from 1983 to 1989 showing distribution by age/sex, occupation, incidence rates based on population of England and place of accident.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Retirement Pension
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people put in claims for retirement pension during the six months to March 1989; how many were awarded the full basic rate retirement pension; and what are the reasons for the proportion not receiving full basic rate pension.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the six months to March 1989 317,011 claims were made to state retirement pension and 244,940 awards of basic pension made. The difference between these figures is made up by those claims from individuals choosing to defer their pensions, those which led to the payment of graduated and additional pension only and cases where there was no entitlement to retirement pension.

  Of the awards made, 194,600 were at the full rate of basic retirement pension. These pensions are based upon a person's, or their spouse's, contribution record; the main reason for an award being made at less than the full rate is an insufficient record, but it can also reflect a reduction due to receipt of another benefit.

  Benefits
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are in receipt of attendance allowance, mobility allowance and invalid care allowance in(a) the Kirklees district and (b) England and Wales.

  Mr. Scott
  The numbers of people receiving each benefit in Kirklees district could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The latest available information about people receiving these benefits in England and Wales is in the table:

  Number

  Attendance Allowance (as at 31 March 1989)

  1695,000

  Mobility Allowance as at 15 November 1990)

  539,000

  Invalid Care Allowance (Scotland, England and Wales)2 (as at 31 October 1990)

  132,000

  1 Statistical estimate.

  2 Separate figures for England and Wales are not available.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide details for the Kirklees 132
  metropolitan district of the number of people currently, most recent figures, in receipt of each of the following benefits: (a) attendance allowance, (b) mobility allowance and (c) invalid care allowance, and an estimate of what level of take-up the above figures represent in terms of entitlement to benefit for the Kirklees district.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all forms of benefit that can be obtained through his Department; when each form of benefit was first introduced; and whether each form of benefit was introduced as an entirely new benefit or whether it superseded earlier benefit payments.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 15 November 1990]: The information requested is in the table. The dates given are those of introduction of the benefit in its original form and it should be noted that many have since been modified.

  Benefit

  Introduced

  Superseded

  Attendance Allowance

  December 71

  New

  Child Benefit

  April 77

  Family Allowance

  Christmas Bonus

  December 72

  New

  Community Charge Benefit1

  April 90

  Rate Rebate (England and Wales) Community Charge Rebate (Scotland)

  Constant Attendance Allowance

  July 48

  New

  Exceptionally Severe Disablement Allowance

  July 48

  New

  Family Credit

  April 88

  Family Income Supplement

  Guardians Allowance

  July 48

  Orphan's Pension

  Housing Benefit—1 Rent Rebates

  November 82— April 83

  Local Authorities local schemes and supplementary benefit provision

  Rent Allowance

  as above

  as above

  Income Support

  April 88

  Supplementary Benefit

  Industrial Death Benefit2

  July 48

  New

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  July 48

  New

  Invalid Care Allowance

  July 76

  New

  Invalidity Benefit

  September 71

  New

  Maternity Allowance3

  July 48

  New

  Mobility Allowance

  January 76

  New

  One Parent Benefit4

  April 77

  Child Interim Benefit

  Pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and miscellaneous diseases benefit5

  March 52

  New

  Reduced Earnings Allowance

  October 86

  Special Hardship Allowance

  Remission of certain NHS charges and payment of travelling expenses to hospital for NHS treatment on income grounds6

  April 88

  Replaced a similar scheme but with changes in the basis of assessment and with centralized administration

  Retirement Allowance

  April 88

  Reduced Earnings Allowance for those of pension age who retired

  Retirement Pension—

  Category A and B

  July 48

  New

  Category C

  July 70

  New

  Category D

  July 71

  New

  Age addition

  July 71

  New

  Graduated retirement benefit7

  July 61

  New

  133

  Benefit

  Introduced

  Superseded

  Additional pension (SERPS), payable also with widow's benefits (except Widow's Payment)

  April 79

  New

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  November 84

  Non Contributory Invalidity Pension (NCIP)

  Sickness Benefit3

  July 48

  New

  Social Fund—

  Funeral Payments

  April 87

  Supplementary Benefit Single Payment

  Maternity Payments

  April 87

  as above

  Community Care Grants

  April 88

  New

  Budgeting Loans

  April 88

  Supplementary Benefit Single Payments

  Crisis Loans

  April 88

  Supplementary Benefit Urgent payments

  Cold Weather Payments

  November 88

  Exceptionally Severe Weather Payments

  Travel Grants, Settlement or Resettlement Loans

  September 90

  New

  Statutory Maternity Pay 8

  April 87

  Maternity allowance for most employed women.

  Statutory Sick Pay 8

  April 83

  Sickness benefit for most employed people

  Unemployment Benefit 9

  1911

  New

  Vaccine damage payments 10

  March 79

  New

  War Disablement Pension

  February 17

  New

  War Widow's Pension

  February 17

  New

  Widow's Pension

  July 48

  New

  Widow's Payment

  April 88

  Widow's allowance

  Widowed Mother's Allowance

  July 48

  New

  Workmen's Compensation Supplement

  July 51

  New

  Notes:

  1 Paid and administered by local authorities on behalf of the Department of Social Security (DSS).

  2 Not payable in respect of deaths on or after 11 April 1988.

  3 Superseded benefits payable under the various National Health Insurance Acts.

  4 Named Child Benefit Increase prior to 1 April 1981.

  5 Miscellaneous diseases first included in November 1954.

  6 Administered by DSS on behalf of the Department of Health.

  7 Payable only to people with accrued rights derived from payments to the graduated pension scheme from 1961 to 1975.

  8 Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Allowance are administered and paid by employers. Sickness benefit and Maternity Allowance are still available for those who do not qualify.

  9 Paid and administered by the Department of Employment.

  10 Paid via the Department of Health until 1982 when responsibility passed to DSS.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice has been given to the Government of the Irish Republic about their handling of the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the Republic.
  134
  Mr. Maclean
  We have kept the Government of the Irish Republic fully informed about the measures we have taken to deal with bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the United Kingdom and of the reasons for taking them.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Government to respond to the Agriculture Committee's report on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  I and my right hon. Friends have today presented to Parliament the Government's response to the House of Commons Agriculture Committee's report on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Copies of the response have been deposited in the Library of the House and are available from the Vote Office.

  Seaside Rock
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations have been made into the side-effects of the red-pink colouring E127, known as erythrosine, used in seaside rock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  E127, erythrosine, has been investigated by the Food Advisory Committee and the committee on toxicity as part of a review of the use of all colours currently permitted in food. The review showed that the normal consumption of seaside rock coloured with erythrosine does not present a toxicological hazard. However, I have accepted the Food Advisory Committee's advice that there is a need to reduce the level of colours generally in the diet and will be proposing new regulations that will include restrictions on the use of erythrosine as advised by the committee.

  EC Special Committee on Agriculture
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the agenda of each meeting of the special committee on agriculture of the European Community.

  Mr. Gummer
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to publish details of the work of official committees reporting to the Council of Ministers.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 20 November.

  Mr. Curry
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Brussels on 20 November with my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

  We secured the maintenance of the dual system for herring and price adjustments which should assist the continued orderly marketing of the Scottish herring catch. We kept other price changes within reasonable bounds.

  Despite long discussion, the Council was unable to agree on new technical conservation measures. We emphasised the need for early decisions, but the Council concluded that further work was required. We shall continue to press hard for progress on this.

  The Council also considered amendments to the fisheries structure regulation discussing the balance of the various measures proposed and remitted the proposal for further consideration at official level.
  135
  The Council also agreed that the Commission should press ahead with work to harmonise member states' laws in the Mediterranean and to develop improved research arrangements, as a first step in developing a common fisheries policy in the Mediterranean.

  Tecnazene
  Mr. Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the 1989 United Kingdom potato crop was treated with tecnazene.

  Mr. Maclean
  No survey was conducted in 1989. The latest figures for use of tecnazene are: in England and Wales 35 per cent. of the 1988 crop; in Scotland 24 per cent. of the 1986 crop.

  Birds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any scientific evidence that the bird species subject to the proposed alteration to the Wildlife and Countryside Act cause damage to growing crops, game birds or livestock feedingstuffs.

  Mr. Maclean
  This Department's central science laboratories have researched damage to agricultural crops caused by starlings, wood pigeons and Brent geese. This damage is significant: starlings can take 12 per cent. of barley for cattle and 20 per cent. of the cherry crop, wood pigeons eat oil seed rape worth £2 million, and Brent geese reduce yield of winter wheat locally by up to 10 per cent.

DEFENCE

  United States Nuclear Laboratories
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any officials of his Department have visited the United States nuclear laboratories at(a) Los Alamos, (b) Lawrence Livermore or (c) Sandia in the current year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the current year Ministry of Defence officials have visited all three of these laboratories under the terms of the 1958 United States-United Kingdom agreement for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes.

  Repair Grants

  Number and value (in brackets) £ million

  Grants office

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Belfast

  4,649 (£10·0)

  4,301 (£8·7)

  2,120 (£7·3)

  2,768 (£4·8)

  1,881 (£4·2)

  Ballyclare

  1,495 (£2·4)

  1,023 (£1·7)

  380 (£0·9)

  595 (£1·1)

  456 (£1·0)

  Ballymena

  598 (£1·3)

  389 (£1·0)

  182 (£0·6)

  270 (£0·6)

  131 (£0·4)

  Coleraine

  562 (£1·1)

  444 (£0·9)

  197 (£0·5)

  259 (£0·5)

  176 (£0·4)

  Craigavon

  1,063 (£1·9)

  660 (£1·1)

  338 (£0·7)

  369 (£0·5)

  265 (£0·5)

  Fermanagh

  340 (£0·7)

  272 (£0·6)

  148 (£0·4)

  201 (£0·4)

  200 (£0·4)

  Lisburn

  861 (£2·8)

  733 (£1·4)

  329 (£1·1)

  438 (£0·9)

  267 (£0·6)

  Londonderry

  598 (£1·2)

  444 (£0·9)

  208 (£0·6)

  248 (£0·5)

  211 (£0·6)

  Newry

  448 (£1·2)

  326 (£0·8)

  214 (£0·7)

  215 (£0·5)

  137 (£1·7)

  Newtownards

  2,072 (£2·2)

  1,743 (£3·3)

  708 (£2·0)

  661 (£1·8)

  493 (£1·6)

  Omagh

  388 (£1·1)

  287 (£0·6)

  177 (£0·5)

  243 (£0·6)

  222 (£0·6)

  Military Nuclear Facilities
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to seek agreements with the Soviet Union to conclude a bilateral arrangement on environmental restoration and nuclear waste management at military nuclear facilities along the lines of the co-operation agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States of America signed on 18 September.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no such plans.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rural Development
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the interdepartmental committee on rural development will complete its deliberations and report to him on its findings; and if he will make such findings and recommendations available for public debate and implementation.

  Mr. Brooke
  The interdepartmental committee on rural development is preparing to report to me before the end of the year. I do not intend to publish the report, although decisions flowing from it will be announced as appropriate.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of applications for(a) improvement grants and (b) repair grants refused by each grants office of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each year since 1985.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The matter the hon. Gentleman raised is for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I understand from the chairman that information on the refusal of individual grant types is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number and value of(a) improvement grants and (b) repair grants issued by each grants office of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each year since 1985.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, whose chairman has advised me that the available information is as follows:
  137

  Improvement Grants

  Number and value (in brackets) £ million

  Grants office

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Belfast

  1,166 (£7·8)

  1,027 (£8·0)

  778 (£7·9)

  893 (£6·1)

  690 (£5·7)

  Ballyclare

  210 (£1·4)

  237 (£1·6)

  202 (£1·3)

  174 (£1·2)

  141 (£1·0)

  Ballymena

  559 (£3·3)

  486 (£3·1)

  332 (£2·1)

  263 (£1·9)

  280 (£1·7)

  Coleraine

  387 (£2·6)

  404 (£2·6)

  293 (£2·0)

  282 (£1·6)

  234 (£1·7)

  Craigavon

  472 (£2·7)

  338 (£2·7)

  393 (£3·1)

  201 (£2·4)

  197 (£1·5)

  Fermanagh

  287 (£2·1)

  296 (£2·0)

  267 (£1·8)

  201 (£1·4)

  197 (£1·3)

  Lisburn

  342 (£2·3)

  293 (£2·0)

  295 (£1·2)

  267 (£1·4)

  188 (£1·5)

  Londonderry

  339 (£1·4)

  410 (£3·0)

  313 (£2·1)

  242 (£1·6)

  238 (£1·5)

  Newry

  369 (£3·0)

  403 (£3·2)

  420 (£2·4)

  267 (£1·8)

  225 (£2·2)

  Newtownards

  338 (£1·7)

  366 (£2·2)

  246 (£2·4)

  266 (£1·6)

  186 (£1·7)

  Omagh

  486 (£4·2)

  558 (£4·2)

  434 (£3·0)

  411 (£2·6)

  331 (£2·6)

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average length of time for the execution of repairs under each repair category identified by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, whose chairman has advised me that the information requested is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of families or individuals currently registered as homeless with each district office of the maintenance section of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, whose chairman has advised me that the executive does not maintain a register of homeless persons. However, at 19 November 1990, the number of households living in temporary accommodation, secured for them under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, by each district office and the housing advice centre of the Housing Executive, is as follows:

  Number of households

  Housing Advice Centre

  14

  DISTRICT

  Belfast 1

  30

  Belfast 2

  8

  Belfast 3

  34

  Belfast 4

  9

  Belfast 5

  6

  Belfast 6

  14

  Belfast 7

  21

  Bangor

  10

  Newtownards 1

  3

  Newtownards 2

  3

  Castlereagh 1

  3

  Castlereagh 2

  1

  Lisburn 1

  26

  Lisburn 2

  0

  Lisburn 3

  7

  Downpatrick

  26

  Banbridge

  2

  Newry 1

  2

  Newry 2

  2

  Kilkeel

  0

  Armagh

  0

  Craigavon

  2

  Lurgan

  0

  Portadown

  0

  Ballymena

  5

  Antrim

  0

  Newtownabbey 1

  1

  Newtownabbey 2

  3

  138

  Number of households

  Carrickfergus

  1

  Larne

  4

  Ballycastle

  0

  Ballymoney

  1

  Londonderry 1

  16

  Londonderry 2

  3

  Londonderry 3

  5

  Limavady

  7

  Coleraine

  1

  Magherafelt

  3

  Strabane

  0

  Omagh

  3

  Cookstown

  0

  Dungannon

  1

  Enniskillen

  2

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of new-build houses programmed for the current financial year by each district office of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, whose chairman has advised me that programme information is not available in the form requested. It is however available by district council area and the position for the 1990–91 financial year is as follows:

  District council

  Number of houses

  Antrim

  25

  Armagh

  34

  Belfast

  408

  Castlereagh

  10

  Coleraine

  3

  Craigavon

  52

  Derry

  90

  Down

  24

  Fermanagh

  12

  Lisburn

  222

  Magherafelt

  9

  Newry and Mourne

  4

  Newtownards

  98

  Omagh

  11

  Total

  1,002

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of families or individual's currently listed in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's waiting lists in each district office in each category A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, B2 and B3.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, whose chairman has advised me that the latest available information is as follows:
  139

  Northern Ireland housing executive

  Total number on waiting list as at 31 October 1990

  District

  A1

  A2

  A3

  A4

  B1

  B2

  B3

  Belfast 1

  101

  27

  23

  —

  509

  38

  —

  Belfast 2

  26

  88

  55

  —

  548

  307

  6

  Belfast 3

  90

  32

  240

  —

  416

  37

  4

  Belfast 4

  35

  40

  160

  —

  427

  102

  1

  Belfast 5

  39

  54

  121

  —

  329

  113

  —

  Belfast 6

  42

  39

  25

  —

  372

  96

  —

  Belfast 7

  90

  58

  71

  6

  597

  315

  7

  Bangor

  23

  67

  9

  1

  527

  407

  3

  Newtownards 1

  44

  32

  22

  1

  353

  143

  3

  Newtownards 2

  16

  12

  7

  1

  169

  83

  —

  Dundonald

  20

  17

  2

  2

  211

  67

  1

  Newtownbreda

  16

  33

  4

  1

  264

  196

  3

  Lisburn 1

  86

  41

  10

  1

  366

  126

  7

  Lisburn 2

  30

  11

  6

  2

  151

  77

  1

  Lisburn 3

  42

  6

  4

  —

  358

  16

  —

  Downpatrick

  46

  27

  36

  —

  441

  114

  1

  Banbridge

  32

  17

  15

  2

  227

  47

  —

  Newry 1

  18

  16

  7

  —

  326

  67

  —

  Newry 2

  18

  18

  15

  1

  224

  42

  —

  Kilkeel

  7

  7

  —

  2

  87

  14

  —

  Armagh

  14

  10

  22

  3

  336

  79

  —

  Craigavon

  9

  1

  1

  1

  192

  9

  —

  Lurgan

  13

  20

  12

  1

  293

  69

  1

  Portadown

  14

  10

  9

  —

  230

  80

  —

  Ballymena

  24

  55

  26

  3

  458

  69

  —

  Antrim

  20

  19

  12

  10

  492

  41

  —

  Newtownabbey 1

  20

  18

  3

  1

  240

  61

  —

  Newtownabbey 2

  32

  23

  14

  1

  381

  121

  1

  Carrickfergus

  20

  24

  4

  1

  348

  113

  —

  Larne

  19

  29

  26

  2

  324

  61

  —

  Ballycastle

  11

  7

  1

  2

  143

  15

  —

  Ballymoney

  11

  9

  9

  —

  199

  26

  —

  Londonderry 1

  107

  61

  20

  3

  389

  43

  1

  Londonderry 2

  27

  54

  10

  1

  230

  47

  —

  Londonderry 3

  56

  16

  —

  1

  284

  12

  —

  Limavady

  15

  19

  4

  3

  242

  22

  —

  Coleraine

  14

  36

  13

  7

  561

  98

  2

  Magherafelt

  14

  23

  18

  2

  255

  52

  —

  Strabane

  19

  33

  18

  1

  265

  40

  —

  Omagh

  35

  13

  12

  6

  342

  80

  —

  Cookstown

  11

  5

  4

  3

  134

  37

  —

  Dungannon

  18

  9

  6

  3

  257

  73

  1

  Fermanagh

  30

  6

  42

  2

  310

  102

  —

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of dwellings owned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each year since 1985.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, whose chairman has advised me that the information at 31 March in each year is as follows:

  Number

  1985

  183,439

  1986

  181,717

  1987

  179,910

  1988

  176,832

  1989

  174,018

  1990

  169,971

  Housing Executive properties sold since 1985–86

  South Region

  District

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Total

  Armagh

  125

  104

  85

  82

  163

  559

  Banbridge

  56

  51

  56

  60

  113

  336

  Craigavon

  56

  28

  20

  51

  42

  197

  Kilkeel

  55

  47

  29

  31

  34

  196

  Lurgan

  129

  87

  50

  55

  117

  438

  Newry 1

  138

  102

  135

  156

  203

  734

  Newry 2

  149

  131

  108

  107

  169

  664

  140
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many tenants bought their dwellings from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each district in each year since 1985.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, whose chairman has advised me that the information is not available in the precise form requested. However, figures are available for the total number of dwellings sold by the executive in each district since 1985. These comprise mainly sales to tenants, but also include a number of vacant properties sold to non-tenants in areas where housing need has been met, sales under the executive's homesteading scheme and sales to housing associations. The figures are as follows:
  141

  District

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Total

  Portadown

  88

  50

  29

  50

  86

  303

  REGION TOTAL

  796

  600

  512

  592

  927

  3,427

  Belfast Region

  District

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Total

  Belfast 1

  281

  100

  113

  134

  186

  751

  Belfast 2

  73

  68

  67

  53

  89

  350

  Belfast 3

  47

  44

  60

  70

  57

  278

  Belfast 4

  32

  57

  75

  45

  40

  249

  Belfast 5

  105

  60

  51

  21

  56

  293

  Belfast 6

  48

  51

  32

  21

  37

  189

  Belfast 7

  43

  77

  65

  62

  73

  320

  REGION TOTAL

  566

  457

  463

  406

  538

  2,430

  North East Region

  District

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Total

  Antrim

  195

  188

  116

  136

  188

  823

  Ballymena

  178

  113

  54

  142

  165

  652

  Carrickfergus

  132

  161

  104

  102

  200

  699

  Larne

  87

  91

  81

  133

  103

  495

  Newtownabbey 1

  125

  97

  82

  98

  112

  514

  Newtownabbey 2

  152

  121

  87

  105

  114

  579

  Ballymoney

  77

  60

  39

  70

  63

  309

  Ballycastle

  29

  34

  28

  34

  45

  170

  REGION TOTAL

  975

  865

  591

  820

  990

  4,241

  North- West Region

  District

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Total

  Londonderry 1

  64

  32

  37

  32

  83

  248

  Londonderry 2

  47

  35

  44

  70

  73

  269

  Londonderry 3

  46

  27

  29

  30

  53

  185

  Limavady

  104

  52

  60

  59

  71

  346

  Strabane

  69

  60

  78

  99

  126

  432

  Coleraine

  93

  43

  40

  79

  110

  365

  Magherafelt

  93

  52

  49

  74

  137

  405

  REGION TOTAL

  516

  301

  337

  443

  653

  2,250

  West Region

  District

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Total

  Omagh

  82

  53

  52

  91

  100

  378

  Dungannon

  116

  75

  96

  143

  176

  606

  Enniskillen

  94

  81

  78

  144

  192

  589

  Cookstown

  62

  44

  46

  61

  82

  295

  REGION TOTAL

  354

  253

  272

  439

  550

  1,868

  South-East Region

  District

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Total

  Lisburn 3

  19

  16

  18

  18

  27

  98

  Lisburn 1

  155

  81

  70

  80

  120

  506

  Lisburn 2

  97

  52

  48

  79

  110

  386

  Bangor

  108

  83

  92

  83

  150

  516

  Castlereagh 1

  94

  73

  56

  46

  84

  353

  Castlereagh 2

  105

  94

  63

  98

  109

  469

  Downpatrick

  136

  117

  110

  124

  149

  636

  Newtownards 1

  131

  119

  104

  71

  147

  572

  Newtownards 2

  80

  73

  71

  69

  84

  377

  REGION TOTAL

  925

  708

  632

  668

  980

  3,913

  142

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the financial support given to housing associations in Northern Ireland for the provision of new dwellings.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on capital funding to housing associations in Northern Ireland is not available on a basis which distinguishes between new build and rehabilitation. However, it is estimated that in 1989–90 expenditure by housing associations on new build for rent was some £19 million out of a total of over £29 million.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants from the Republic of Ireland are currently working in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  Civil servants from the Republic of Ireland are employed on the Irish side of the Anglo-Irish secretariat. The number of civil servants so employed is a matter for the Irish Government.

ENVIRONMENT

  Community Charge (Hostages)
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has given to local authorities in relation to the community charge where a member of the family is a hostage in Iraq or Kuwait.

  Mr. Portillo
  The circumstances of British citizens held in the Gulf against their will can affect their liability to one of the community charges in a number of ways. To help local authorities reach consistent treatment my Department's advice is:Those who are normally resident in Kuwait or Iraq and are not registered for a personal community charge will obviously, continue without liability.
  Those who are normally resident in Britain but now detained in the Gulf should he removed from the register and have no liability for personal charge from the date of their detention if that detention lasts for more than six months.
  Those whose sole or main residence in Britain becomes unoccupied for more than six months due to their detention should not become liable to a standard community charge.

  Some of this advice was included in a circular issued by my Department to all charging authorities on 5 November. The circular also gave guidance on the treatment of armed forces serving abroad. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Anti-competitive Behaviour
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 12 November,Official Report, columns 42–43, whether his Department investigates all complaints of alleged anti-competitive behaviour which it receives; and if he will indicate the stages of investigation his officials pursue when responding to allegations of anti-competitive behaviour.

  Mr. Portillo
  My Department investigates all complaints which appear to reveal breaches of the requirements of part I of the Local Government Act 1988.144
  In all cases where a case is being investigated, my Department writes to the authority concerned and considers its reply. Subsequent handling of the investigation depends on the circumstances of each case.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what channels direct services organisations and direct labour organisations have open to them to allege anti-competitive behaviour on the part of local authorities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what channels private citizens have open to them to allege anti-competitive behaviour on the part of local authorities; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 12 November, Official Report, column 43, if he will publish his Department's guidelines or procedures for complaining of alleged anti-competitive behaviour on the part of local authorities under the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  A direct services organisation or direct labour organisation would not have an identity separate from its parent authority. It is, however, open to any organisation or individual to write to my Department if they believe that a local authority has failed to comply with the requirements of part I of the Local Government Act 1988. Those include the requirement, contained in section 7(7) of the Act, that an authority, in reaching the decision that they should carry out work subject to the requirements of the Act and in doing anything else in connection with such work before reaching such a decision, should not act in a manner having the effect or intended or likely to have the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition.

  It would also be open to an organisation or an individual to take civil action if they believed that a local authority had contravened the provisions of the legislation.

  The way in which organisations or individuals may raise matters with my Department is not the subject of any special guidelines or procedures.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints his Department has received alleging anti-competitive behaviour on the part of local authorities under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department is currently investigating complaints of alleged anti-competitive behaviour under part I of the Local Government Act 1988 in the case of 48 local authorities. The number of complaints is greater, since some individual authorities are the subject of several complaints. The Department has notified all 48 local authorities of its investigations.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many members of staff in his Department process and monitor complaints of alleged anti-competitive behaviour on the part of local authorities under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  My Department's concern with the implementation of part I of the Local Government Act 1988 goes wider than processing and maintaining complaints of alleged anti-competitive behaviour, and includes a range of other important aspects, such as
  145
  responding to queries from local authorities and considering the annual reports which local authorities are required to submit under section 11 of the 1988 Act. Six departmental officials are employed full time on all aspects of the implementation of the 1988 Act. In addition, five other departmental officials are employed on this work for a significant proportion of their time.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints of alleged anti-competitive behaviour, under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988, his Department is currently investigating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  This question could be answered only at disproportionate expense, since it would require information to be compiled covering a period of at least two years.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department keeps a record of complaints received alleging anti-competitive behaviour on the part of local authorities, under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department maintains full documentation of those complaints alleging anti-competitive behaviour under part I of the Local Government Act 1988 which it investigates.

  Bathing Waters
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer of 14 November,Official Report, column 164, on the quality of bathing water, if he will list all the improvement schemes for which additional treatment will be provided.

  Mr. Trippier
  The improvement schemes referred to in my right hon. Friend's answer of 14 November which will include additional treatment are:

  REGION AND SCHEME

  Northumbrian

  Newbiggin

  Seaton Carew

  Anglian

  West Runton

  Cleethorpes

  Dovercourt

  Southern

  Dover

  Folkestone/Sandgate

  Pennington

  Pevensey Bay

  Sandwich/Deal

  Worthing/Portslade

  Wessex

  Swanage

  South West

  Lyme Regis

  Exmouth

  Teignmouth

  Salcombe

  Plymouth

  Seaton and Downderry

  Penzance

  Trevaunance Cove

  Trevone

  Bude

  146

  Taw/Torridge

  Ilfracombe

  Combe Martin

  Lynmouth

  Torbay (Hopes Nose)

  Torbay (Sharkham Point)

  Dartmouth

  Portwrinkle

  Readymoney Cove

  Mevagissey

  Gorran Haven

  Falmouth

  Perranporth

  Seaton (Devon)

  Wales

  Jacksons Bay/Whitmore Bay/Cold Knap

  Aberafan

  Swansea

  Aberystwyth

  Tywyn

  Kinmel Bay/Rhyl

  North West

  Fylde Coast

  Seascale

  Allonby

  Silloth/Skinburness

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the beaches that failed the mandatory coliform bacteria standards of the EC bathing water directive during the 1990 bathing season.

  Mr. Trippier
  The list was included in DoE news release No. 638 of 14 November 1990.

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with the study of the best practical environmental option for the disposal of sewage sludge, which the Government, in their response to the third report of the Environment Committee, published in June 1988, asked Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to commission.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have today published the report "Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) for the Disposal of Sewage Sludge" produced by the Water Research Centre for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Copies have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  The report is in two parts. The first describes the methodology for identifying the BPEO for sewage sludge treatment and disposal. The second part consists of an extensive review of actual sludge treatment and disposal techniques.

  I would hope that this report will be of interest not only to the water industry in relation to sewage sludge disposal but also in a wider context to all those faced with the task of examining BPEOs.

  Archaeology and Planning
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the guidance on archaeology and planning, issued for consultation in February, will be published.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today issued a planning policy guidance note on archaeology and planning. We have been most impressed
  147
  by, and grateful for, the thought that has gone into the comments we have received in response to the consultation document issued in February. There have been more than 200 responses, coming from a wide range of representative organisations including developers, local authorities, archaeologists, conservation and amenity bodies and museums, as well as individuals.

  We have taken the many comments into account in preparing the final guidance and we believe that we now have a well balance document which clearly sets out the importance of archaeology and how it should be handled in the planning process. It should go a long way to ensuring that the desirability of preserving archaeological remains is fully considered before planning decisions are made.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy which copyright lawyers were consulted before authorising payment of a licence fee to MCA Merchandising for the use of the Herman Munster copyright to cover the Frank N. Stein advertising campaign.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government consulted Slaughter and May, their legal advisers. Other legal advice sought by WCRS is a matter for that company.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what supplementary fees have been, or are to be paid to WCRS, the advertising agency responsible for the Frank N. Stein advertising campaign for the flotation of the electricity distribution companies, as compensation for its costs in settling the claim for breach of the Herman Munster copyright by the MCA Merchandising subsidiary of Universal Studios, Hollywood, USA.

  Mr. Baldry
  No supplementary fees have been paid, or are to be paid to WCRS in respect of any aspect of the claim for alleged breach of copyright by MCA Merchandising. A total of £6,000 was paid by the Government as a contribution to the licence fee, which is normal in such circumstances.

  Energy Efficiency
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many people are employed in the energy efficiency office to give advice on energy efficiency for domestic hereditaments.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Energy Efficiency Office provides advice and information to householders through its domestic literature, which is also available through its regional offices. In addition, the EEO's new home energy efficiency scheme will provide grants for insulation and for advice on energy to eligible householders.

  South Wales Small Mines Association
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (i) when he anticipates receiving the decision of the competition directorate of the European Commission, regarding the complaint about discriminatory coal purchase pricing brought by the South Wales Small Mines Association;
  148
  (2) what is the deadline of the competition directorate of the European Commission to determine the complaint from the South Wales Small Mines Association regarding National Power's alleged discriminatory coal purchase pricing under article 85 of the treaty of Rome.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is for the competition directorate of the European Commission to reach a decision, and make an announcement, about the complaint made by the South Wales Small Mines Association.

  Multiple Share Applications
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received regarding the funding of further computer runs relating to fuzzy matching techniques for the discovery of multiple share applications for British Gas shares in 1986.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Investigations into multiple share applications for British Gas shares are continuing.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the cost of the detection of multiple share allocations for the flotation of the electricity distribution companies by(a) fuzzy matching and (b) other computerised techniques; and how it will be funded.

  Mr. Baldry
  The precise programme of work in this area has not been decided at this stage. The cost will depend on the scope of the work and also on the number of people applying for shares.

  Piper Alpha
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department carried out its own research into the fire and explosion on Piper Alpha on 24 March 1984.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Department carried out its own investigation into this dangerous occurrence, making use of all available information.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy why his Department did not seek to institute legal proceedings following the explosion and fire in the gas conservation module on Piper Alpha on 24 March 1984.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Successful prosecutions require a significant commitment of resources, on the part of the relevant legal authorities as well as the Department. Prosecution is therefore a sanction to be applied with discretion, with regard to the likelihood of successful action and with regard to the value of the prosecution. The Department's approach to these issues was developed in collaboration with the procurator fiscal, who would alone be responsible for any decision to initiate proceedings. The dangerous occurrence on Piper Alpha on 24 March 1984 was ascribed to a design fault, probably attributable to the work of non-United Kingdom resident bodies. Also, prompt corrective action had voluntarily been taken by the operator, Occidental. In all the circumstances, the view was taken that a prosecution would have been uncertain, expensive and of little benefit.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what aspects of safety on Piper Alpha were covered in his Department's inspection of(a) February and (b) March 1984.
  149
  Mr. Wakeham
  The inspection of the installation on 21 February 1984 was a standard inspection of the installation, covering the normal range of operational activities. The visit by inspectors on 25 and 26 March 1984 was an investigation of the explosion in the gas compression module on 24 March.

  North Sea Installations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what were the numbers of fatal accidents on oil platforms and other installations in the North sea in each year since 1978;

  (2) how many workers on North sea oil and gas installations were killed and seriously injured, respectively, in each year since 1978;

  (3) how many serious accidents, excluding fatal accidents, occurred on North sea oil and gas installations in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The number of fatalities and serious accidents—injuries to persons—on or near to offshore installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf reported to my Department from 1978 to 1989 are as follows:

  Fatalities

  Serious Accidents

  1978

  4

  40

  1979

  10

  43

  1980

  4

  45

  1981

  6

  59

  1982

  14

  39

  1983

  10

  47

  1984

  13

  59

  1985

  8

  103

  1986

  3

  101

  1987

  6

  59

  1988

  1173

  285

  1989

  3

  85

  1 167 relate to Piper Alpha.

  2 Includes 11 of the 61 Piper Alpha survivors.

  Source: "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom". This is published annually and copies are held in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what was the complement of full-time inspectors for North sea safety duties in his Department in each year since 1978; and what was the level of vacancies;

  (2) how many professional inspectors are employed by his Department on North sea oil and gas installation inspections; and what was the equivalent figure in each year since 1978;

  (3) how many full-time field inspectors are now engaged in offshore installations; and what was the equivalent figure in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The number of full-time professional inspectors employed in my Department's safety directorate, together with the complement and the number of vacancies is set out in the table.

  Date

  Complement

  Staff in Post

  Vacancies

  1980 (June)

  28

  25

  3

  1981 (July)

  33

  31

  2

  1982 (March)

  35

  32

  3

  1985 (October)

  33

  27

  6

  1987 (March)

  44

  36

  8

  1988 (November)

  46

  39

  7

  150

  Date

  Complement

  Staff in Post

  Vacancies

  1989 (October)

  46

  42

  4

  1990 (October)

  61

  43

  18

  Prior to 1988, figures are available only for the dates shown. No part-time inspectors are employed.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many installations there are in the British section of the North sea; and what was the equivalent figure for each year since 1978.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Information on the number of fixed platforms on the United Kingdom continental shelf and on mobile drilling activity—rig years—is shown in the table:

  Fixed platforms1

  Mobile drilling activity (rig years)

  1978

  55

  18·1

  1979

  58

  16·1

  1980

  60

  20·6

  1981

  64

  24·6

  1982

  67

  30·1

  1983

  74

  34·2

  1984

  84

  49·1

  1985

  92

  51·7

  1986

  110

  35·3

  1987

  123

  35·2

  1988

  131

  50·7

  1989

  141

  49·5

  1 The number of oil and gas platforms which are on location either drilling, producing or under construction.

  Source: "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom". This is published annually and copies are held in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total spent on the North sea safety inspectorate of his Department in each year since 1978 at constant prices.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many inspectors are currently directly employed by each of the certifying authorities licensed by him to inspect North sea oil and gas installations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  There are six certifying authorities appointed to carry out surveys and assessments of offshore installations in order to certify that they are fit for their intended purpose. They currently employ some 475 technical staff on this work.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many of the prosecutions mounted against operations of North sea oil and gas installations arose from accidents and how many arose from regular inspections;

  (2) if he will list the operators of North sea oil and gas installations who have been prosecuted in each year since 1978;

  (3) how many prosecutions of operators of North sea oil and gas installations have been made in each year since 1978; and how many were successful.
  151
  Mr. Wakeham
  Decisions on prosecutions are taken by the appropriate legal authorities, taking into account reports submitted by my Department.

  Details of companies convicted for breaches of health and safety legislation are as follows:

  Year and companies convicted

  Number of convictons

  1978

  Union Oil Co. of Great Britain

  1

  Shell UK Exploration and Production

  1

  Total

  2

  1979

  Seagull Offshore Enterprises

  1

  1980

  Stothert and Pitt Limited

  1

  1981

  Chevron Petroleum (UK) Limited

  1

  1982

  Southeastern Drilling Services

  1

  Bawden Drilling (UK) Limited

  1

  Dixilyn Field Drilling Venture

  1

  Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Limited

  1

  Shell UK Exploration and Production

  2

  BNOC (Development) Limited

  2

  Total

  8

  1983

  Jack Tighe (Offshore) Limited

  1

  Western Oceanic Inc.

  1

  Heerema Offshore Contractors

  1

  Occidental Petroleum (Caledonia) Limited

  1

  Total

  4

  1984

  Strathclyde Process Engineering Limited

  1

  Shell UK Exploration and Production

  2

  Western Oceanic (UK) Limited

  2

  Total

  5

  1985

  BP Oil Development Limited

  1

  Rigblast Offshore Limited

  1

  Bawden International Limited

  2

  Global Marine Drilling Company

  1

  Wilh Wilhelmsen Enterprises Limited

  1

  Shell UK Exploration and Production

  1

  Jack Tighe (Offshore) Limited

  1

  Total

  8

  1986

  OTIS Pressure Control Limited

  1

  1987

  Sonat Offshore Limited

  1

  1988

  Shell UK Exploration and Production

  1

  Occidental Petroleum (Caledonia) Limited

  1

  Santa Fe UK Limited

  1

  Total

  3

  1989

  Mobil North Sea Limited

  1

  Shell UK Exploration and Production

  1

  Total

  2

  152
  Information on the number of prosecutions resulting from accidents and from inspections is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many prohibitions or improvement notices under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act have been issued since 1978 to operators of North sea oil and gas installations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Thirteen prohibition and improvement notices under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act have been served on offshore operators since 1978. My inspectors have additional powers under the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971 to prohibit an activity or the use of equipment or to require improvements to be made. These powers have been designed specifically for offshore operations and are used extensively.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when his Department first considered the installation of sub-sea emergency shut-off valves on oil and gas pipelines in the North sea.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Following development of sub-sea valve technology in the early 1980s, amendments were introduced in 1986 to the Institute of Petroleum pipeline safety code on the advice of a committee on which my pipelines inspectorate was represented. These amendments recommended that risk assessment should be undertaken for new large inventory trunk and interfield pipelines to assess the need for sub-sea valves. In August 1988 my director of safety wrote to all pipeline operators asking them to re-evaluate immediately the need for sub-sea isolation systems on all existing pipelines.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of serious and fatal accidents on North sea oil and gas installations were investigated by his Department in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is the policy of my safety directorate to investigate all fatal accidents on offshore installations. The percentage of serious accidents investigated since 1978 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Achievements
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the achievements of his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Legislation has been passed providing for the reorganisation and privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales. Flotation of the 12 regional electricity companies is going ahead according to plan and preparations are well advanced for the flotation of the two generating companies in February 1991.

  Government policies on taxation and licensing have ensured continued successful exploitation of the United Kingdom continental shelf. My Department has fully accepted the conclusions and recommendations of Lord Cullen's inquiry into the Piper Alpha accident. The Offshore Supplies Office has continued to support the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry on the United Kingdom continental shelf and in international markets.

  The Energy Efficiency Office has continued to promote energy efficiency. Its programmes have secured recurrent annual savings now worth over £500 million per year. It

  153
  has introduced the best practice programme to advance and spread good practice in energy efficiency, and developed the home energy efficiency scheme to provide grants for insulation measures and advice for low-income households.

  My Department has facilitated British Coal's continued restructuring of their business in response to changing market circumstances. In particular the Coal Industry Act 1990 introduced deficiency grant, eliminating British Coal's accumulated group deficit of £6 billion at 31 March 1990 and enabling outstanding borrowings to be reduced by over £4 billion.

  In the nuclear field, following the decision to retain nuclear power in public ownership, a new company, Nuclear Electric plc, has been set up to own those reactors previously owned by the CEGB. The restructuring of the Atomic Energy Authority has continued in light of current and future business prospects.

  On renewable sources of energy, my Department has published a 10-year forward development strategy as Energy Paper 55, doubled Government expenditure on Research and Development and introduced the first renewables order under the non-fossil fuel obligation of the Electricity Act 1989.

  As part of the United Kingdom's contribution to the international discussions on climate change my Department prepared a report which evaluated energy-related greenhouse gas emissions and measures to ameliorate them—Energy Paper 58.

EMPLOYMENT

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a table showing the percentage increase in rank order since April 1979 in average weekly earnings in real terms for full-time adult male manual workers, including overtime and excluding absence, in mechanical engineering, motor-vehicle and parts industries, clothing, textiles, footwear, domestic electrical applicances, banking and finance, estate agency and property dealing, building societies, insurance business services, water, gas, telecommunications, petroleum tanker-drivers, underground coal-miners, national health service ancillary staff, national health service maintenance staff, hospital porters, ambulance men, hospital ward orderlies and primary teachers.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on the average gross weekly earnings of full-time adult male manual employees is published by agreement, by industry and by occupation in part A of the annual new earnings survey reports for the years in question. Information is not available for manual workers in all the categories specified, nor do all the job descriptions specified precisely match the recognised standard classifications used in the survey. Information on the retail prices index (all items), to convert the figures to 1990 prices, is published for April 1990 in table 6·4 of the latest Employment Gazette, and in table 26 of the annual supplement to Economic Trends for April of earlier years. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a table showing the percentage increase in average weekly earnings in real terms for full-time adult male manual workers in the 154
  public sector including overtime and excluding absence in the years 1970 to 1974, 1974 to 1979, 1979 to 1990 and 1985 to 1990 together with the corresponding figures for non-manuals in respectively, manufacturing, the public sector and the rest of the economy; and whether he will provide corresponding data for females.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on the average gross weekly earnings of full-time adult, manual and non-manual employees in the public sector is published in table 1 of part A of the annual new earnings survey (NES) reports from 1979 onwards, and in a special article in the December 1977 Employment Gazette for earlier years. The categories "manufacturing", "public sector" and "rest of the economy" are not mutually exclusive groupings and data for them are thus not directly comparable. However, information for manual and non-manual employees in manufacturing and non-manufacturing, respectively, is published in table 4 of part A of the NES reports for the years in question, with the exception of data for non-manufacturing in 1990 which are as follows:

  Males £

  Females £

  Manuals

  227·1

  143·4

  Non-Manuals

  352·1

  217·3

  Information on the retail prices index (all items), to convert the figures to 1990 prices, is published for April 1990 in table 6.4 of the Employment Gazette, and in table 26 of the annual supplement to Economic Trends for April of earlier years. Copies of the publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a table showing the industries on a three-digit basis in which the increase in real average weekly earnings since 1979 has been(a) less than half and (b) more than half the increase for the whole economy with his best estimate of the increase in output per head in each case over that period.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information on average gross weekly earnings at 3 digit standard industrial classification (SIC) level is published in part C of the new earnings survey reports for the years in question. Information on the retail prices index (all items) to convert the figures to 1990 prices is published for April 1990 in table 6.4 of the latest Employment Gazette and in table 26 of the annual supplement Economic Trends for April of earlier years. Comparable figures are not available for output per head at three digit SIC level. Copies of the publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a table showing the percentage increase in average weekly earnings in real terms for full-time adult and male manual workers in manufacturing including overtime and excluding absence in the years April 1970 to 1974, 1974 to 1979, 1979 to 1990 and 1985 to 1990 together with the corresponding figures for non-manuals generally; and whether he will provide corresponding data for females.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on the average gross weekly earnings of full-time adult, manual and non-manual employees in manufacturing is published in tables 4–7 of Part A of the annual new earnings survey reports for the
  155
  years in question. Information on the retail prices index (all items) to convert the figures to 1990 prices is published for April 1990 in table 6.4 of the latest Employment Gazette, and in table 26 of the annual supplement Economic Trends for April of earlier years. Copies of the publications are available in the Library.

  George Kenyon
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any representations regarding the death of George Kenyon at David Holt Plastics, Haslingden, Rossendale, on 24 May 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I have received several letters from hon. Members about this case. Some enclosed copies of letters from the public urging me to reopen the manslaughter case against Mr. David Holt. However, that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, who is well aware of the circumstances of the case.

  Following an investigation by HSE inspectors, legal proceedings under the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974 and the Factories Act 1961 were instituted against the two directors of David Holt Plastics Ltd. The company and the two directors received fines totalling £47,000.

  In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service also brought charges of manslaughter against the directors. Norman Holt pleaded guilty and received a year's prison sentence suspended for two years. David Holt's plea of not guilty to manslaughter was accepted by the prosecution, although the judge ordered the case to remain on file.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any reports from the Health and Safety Executive regarding the death of George Kenyon at David Holt Plastics, Haslingden, Rossendale, on 24 May 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The HSE has kept me informed of the details of the case, but has not produced a formal report. Following an investigation by HSE inspectors, legal proceedings under the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974 and the Factories Act 1961 were instituted against the two directors of David Holt Plastics Ltd. The company and the two directors received fines totalling £47,000. In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service also brought charges of manslaughter against the directors. Norman Holt pleaded guilty and received a year's prison sentence suspended for two years. David Holt's plea of not guilty to manslaughter was accepted by the prosecution, although the judge ordered the case to remain on file.

  Disability
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration is being given to enacting anti-discrimination legislation to make unlawful discrimination against disabled people in employment and other areas modelled on the recent American Disabilities Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", which was published on 29 June, sets out various options for encouraging the employment of people with disabilities. What action to take will be considered in the light of the comments we receive.
  156
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is being done to ensure that the 3 per cent. quota for the employment of disabled people is being met.

  Mr. Jackson
  A number of specific steps are taken by the Employment Service which include:—an annual postal inquiry, into the extent to which employers within the scope of the scheme (those with 20 or more workers) are employing registered disabled people;
  —employers revealed by the inquiry to be employing less than the 3 per cent. quota are informed of their duties and obligations under the scheme, including the need to obtain permits before engaging other than registered disabled people;
  —authorised officers conduct a continuing programme of inspections of the record which employers who are within scope of the scheme arc obliged to keep;
  —wide distribution of the booklet "Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts 1944 and 1958. Employers obligations: Notes for Guidance", and of the Employment Service's code of good practice on the employment of disabled people.

  However, the main thrust of the Department's efforts in this area is through disablement resettlement officers in actively helping the resettlement of people with disabilities; and by disablement advisory service teams in promoting constructive employment policies towards people with disabilities.

  Health and Safety at Work, ect. Act
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act applies to Crown premises; and if it is enforceable against such premises.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 is enforceable against persons not premises. The Act does apply to the Crown, but it cannot be enforced against the Crown in the courts or by the use of enforcement notices. In practice, the Health and Safety Executive has agreed with the Crown to seek compliance with health and safety standards through a system of Crown notices. These notices either require the Crown to make improvements within a specified time limit (Crown improvement notice) or to stop work immediately (Crown prohibition notice).

  Youth Training
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has made any assessment of the financial contribution made by employers to the cost of youth training.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 2 July 1990 at column 472.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the net number of new businesses being created each week so far in 1990.

  Mr. Forth
  During 1989, the latest period for which figures have been published by my Department, the number of businesses registered for VAT increased by nearly 1,700 a week on average. Early indications from data collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is that there continues to be a substantial surplus of registrations over deregistrations.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he has taken to ensure that every training and enterprise council makes provision within its area for those with special needs.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 20 November 1990]: Each training and enterprise council (TEC) is required to set out in its corporate and business plans how it intends to meet the requirements of people with special needs. In approving plans my Department will ensure that appropriate proposals showing how the TEC will address this issue are set out. TECs are bound by their contract with my Department to implement the provision of their plans.

SCOTLAND

  Owner-occupation
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the level of owner-occupation in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Over 50 per cent. of the total housing stock in Scotland is now owner occupied, compared to 35 per cent. in 1979.

  Uplands Afforestation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Forestry Commission to discuss the environmental consequences of afforestation in the uplands.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the Director General of the Forestry Commission in September when they discussed a wide range of forestry matters.

  Constitutional Reform
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on Scottish opinion concerning constitutional reform in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The 1979 referendum demonstrated that, when faced with the full implications of constitutional reform, the Scottish electorate had no enthusiasm for it. Opinion polls have repeatedly indicated that the voters do not regard constitutional change as a priority issue.

  Steel Plant Closures
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of British Steel to discuss plant closures.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the Chairman of British Steel on 7 November.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with firms in Renfrew district about impending redundancies; and what practical assistance his Department has been able to offer.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department is in close touch with companies in Renfrew district that have announced 158
  redundancies and has ensured that they are aware of the assistance available, through regional selective assistance, towards capital expenditure designed to create or safeguard jobs. Decisions on such investment are matters for the companies themselves.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met trade union representatives from the steel industry to discuss future steel production in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met representatives of the steel trade unions on 14 November, when he met representatives of the Clydesdale unions. The discussion covered prospects for that plant.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the scottish steel industry.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the Chairman of British Steel on 7 November. No further meetings are planned at present.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many reports of potential Japanese or German purchasers of British Steel plants in Lanarkshire his Department has received and investigated.

  Mr. Lang
  Two reports of Japanese interest have been investigated. I am not aware of any reports of potential German purchasers of British Steel plants in Scotland.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report statements made about the Scottish steel industry by the Scottish Industry Minister over the period 8 to 12 November.

  Mr. Lang
  Over the period in question my only statements about the Scottish steel industry were made in response to the press and to the Young Conservative conference. Official records are not available for either of these occasions.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has given to Locate in Scotland and British embassies about British Steel's willingness as sellers of its plants in Lanarkshire.

  Mr. Lang
  No specific information has been passed regarding British Steel's willingness to sell its plants.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the dates over the past 12 months when he has met the chairman or other senior executives of British Steel; and when he next expects to meet them.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the chairman of British Steel and his chief executive on 15 May, 16 October and 7 November this year. He would expect to meet the chairman of British Steel again whenever appropriate.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had or intends to have with British Steel about its future policy with regard to retaining or abandoning Glasgow as its price basing point.

  Mr. Lang
  Policy on price-basing points has not arisen during discussions between my right hon. and learned Friend and the chairman of British Steel.
  159
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he has given to Locate in Scotland and British embassies about advertising the possible availability for sale of British Steel assets in Scotland; and when these instructions were first sent.

  Mr. Lang
  The assets belong to the company, not to the Government; therefore it is not for the Government to advertise the assets for sale.

  Law Centres
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision is being made in introducing additional law centres into Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no plans to introduce additional law centres in Scotland from centrally provided funds.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of local government income in Scotland comes from(a) the charge payer, (b) the business rate payer and (c) revenue support grant.

  Mr. Lang
  On the basis of local authorities' budget estimates for 1990–91: 22 per cent. of local authority income will come from their community chargepayers; 23·4 per cent. from their business ratepayers; and 54·6 per cent. from revenue support grant and specific grants.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the unpaid community charge in Tayside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations about unpaid community charges from people living in Tayside region, including those who are concerned about the effect this may have on community charge levels next year. Local authorities have a number of powers available to them to enable them to collect arrears of community charge and they have a duty to make rigorous use of these to collect the charges due to them. It would be grossly unfair for any authority to increase next year's bills to cover non-payment and, instead, authorities should take account of any shortfall in income by adjusting their expenditure plans.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on representations which have been made to him for the reform or abolition of the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations about different aspects of the community charge arrangements. We are always prepared to consider any suggestions for making the present arrangements more effective, and to take action where appropriate.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairman of Scottish Homes concerning the provision of more housing.
  160
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I regularly meet Sir James Mellon, the chairman of Scottish Homes. Our last meeting took place on 23 October, when discussion covered a range of strategic issues, including the provision of housing. No date has yet been set for our next meeting.

  Strathclyde Schools
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Strathclyde regional council's education committee, to discuss the quality of education in schools in Strathclyde; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not recently had any such meeting. He met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 6 July to discuss financial support for local authority services including education, and will do so again on 26 November.

  Pittenweem Harbour
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is his intention to meet representatives of the fishing industry in north-east Fife to discuss the development of Pittenweem harbour.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Such a meeting was held in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency last week.

  Integrated Transport System
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to ensure that Scotland has an integrated transport system by the year 2000; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on 17 October 1990, the Government believe in a balanced transport policy, providing users with as much choice as possible between competing forms of transport.

  Manufacturing Employment
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs in manufacturing have been lost since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The net job losses in manufacturing in Scotland between 1979 and 1989 totalled 210,700. This figure should be regarded as provisional, as it may change when more data become available.

  The table shows a components of change analysis of jobs in the manufacturing industry in Scotland between 1979 and 1989. The net loss of 210,700 includes 187,000 due to plant closures; 124,800 due to plant contraction; 58,400 new jobs due to plant openings; and 42,700 due to plant expansions.

  Scotch Whisky Association
  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to meet representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association.

  Renfrewshire Economy
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans his Department has to improve the condition of the economy and manufacturing industry in Renfrewshire.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office continues to support economic development in Renfrewshire through the provision of financial assistance towards capital investment which creates or maintains employment, through the attraction of inward investment to the area, through its involvement in the Ferguslie Park partnership and through its support, through the SDA, for the Inverclyde initiative and a number of other local initiatives. In addition, Inverclyde benefits from enterprise zone status. For the future, the Renfrewshire local enterprise company will pursue economic development and training proposals within the framework of Scottish Enterprise.

  GATT Talks
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to defend Scotland's agricultural interests and rural areas; and what representations he has made regarding the general agreement on tariffs and trade talks which are taking place.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The arable and dairy sectors in Scotland have generally experienced a favourable year in 1990.

  In the livestock sector, however, farm incomes are expected to fall again this year. The Government have already acted, by intervention in the beef sector, by raising the suckler cow premium in the less-favoured areas to the maximum sum payable, and by bringing forward the two advance payments of the sheep annual premium. The circumstances of livestock farmers in the hills and uplands in Scotland are currently being considered in the annual hill farming review.

  My right hon. and learned Friend contributes fully to the Government's policy towards the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

  Steel Mills
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met shop stewards from the Ravenscraig strip mill and Dalzell plate mill to discuss the future of the mills.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend met representatives of the Ravenscraig unions, covering the strip mill, on 10 October. I met representatives of the Dalzell trade unions on 15 October.

  Earnings
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to improve the gathering of average earnings statistics for the regions of Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Employment Department has no plans to change the new earnings survey sampling arrangements at present.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the level of average earnings is in the Borders region.
  162
  Mr. Rifkind
  The new earnings survey is the only source of information on average earnings for areas within Scotland. It is not possible to provide an estimate of average earnings for the Borders region because the new earnings survey sample does not give sufficiently reliable estimates for this region.

  Roads
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the rate of progress of upgrading Scottish roads.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The upgrading of the Scottish road network is progressing well. Particularly rapid progress continues to be made on our 1987 manifesto commitment to upgrade the A74 to motorway standard. Three sections of the route are now under construction and further sections will follow as resources and completion of statutory procedures allow.

  Another of our priorities is the early completion of the central Scotland motorway network. Further extensions to the existing M74, M8 and M80 are planned over the next few years. Indeed, advance works are soon to commence on the northward extension of the existing M74 towards Glasgow with main works following on next year.

  As well as these important additions to Scotland's motorway network, improvements will continue to be made on strategic trunk routes as well as other localised but worthwhile projects.

  The significant increase in motorway and trunk road funding in recent years is evidence of the Government's commitment to the provision of the best possible trunk road network to serve Scotland in the latter half of the nineties and into the next century.

  Nature Conservation
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what replies he has sent to the Scottish Sports Council letter of 28 September about the organisation of nature conservation and countryside matters.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Sports Council letter of 28 September was in fact a response to the consultation paper on Scotland's Natural Heritage and the views expressed in it were taken into account along with all other such expressions of views as part of the consultation process. A specific reply would not therefore normally be issued but an acknowledgement was sent on 9 October. As the council published its response and it was also raised with me by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I have responded to the Chairman on 20 November and released my reply to the media. A copy has also been sent to the hon. Member for Linlithgow. It makes clear the Government's view that the access and recreation functions of the Countryside Commission for Scotland are most appropriately transferred to the new body, Scottish Natural Heritage, which will be best placed to offer advice on all issues affecting the natural heritage.

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what authority the Central Legal Office used private detectives to monitor the behaviour of Carol Campbell.
  163
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Central Legal Office was acting on the instructions of Dumfries and Galloway health board which took the decision to use private detectives in this case in the light of legal advice from senior counsel and the Central Legal Office.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy on the use of private detectives by the Central Legal Office.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter for individual health boards in the light of legal advice.

  Conservation
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all those sites which have been(a) designated and (b) proposed for designation as (i) special protection areas under the European Community directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds or (ii) Ramsar sites under the convention on Wetlands of International Importance.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for designated sites is set out in the table. Sites are designated by my right hon. and learned Friend on the recommendation of the Nature Conservancy Council. Those sites for which NCC has already made, or intends to make, a recommendation for designation are listed at table 3.1 of the Council's publication "Protecting Internationally Important Birds Sites", which is lodged in the Library.

  (a) Designated sites

  (i) Special protection areas

  Site

  Island/District council

  Loch Druidibeg

  Western Isles

  Handa

  Sutherland

  Rhum

  Lochaber

  Priest Island

  Ross and Cromarty

  Loch Eye

  Ross and Cromarty

  Loch of Skene

  Gordon

  Abernethy Forest

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  Islay: Glac Na Criche

  Argyll and Bute

  Islay: Feur Lochain

  Argyll and Bute

  Islay: Loch Gruinart

  Argyll and Bute

  Islay: Bridgend Flats

  Argyll and Bute

  Islay: Laggan

  Argyll and Bute

  Islay: Eilean Na Muice Dubhe (Duich Moss)

  Argyll and Bute

  Ailsa Craig

  Kyle and Carrick

  Forth Islands

  East Lothian, Kirkcaldy and North East Fife

  Gladhouse Reservoir

  Midlothian

  Fala Flow

  Midlothian

  Hoselaw Loch

  Roxburgh

  (ii) Ramsar sites

  Site

  Island/District council

  Loch an Duin

  Western Isles

  Loch Druidibeg

  Western Isles

  Claish Moss

  Lochaber

  Loch Eye

  Ross and Cromarty

  Loch of Skene

  Gordon

  Cairngorm Lochs

  Kincardine and Deeside, Badenoch and Strathspey

  Islay: Glac Na Criche

  Argyll and Bute

  Islay: Feur Lochain

  Argyll and Bute

  Islay: Loch Gruinart

  Argyll and Bute

  Islay: Bridgend Flats

  Argyll and Bute

  Islay: Eilean Na Muice Duibhe (Duich Moss)

  Argyll and Bute

  164

  Site

  Island/District council

  Loch Lomond

  Dumbarton and Stirling

  Silver Flowe

  Wigtown

  Loch of Lintrathen

  Angus

  Loch Leven

  Perth and Kinross

  Rannoch Moor

  Perth and Kinross, Lochaber, Argyll and Bute

  Gladhouse Reservoir

  Midlothian

  Fala Flow

  Midlothian

  Hoselaw Loch

  Roxburgh

  Cancer Screening
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects a computerised call and recall system will be set up in order to allow all Scottish women to have regular cervical screening in whichever health board area they live.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Fully computerised call and recall systems are in operation in all health board areas except Highland and Lothian which have partially computerised systems. These boards expect to have full systems soon, Highland this financial year, and Lothian next financial year. In addition around 600 general practitioners now use GPASS—general practice administration system for Scotland—which also provides a computerised call and recall for cervical cytology.

  Pelagic Fishermen
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association on the withdrawal of the Export Credits Guarantee Department cover on trade with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My noble Friend the Minister for Fisheries in Scotland has discussed the matter with the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association, and is aware of the concerns of others in the pelagic industry in Scotland, regarding changes in the ECGD's arrangements covering trade with the USSR. My noble Friend is looking into the matter on their behalf and will write to the hon. Member when he has completed his inquiries.

  Wild Foxes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total annual expenditure incurred by the Forestry Commission in controlling the numbers of the wild fox population.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 1 November at column 723.

  Forests
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans the Government have with regard to continued public access to forests being disposed of by the Forestry Commission.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Forestry Commission welcomes the public on foot to all its woodlands, provided that this does not conflict with forestry operations and that there is no legal or other constraint on public access.

  In answer to a question from my hon. Friend on 16 June 1989, Official Report, columns 544–45, I made a

  165
  statement on the Forestry Commission's disposals programme. In this I expressed the Government's concern that the general public should continue to enjoy access to those forests to be disposed of by the Commission in a way which is compatible with management for forestry and other purposes.

  My right hon. Friends and I have given careful consideration to ways of achieving this objective. In doing so, we have had regard to the nature of access enjoyed by the public at present and the need to ensure that any measures which we adopt are effective, avoid needless bureaucracy and achieve a proper balance between public enjoyment and the ability of the new owner to manage his woodland.

  We have concluded that it would not be appropriate to proceed by way of new legislation, since this could not be framed in a sufficiently flexible way to cover the widely differing circumstances affecting woodlands throughout Great Britain. The option of imposing access conditions on sale has also had to be ruled out on the basis of legal advice that these would be of doubtful effect against subsequent owners.

  Instead, we have decided that the best way forward will be for the Government to ask the Forestry Commission to give advance notice to local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales of intended disposals of woodlands under its management, and to offer to enter into legal agreements with them which will provide for continued public access to the woodlands after sale. Such agreements will be compatible with the management of the woodlands for forestry and other purposes and will be binding on subsequent owners. These arrangements will apply to those woodlands where there are no existing legal or other constraints on public access to the land, and it will, of course, be up to individual local authorities to decide whether they wish to enter into an agreement with the Forestry Commission for any particular woodland prior to sale.
  166
  We see a number of advantages in these procedures. They can be introduced quickly. They will be tailored to suit local circumstances. Most importantly, the elected representatives of local people will be fully involved in the process, so reflecting the value that we attach to continued public use of the woodlands concerned.

  The Forestry Commission, with the co-operation of the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Commission for Scotland, will publish Guidelines setting out the details of these arrangements, after consulting with appropriate public and private bodies concerned with public access to the countryside, forestry and land management.

  We intend that the new arrangements will be introduced as soon as possible. In the meantime, the Forestry Commission will defer the sale of woodlands which are particularly sensitive in relation to public access.

  By taking this initiative, we are demonstrating the Government's firm commitment to maintaining and improving public access to the countryside.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of staff the Greater Glasgow health board has in its public relations departments; what is the annual budget and running cost of this department; and what is the value of the contract awarded by the board to an outside public relations consultancy to advise the board as to how it might improve its communications with the public and staff.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 19 November 1990]: The public relations department of Greater Glasgow health board employs three officers and a secretary; expenditure for 1989–90 was £100,000 per annum. The value of any contracts placed with outside consultants is a matter of commercial confidence.

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

Eastern Europe: Trade
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further encouragement they are giving to British firms to increase business with Eastern Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government seek to help British companies to explore opportunities in Eastern Europe by including businessmen in ministerial visits; by providing advice on changing trading conditions and legislation; and, where possible, information on specific opportunities. The most recent initiative was the publication earlier this month of a free introductory guide on trading with Central and Eastern Europe.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Are the Government satisfied that Britain is doing as much as other western countries with the objects, first, of giving crucial support to the economies of certain Eastern European countries, and, secondly, of increasing our international trade?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in the promotion of exports we can never afford to be totally confident that we are doing enough. The Government are doing their bit. They are continually reviewing the support which they offer to exporters and they believe that in the long term the future will be good.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the revised arrangements for the Export Credits Guarantee Department, which were announced in the gracious Speech, place British firms at no disadvantage in relation to their competitors in this market?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, would the Minister be kind enough to confirm that British companies are very badly placed and are seriously lagging behind our industrial competitors in regard to trade with Eastern Europe at the present time? In order to remedy that situation, are the Government taking a positive attitude towards recent European Commission initiatives to stimulate the European Community's reinsurance pool to assist export credit insurance and other initiatives that have been taken to stimulate investment?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on the question of money from the European Community, we play a full part in the PHARE programme which is currently worth some 500 million ecus. On the know-how fund,
676
we have a good record of increasing the amount of finance going to Eastern Europe. The noble Lord asks about exports. Over the past year exports to the USSR have increased by 30 per cent. and are up by 22 per cent. in the first seven months of this year.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if someone suggests that British industry is lagging behind its competitors he ought to produce evidence to show that that is so? My noble friend's figures seem to give the opposite message.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is typical of the Opposition to talk down British industry.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, far from talking down British industry, which was a rather trite and cheap comment, is it not a fact that we all have an interest in seeking to stimulate British industry? Is it not a fact that, as concerns trade with Ea stern Europe, British companies are lagging in eighth place compared with other Western European countries? Will the Minister reply specifically to the question that I asked? The European Commission has recently proposed a number of valuable initiatives which deal with export credit and investment. What is the Government's attitude with regard to those initiatives?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord did not hear what I said in my original answer to him. The European Community has the PHARE programme in which we play a full part.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, further to the question of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, can my noble friend confirm that there is no evidence that we are lagging behind our competitors in this regard? With respect to the noble Lord opposite, that is a wanton allegation.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. Exporters can always do more to increase their exports. This Government are involved in trying to provide the right economic conditions in this country so that they can do so. But all European countries have difficulties in exporting to Eastern Europe, mainly because Eastern European countries have little hard currency.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the Commission has made a number of specific proposals which were published on 16th November? It would not be proper for me to go into them in detail, which I could do. I am quite prepared to pass them to the Minister. Will he answer the question put by my noble friend? Do the Government subscribe to these proposals, and are they cooperating within the Commission to make sure that they are implemented?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, a whole range of trade and economic co-operation agreements have been signed with each individual country of Eastern Europe. They provide for greater access to the Common Market. We support the proposals.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any detail of how we are encouraging the teaching of English where we are pushing at an open door? Is that not a marked way of increasing British exports?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount. The United Kingdom was the first to announce bilateral assistance with the establishment of £75 million in the know-how fund. That is specifically aimed at helping Eastern European countries to help themselves in respect of marketing initiatives, learning the language and building up business skills.
Lord Kearton: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the excellent work being done by the Eastern European Trade Council under the chairmanship of Dr. Norman Wooding?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that that organisation and the gentleman to whom the noble Lord has referred are well known to the Department of Trade and Industry.

Primary Schools: Grant-maintained Status
2.43 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that any publicity that they publish advising primary schools with fewer than 300 pupils of their right to seek grant-maintained status will be balanced.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science wrote to all primary schools with fewer than 300 pupils last month letting them know that they are now eligible to apply for grant-maintained status. The letter made clear that each application received by the Secretary of State will be decided on its merits.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, does she recall the concern expressed by the secretary of the Conservative-controlled Association of County Councils about the Government's booklet on grant-maintained schools entitled Questions Parents Ask? The booklet does not appear to present a balanced account of the pros and cons of grant-maintained schools. It almost strays beyond the proper domain of explanation and information and into the realms of value judgment. Is she also aware that the letter which she mentioned, and which I have read, does nothing to mollify those concerns? What is needed now is an unbiased, revised version of the booklet and another such booklet dealing with schools which are maintained by local authorities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I speak from the Dispatch Box in order to defend the Government on such matters, not to defend individuals on the basis of hearsay or statements made outside this Chamber. There is a great deal of biased literature in this matter which does not emanate from the Government.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, will my noble friend join me in congratulating the parents, teachers and staff of the Cwmcarn School, which is the first school in Wales to gain grant-maintained status? Is she aware that this
678
school is situated in the constituency of the right honourable Member for Islwyn, whose party seems to be bent on abolishing grant-maintained status?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not aware of the details of the school. But I know that the policy of that party is to abolish grant-maintained status. We believe that grant-maintained status extends choice and it has certainly improved satisfaction with those schools; indeed, they are oversubscribed. We believe that the number of grant-maintained schools is growing sufficiently for it to be a very adverse policy if the Labour Party should ever consider its abolition.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say how many eligible primary schools—that is, those with more than 300 pupils—have asked to become grant-maintained?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we know that primary schools have applied for details about becoming grant-maintained but we do not know of any particular primary school which has had a ballot on the prospect of becoming grant-maintained. However, that is no reason why they should not be granted the right under the law to be considered along with any other application should they wish to apply for grant-maintained status.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that the Minister is saying that not a single primary school out of the 3,000 with over 300 pupils has applied for or been granted grant-maintained status. If that is the case, how can she possibly claim that applying for grant-maintained status and obtaining it is so popular among governing bodies, head teachers and parents in primary schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said that where grant-maintained status has been granted it has proved to be very popular—so popular in fact that all grant-maintained schools are oversubscribed. I was not specifically relating my remarks to primary schools. We do not see any reason why primary schools, should they wish to apply, should not be free to do so. They will be given serious consideration should we receive an application.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, will my noble friend condemn the actions of Bolton Metropolitan Council, which has banned pupils from the grant-maintained St.James's School from using the council's swimming baths?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall certainly join my noble friend in condemning any action which either thwarts the application for grant-maintained status or applies a vindictive policy against a school that wishes to become grant-maintained. We know of many such examples, and that is only one.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Baroness kindly inform the House what possible relevance that has to the Question on the Order Paper?
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the grant-maintained scheme is one of the biggest pieces of nonsense introduced by this Government? It makes utter nonsense of the local authority system. Further, will she make quite clear to these schools that they will all be returned to the local

679
authority system after the next election? There will certainly be a change of Government because the country is fed up with this one.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord's views about grant-maintained status. Grant-maintained status improves choice for both children and parents. It makes better use of central funds, it frees local schools and it allows them to make decisions at a local level. Where schools have been awarded grant-maintained status, they are highly popular with parents and students. Where they have been established, they are oversubscribed in every single case.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that she is referring to secondary schools, whereas the Question refers to primary schools? I understand from what she said that no primary school has achieved grant-maintained status as yet.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can only repeat that, because this has proved to be so popular in the secondary sector, we see no reason to restrict the freedom of a primary school should it wish to apply. Noble Lords opposite would not only restrict primary schools from becoming grant-maintained; they would also abolish the secondary schools which have already achieved grant-maintained status. We are simply saying that we believe that the maximum amount of freedom should be allowed under the law. We will support any primary school application which comes before the Secretary of State.

Bophuthatswana
2.50 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many tribal murders have been reported in South Africa in the last three years and, of those, how many were in Bophuthatswana.
Lord Reay: My Lords, there have been about 5,700 deaths in South Africa between January 1987 and September 1990 as a result of communal unrest of all kinds, including some 65 deaths in Bophuthatswana.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does it not indicate the benefit of the one-tribe state where inhabitants can live without the constant fear of inter-tribal riot and murder? Will he do all that he can to ensure that the views of the democratically elected Government of Bophuthatswana are taken fully into account in the constitutional talks, and that a deal affecting Bophuthatswana is not concluded by de Klerk and Mandela over their heads?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I should not say that Bophuthatswana was noticeably more peaceful than South Africa. A state of emergency is still in force in Bophuthatswana, whereas it has been lifted elsewhere in South Africa. There have been many recent detentions without trial and political demonstrators were killed earlier this year. With regard to the second half of my noble friend's question, we hope that the people of Bophuthatswana will have the opportunity
680
to make their views known during the negotiations on South Africa's future. President Mangope has already requested talks with Nelson Mandela and has spoken of participating in wider constitutional negotiations. That is a positive development.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that political violence in South Africa is damaging the prospects of a settlement between the ANC and the South African Government, and that the evidence shows that it is wrong to seek to lay the blame on the ANC? Were those matters discussed in the talks between the Prime Minister and Chief Buthelezi a few days ago? If so, what recommendations or advice did the right honourable Lady proffer to the Chief?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we deplore the tragic deaths and violence that have occurred, whatever their source. There is a heavy responsibility on all sides to show restraint and to maintain peaceful progress towards negotiations. The meeting between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Chief Buthelezi in London on 15th November was part of an ongoing dialogue. It was agreed that there is an urgent need to end violence and to maintain momentum towards constitutional negotiations.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, while most of us oppose the separate development and homeland policy in South Africa, does the Minister agree that, when a constitution for all South Africans is negotiated, all political leaders, including the homeland leaders, should be included in those talks?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we believe that all genuine political leaders should be involved.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although Her Majesty's Government must be wary of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries—far too common a vice nowadays—does the Minister nevertheless agree that where there is a mixture of tribes, races, languages and culture, a loose federal structure with maximum local self-determination is greatly preferable to a tightly knit unitary structure?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is not up to the Government to prescribe what should be the solution in South Africa. The details should be decided by the South Africans themselves.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, my noble friend said the population of Bophuthatswana would be consulted, but then he went on to talk about genuine leaders as if Mr. Mangope was not a genuine leader. Does he consider that the ANC leaders, who have never been elected, are more representative of their tribe than is Mangope, who was democratically elected in Bophuthatswana?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I said that I could give no assurance, but that we hoped that the people of Bophuthatswana would have the opportunity to make their views known. The democratic process in Bophuthatswana is open to some question. For example, at present all opposition parties are banned. As regards the ANC, I can say only that the ANC is

681
the principal focus for black opinion in South Africa, but of course it is not the only one and a settlement will have to take account of the views of others.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, further to the Minister's reply to his noble friend, does he agree that the chief objective is to have free and fair elections in South Africa in which ANC members can have an opportunity to stand?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is my understanding.

Forestry Planting
2.55 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest figures of forestry planting, both private and public, including the farm woodlands scheme; and how they compare with government targets.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, some 19,500 hectares of new planting were recorded in the year to 31st March 1990. That included 2,600 hectares of planting under the farm woodland scheme and 4,100 hectares of planting by the commission. That compares with a general government aim of 33,000 hectares of new planting a year. In addition, we allowed for the planting of a total of 33,000 hectares in Great Britain under the experimental farm woodland scheme over a three-year period from October 1988.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. May I bring him up to date with the planting figures to September 1990? The figures for the private sector are 12,000 hectares and for the Forestry Commission 4,000 hectares, making a total of 16,000 hectares, as against the Government's target of 33,000 hectares. As the Minister responsible for trade as well as forestry—I congratulate him upon his versatility—does he accept that reducing imports is as important as encouraging exports? Does he also accept that the figure for timber imports this year is approaching £7 billion? Encouraging domestic forestry could make a sizeable contribution to the balance of payments.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are not in the business of closing off a perfectly free market. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that over the past 10 years we have seen 250,000 hectares of new planting undertaken in Great Britain. That is probably more than has been done by any other country in relation to its size to expand its forestry contribution.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the statement made on Friday by the chairman of the Scottish Landowners' Confederation to the effect that he had had to pay off five employees at Kinloch Laggan as a result of the squeeze imposed by the Government's revamped forestry policy? In view of the grave effect that this will have on the rural economy will he endeavour to have that policy revamped?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I have said, our record over the past 10 years in expanding forestry has
682
been good. There is currently a hiccup affecting the increase in new tree planting, but we hope that this activity will continue to provide a long-term and viable contribution to the rural economy across the country.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that between 1970 and 1979 average private planting in this country amounted to 18,000 or 19,000 hectares, and that this was matched by the Forestry Commission which planted 18,500 hectares? To say that the Government have increased wood production is absolute nonsense. Will the noble Lord consider stopping the dramatic curtailment of the Forestry Commission's affairs in relation to wood production and the selling of trees and land? That took place in 1979 when the Government came into office. If they would stop that policy and let the Forestry Commission have its head again the Government might have some hope of reaching their target.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord talks about the planting record of the 1970s. We changed the tax regime in 1988 because trees were seen as a tax haven rather than as providing a viable economic future for the countryside. We gave the Forestry Commission a free rein to look after its own affairs. However, the commission is not there for its own sake, to be subsidised to a huge extent by the taxpayer. It has to be viable, like any other industry.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the regime of 1988 dictated that the only trees worth planting now are sitka spruce which do not require further maintenance? Is he satisfied that the later rules will give some chance to grow the hardwoods which are demanded by the greens and to carry out all the management necessary to keep them in good condition?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. I am glad to say that since the tax regime was changed we have seen a tremendous upswing in the amount of broadleaved planting. Last year more than 5,000 hectares were planted. That is a tenfold increase.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the Government propose to reinstate maintenance grants and, if so, when?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes. We are introducing management grants from 1992. We will keep the grant levels under review.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister has given figures for planting over the past two decades. Can he give some idea of how employment has fared in the forestry industry over that period? His noble friend Lord Stodart mentioned that five jobs were lost in a certain area. Knowing some of these areas, I believe that five jobs are important. It would be interesting to compare the figures.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have not brought any figures for employment in the forestry industry in Scotland. However, it is common knowledge that the industry plays a great part in the economy of rural areas. The loss of jobs is not desirable. That is why in the long term we hope to see a recovery in the price of

683
timber. There has been tremendous investment in down-the-line production in the past few years. That will he useful in providing a long-term future for the rural economy, particularly in Scotland.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, is my noble friend in possession of the comparative costs to the Exchequer of the tax which private foresters would have been able to reclaim when that incentive to forestry was in operation and the costs of the increased planting and management grants under the present system? The system is not proving a success in terms of reaching the Government's target for new planting. Is it possible to produce such figures applicable to last year's planting which I understood amounted to 14,000 hectares against the Government's hoped for 33,000 hectares?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I shall be able to give the noble Lord a substantive reply by way of letter, a copy of which will be placed in the Library. Very roughly, in the past year available tax relief was equivalent to £10 million: planting of 28,000 hectares would give a grant figure also of about £10 million.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in south east England there are still large areas of woodland uncleared following the devastation of the hurricane of October 1987? This is due to the high cost of clearance. Will the Government consider helping woodland owners with the clearance costs so that the lovely woods in Kent and Sussex can be replanted?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are all well aware of the dreadful devastation that took place in October 1987. Immediately afterwards, the Government gave careful consideration to the help that would be most appropriate to those who had suffered. The conclusion reached was that priority had to be given to the replacement of trees that had been blown down. A considerable extra grant—an increase of 60 per cent. on the normal planting grant—was handed out. I believe that the Government have been fair in respect of those people.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, can the Minister explain—
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, how can the Minister—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I do not think that both noble Lords can ask a question at the same time. We have had a good run round this course and I suggest that one of the two noble Lords asks a question. As the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has already done so, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, might put the last question.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, how can the Minister be so complacent in saying, as his predecessor said, that the target is 33,000 hectares when last year total planting was 17,000 hectares? Is he aware that this was believed by only two groups: first, the nursery men who thought that they had a market but had to destroy over 50 million young trees last year because of the decline in the planting programme; and secondly, the processors who invested £1 billion in the wood processing industries
684
on the assumption that domestic supplies would be available? They will not be available as long as our targets are not met.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not the least bit complacent. I have admitted that there has been a temporary downturn in the amount of planting. We are always prepared to listen to the industry; we talk regularly, not just to the Forestry Commission but to representatives of the private sector as well. The introduction of management grants in April 1992 will make a considerable difference. We shall see a return to the high levels of planting seen in the past.

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 Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed 20 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, no other speech should exceed 12 minutes.

Investment in Education
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone rose to call attention to the case for increased investment in education and higher quality provision at all stages in the education system; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying how much we look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. I believe there are no other vets in the House, and a House which has a strong interest not just in dogs but in other animals will surely benefit greatly from his expertise over the years to come.
The Opposition has chosen to make education the subject of the first Labour debate of the Session because of the growing public concern about the lack of investment in this vitally important service and concern about the quality of much of today's provision. There can be no doubt that education is very high on the political agenda. There can also be no doubt that the Government's own attempts at reform are in a shambles. Government policies on education are ill thought out, incoherent, inconsistent and in many respects impossible to implement.
Only last week we saw the scrapping of one of the Government's most cherished schemes—a scheme which we on the Labour side said was both daft and damaging from the beginning; that is, privately funded city technology colleges. Only a couple of weeks ago the universities learnt that the bidding system for funds, invented by the Government but implemented by the Universities Funding Council, was collapsing. A couple of months ago the then Secretary of State had to announce a retreat from the

685
Government's targets on the testing of seven year-olds. Hardly a week goes by without some new climb-down.
The future of a generation of children and young people is being threatened by the Government's mismanagement of education and their failure to provide the necessary resources. We are falling behind our European neighbours and the United States and Japan. This cannot go on without jeopardising our future prosperity. It cannot go on without wasting talent and leaving hundreds of thousands of people feeling frustrated and unfulfilled because the education system has failed them. There is only one way out of the morass we are now in. That is the election of a Labour Government—we shall not have to wait too long for one—who will sweep away the gimmicks of the last but one Secretary of State for Education and replace them with a coherent programme to expand opportunities and raise standards.
I wish to start with the Government's failure to invest in education. In a period in which the windfall of oil revenues provided the Government with a unique opportunity which no other government have had, spending on education fell from 5.5 per cent. of GDP to 4.8 per cent. To say that rolls are falling will not do. We threw away a golden opportunity to expand and improve the education service.
The Government will no doubt say that per capita spending on pupils went up over the period by over 40 per cent. However, that will not do either. That figure largely represents higher average costs due to falling rolls and a failure to take surplus places out of the system. It does not represent higher spending on books, equipment, facilities, the maintenance of buildings or extracurricular activities. In all those areas, as many parents will confirm, provision has become worse. But the Government's claim will not do for another reason. It is a measure of spending on those in the system but it masks the failure to invest in nursery education, further education for 16 to 19 year-olds or higher education so that those who are currently outside the system without places can get into it.
The Government may also try to excuse their past failures with claims that the latest expenditure plans represent a substantial increase in spending on education. However, that will not do either. To catch up on the lack of investment over the past decade will require the investment of much more money sustained over a number of years. In any case the few additional morsels that Mr. MacGregor extracted from the Treasury as his final contribution to education before being moved on do not add up to very much.
First, the extra £670 million may well be eaten up by inflation. The Government predict that inflation will fall to a level of 5.5 per cent. by the end of 1991. Even if we accept that somewhat optimistic prediction, the average level of inflation for next year could not be much less than 7 per cent. If it is much more than that, any volume increase will soon be whittled away. In any case little of the extra money
686
will be used in day-to-day spending on schools and colleges. Many will face no-growth budgets next year. Some money will go into higher education and some will go into capital spending on schools but both those items require far more investment. The sums available this year will not even scratch the surface of the £4 billion backlog on buildings and their repair. The extra money for higher education is quite insufficient to expand student numbers and maintain quality.
I shall now turn to the most important resource in education, which is our teachers. Here the situation is little short of disastrous. Some one in three teachers who start training have left the profession five years after qualification, yet we hear the Minister of State responsible for schools talking about the importance he attaches to getting bad teachers out of the schools. It might make more sense if he focused his attention first on how to keep good teachers in the schools. Unless we achieve that we shall never get rid of the bad ones because every pair of hands, however feeble, will be needed to keep the system going.
The number of vacant posts in both primary and secondary schools has gone up substantially over the past three years. Department of Education and Science figures for 1990 revealed 6,500 vacancies. Moreover, in key subjects such as science, mathematics and modern languages, teachers who are not qualified in those subjects have been drafted in to teach them. There can be no disagreement that this is bound to lead to a decline in quality. It is an appalling indictment that more than half of mathematics and physics teachers do not have a post A-level qualification in those subjects.
If drastic action is not taken, the crisis in teacher supply seems likely to get worse. How many of us can claim that we know talented, able young people who want to be teachers? I suspect that few of us know such people. Young people perceive the job as demanding yet poorly paid and lacking in status. We must devise measures to raise the status of the profession and attract more able recruits. It is also urgent to find ways to stem the flow of young teachers out of the profession.
In the past 11 years there has been far too much criticism of teachers from the Government side and far too little constructive thinking about how to create a stable and high quality profession. What is tragic about that failure is that it is the most disadvantaged pupils in our inner cities who suffer most from teacher shortages and high turnover as their schools rely most on young teachers. No Tory Minister would want his children taught by temporary or unqualified staff. However, such people always buy their way out of the system into private schools. Mr. Clarke, the new Secretary of State for Education, says that he is committed to our public services. That may be the case but he is not committed enough to use the state schools for his own children.
The state of our school buildings is another blatant example of the Government's failure to invest. Buildings with leaking roofs and crumbling paint create a miserable environment in which to work for

687
both pupils and teachers. It is shocking to read the senior chief inspector's findings in his report for 1988–89 where he states:
"In two-thirds of the secondary schools inspected the accommodation was unsatisfactory. In just under half of these there were serious problems".
He makes it clear that the state of our school buildings and the facilities in them will have adverse effects on the implementation of the national curriculum.
The Select Committee on Education in its report of July of this year is sceptical that the Government's objectives in this area will be achieved. It recommends that the DES should set minimum standards; identify those schools falling below them; agree with LEAs' target dates for bringing them up to standard and make the resources available to carry this out. I hope that the Minister will give us the Government's latest position on these recommendations.
I began my academic career writing about the provision or rather lack of provision of nursery education. I might have hoped that nearly 25 years later I would no longer find myself having to regret the fact that many small children still do not get the chance to benefit from pre-school education. However, such hopes were misplaced. It really is lamentable after Mrs. Thatcher made a pledge in 1972 as Secretary of State for Education to provide places in nursery classes and schools for every three and four year-old whose parents wished him to attend that 18 years later there is still state provision for only 44 per cent. of those children. In France and Belgium 95 per cent. of children of that age are in education and in Italy the figure is 88 per cent. A good nursery class provides the stimulating environment that all small children need. It is disadvantaged children who need it most. If we gave such children a better chance and a better start there might be fewer children falling behind in the primary schools. Such children contribute to our statistics of failure later.
Nursery education should not be a privilege for the lucky ones; it should be a right for every child. Labour authorities have tried to recognise this. Indeed a child in a Labour controlled area has twice the chance of a nursery place that a child in a Conservative controlled area has. I should be glad to hear the Minister's comments on that.
I now turn to the compulsory stage of education for five to 16 year-olds. I wish to touch on the debate on standards and say a few words about the Government's own reforms and their misplaced optimism about their likely effects. Recent opinion polls show that some 70 per cent. of voters think that standards are falling. Even 65 per cent. of Conservative voters share this view. More than two-thirds of those questioned blamed the Government. I do not know whether this high level of public concern is justified as we simply do not have the evidence. It was a Conservative government who abolished the former NFER national reading surveys and it was this Conservative Government who abolished the assessment of performance unit. As a
688
result we do not have the data to make informed judgments on standards over time, even in relation to basic skills such as reading.
There are, however, some worrying trends. Between 1975 and 1982 the proportion of pupils gaining five or more graded results in O-levels and CSEs went up from 62 per cent. to 75 per cent. That is a big improvement. However, from then on the trend towards improved performance came to an end although the introduction of GCSE is now helping matters.
Further, in its most recent report, Standards in Education, Her Majesty's Inspectorate judged 30 per cent. of what it saw in schools to be poor or very poor. It was concerned that the less able get the worst deal. The inspectorate views that as a persistent feature of British education at all levels. That is confirmed by international comparisons of achievement levels. Our most able pupils compare well with similar pupils elsewhere but average and below average pupils do not.
The HMI report identified a whole range of problems contributing to standards being lower than they should be. I shall list a few of those problems. There are worsening problems of teacher supply; too little non-teaching time for primary school teachers; too little clerical and ancillary help for primary heads; shortages of books, particularly in the first three years of secondary schooling; unsatisfactory accommodation adversely affecting work in half our secondary schools; a lack of equipment, materials and in-service training to allow even a start to be made in teaching technology in primary schools; a lack of coherence with respect to education for 16 to 19 year-olds; and a risk of too much prescription and 'too detailed an external scrutiny of teachers in the implementation of the national curriculum, leading to teachers having impossible workloads as well as their becoming deskilled.
That is just a small selection of the problems identified by the inspectorate, yet the Government try to reassure us by claiming that the Education Reform Act will make everything right. They talk a lot of ideological claptrap about market forces and parent choice. The Act's provisions for open enrolment are meant to increase the size of popular schools while unpopular schools wither and eventually close. But what about all those parents and pupils who do not have access to the popular schools? Are we happy that they should languish in bad schools which slowly wither and die, a process which could take many years? No, my Lords. The market does not work in a complex public service such as education.
What is needed is good public policies to intervene to improve our schools. That is what the Labour Party proposes by setting up an educational standards council to work with schools and LEAs, identifying good practice and working to bring up the standards of the less effective schools to those of the most effective. We shall also develop a home-school contract so that all parents can participate in their children's education.
The Government set great store on the national curriculum and its associated testing. On this side of the House, while supporting a core curriculum, we have argued that the national curriculum is too detailed and prescriptive and involves too many compulsory subjects in secondary schools. That is now becoming apparent, as we predicted. Similarly, national testing on the scale envisaged by the Government is proving to be unimplementable. The national curriculum and national assessment will all come to nothing if we do not have enough teachers in the right subjects to teach it and if buildings, books, equipment and other facilities are all inadequate.
I turn now to the education of 16 to 19 year-olds, which was not dealt with by the Education Reform Act. Here we are in the biggest mess of all. Staying on rates after 16 are deplorable. Only just over one-third of young people remain in full-time education between the ages of 16 and 19. That is a lower proportion than in any other advanced country. In France, two-thirds of young people in that age group are at school or college; in Sweden and Japan, over three-quarters, and in the United States almost four-fifths. What do the Government propose to do about those appalling participation rates? Why, over the past 11½ years, have they done so little to secure an improvement? They have allowed an incoherent and confusing mish-mash of vocational qualifications to develop—confusing to parents, pupils and teachers alike.
At the same time the Government cling to an unreformed system of A-levels even though both the over-specialisation and the old-fashioned and unimaginative assessment entailed have been criticised by many informed commentators. Those exams, and the courses that lead up to them, are a major factor in weeding out such a huge proportion of young people from full-time education. They are not even suitable for the top 20 per cent. of pupils. Substantial numbers drop out and we insist on failing 30 per cent. who take them.
For how much longer can we afford to do that? Every time moderate proposals for reform are put forward the Government reject them. The latest example comes from their own advisers—the School Examination and Assessment Council—to which Tim Eggar, the Minister of State, responded with a tired old cliché about A-levels being the gold standard. The gold is getting very tarnished.
If we are to get more young people to stay on, nothing less than a radical overhaul is needed. At the very least we must create an alternative vocational route into higher education so that the many young people who find A-levels too narrow or too daunting but who have the capacity and interest to study after 16 can do so. I should prefer to see a proper examination of the Institute for Public Policy Research proposals for a British baccalaureate. That would create a unified system which could bridge academic and vocational studies. I should be interested to hear the Government's views on those proposals.
Finally, I want to make some remarks about higher education. I shall be brief because I know that several other noble Lords intend to focus on higher education. The Government quite rightly wish to increase the numbers of young people taking degree-level studies. I welcome the small increase announced in the Autumn Statement to contribute towards the cost of its expansion. However, the Government are hell-bent on trying to get higher education on the cheap in a way that can only lead to a damaging decline in quality.
First, the capital allocation for next year is deeply disappointing. The polytechnics in particular are suffering from many years of neglect on the capital side. The universities, too, desperately need a greater injection of capital. For example, there are science departments and medical and veterinary schools which are required under the law to improve their animal houses yet the funding has not been provided to allow them to meet even the basic legal requirements. In his reply can the Minister say what the Government think the universities should do?
On the recurrent side, the Government insist on what they call further efficiency gains. Ministers are obviously completely out of touch with what has been happening in our higher education institutions. There have already been huge increases in efficiency and it is very hard to see where any more are to come from. Lastly, perhaps we could be told what the Government intend to do about the recent fiasco at the Universities Funding Council. The universities are still incredulous about the chairman's action.
I should have liked to be more positive about what has been happening in our education system, but until the Government give education the priority it deserves that will not be possible. There is mounting public criticism from all sections of the community. What people want to see is every child and young person reaching their full potential. They want to see properly resourced schools and colleges. Above all, they want the nation to succeed and they know that we shall only succeed in the 21st century if we have the best educated people and the best trained workforce in Europe. The Government have failed, not just in the execution of their policies but also through their lack of ambition in striving for those goals for Britain's children and young people, for Britain's future. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, perhaps I may first acknowledge the very kind and courteous reception that I have received in your Lordships' House as a new Member and all the good wishes that I have received for today. Many of your Lordships will know that it is a day of diffidence and trepidation, especially when one is faced with a series of speakers whose knowledge of a subject is as great as, if not greater than, one's own and whose experience is certainly greater.
It is a particular privilege to speak following the distinguished opener of this debate on education, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I wish to focus my

691
remarks on postgraduate education, a subject which the noble Baroness touched on. My 40 years of experience in the field, both in this country and overseas, may be of assistance in the appreciation of the role of postgraduate education in the economic, cultural and scientific health and welfare of this country, the Commonwealth and the community of nations in general. It is an important part of the interdependent primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of education and it has been the seedbed for many distinguished leaders in the humanities and sciences. One can generally trace a period of postgraduate study in the careers of Nobel laureates, fellows of learned societies, heads of colleges and other houses of learning, vice-chancellors and indeed a most reverend Primate. Your Lordships' House is well represented in all of those callings.
However, with due respect to such distinguished persons, it is the postgraduate and postdoctoral student who, within the United Kingdom at least, is responsible for much of the research effort. Without them that research effort could well falter, and training for leadership in science, industry and higher education would be very much compromised thereby. One must say that graduate students and postdoctoral fellows certainly are not motivated to their life of research and scholarship by monetary gain, since a graduate student's stipend is of the order of some £4,000 a year. Though admittedly it is tax free it is still hardly comparable with the salary of a junior secretary in London.
They play a crucial role in the national research effort in that they are at the cutting edge of research. That includes the liberation of the head of department or the leader of a research project to undertake other essential matters of teaching and administration. It is also the efforts of those postgraduates and postdoctorals which are largely exposed to the scrutiny of academic audit bodies such as the Universities Funding Council in the form of its periodic assessment of research productivity. In turn, such assessment determines the future funding of various departments and institutions. Some have called it the periodic romp through the higher education institutes, but I hasten to assure your Lordships that in this case ROMP is the acronym for Research Output by Measuring the number of Publications, that being an updated and supposedly finer analytical tool than POP, or, to give it its extended form, publish or perish.
Fortunately, the number of postgraduate and postdoctoral positions has been improved recently in all the research councils and by various charities. For example, the Medical Research Council has increased —in fact, more than doubled —its scholarship and research awards; the Natural Environment Research Council has significantly increased higher education institute support and postgraduate studentships; the Science and Engineering Research Council's support for scholarships and fellowships is up by 10 per cent. compared with five years ago; and similarly the Agricultural and Food Research Council has made a major shift in funding to higher education institutes.
692
The charities concerned with research and education—for example, the Wellcome Trust—are also playing an important role.
The problem now lies in the recruitment of appropriately qualified individuals from that population of one in five of all 18 year-olds who enter higher education and in particular in their retention within the system. An area of special concern is biotechnology, which is and will continue to be one of the highest competitive areas in postdoctoral science in the country. As a nation, to survive as a front runner in science and technology we must be able to compete with research and development efforts similar to those of our rivals in much the same way as major chemical and pharmaceutical companies must sustain their research efforts to match those of their rivals.
It is therefore somewhat disappointing, after having provided the necessary funding for postgraduate studies and the ensuing research, to discover that there is still a substantial drain—a brain drain —of our people to other countries, from which the reciprocal flow is substantially smaller. It is no bad thing to gain further experience in different institutions. It produces a valuable hybrid vigour. But for much of that talent to be retained permanently overseas, especially in the USA where the institutions are just as hungry for outstanding people as are our institutions, is obviously not of benefit for this country.
In 1964 I was part of the brain drain but I returned to this country 15 years later. I feel that I can speak with some experience of the factors which led to my departure and return. Essentially they were questions of career opportunity. I believe that it is critical to improve career prospects beyond our present postgraduate training if we are to keep trained people here and tempt them back following study overseas. Positive steps are being taken in that direction—for example, through the IRCs (interdisciplinary research centres), where major funding is provided over a 10-year period which includes many postgraduate and postdoctoral positions. The Royal Society research fellowship scheme for distinguished young scientists is especially valuable in retaining our best people.
Happily, there is a noticeable increase in persons returning from overseas to take up senior positions in universities and research institutions. That is a most welcome development. Nevertheless, the improved conditions that increasingly tempt people to return must be sustained if we are to fill the numerous lacunae in our postdoctoral education system.
Perhaps I may refer to my own profession; namely, veterinary medicine. The recruitment of veterinarians to the Agricultural and Food Research Council, for example, has fallen to what we must accept as too low a level in that only some 30 veterinarians out of a workforce of some 2,600 are employed in the whole service. There is a similar situation in the schools of veterinary medicine. There was a clear association between recruitment and the planning blight that affected the six schools, especially the two which were threatened with closure. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank noble Lords on all sides of the

693
House for their generous support which resulted in the retention of six schools of veterinary medicine in the United Kingdom.
I mentioned the brain drain from this country. There is another brain drain with which we are not perhaps so familiar; namely, the brain drain from the poorer countries of the world. Individuals from those countries go to Western countries, which retain them. Within the Commonwealth the mobility of students, particularly postgraduate students, has been a fundamental element in the support and development of education. The product has been obvious in all walks of life. Not least it has served to provide leadership and staffed the centres of higher learning. The most able and brightest people from those countries are usually sent and it is a tragedy that in some cases up to 50 per cent. of them fail to return to their native land.
It is to be expected that the countries in need of most assistance in this respect are the developing countries. Whatever plans we may have for postgraduate education in the United Kingdom we must ensure that adequate provision continues to be made for training people from overseas, especially from those areas of the Commonwealth.
Finally, I believe that there is a further commitment that we should make. We must assist in the re-establishment of research and scholarship in the academic institutions of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe where hitherto contact with the West has been minimal but where the demand will grow. In fact, it is growing very rapidly. Not only will there be a need to provide specific disciplinary training; it will also be important to re-establish some of the oldest institutions of learning in Europe in their former distinguished roles as centres of education, teaching and research. I believe that the provision of postgraduate places in Britain would be the most effective way to do that.
3.40 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to begin what must be in part a debating speech by speaking on behalf of the whole House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, on an excellent maiden speech, to which I listened with great attention. Having been educated at Oxford, I think of the noble Lord as coming from the other place as well as from the other side of the House. Nevertheless, in my eyes his speech fulfilled the requirement of being non-controversial in that I agreed with practically every word. It was excellently delivered. We share many topics of interest and I look forward to being able to take part with the noble Lord in debates on them on many future occasions.
I am pleased to be able to speak on the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I am pleased too that she chose to word the Motion as she did. The key point of the wording of the Motion is to link the idea of quality in education with the level of investment in education. The key point of the Motion
694
is that quality costs money. In using the word "investment" in the Motion, the noble Baroness has made a bow to what is rapidly becoming the new agenda of politics. The key point which holds that new agenda together is the link between the expansion of our education and the improvement of our industry.
I should like to pay tribute to the part played by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology in helping to form that new agenda. The appearance of such a new agenda after 11 years of this Government testifies to the fact that in matters involving research and development, education and industrial training there is a role for the state. In fact the links between the state and industrial enterprise had become irreversible before 1979. Since that fact is recognised by all our major competitors, including such free market countries as the United States, it might help if we too recognised it and got on with the job.
The key Word in the Motion is quality. Many noble Lords in the debate on the humble Address commented on the words in the gracious Speech:
"My Government will continue to take action to improve quality in education".
It was the verb which I think caused a certain amount of surprise. I know a good many people working in education. In speaking to this Motion I must declare my interest as a serving university teacher. I do not know anyone employed in education who believes that quality has improved since 1979. I rather wonder what the Government are talking about. After 11 years any government ought to be prepared to review some of their policies and principles, to ask whether they have had the desired effect and indeed to ask whether they fit changed circumstances.
I should like to ask the Government to think again about what they consider constitutes quality in education. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, spoke about choice. Choice has a great deal to commend it. It is a concept for which Liberal Democrats feel enthusiasm. However, real choice does not exist without a proper free market. I believe that it has been recognised since the Elementary Education Act 1870, if not for longer, that the ideals of a free market in schools and of universal education are not compatible.
The Government talk of efficiency. I shall say no more about the government definition of efficiency. I have dwelt on it before. However, I ask them to consider whether there are cases in which efficiency is compatible with an increased cost rather than a reduced cost. The Government also tend to identify quality with anti-professionalism, with which much of their thinking has been shot through. The difficulty with anti-professionalism is that the job of educating has to be carried out by professionals. There is a limit to the extent to which one can persuade them to accept and carry out anti-professional values. I was interested to note in the report of the Health and Safety Executive published last week that we are losing several million pounds a year as a result of occupational stress among teachers.

695
When I consider quality I think first and foremost of books —the contents of the library. I have talked many times before about the problems of university libraries. The situation in schools is often even worse. In 1988–89—it is the last year for which I have complete figures—the ILEA (as it then was) was spending £19 per pupil on books in secondary schools. That figure was the top of the range. The bottom figure, from metropolitan districts, was £10 per year per pupil in secondary schools.
Your Lordships may perhaps imagine how few books one can buy for £10 a year at present prices. Those are the schools entering candidates for A-levels. In that year the average figure per pupil in secondary schools fell in money terms—not in real terms—from £14.92 to £14.52. The total expenditure that year was £74.5 million. It is not very much in a £23 billion budget. To be constant in real terms that would have had to have been £109.6 million. There is therefore a shortfall of £35 million. That is the equivalent of a loss of 8 million books. How can one have quality education with such figures?
I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State has announced a figure for provision of new books for the national curriculum. As I understand it, that figure is £15 million. However, the Educational Publishers Council has estimated, in a figure which I believe to be an underestimate, that the cost of books for the national curriculum in history alone will be £58 million. We have a danger that the national curriculum will go the same way as community care. I have much admiration for a good deal of what is in the national curriculum on history. However, if that is all the money available to introduce it, for my part I would rather it did not take place.
The problem of school buildings is very much the same. Throughout the public services, the Thatcher years will be thought of as the years of deferred maintenance. That is not entirely the Government's fault. The years of deferred maintenance come after the Wilson years, which I think of as the years of ferry building. But of course the effect is cumulative. That the maintenance requires to be done is not always the Government's fault; it is not always any government's fault. However, as all noble Lords who have ever called in a builder will know, if one leaves building jobs alone they get bigger and builders' costs increase. The figures are inevitably based on estimates. If any of your Lordships know a builder whose bill is not bigger than his estimate, I shall be happy to hear from you afterwards.
I shall say no more about teacher shortages. I am glad that the noble Baroness dwelt on that subject. I agree with what she said. I pass on to the collapse of the system of competitive bidding in universities. I believe that the previous Secretary of State's faith in that system was always misplaced. He believed that competition would reduce the price without reducing quality. That seems to me to show an indifference to the notion of true costs. Like the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, I too have worked abroad in the United States. I have seen a competitive system in operation. It has many different effects at different
696
points on the scale. At the lower end one tends to have what is known as grade inflation—giving grades more and more easily to encourage people to come. I have seen pressure in operation already to do that in British universities.
At the other end of the scale one gels what one sees at Harvard and Yale; that is the operation of a quality market where the competition is not to be the cheapest but to be the best. Therefore, the effect is for competition to drive up the price. It is, as Mr. Robert Jackson used to say, a Rolls-Royce market. I believe that any faith that was placed in the competitive bidding system to achieve the Government's aim was always misplaced. Meanwhile it has collapsed. We do not know where we are.
Universities cannot expand on the basis of one-year funding. Undergraduates are there for three years; they cannot be turned away in the middle. It is urgent that universities should have some confirmation of the planning exercise—that is to say, the academic plans turned in with great effort in response to requests from the Universities Funding Council. Taking in students on one-year funding is like going out to drive on the motorway without enough petrol to get to the next service station. I do not think that that is very prudent.
When the Government reply, I hope that they will not once again trot out figures of real terms. On the ground and looking at what is happening, they are not believable.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I too should like to join in congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, who has drawn our attention to the fact that the annual influx of able young people is indeed the lifeblood of all universities. I am pleased to have him here as a champion in our midst. He is very welcome and we thank him for his splendid maiden speech.
It is only 17 months since higher education was the subject of a two-and-a-half hour debate in this House. One might reasonably suppose that little of importance in this field would happen in so short a period of time and therefore that only a little of this debate, which is to cover the whole of education, need be devoted to higher education.
I wish most sincerely that I could report that this supposition was correct, and that having cast, as I have, an experienced eye over the university scene I could also report to your Lordships that, during the first 18 months of its existence, the new statutory body for the universities, the Universities Funding Council, had developed a sense of common purpose amongst its members, had devised a harmonious and effective modus operandi, and, in its dealings with the universities, had won their trust and confidence by demonstrating that it understood the problems that they faced as well as the national priorities, and therefore had created a sensible and realistic national policy framework without a knowledge of which no university can construct a practical corporate plan for the future. In a word, I wish I could tell your Lordships that what the Government said in its

697
advocacy of the Education Reform Bill—namely, that the Universities Funding Council would be superior in functioning to its non-statutory predecessor, the University Grants Committee—had in fact come about.
Alas, I cannot give your Lordships that assurance. Indeed, I have to tell you that the reverse is the case. Long gone—vanished into thin air—are the symbiosis and mutual trust of the universities and the UGC which had existed for 70 years, which were much admired overseas, and which were the sure foundation enabling the production of first degree graduates of quality at lower cost than in all other countries of comparable economic development. The UGC was a part of the machinery of government which had also carried us through some difficult periods, including the Second World War and, in 1974, when inflation rose to just under 30 per cent. Inflationary protection of university grants disappeared, and yet the UGC still did not lose that essential trust of the universities. That made it possible to come through.
Instead of that trust and symbiosis, there is now mistrust and a feeling that the Universities Funding Council has not established that close and well-informed contact with the universities which can earn for it the reputation of understanding the way in which the universities have adapted their procedures to modern circumstances without sacrificing principles. Unfortunately there are no longer those subject sub-committees which made it their business to be informed by personal visits to, and therefore by face-to-face discussions with, university people as well as by correspondence, about the quality of work done in every sector of every university. A single individual so-called "adviser" to the UFC cannot, unaided, make those judgments in a satisfactory way.
Nor are the major "visitations" as they were called, of the old University Grants Committee to individual universities, to which Lord Haldane many years ago correctly attached such importance, carried out with thoroughness and great benefit to both sides. Such visits as do take place are seen by the universities as being of too short duration, sparsely attended by UFC members and less mutually informative. Moreover, it is an open secret, and the subject of repeated press comment, that agreement on vital issues within the UFC and its two principal officers is often elusive if not absent.
There may be those among your Lordships who will choose to disregard my remarks on the grounds that my personal history must imply that I have some nostalgia for the "good old days" which will carry with it, they will assume, a reluctance to meet the need for necessary change. So let me conclude with some statements of fact about our universities. British universities have always done their best to respond to national needs for higher education. They were always clear that more of the skilled manpower which they can produce is essential for the success of Great Britain Limited. They have been prepared to make sacrifices to achieve this end, especially in hard times. In fact, since 1974, which I remember very vividly,
698
they have accepted a steady erosion of the unit of resource—that is to say, the amount of grant plus fee income provided by the Government per student per annum—to the point that not only has any supposed fat been sweated out of the system, but evidence of unwise neglect in the form of poor building maintenance and antiquated equipment is now clearly visible in every university.
Therefore, when the Universities Funding Council earlier this year called for bids from every university which were to be expressed in terms of numbers of students that university would be prepared to accept in various subject categories, and on which the UFC proffered some guide prices with which the universities would make estimates of costs, the universities set to work with a will, feeling that they had a planning horizon. They produced plans which, taken together, provided for an expansion of student numbers to 1994–95 representing a 19 per cent. increase on 1989. Only 7 per cent. of those bids were under the guide price, for the very simple reason that, the efficiency gains having already been achieved over the past decade and a half, any further reduction in costs must inevitably carry a quality penalty.
I am sure that your Lordships will accept without question that it is no service to this country to produce graduates less well qualified by education and training to serve their future employers than those of our competitor countries. The Universities Funding Council has responded to this situation by sending on 23rd October a terse letter to each university (I have a copy here) over the signature of its secretary—not even the chief executive or chairman, be it noted—expressing its disappointment with this response and putting its much trumpeted four-year planning cycle back into the melting pot for review.
What are we to make of this shambles? Perhaps more to the point, what do the professional people and wealth creators, who give freely of their time, energy and experience to the onerous task of chairing the governing bodies of all British universities except Oxford and Cambridge, and each therefore having major responsibilities for the stewardship every year of tens of millions of pounds of public money, think of the situation? Until 31st October it was possible only to guess based on their well-known opinion of the new Universities Funding Council derived from accounts of their wholly unproductive meeting some months ago with the noble Lord, Lord Chilver, the chairman of that body. However, on 31st October Mr. Hugh Try, chairman of the Committee of Chairmen of University Councils, wrote to The Times as follows:
"Universities have responded with enthusiasm to the calls from successive secretaries of state for an expansion of student numbers and a broadening of the age and social mix of the intake. The fact that universities are significantly above the student numbers for which the Government has specifically funded them is evidence in itself of their commitment. They have also responded vigorously to the University Funding Council's request for their plans up to 1994–5 with bids for a growth of 19 per cent.
Such an expansion can only be contemplated on a properly planned basis, with the necessary steps being taken to provide teaching space, equip laboratories, appoint staff and find or build student residences. To do otherwise would be unbusinesslike, would be potentially to let down students and their parents and, most serious

699
of all for the long term, would affect the quality of education which we must provide if we are to compete successfully with our European neighbours.
This whole process of expansion, however, has been placed in jeopardy by the decision of the UFC to put forward planning into suspense for 1991–2 … Only a month ago, the Public Accounts Committee criticised the UFC Council for not having in place the planning and financial arrangements necessary for universities to draw up realistic financial forecasts …
If Government and the UFC are looking to the universities to provide for growth in student numbers of between 15 and 20 per cent. by 1994–5 and further expansion thereafter, we must have a longer planning and funding horizon than one year."
In the light of those wise words from experienced, responsible people, mainly drawn from the business community, and in the light of the deplorable situation which now exists, is it too much to ask that the Secretary of State takes remedial action before it is too late? This should be directed, first, to securing the funds necessary to ensure that the graduates we need get the education of the quality which we wish for them, without which prospects for this country's success will continue to recede. And, secondly, perhaps the Secretary of State will conduct an independent appraisal of the structure and workings of the Universities Funding Council with a view to a rapid improvement of both so that it can perform its pivotal task of planning for the future effectively. My Lords, time is of the essence.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, I am very glad that the Labour Party has instigated this debate. Perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, on a notable maiden speech which was non-controversial in dealing with a highly controversial subject.
The Motion covers a vast territory and, if I may say so, a multitude of sins. However, let us make no mistake about it: they are not just the sins of this Government but the sins of many governments of both major parties.
I have been married twice and have two separate families. My first child went to school in 1953 and my sixth in 1985, more than 30 years later. The changes I have noticed over those years appal me. Nowadays, "competition" seems to have become a dirty word. Neither the children nor their parents are given any information about performance relative to other children. Children are given no pat on the back for a particularly good piece of work; nor, as far as I can see, are they encouraged to be imaginative. The result is a dull level of mediocrity where the gifted consistently under perform because they are not challenged.
Children are naturally intensely competitive about every one of their activities at home, in play and at school. This Government are always preaching about the value of competition in adult life. Yet children are being trained to believe that it is undesirable. That does not make sense.
A second change which appalls me is the deterioration in discipline. That is not uniformly true. Some schools manage to maintain discipline very successfully. Alas, others do not. When things get bad,
700
they can become really horrible. If teachers do not have the sort of personality or charisma which makes children instinctively behave, they have no official means of enforcing discipline. Corporal punishment, which in my day ensured compliance, has long since disappeared. Even a slap in anger can lead to parental complaint. Other forms of punishment can be ignored. When appealed to, parents are often unable or unwilling to help.
Why should that new situation haw come about? Why have teachers lost the status they formerly had? Thirty years ago they were respected citizens and children and parents looked up to them. I do not believe that the loss of status and respect is merely the result of relatively lower salaries. It seems to me that it may stem from the changes in teaching methods introduced over those years. Where once the teacher taught the whole class and those who could not keep up were left behind and where formality was the rule, now the atmosphere is informal and an attempt is made to treat each child individually. That sounds like a great improvement but perhaps it has been bought at the cost of bringing down the teacher from a pedestal to the same level as the pupils and perhaps that pedestal was necessary for the maintenance of discipline. There is very little evidence to show that the new methods in education have improved the output. They may have made it more enjoyable for the children; for the teacher perhaps less enjoyable.
As I said in the House on 8th November, the welcome broadening of the school curriculum introduced by the national curriculum left the A-levels unchanged. In common with almost every educational group and institution in this country, I regard that as a mistake. A-levels force those who stay in school to study in depth rather than in breadth. That discourages many from remaining at school at all.
I note also from a careful study or the national curriculum in science that few 16 year-olds are expected to reach beyond level 7 of the 10 levels of achievement available under the curriculum. I give an example. Very few 16 year-olds taking science will have been told anything at all about DNA, the genetic code or genetic engineering, since those subjects appear only at levels 8, 9 and 10. Surely it is cause for grave anxiety that more than 70 per cent. of our children should be turned out into the adult world at 16 with no training or education in a subject—genetic engineering—which will be so central to the development of society during their adult life. Of those staying on at school only students of biology to A-level standard will ever be taught anything about genetic engineering. All those going on to A-levels in the humanities or social sciences will stay ignorant unless they have gone beyond level 7 in the GCSE. Among those who remain ignorant will be many of our future politicians, civil servants, judges and businessmen. It is pathetic and is liable to be tragic for our future.
In technology the situation is even worse. We have lagged behind our competitors. Apprenticeships have virtually disappeared. Further education has had to try to cope with students who are ill prepared in the

701
basics of maths and physics where the shortage of teachers has been a problem for decades. It is not a new crisis; it has been with us for many years.
The many attempts of government to improve the technical training of 16 year-olds have not worked or have worked very poorly. The open tech spent a great deal of money commissioning courses without adequate quality control; the open college has been forced to become just another commercially based institution selling its services at a market price too costly for the poor. YTS was abandoned as a costly failure.
How could those systems be expected to work when they had to deal with an output of school-leavers whose basic education in maths and science had been so neglected—the same school-leavers that further education failed to cope with? To make matters worse there is a collapse of morale in the schools. Teachers believe themselves to be undervalued and underpaid and blamed for all the problems. The professions carry some of the responsibility but not all. They tend to resist change. Radical change is called for and can only be provided by political action.
On 8th November I outlined my beliefs to this House. Allow me to repeat them. If we were to introduce the hardware necessary to provide pupils in schools with work stations—a personal computer, a video-disc player and a cable connection to a central library of learning materials—we could transform the situation. In the library we could have a series of mathematics lessons prepared by a very gifted teacher. We could have the same series prepared by a different very gifted teacher, and do that over and over again. The children could choose which they enjoyed; which they found interesting and stimulating. They could study at their own pace while their classmates used other teachers and went forward at different speeds. The class teacher would ensure that all the children spent a fixed proportion of time on mathematics, that a child having difficulty was helped and that discipline was maintained.
I do not believe that in those circumstances discipline would be a problem. Children would want to study that way and the results would be astounding. No longer would many of them be forced to try to learn maths and physics from teachers with little or no training in those subjects and as a result be permanently switched off them. The capital costs would be high but the maintenance costs very low. That is a picture of the future. Can we ensure that it is not too distant a future?
Finally, perhaps I may say a word or two regarding universities. They have been under financial pressure for a long time. I was still in office when it all began. For some years cuts were defensible for there was fat in the system that could be shed, but the fat has long since disappeared. There have been great efforts in the universities, and indeed great success, in finding supplementary sources of income other than government grant.
702
The last effort of government to introduce competition between universities through the change from the UGC to the UFC, as my noble friend Lord Dainton said, was a disaster. We have only two choices. The first is to maintain our system in the universities, which is a high quality, high cost one. If we do that we can expand it only by increasing the resources put into it. If that means extra taxation, so be it. I rather like the idea of a graduate tax, but one paid by all graduates. Most of us who graduated in the past, I hope, would happily share the burden with new graduates. In that case it would be a relatively small annual sum for the individual graduate.
The alternative is to move in the direction of the system in the United States where, in addition to universities, there are a large number of colleges which are not research-based, which do not offer post-graduate degrees and which have graduation rates of only around 50 per cent. They also offer associate degrees after two years, as well as bachelor degrees after four years. That type of institution could take, at much lower cost, the expanded number of students needed. It is at least arguable that graduates from such institutions would ably fill many of the skilled jobs in industry which too few of our university graduates wish to take.
I am advocating radical policies; many will regard them as iconoclastic. I believe we need such changes; without them or something similar we shall find ourselves as a nation in a continued decline.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps I may first congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech. I assume that Swaffham Prior is in Norfolk. My father was a Norfolk man; he came from Swaffham, where they do not do any "troshing" for nothing. I am proud that I carry a name which I believe is a county name.
With due deference I should also like to congratulate my noble friend on the Front Bench on the splendid way in which she introduced the debate. I am particularly pleased by the wording. We are investing in people. I know we must mention money but let us occasionally think of what education is concerned with.
During the past few weeks I had the privilege of presenting prizes at three schools. It is useful to move from one place to another for then people have not heard the same joke. On each occasion I mentioned the story of the cynical politician who said that the Welsh had a passion for education, the Scots had a respect for it and the English had no particular objection to it. The older I grow the more I have the horrid feeling that there is some truth in that.
I should like to illustrate the way I see education by using the quotation from the National Union of Teachers; I have not heard it put better. I use it when referring to investment in education. Education means the growth, the freedom and the happiness of the human being, the quality of society—the quality—and the wealth of the nation. The wealth of the nation is not necessarily expressed in money. Surely everything

703
does not need to be expressed in terms of money. Is there nothing we can speak of which does not bring in that wretched point?
When we speak of education of course we must say that we want books. There are teachers in my family; I have grandchildren at school. When I watch a child trying to learn Greek from a book that has been used so much that it is virtually unreadable and it has to be passed to someone else, I realise how nonsensical the situation is.
We must be very careful. I believe all governments interfere too much in the process of education. We introduce Acts of Parliament; why do we not leave the practice of things to the practitioners? Why are we always interfering, especially in education? I have thought about that many times and believe it is because everybody has been to school. We all think that we know best. It is similar to giving a cookery demonstration to a group of women; they all know far better than the demonstrator how to do it. I was always safe in saying, as I said to my daughter-in-law, that whatever my husband married me for it was not my cooking.
There is no doubt that we interfere too much. The poor—I could use a word which we are not allowed to use in this House—pathetic teachers, the practitioners; there are 400,000 in maintained schools in England and Wales. The loss of those teachers is alarming. Why? It is not difficult to find the answer. In the first place there is no support, no career development for teachers. There are assessments; everyone will assess them. But I defy anyone to say when I taught a class of dull and backward children and at the end of the year none could read that I was a less excellent teacher—I do not often blow my own trumpet but in this case I shall—than the person in the next class where there were 25 brilliant children. Of course they all obtained scholarships. None of my poor children would ever achieve that. Therefore, how one assesses a good teacher is, to me, one of the mysteries of life. The Government, however, are quite certain that they can do it. In fact, I believe that the government that I supported were nearly as bad.
There are poor financial rewards for teachers. I was very interested to learn from the gracious Speech that an early Bill is to be introduced to establish permanent negotiating arrangements covering school teachers' pay, duties and conditions of service. I looked for it. It is another elaborate document and costs £4.95. Every copy produced results in a little less being available to pay the teachers.
Why do we always have everything communicated at such great length? The Bill contains at least three pages explaining what a teacher should be doing. That may be very useful but I remind noble Lords that for a teacher there are only five hours in the teaching day. Of course, as I know from my own experience, teachers spend many hours on school work outside school. Let no one imagine that a teacher floats in and does a little nice work with all the children sitting quietly. That is what I believed when I left college; I thought that I would be confronted by dear little children sitting with upturned faces waiting for my
704
words of wisdom. An hour in the classroom soon disabused me of that. The position is now far worse, as the noble Lord just said.
The starting salary for graduates who are articled in law, the clerks, is £13,000. The starting salary for computer operators—and I have checked this in advertisements—is between £10,000 and £12,000. The starting salary for a teacher, after at least four years' training (and presumably now also for graduates) is £9,000. Teachers have never been well paid but they have had status. Now the children despise the silly professional who has a clapped out old car parked by the playground. The children's fathers have jolly good cars. Teachers do not wear very good clothes but the children's parents wear jolly good clothes. Some teachers live in very small houses. Noble Lords should not believe that children do not take their standards from society and from adults.
The teachers' powers of discipline have been undermined. The teachers are like the police and are blamed for all the evils in our society. They are not created by teachers. Any trouble is said to be the fault of the poor unfortunate teachers or the police. It is never the parents who are blamed. Only occasionally do the parents come in for comment. A parent once came to see me and asked why I did not deal with her child in a certain way. I said, "Madam, I have your son for five hours each day for five days in the week and a certain number of weeks in the year. You have him for 19 hours every day of the year. Who has the greater influence?" If teachers are expected to maintain discipline, they must be supported. In the old days they were supported by the authorities and by the parents.
Almost every year the teachers are handed what looks like a new curriculum. They are expected to deal with different types of examination which come along as regularly as clockwork. What has happened to the three Rs, I ask myself? Now we have something new, and I do not understand it. When I last taught—admittedly 30 years ago—there was a moral obligation on all teachers to see that children moved to the secondary stage well equipped not only to read and to express themselves but to write, to do mathematics, and so on. What happened to that? Why is there something new? The children are receptive and waiting to be taught.
I refer now to the HMI report. Incidentally, it has been quite interesting to read some of the material issued by certain educationists. The spelling is appalling. I underline examples. My secretary asks to read letters before I use the blue pencil! However, I do not expect to find such errors in reports produced by HMI. One report produced this gem:
"Standards of learning are never improved by poor teachers and there are no cheap high quaky routes into teaching".
Does that need underlining? Every teacher knows that.
I was interested to see in the Daily Mail last week that it has been discovered in certain places—they are all given in the paper—that more cash is being spent on non-teachers than on teachers. Does that make

705
sense? I do not suggest that the Government are looking for cuts, but, if they are, why not consider the administration? I was intrigued to find, when in hospital, that if any department was overstaffed it was the administrative department. The hospital was not overstaffed with nurses, doctors, or people who prepared the food. Does the same position apply in schools?
In my own borough—I shall be fair by quoting a Labour borough—there are 1,500 non-teachers and 1,400 teachers. There is something wrong there. Moreover, four schools are being closed, which shocks me. In Westminster—a rather different political colour—there are 1,700 non-teachers and 1,800 teachers. Does that make sense? We need the practitioners, the people at the grass roots, the people who are at the baseline. We shall not get graduates in universities if we do not have the highest excellence of teaching from the very moment when children start school. I have no time to speak about nursery education, but I believe that we also need pre-school training.
I conclude by making a plea on behalf of teachers. Everyone will be making a plea of some kind. How would your Lordships feel if we were suddenly faced with a pool of inactive teachers who came from the "pit", as it is said? Let us make opportunities for the really well trained, professional teachers. Of course there will be a few bad ones, but most teachers are highly dedicated. Their morale is low at present because they are constantly under attack, are underpaid and feel that they are not receiving sufficient support. My call is this—and I use the words of the NUT: freedom, happiness, quality of society and the wealth of the nation can only be achieved by true investment in the people who will make that possible.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships that because of a commitment made before the business of this week was known I may have to leave before the conclusion of the debate. I join with other noble Lords in paying tribute to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. The noble Lord was too modest to tell us the truth; namely, that he is the first veterinarian or veterinary surgeon—or, more simply, vet—to have sat in either House of Parliament. We can congratulate him and ourselves on that, as well as on the content and delivery of his speech.
I rejoice that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who introduced the debate, laid such emphasis on standards. She might have evinced a little humility because, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry, said, the problem about standards in education—particularly for the non-academic child—goes back decades, if not generations or centuries. In fact, I take some pride in being one of the first to put it on the agenda. When I went to the Department of Education as Secretary of State I continued my modest practice of giving a short reading list to the officials of that department. I gave only one book, called Lessons from Europe. It was a
706
book from the Centre for Policy Studies which the Prime Minister and I founded in 1974. It was published in 1976 and argued, with detailed analysis, that in our neighbours of North-West Europe the standards of education, particularly for the nonacademic child, are a great deal better than in this country. I gave it to the senior officials in my department and they paid me the compliment of saying the next day that it was rather more interesting than they had thought. However, as for action, they never produced any ideas for action. We sent delegations of HMI to look at countries in North-West Europe and they came back with their eyes wide open and stated that it is true that non academic children do better in Germany and France. They were the two countries that HMI visited, but I am sure that that situation applies equally to other countries of North-West Europe.
I do not believe that the Labour Party has helped in raising standards. No doubt it was sincere, but the action of demolishing direct grant schools, in seeking to extirpate grammar schools, in imposing the untried panacea of comprehensive schools, in decrying and seeking to eliminate competition and competitiveness when, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry, stated, all children in one form or another are inherently competitive, and in denigrating discipline did no service to children, particularly those from relatively poor and non-academic homes.
It is also true to state that the Conservative Party has not succeeded in solving the problem. We come to the matter relatively late because there has been in this country a trahison des clercs, an unwillingness of those watchdogs who should have barked far earlier to point to the almost tragic lack of decent education for the non-academic child in this country. We accept that this country has some snobberies within it. Educational and intellectual snobbery accounts for a great deal of the shameful silence that has allowed the low standards of education for the non-academic child in particular to last so long. In this country there are 70 departments of education in universities and polytechnics where the taxpayer and the ratepayer pay for people to spend their professional lives concerning themselves with education. Did they shout? Did they proclaim the need for a sharp increase in quality in education for the non-academic? That happened very rarely indeed.
I agree with much of the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, but she would have done better to admit some humility, as I for my part (for what it is worth) admit that we have not as yet found the answer.
The noble Baroness stated that if elected to government the Labour Party will forsooth introduce an "educational standards council". That was the only positive suggestion made by the noble Baroness except that there would be more money. We are told that the Labour Party understands that there is a limitation on the money that it would have available. We understand that any extra money is pre-empted by the increases in child benefit and in pensions that the party

707
promises. I do not think that the noble Baroness did justice either to herself or to the House in riding so easily off on the panaceas that Labour will introduce.
The tasks that fall on any government who want to raise standards for the non-academic children of this country will involve some very awkward issues. Some of the teacher unions have been close allies in the past of the Labour Party. I do not know about the present situation, but they will resist some of the proposals that will be necessary. On the agenda there will need to be the subjects of selection of teachers and training of teachers. I am very dissatisfied with my own performance as Secretary of State in that while I tried to introduce improvements in teacher training colleges, they were not nearly radical enough. There will no doubt need to be improvements in pay for some parts of the teaching profession. To my mind that is a matter that needs to be considered with teacher appraisal so that it no longer is necessary for a teacher to leave the classroom in order to get a better salary. Those matters are not without difficulty for a government to impose.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, failed to mention the most difficult problem of all, which is motivation. Governments cannot command motivation. A teacher can secure motivation, as can parents. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Perry, in his comments concerning the importance of the home background, the combination of love and discipline that must make many children a pleasure to teach and the lack of which must make some children almost impossible to teach.
Some noble Lords will remember that I supported nearly every reform that was introduced in the Education Bill 1988, but that I led a division of the House against the national curriculum, while supporting the core curriculum. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and some of her colleagues and I, as the only Tory, were in the same Lobby in that division. I failed completely to persuade the House or my former colleagues in government. I think that the national curriculum was a noble aim. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is probably too rigid and too ambitious, but I strongly support the core curriculum. I hope that the Government will arrive at a practical measure of a national curriculum.
Together with the skill of teachers, the encouragement of parents, the magic of motivation and a sensible curriculum, there have to be examinations. Whether I should be proud or sorry to have introduced the general certificate of secondary education, only the historians will be able to judge. I had hoped that there would be introduced—I still hope it will happen—that very difficult measure of examination performance—criterion referencing which would apply not relative but absolute standards to every paper and every child. That proposal would present problems, but I hope that that system will be implemented.
The House should recognise, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, probably recognises, that more money will not easily be available on any vast scale even if the Labour Party were returned to office
708
and that even if there were more money available, without reforms to teacher selection, teacher training and teacher pay, coupled with teacher appraisal, without more encouragement by many parents of this country and without all the other matters I have spoken about, more money alone will not raise standards for the non-academic.
The Government have introduced changes which the noble Baroness found herself unable to replace by alternatives. The Government have introduced local management of schools, parental participation, changes in the curriculum, the GCSE and the city technical colleges, which are intended to radiate higher standards by competition in neighbouring schools. All of those are stimulating efforts to raise standards. Against those active and often unpopular changes the Labour Party, represented by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was ungracious enough to offer neither any modified good wishes nor alternatives except forsooth an "educational standards council". That is a mockery to an important subject.
I turn to higher education. It is essential that we should recognise that if either party goes for an expansion of students in higher education without insisting that quality be maintained and improved if possible, we shall be doing grave damage to all the interests concerned. I hear rumours that some universities and polytechnics are introducing students to subjects with Es in A-levels. That is to embrace mediocrity instead of quality. The difference between some vice-chancellors and others in going for the excellent, coupled with numbers, that al parties in this House would like to see is very startling. Perhaps we shall have to move towards difficult decisions about grading institutions of higher education as between teaching and research: as to between quality, I cannot say.
The House would be wise to heed much of what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, states, in particular his warning about grade inflation. Mediocrity is the danger if we merely expand higher education without insisting on quality. One of the reasons for introducing some contribution by students to the cost of their higher education is precisely that they shall seek value for their own money. At the moment they are not so immediately concerned because it is taxpayers' money, and often poor taxpayers' money, that pays for their education.
The Labour and the Liberal Peers are no doubt sincere in their wish to raise standards of education. I say again at the end of my speech, as I said at the beginning, that a little more humility from all sides would be welcome. Courage will be needed by any government who make the necessary changes to raise standards. It will not be done without much more parental encouragement of children; and that no government can command.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, in entering the debate I find myself following a great many very good speeches from all sides of the House. They started with

709
the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and then we heard the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. We have had many comments and views about various parts of the education system. I should like very briefly to refer to some of the points raised in those speeches.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, spoke of the difficulties of the non-academic child. I have bored the House on many occasions with the problem of dyslexia. As a dyslexic at a large state school, I often found myself, because at that time there was no provision for someone with such learning difficulties, in low ability stream classes. There the problems of discipline and motivation were always the greatest. A student would struggle through an academic exam which he stood no chance of passing. He knew that he could not get realistic grades. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, did one very good thing when he brought in the GCSE and got rid of CSE. The CSE relied on tons of course-work. Many children passed with a grade 4 or 5. In many cases the CSE was not worth the paper it was written on. It was a complete waste of time. There is a great danger in the school system that we may overload people with academic work in which they cannot achieve anything.
Inherently, a tightly drawn national curriculum may do exactly the same thing. If we have 10 subjects requiring a good deal of course-work, how can we avoid making a non-academic child feel more and more useless? I suggest that if one did not have a riot on one's hands within a few weeks, one would be doing very well. The teacher, unless he happened to be six feet tall or a black belt in karate, would have no chance to control the class. The fact of the matter is that sexism in schools might be introduced because badly behaved classes behave better when they have a large male teacher leering at them. That is a fact. Many female teachers would back me up on that point.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, some female teachers are better.
Lord Addington: My Lords, some small female teachers are indeed very competent.
I wish to turn now to a subject on which I have spoken before but which I shall now approach from a slightly different angle. Entrance into the further and higher education system at the moment is shackled by the fact that the schools system is tied to the A-level. A-levels are very good at getting people ready to do a three-year course in a subject which they know they want to study. In the schools system one is channelled into a certain number of subjects. I suggest that matters such as how well one gets on with certain teachers are very important. Indeed the importance throughout the education system of the person who is instructing and inspiring cannot be overstressed. If one studies for A-levels one may find oneself channelled towards certain subjects. The A-level examination tells one how good one is at doing academic work to A-level standard. It channels the student far too much.
710
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said that people were going to university with grade E A-level passes. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned to me that he had known people with E grades at A-level going on to get first class degrees. An A-level tells the student how good he is at passing A-levels. It can channel the student towards a certain subject. I was quite good at history and therefore the A-level served me very well. A couple of my other subject choices at A-level were of no use to me. I found that I was not all that good at them although I had achieved reasonable grades at O-level. However, I did not study very hard because I did not like them, and, as I did not like them, I did not have a good rapport with my lecturers.
I suggest that a broader band of subjects would provide a far better basis for a young person to establish what are his interests. It would also give him a good background knowledge to enable him to put his specialist subject needs into context. There is a great danger that people push pell-mell for one subject, considering nothing else. They may then come a very bad cropper when they reach higher education, finding after one or two years that they have chosen the wrong subject.
The structure of higher education work also needs to be looked at. In its initial stages it should be more unit based so that students take a greater number of subjects at university. I went to a Scottish university. I was astounded when I saw the number of unit-based courses that students took in the initial stages. I then discovered that this was the norm in the rest of the world. Only in England is it recommended that after one's second year at university —students in England spend one year less at university than students elsewhere—one should specialise. In Scotland one takes a unit-based course all the way through. Some English universities are moving towards this idea in the first year but departmental inflexibility still makes it difficult to transfer. I suggest that we should move the degree-based structure towards the unit-based course.
It is quite possible that on reaching university a student will decide that he is not the academic person he thought he was. It must be remembered that schools tend to push people towards the highest quality academic institution for the simple reason that schools are academic institutions themselves. Academic achievement is how one grades success at school. The problem can be laid at the feet of teachers but it is inherent in the structure and organisation of any academic institution. Students are pushed towards the highest level academic institution that will take them. People thus find themselves taking the wrong course. A unit-based degree to a non honours level should be introduced. I saw this in Scotland. It was a revelation when I discovered it but it is the norm in the rest of Europe and America. It might offer a way forward.
The A-level examination and the A-level system of entrance mean that people who go on to do an HND are usually the people who have D or E grades at A-level. In other words, they are unsuccessful academically. Such a person usually takes an HND in

711
a more—for want of a better expression—practically based subject, not because he or she may be good at it but because he or she is bad at academic subjects. That is another reason why students should take a broader spectrum of subjects post-GCSE. They could then find out what they are good at. There is no point in knocking out poor HND students just because they happen to be unsuccessful academically. We should try to find out where people's interests lie, how they work, and how they are motivated. It is a tall order, but I suggest that we should try for it. The A-level system encourages the channelling of people into the least best option as opposed to the best option.
I should like to conclude with a few words about student finance. I shall understand if the eyes of noble Lords on the Government Front Bench glaze over. The level of student funding is geared to the three-year degree. There has been an increase in funding to about £25 million from the access funds, but we have lost something like £68 million in social security benefits. The increase in the level of grant and top-up loans is struggling to keep up with inflation. I suggest that it will always struggle to do so.
We must ensure that people are encouraged to go to universities or colleges, or to undertake whatever training is appropriate for them, by giving them enough money to live on. There is much debate about what we should do: should we go for an all-grant system? Should we go for a loan system? Should we go for a graduate tax? I suggest that the Treasury can exercise its iron grip again and decide where it thinks it can reclaim the most money. However, before we start worrying about repayments and where we can get the money from, I believe the first step is to make sure that students have enough money to live on.
Moreover, if we want to encourage people to undertake further education in other than the main academic stream—that is, to take technical qualifications which are below, say, diploma level or Higher National Diploma level—we must ensure that some funding is available to them. There is virtually none available at present. We must encourage people to take training seriously, because the country is running desperately short of skilled people in nearly all its areas. Indeed, there is a problem with skills worldwide as the world in which we live becomes more and more complex.
In the future teachers will have to have degrees at virtually all levels, whereas this was not the case in the past, for the simple reason that today's degree will probably be the equivalent of tomorrow's A-level. Having just slated it, I shall use it as an example. An A-level in science today may well be the equivalent of a degree 30 years ago. We are experiencing a snowball effect as regards the knowledge and skills required. Therefore, we must make sure that we are getting enough trained people into the marketplace. Anyone who wishes to be retrained, or to top-up his level of skills, must be given the opportunity to have this funded by the Government if he undertakes such training or education on a full-time or even on a
712
part-time basis. If we start imposing financial penalties on people who undertake training, we shall ultimately starve industry of skilled people.
We must ensure that this country's education system works for the simple reason that ultimately it is all we have. We can no longer rely on any great advantages as regards our position, our natural resources or anything else in this world. We have the geographical position and we must therefore join in the marketplace. All we can do is to get the best from our main natural resource—our population.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend's Motion, I should like to talk about the problems of access to further and higher education. In a sense I shall be following some of the themes of the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
I am anxious about two groups of people; namely, the 16 to 18 year-old non-academic category, and the category of the mature person whom the education system failed in the past. It seems to me that there has never been a time when there has been such universal acceptance of the fact that Britain can no longer afford an education system which ignores the needs of non-academic children and concentrates upon academic children. We have already heard about that this afternoon. Sir Claus Moser in his recent address to the Royal Society talked about the situation.
I recently read an article based on an interview with Peter Morgan, the Director General of the Institute of Directors. He aspires to an education system in which everyone succeeds and everyone wins; and he opposes a system which is structured from its very foundations to fail the majority in the interests of a small minority. He considers that an educational process which is designed to filter out failure until just a handful of successes are left is profoundly demoralising and demotivating for the system as a whole. He says:
"What an incredible disregard of human potential to accept that 60 per cent. of our children leave school at 16, while in our competitor countries that number is 10 per cent. or fewer".
Given that there is such universal agreement with that thesis both in the industrial and in the education sector, we may ask why it is that we have failed to match our competitors, and our friends in Europe and the rest of the world.
As the Motion before the House indicates, there is a substantial question about resources it this respect. Surely education must be given a higher priority in resourcing; that is, resourcing in buildings, in equipment and in teaching staff. As we have heard, schools, colleges, polytechnics and universities can all produce evidence of serious under-funding. We must accept that education can no longer be achieved on the cheap. As many noble Lords have said, it is an important investment in the future.
However, the problem goes deeper than resourcing; it is also a question of attitudes and institutional arrangements. There is already considerable movement in attitudes both at school and higher education level. O-levels have been replaced by the GCSE to

713
meet the needs of more of the children. But, as has been said, A-levels have not followed suit, despite the widespread view in industry and in the educational world that they should be broadened. One suspects that opposition to the reform of A-levels comes from a very high level in the political system.
We may ask how far we have travelled down the road of providing access for non-traditional students. First, there is the question of the B-tec, which is an accepted alternative to A-level qualifications. B-tec students are now entering both polytechnics and universities and accounting for something like 10.5 per cent. and 4.4 per cent. of the student intake respectively. However, the facilities for B-tee students are, as I understand it, limited to a small number of schools. The initial one-year B-tee first qualification is not taught in schools. I believe that this is at the request of the DES. Perhaps the Minister will comment upon the situation. This is surely a mistake. It could act as a taster for practically-minded children who could then move across to further education where resources for B-tec nationals were available to them.
The work of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications is again a move in the right direction. However, I have two caveats in this respect: the first concerns resourcing—and the council is underresourced—and the other concerns standards. While NCVQ qualifications must be acceptable and useful to industry, just as academic qualifications must be, they must also contain an element of broader transferable skills. Competence to undertake a particular job is not enough in itself; there must also be the development of the full potential of the child so that he or she can progress as far as that potential will take him or her into further and higher education.
The National Council of Vocational Qualifications is working towards an equivalency of qualifications. That work needs to be speeded up so that vocational and academic qualifications can be interchangeable at all levels. What we need is not two routes into higher education, but a broad highway made up of many feeder roads giving opportunities to all.
The 16 to 21 age group is but one aspect of widening access. There is the whole potential of the mature person seeking a first chance in higher education or perhaps progressing into continuing education. Given our demographic trends, that poses an urgent challenge. The challenge is both to our higher education institutions and to the providers—the government of the day. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, higher education is geared to A-level results and a three year full-time course. For that, the student is funded. Any deviation and the student loses out.
Universities and polytechnics are attempting to cope with the institutional constraints imposed upon them. For example, many of them are now entering into agreements for access arrangements with neighbouring colleges. Part-time degree courses are being made more available, but still account for 5 per cent. of the total only. Some institutions have
714
introduced modular or unit courses, as the noble Lord said; and others are planning to do so within the next few years. I am optimistic that there will be considerable growth in that whole area which need not interfere with higher education standards.
We are not nearly beginning to address the problem yet. We shall not do so until a number of the following occur: first, non-standard entrance qualifications are encouraged right across the board, and appropriate access courses are provided on an adequate scale; secondly, part-time degrees carry the same status as full-time degrees. I am afraid that that is not always the case at present. Thirdly, universities, in particular, make better use of capital resources by extending teaching time; and, fourthly, modular courses become the norm, providing greater flexibility and choice of mode of study.
None of that will happen unless adequate resources are made available by the Government. That resourcing would entail more teaching and back up for non-standard students, because those need more attention than A-level students. More staff and back up will also be needed for the extension of teaching time to ensure that the conditions and standards for existing staff are not encroached upon and that time is still reserved for research. It would also entail more resources for a funding system to encourage and provide on an equal basis a mix of part-time and full-time students, and a fairer grant system to provide for the needs of part-time students equally with the needs of full-time students. It would not be the same student grant system as at present; it would meet the needs of the two groups of students equally.
There are many barriers at present which discourage entrance to higher and further education. Unless we begin vigorously to remove those barriers, we shall never exploit to the full the potential of our whole population.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I congratulate noble Lords opposite on choosing a topic which is timeless in importance and timely in current concern; but it will not surprise your Lordships if I disagree strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on the diagnosis and treatment of the ills besetting education, and if I offer my own diagnosis and strongly support the Government in the remedies that they are applying.
Before turning to concerns and criticisms, I wish to pay tribute to the many good schools and dedicated teachers who are working hard to provide good quality education in always challenging and sometimes exceedingly difficult situations. But there is evidence that not all our young people are receiving the education that they deserve and need, and public concern about standards is legitimate.
So, first, the diagnosis: what is wrong? Given limited time, I shall focus on basics—literacy and numeracy—without which any education is fatally stunted. Recent research has shown disturbing evidence of many people with serious deficiencies in those essential competences. Martin Turner's data

715
published this summer show a serious decline in reading standards of seven year-olds in eight LEAs over the past five years, with an alarming increase in the numbers and proportions of pupils unable to read properly by the age of seven. That is serious. To be unable to read by seven undermines all other educational development, and, although Martin Turner's research has been denigrated by those who find it uncomfortable, his data have not been faulted. New evidence now shows even more LEAs—over 20, I believe—with falling reading standards for seven year-olds. It is worrying that Martin Turner has been subject to disciplinary procedures since bringing this serious matter to public attention.
I turn briefly from the problems of literacy of young pupils to the problems of older students aged 16 plus. Another recent publication—by Jennifer Chew, who teaches in a sixth-form college in Surrey—documents serious problems of literacy in pupils who had already gained good pass marks at GCSE. Those students form the select group staying on in full-time education after 16, many of them doing A-levels; yet many cannot spell words which average 11–12 year-olds could spell way back in the 1950s; and the average spelling age of those 16 year-old students, which has been falling over the past five years, is now less than that of pupils of 13½ years.
Jennifer Chew also compared English-speaking English students with black Zulu-speaking pupils in South Africa. She found that the Zulu-speakers' performance compared favourably with those in the English classes although English was not their first language and their schools have fewer resources. She commented:
"The Zulu-speaking children have not only learnt to spell rather well; they also produce neat, legible hand-writing (a great deal neater and more legible at the lower end of the ability range than that of the English sixth-formers), and there was no sign that their strength in the fundamentals of literacy had been acquired at the expense of breadth and creativity".
Jennifer Chew concludes her study:
"If we want to produce school-leavers who can express themselves fluently and cogently in writing at 16 and 18, then children need to be taught to spell, punctuate and construct sentences from their very first years in primary school: if they are deprived of early instruction in literacy, the damaging consequences may be with them for life".
This is such an important piece of research that I shall place a copy in your Lordships' Library.
I move from literacy to numeracy. We also have problems of under-achievement in numeracy. For example, Professor Prais and his colleagues at NIESR found that the great majority of British 16 year-olds were two years behind their West German counterparts in maths. I do not believe that our young people are less able so this again raises questions with serious implications for individual pupils and for us as a nation.
How has all this happened? It is a complex problem, but I suggest that it is in part a legacy of the ideas and ideologies of the 1960s which are now held by many people in key positions in the educational
716
establishment, including many in teacher education and LEA inspectors or advisers. Perhaps I may quote some teachers who have written to me in desperation:
"The rot lies in the Education Authorities; whatever we do, they have the ultimate control. What do we do when so-called advisors come round observing our lessons and giving us pep talks about not being 'modern' enough? What do we do when promotion is denied us—by authorities who operate autocratic methods?"
I quote a teacher from another part or the country:
"Until recently I have taught at a school which kept to traditional methods; our Head had kept the Inspector at bay for years. Unfortunately he [the Head] was taken ill and within a matter of weeks the Inspectors were in and the school was severely criticised for being too traditional … no account was taken of the creditable results [the school] achieved… I firmly believe that children should be taught, but we are so demoralised and intimidated by the Inspectorate that we are completely impotent … you can perhaps see our problems when you realise that Martin Turner had a very difficult passage after his revelations on reading standards".
I could multiply letters like these many times over. Many dedicated teachers in our schools are victims of educational ideologies and an education establishment which imposes them. Until and unless we can free professional teachers from such influences, we condemn many of them and their pupils to ideology instead of education. Many of these reluctantly leave the state system or are frozen out of it, like those two valiant history teachers in Sussex. The state system cannot afford to lose these good teachers, therefore I suggest that one of the remedies would be to cut back on this interference from local education authority advisers and inspectors.
Another disturbing aspect to the present situation is the lack of any official rigorous, systematic research into new teaching methods, such as the so-called "Real Books" reading methods currently being imposed again on many teachers. It is left to courageous individuals to speak out and risk disciplinary procedures, if they are unhappy about these new teaching methods. Surely, if our education establishment really wanted to serve our children well, it would rigorously evaluate innovative methods. If they work then they could be endorsed. If they fail, they should not be imposed. We now suffer from the imposition of unproven methods imposed against the better judgment of many experienced teachers. The results are reflected in part in the evidence on literacy and numeracy.
Moving from problems to remedies, I suggest that the answer does not necessarily lie in the provision of more resources. Much research shows that schools with comparable resources and with pupils from similar catchment areas enable their pupils to achieve dramatically better exam results than neighbouring schools. They also provide a better all-round educational experience.
While mentioning resources, as my noble friend Lord Joseph has said, it is interesting to note that the shadow Opposition spokesman for education has said that Labour in power would not necessarily be in a position to spend more on education than the present Government. So consistent pleading for more money from the Opposition Benches sounds a little paradoxical.

717
Research also shows the importance of teacher attitudes and professionalism. Rutter, Tomlinson and others have shown that it is teacher professionalism that can make all the difference to the quality of the school and the education it provides for pupils. This surely is the key to the way in which the teaching profession can regain public respect, a respect which is still affected by the damaging results of two years of industrial action which harmed the education of so many children.
I conclude by looking at effective policies. One of the most effective and truly democratic measures is to increase parental choice and the accountability of schools to pupils, parents and the community. Initiatives like the local management of schools and grant-maintained schools do just this. Many schools are now flourishing with LMS, enjoying greater autonomy in the allocation of their budgets. Many of them are freed from local authority interference to spend their budgets on their own educational priorities, knowing their own pupils best. Grant-maintained schools are also flourishing, despite vindictive attempts by many LEAs to sabotage them.
For example, grant-maintained schools have more applicants for teaching and non-teaching posts, compared with other local schools. They enjoy a 40 per cent. increase in pupil applications. They are spending on average 90 per cent. more than last year on books and equipment. Morale is running very high, despite threats to abolish them if a Labour Government gets into power, and despite threats that staff will never again be able to find local authority employment. So grant-maintained schools are a success story.
There is also the hidden success story in this policy: the story of the deterrent effects of opting out which have prevented some LEAs from imposing unpopular policies. Many schools have been saved from unwelcome interference by a local authority because of their potential freedom to opt out. Because they can opt out, the local authority has withheld imposing an unwelcome intervention.
In conclusion, we all agree that education is the most important issue concerning people today. We cannot afford to betray young people by denying them the best possible start in life. We shall not achieve the necessary improvements by Labour's tired policies of bringing everyone forcibly back into the mould of LEA-dominated "comprehensivisation", which has been shown to fail so many young people. Instead, we must encourage policies which this Government have initiated, to enhance freedom of choice and accountability. This is the only genuinely democratic way forward. I hope passionately, for the sake of the country and above all for the sake of our children, that these democratic and educationally effective policies will go from strength to strength. I hope that Britain can once again have an education system of which we can be proud, because it serves our children well.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, we are discussing today what kind of education we need to make this country more productive and our children more civilised and cultivated. I wish to begin by reviewing the curriculum. Here I very much share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, that we should have had the core curriculum. However, the national curriculum is now being modified, or it was by Mr. MacGregor when he was Secretary of State.
I do not wish to go over that ground again, but I should like to raise the nature of the sixth form curriculum. It is clear that war is about to break out over A-levels. Those who wish to retain them have to face the fact that many good judges think they are far too narrow a discipline for the last two years of school. Secondly, they think that A-levels prevent many adolescents moving into higher education.
On the other hand, those who wish to abolish A-levels and substitute a baccalaureate also have to face two facts: first, that the French are having second thoughts about the sacred baccalaureate because it condemns adolescents to continue studying at a high level subjects for which they have no aptitude and no desire to study. Secondly, if we had a baccalaureate type of sixth form, 18-plus exam, the universities and polytechnics would institute a four-year BA and BSc degree. The short three-year first degree depends on sixth-form specialisation; the cost of prolonging it would be enormous and would militate against the desire of the Government and the Opposition to increase student numbers. The only alternative would be to hold an interim examination after two years' study and eliminate those who gained anything less than an upper second-class degree. However, such a move would be vile and unpopular.
So, what can be done? I believe one can retain the discipline and depth of learning of A-levels and yet at the same time insist that adolescents in the sixth form must study two compulsory subjects outside those specialisations. The first compulsory subject should be the use of English. Everyone should learn how to write his or her own language clearly without jargon. Everyone should learn how to write a précis and how to present an argument in logical form and in paragraphs.
I did not learn what I would call practical arithmetic, but I believe that is the second compulsory subject that everyone should learn. By the term "practical arithmetic" I mean the kind of mathematics that non-mathematicians must somehow master or at least be acquainted with, for example the use and analysis of statistics and the use to which computers can be put. It is those techniques that so many of our civil servants and middle managers had to learn on the job in the past. Quite often they never do learn those techniques. Those two subjects would give just that vocational content that sixth form studies require and yet at the same time an adolescent would be able to study in depth the kind of subjects that interested him. He would not be condemned to spend many hours on five or more subjects between his GCSE and A-levels.

719
In order to carry out this measure, teachers would have to be trained to teach the subjects I have referred to. I am not talking about teachers who are already skilled mathematicians. I am talking rather about people who will need to undertake conversion courses to be able to teach these subjects. If I dared, I would impose another compulsory subject in the form of a foreign language. I suggest that the study of a foreign language should be compulsory up to 18 years plus. However, I suspect that my suggestion is impractical. Nevertheless I have a practical proposal to put to the Government. Could we not send a delegation to Holland to discover why the Dutch are such admirable linguists? One of the reasons for that is that so many Dutch parents speak English to their children when the children are still very young and continue to do so as the children grow older. We are so slow to learn from our colleagues in the European Community.
A senior officer in ILEA concluded that the teaching of foreign languages in our schools was so unproductive that we should abolish it entirely. That is the kind of counsel of despair that I hope we shall not follow. We have a great need to learn from our colleagues in Europe.
That brings me to the organisation of our schools. We need to learn from Germany how to organise technical education. The Butler Act of 1944 was drafted by three senior civil servants before Rab Butler ever became president of the Board of Education. Those civil servants had been evacuated to Bournemouth during the war. The civil servant responsible for secondary education and the civil servant responsible for elementary education were very powerful and able. One of them wanted grammar schools and secondary modern schools, while the other wanted comprehensive schools. The permanent secretary ruled in favour of the former but a compromise was reached on the age at which pupils transferred from primary to secondary education. The third civil servant was neither as powerful nor as able as the other two. He was responsible for technical schools. In post-1944 Britain such technical schools as existed withered away.
I know that on both sides of the House there is a considerable difference of opinion on technical schools. Good men and women recoil from the idea of them. They ask whether our children are to be arbitrarily selected at the age of 14, for example, and deprived of their birthright; namely, a general education following the national curriculum that introduces them to the cultural glories of our country. They ask whether our children will be made to feel second-class citizens unworthy to continue in the comprehensive system. However, we should look at what happens in Germany. There large numbers of boys and girls prefer to follow a less overtly academic course. They want to fit themselves for employment when they leave school.
The Labour Party has set its face against city technology colleges. I am sorry that it has done so but I hope the noble Baroness will acknowledge that to set up technical schools will give some children a better
720
chance than they have now of obtaining a productive job when they leave school which will benefit our country as well as themselves.
I wish to mention 16-plus education. We have heard cogent and impassioned arguments this evening in favour of more funds for universities and polytechnics. I add my voice to that although I think that the need to bring inflation down to 3 or 4 per cent. has priority over everything else. On the other hand I believe that economies could be made in some other areas; namely, in the useless nuclear deterrent which this country has and which is updated at enormous cost every so often. We have ways of raising money but our educational funds depend on how productive our industry is. We are in a vicious circle at the moment in that we cannot improve education as our productivity does not improve.
I wish to make two points about universities. First, I believe that the Treasury has often exerted a malign influence over the University Grants Committee and may well exert a malign influence over the Universities Funding Council. In 1972 the UGC suddenly received an instruction to pass on to the universities that the latter were holding far too large balances. The universities, it was decreed, were not building societies and should spend their money on educating students. However, a large part of that money was being saved for the maintenance of buildings. The effect of the measure was that the maintenance funds were depleted. I feel that the Treasury should have a consistent policy on this matter. It should lay down the percentage of an institution's funds that should be saved for the maintenance of buildings.
I wish to emphasise the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, made in his most powerful speech on the great lack of confidence that the universities have in the leadership of the Universities Funding Council. The polytechnics' funding council has done a much better job than the UFC on finance and on organisation. I hesitate to press the case of the universities and the polytechnics further because in my opinion the post-16 sector that needs most financial help is that concerned with the technical and industrial training of our future workforce in the technical colleges and industry itself.
In the past we have heard many complaints from the Labour Benches that the schemes of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, for industrial training were inadequate and underfunded. I believe those complaints were justified. However, what schemes have the Government—perhaps in future years the noble Baroness and her colleagues will have schemes in mind—to remedy the situation? Will the Government look again at the multiple agencies and schemes that they have set up? We are told by the Government that if we are to be competitive and reduce labour costs we must have a properly trained workforce. I implore the Government therefore to send someone to Germany to find out how this aspect of training and education is tackled.
My final point is addressed not to the Government but to present and future prime ministers. Can we not have a Secretary of State for Education who remains

721
in office longer than two years? It is a scandal that that is regarded as a major post but when there is a reshuffle the holder of that post is always reshuffled. I am glad to say that he is always reshuffled upwards, but that process impairs the educational policy of both parties in this country. I apologise to both noble Baronesses for the fact that I cannot be present at the end of the debate.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I shall turn to a quite different subject—adult and community education. This is a time when provision for the education of adults in Britain is being materially affected by a combination of demographic, industrial, legislative and institutional changes. Opportunities for adult learners are being seriously reduced.
The education of adults has never been given a coherent place in educational planning. As a result, adult learners have merely been accommodated on the fringes of the system. Local authorities spend half of 1 per cent. of their budgets on adult education. That situation is clearly mirrored in the Education Reform Act, which says nothing about the education of adults except in relation to higher education. The Government paid lip service to the need for more adult participants but refused, despite pleas from many Members of this House, to include in the Bill any obligation to provide for them.
It was the same story with the Government's plans for deregulating broadcasting. Hitherto, all British broadcasting has been obliged to inform, educate and entertain. In general, the new legislation replaces that requirement with an obligation on commercial companies to make a profit. Though some protection is given to schools television, adult education is likely to disappear from the most popular channels. We very nearly succeeded in changing the Bill in this House but, sadly, we were defeated when our amendments came back from the other place.
The government report outlining plans for adult training, Employment for the 1990s, also recognises that if Britain is to survive economically in the 1990s it will need a better educated and trained society. Yet in that field, too, things are being made more difficult. Unemployed adults who have been studying part time rather than looking for a job risk having their benefits cut. The changes in demography —the drop in the numbers of 16 to 19 year-olds, the increase in the numbers of the elderly and the fact that by the year 2012 there will be more people who are retired than are active in the workforce—have been accompanied by industrial change with a major decline in jobs in manufacturing, an increase in part-time low-paid jobs in the service sector (often employing women), greater segmentation of the labour market, shorter job life and the relative decline of cities.
Education institutions have done their best to respond to those changes. Further and higher education institutions have begun to seek adult students directly through outreach programmes, the
722
introduction of part-time and modular courses and also through marketing their services to employers more actively than before.
However, in many places adult education services are being cut. The most obvious change is in inner London, where adult education and youth service staff were the only academic staff not to be guaranteed transfer to new borough authorities when ILEA was abolished. Adult education was ILEA's pride. A National Institute of Adult Continuing Education survey of all LEAs in July revealed that the poll tax has had a dramatic effect on adult education. Charge-capped authorities have been hardest hit and a significant number made cuts in their 1990–91 budgets to avoid being capped.
The most dramatic impact of charge capping affected Barnsley and Haringey. In Barnsley, all evening and day classes for adults have been cut except for basic education classes. In Haringey, a 50 per cent. reduction in the adult education budget has led the authority to close an adult education centre, halve provision and give priority to basic education and provision for adults with special needs. Manchester, to avoid charge capping, has made cuts which have reduced provision by 30 per cent. In Somerset, staff are being made redundant. I could go on.
Hitherto a substantial contribution has come from community education. Community colleges, pioneered in Cambridgeshire by Henry Morris, have become popular and spread widely. They involve the whole family and encourage participation by people of all ages. The phrase used to be "The cradle to the grave"; now I hear that it is "The carrycot to the crematorium". But just as the poll tax has had a devastating effect on adult education so, I fear, may local management of schools have a similar effect on community education. A school or college now has a separate budget for its community and its other work. The two have different accounts. Imagine the bureaucracy and the trouble and staff time that must involve. The centres decide their own fees and inevitably charges go up to pay for the increased work, and the purpose of availability for the whole community, whether rich or poor, young or old, employed or unemployed, will be lost. In authorities where community education had become really well established it will probably continue, but that is by no means the case everywhere. It is a great loss.
However, there are some gratifying developments. Over the past 15 years adult education services have developed a range of targeted programmes in adult literacy and basic education, in teaching English as a second language, in making provision for unemployed adults, people with disabilities, older adults and ethnic minorities, in family education and in return-to-study and access programmes.
I should like to say more about literacy programmes. It is International Literacy Year but recent surveys have shown that 13 per cent. of our population have significant difficulties with basic literacy and numeracy. There has been a great effort on the part of ALBSU (the Adult Literacy and Basic

723
Skills Unit) to involve more people through advertising, television and radio. Even so it appears that only 5 per cent. of those who need basic literacy training are receiving it. Open learning centres are operating in some places. People can just drop in and take part; they find that less embarrassing.
One of the great strengths of adult education has been its flexibility and its ability to adapt and innovate. A significant feature of those changes is that while traditional adult education has been a service used mainly by women, many of the new opportunities are targeted at men. If the main expansion in adult education is to take place in colleges, polytechnics and universities it is critically important that issues of child care, timing of courses and financial support are tackled urgently. Otherwise the changes will merely signal a redistribution of resources from women to men.
One success story is that at Ford, where men are chiefly the beneficiaries. The company's new employee development and assistance programme, which offers workers an opportunity to take part in courses not related to their work, has created enthusiasm. A third of the company's workforce has taken advantage of the offer of £200 a year to study almost any subject —six times as many as was expected when the scheme was included in the 1987 pay deal. Eighty courses are offered. It is interesting that now the workers are choosing largely academic rather than practical subjects. There are some minority tastes—philosophy, theology, fly fishing, Finnish, criminology and deep-sea diving. That suggests an interest in learning for its own sake, something not usually associated with assembly-line workers—and most of the workforce left school at 16. The most popular subjects chosen now are computer sciences and German, both of which are of special use in a multinational manufacturing company. It is a rule of the scheme that it should not be a substitute for proper training necessary for specific jobs. Other companies are now offering similar programmes—Lucas Industries, Rover, Pedigree Pet Foods and Boots, among others.
In Northern Ireland, the Open University has developed an action for community employment programme. The university's department of community education has designed and delivered within 12 months a course which trains trainers and core staff who are giving a year's employment to some 10,000 unemployed people in a range of 300 community projects. A typical core worker will have studied correspondence texts, attended group sessions with a tutor and other core workers and taken part in residential schools. Last week certificates were awarded to more than 400 people in a ceremony held at the University of Ulster. One of the core workers described his delight that unemployed people are now moving to permanent employment and decreasing the dole figures.
Why is it that schemes such as Ford's and the Open University's can attract and hold the enthusiastic attention of people who at 16 had written off education as useless and boring? The waste of good
724
potential is appalling. It is an indictment of education as it has been with its division between the academic and the vocational.
The success and excitement of the Open University and Ford schemes spread to other institutions comes from no government initiatives, no action taken by government. With the introduction of the poll tax and LMS, the Government have reduced the opportunities for adult and community education. After 100 years of public education in this country the vast majority of school-leavers are not automatically entitled to any further education or training. We need to work in an entitlement model that empowers people to take up education or training as a right.
The Labour Party proposes a return-to-learn entitlement. We are thinking particularly of the over-fifties, almost all of whom missed out on the post-war improvement of education. Two-thirds of today's 60 year-olds left school at 14. Only one in ten of those now aged 50 continued at school.
Our policy is aimed at both stimulating demand for education by those aged 50 and above and improving the supply of learning opportunities directly or indirectly geared to that age group. A 57 year-old unemployed former works manager from Walsall was quoted as saying: "Age is against you right from the start. As soon as you say you are over 50, that's it". I hope that our plans and our commitment to adult, continuing and community education will alter all that; and the sooner we have a Labour Government to do it the better.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I hope that it is appropriate for me, as another new boy in your Lordships' House, to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, for his excellent maiden speech. I thought that he was very well informed; and, if I may say so, I admired his confidence.
In my own maiden speech on 8th November I mentioned that for the past eight years I have represented commerce on the Council for National Academic Awards, which is the largest degree-awarding body and quality assurance agency in the country. I said then, and I feel I should repeat now, that the views that this experience has led me to hold are necessarily those of an outsider looking in on our world of higher education. As might be expected, I am afraid that those views do not accord with much of the accepted wisdom of our education establishment.
For instance, it strikes me that there may be a non sequitur in the Motion that we are debating. The Motion seems to assume that if more taxpayers' money were to be poured into our state education system, the quality of its provision would be likely to improve. I think that is rather unlikely.
For a start, looking at the general sweep of the proposition, the latest OECD figures, published today, show that we spend a larger share of our gross domestic product per pupil on education than does either Germany or Japan, which have comparatively successful systems. Nor, if we compare the pay and

725
conditions of service of, for example, a senior lecturer in a polytechnic with, shall we say, a ward sister in the National Health Service, do we seem to be doing the teachers down.
Let us look at the senior lecturer. Senior lecturers may expect to earn up to nearly £24,000 per annum for a 36-week year. For each of those 36 weeks they should not have more than 18 hours' contact with their students, whom they do not relish in ratios of more than 16 students to each one of them. Their university counterparts are even better off, which may be part of the reason why their main union, NATFHE, went on strike earlier this month and may be going to do so again this week.
Now let us look at NHS ward sisters. In outer London they earn up to some £17,600 for a 47-week year. For each of those 47 weeks they do a basic 37½ hours. They often work longer, and they certainly work unsociable hours. They carry very much more responsibility than does the polytechnic lecturer, including the responsibility of making decisions which may decide whether a patient lives or dies. Our nurses' record on strike action, particularly that of the Royal College of Nursing, is rather more professional than that of our teachers.
Returning to higher education, I shall be told that for the other 18 hours of what is for most people the normal 36-hour working week, which is not spent in contact with students, and for the 16 weeks of what the rest of us might regard as holiday, the lecturers are not idle. No, they are marking their students' papers or otherwise they are engaged in "scholarly activity" and of course our old friend "research". Yet students in higher education, especially in the softer subjects, often have less than one essay to write per week, and marking papers may therefore not be all that onerous.
As for research and scholarly activity, I think that most of us would describe much of that as merely keeping abreast of one's subject. There are very many honourable academics who are indeed extending the frontiers of knowledge, and many who also work extremely hard for their students, but too much research and scholarly activity in higher education looks to me more like academic self-indulgence.
Be all that as it may, there is little doubt that, by international comparison with other more successful education systems, and by national comparison with other more esteemed and hardworking professions, we are not spending too little of our taxpayers' money on education.
Are we therefore spending some of it wrongly? I believe so. Let us look at one vitally important area which lies at the very roots of our education system —teacher training—which costs us about £300 million per annum.
I was very impressed, as I am sure were most of your Lordships, by the very courageous statement by my noble friend Lord Joseph to the effect that he wishes that he had done more about teacher training when he was Secretary of State. I am afraid that I have to agree with him.
726
The vast majority of our teachers still have to go through either the one-year Post Graduate Certificate of Education —the PGCE—or the three-or four-year Bachelor of Education—the B.Ed. Merely the process of having to go through these courses puts off a lot of the best potential teachers. The standard of entry to the B.Ed is often low—as low as two Es at A-level. Most of our primary school teachers still come from our B.Ed courses, which they join straight from school. Many, if not most, successful teachers will say that their compulsory training was not of much help to them—or at least the non-practical element of their compulsory training was not of much help to them. Having completed the B.Ed course, only one in three will stay in teaching. Surely that is wasteful, is it not?
So what is wrong with our teacher training? In my view, there are two main things wrong with it. One is that teacher trainers have forgotten that the essential requirement for a good teacher is a knowledge and love of his subject, and an ability to teach it. The second is that teacher training has tried to turn itself into a profession, whereas the profession is, has always been and will always be, teaching. If you ask teacher trainers, "What is the body of knowledge necessary to become a successful teacher trainer?" they cannot tell you. Genuine professionals do not have that problem. Lawyers and nurses are not similarly stuck for words, and nor for that matter are stockbrokers.
Because teacher training as an academic discipline is largely bogus, it uses a lot of course material which is irrelevant and often damaging to our common purpose in this debate: higher quality provision. I would not want noble Lords to think that I am seeing Reds under the bed—or rather Reds under the B.Ed —but I have to tell your Lordships that I fear that many students on our teacher training courses are still spending too much expensive time studying questionable and politicised aspects of sociology, and not nearly enough on subject expertise and classroom discipline.
In order to back up that accusation I could show your Lordships many examples of the course profiles in question. In the time available I can quote a course to train people how to teach home economics at a college in the leafy shires which still offers 400 hours of the irrelevant material to which I have just referred. I could even show noble Lords a course to teach people how to teach business and information technology at one of our leading polytechnics, with much the same content on offer. This is information which can be gleaned from the course profiles and reading lists. The presentation at the chalk-face can be much more virulent.
I am aware that the Government are considering revision of our national mechanisms for quality assurance for higher education. I very much hope that they will not listen to those polytechnic directors who are asking for even greater academic autonomy from the Council for National Academic Awards than they have recently been given. In my view the teeth of

727
quality control which the CNAA has retained as a background power should, if anything, be extended across the binary line.
I suppose I may be told that I am forgetting about the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, or CATE as she is usually called, a body recently created in an attempt to improve subject expertise. I do not have time to deal with her achievements in detail, but I am afraid to say that, on the whole, CATE is too little and too late.
One final point about teacher training is that most of your Lordships were taught by teachers who did not suffer it. I leave it to your Lordships to decide whether the education that you received was any the worse for that, compared with what our children are receiving today.
What is to be done? Could we redirect some of the resources that at present go to the teacher training courses toward systems likely to improve the quality of provision? Happily, I believe the answer is really quite easy. The Government have recently introduced two excellent schemes—the Licensed and Articled Teacher Schemes—which allow especially more mature people with a knowledge and love of their subjects to teach in our state system without being obliged to attend a teacher training course. The obvious answer is to divert funds from our existing teacher training departments to the Licensed and Articled Teacher Schemes and to expand them and other similar initiatives as vigorously as possible.
The trouble is that these schemes are strongly opposed by the teacher trainers and, I fear, by much of the remainder of our education establishment. I even have evidence that they may not be fully supported by the teacher education branch at the Department of Education and Science. I am afraid that the Government will have to be much tougher with those interests if they wish to see any worthwhile progress along the lines I have suggested.
While on the subject of the Government's involvement, I should like to mention the recent outstandingly successful policy of allowing polytechnics to enjoy corporate status, independent of local authority control. In the planning stage that concept too was vigorously resisted by the education establishment, to the extent that it was abandoned in 1982. However, I am sure it is safe to say that this revolution is now welcomed by every single polytechnic director, including some who owe allegiance to the party opposite. I trust that this bodes well for other similar government initiatives such as Local Management of Schools.
There are other ideas which would reduce waste in our state education system. I think that I have time to mention just one, which has been around for some time but which, again is being vigorously opposed by entrenched academic self-interest. It is that students should be able to earn a foundation degree after two years of study as opposed to three years at the moment, or four in Scotland. They might then take another two years to earn a more specialist master's degree, and a further two for a doctorate.
728
I hope that I shall not be skinned alive if I suggest that the normal academic year might be extended to 45 weeks. Two years would then give 90 weeks' study, which is not far off what the universities now deliver in three years. Higher education could thus accommodate many more students, perhaps on more practical courses. An excellent article on this proposal appeared in The Times on 29th October. It was written by Dr. Malcolm Frazer, chief executive of the CNAA, and by Professor Sir Graham Hills, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Strathclyde. I propose to put it in your Lordships' Library in case anyone is interested.
I hope that what I have said goes some way to show that there is much that we could do to improve the quality of our education provision without having to spend more taxpayers' money on it. Taken together with the Government's other excellent initiatives, which I trust they will pursue with the utmost vigour through all the obfuscation which the education establishment will put in their way, I feel sure that the quality of our education provision will indeed improve enormously.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the Librarian of Hull University, the poet, Philip Larkin, started one poem with the lines,
"Sexual intercourse began in 1963
Between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles' first LP".
If he were alive today he could have written more prosaically but with greater truth, "University funding collapsed in October 1990". On 23rd October 1990 the Universities Funding Council announced in its circular letter 28/90:
"The Council was disappointed by the scale of economy offered by universities' bids … and wishes to consider the options further".
That was the end of the so-called "bidding exercise". It left the universities of this country in financial uncertainty amounting to incipient chaos. They do not know now what next year's funding will be. They do not even know when they will know.
I must declare an interest as the Principal of St. David's University College, Lampeter. I can assure your Lordships that we have absolutely no idea what is coming next. Yet the bidding system was invented by the UFC to force universities to compete with one another. It was the UFC which made the rules and established the "guide prices"—an unlovely term deriving, I think, from the advertisements of estate agents.
It was the UFC which demanded the incredibly detailed returns that we had to complete. The universities collaborated and complied because the carrot dangled before their noses was the prospect of four-year funding. I can assure noble Lords that throughout last winter and spring academics and administrators did a vast amount of work. One dean in one faculty in one university calculated that she had worked 200 hours on the bidding process alone. That is the equivalent of five 40-hour weeks. Thousands of academics could say the same. It has been reliably estimated that the UFC received over 10,000 pages,

729
photocopied 50 times, in submissions for the bidding exercise. It was unquestionably a multi-million pound project. When all the documents had been considered, it was agreed that no one had broken, bent or strained any of the rules and yet the UFC discovered that the money available was not sufficient to meet the bids.
As the chairman of the CVCP, Sir Edward Parkes, told the council, any junior lecturer could have told it as much months ago. Its own chief executive, Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, warned repeatedly of the perils that awaited it and strove mightily to mitigate the excesses of this doomed system before it was too late. He is the only person in this whole sorry exercise who emerges with his reputation enhanced.
However, the UFC would not listen and with all the unstoppable momentum of the Gadarene swine, it plunged over the cliff and was violently choked in the sea on or about 20th October 1990. I am sorry that I do not see the noble Lord the chairman of the UFC in his place in your Lordships' House today contributing to our debate. On second thoughts, I withdraw that comment. He is probably much better employed doing his sums than in listening to me.
But his is the very council which was appointed by government Ministers to make the universities more efficient, to make them more cost effective and to make them provide more value for money. In the past 18 months it has wasted millions, dislocated the work of all Britain's universities for more than a year and in the end has totally failed to deliver. I ask noble Lords on all sides of the House who have experience of industry and commerce this question. Would not the chairman of a company which so totally failed to meet its targets be invited to place the keys of his car on the boardroom table before he left?
The UFC is not a conspiracy of ivory-tower intellectuals. It contains captains of industry and others who,
"have shown capacity in industrial, commercial and financial matters".
I quote from the Education Reform Act 1988. Some capacity, some reform, my Lords! If the Government's policies and practices in higher education are to retain any shred of credibility they must move and move rapidly to clear up the mess.
In the short term, Ministers must order the Universities Funding Council, first, to get back to four-year funding by February 1991 and, secondly, to decide and announce at once by what method it proposes to fund Britain's universities in 1991–92. At the present moment the universities do not know where their next meal is coming from and they do not even know the recipe from which it will be cooked up. Thirdly, it must be ordered to come clean. It must tell each university openly which parts of its submitted institutional plan the UFC considers sensible and economically feasible. It must then authorise that university to get on with those parts. Only in that way can a university plan sensibly and efficiently. The Government must tell the UFC what the CBI recently told the Government:
"Before it is too late, get your act together".
730
In the longer term the Government themselves must decide as a matter of principle whether they will fund universities so that the quality of their output stays as it is today or, alternatively, so that it is inferior to that which it is today. This is a vital, stark policy decision and the Government must make it. I can assure noble Lords that universities have now found all the so-called efficiency gains that it is possible for them to make. There is no further mileage down that well-trodden track. It is the primrose path to the everlasting bonfire.
The Government must now decide what they want to do and take responsibility for it. The decision must be made by the Government and not left to the universities to decide by default. Yet to be fair to Her Majesty's Government and their record on education —I strive at all times to be fair—there is one matter on which it is possible to record a slight but welcome satisfaction. At the opposite end of the educational spectrum from universities, in all their dissatisfaction and uncertainty, those who are responsible for the national curriculum in our schools are to be guardedly congratulated on having at last recognised the existence, and perhaps even the importance, of the arts.
In its earliest manifestations the national curriculum was a stern and martial concentration on literacy, maths, science and technology. But after long and arduous persuasion, much of it administered by Professor Ken Robinson of Warwick University, art and music as foundation subjects are now present, with some prospect of competing fairly for space in every school's timetable. Let me urge Ministers and their officials to grow in grace and go further.
Professor Robinson has said:
"The Government has identified science as a generic area of the national curriculum and commissioned a single working group to say what it should include. For more than 10 years, the idea has been gathering force that all arts disciplines, including drama, dance, visual arts, verbal arts and music, share a number of common processes and have related roles in education. Consequently, they should be provided for within a common policy. There is an analogy —though not an exact parallel—with what is needed in the arts. It would have been preferable to identify the arts as a generic area of the national curriculum and to have commissioned a single working group to say what an adequate arts education should include".
The Government have made a start on recognising the importance of the arts in schools. It is too little; it is too late. But it is some, and it is now. There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth. Let us hope that the repentance of those who develop the national curriculum will be a shining example to the sinners of the Universities Funding Council.
6.4 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I should like to concentrate on one aspect of education which is often overlooked. I am very glad to see that, despite the much quoted observation of the honourable Member for Mitcham and Morden, Mrs. Angela Rumbold, that she did not see what schools could do to help the emotional development of children,
"if they had the misfortune not to come from a good home",

731
the Government have, largely at the insistence of the schools, included personal and social education in the national curriculum.
There is much talk of education for citizenship and also in certain quarters doubt is cast on whether there is any such thing as society. The project that I wish to support, and for which I shall ask the noble Minister for financial support, is one that by-passes both of those issues and yet has the beneficial effects that everybody agrees are needed. Until a few days ago I had not heard of TACADE, the Advisory Council on Drug and Alcohol Education, but I recently attended the launch of one of its projects. I am so convinced of its benefits and usefulness to the nation that I am speaking today to give it my strong support.
The approach to personal and social education offered by the TACADE teaching resource, Skills for the Primary School Child, is already proving very popular with teachers and pupils. I urge the Minister to continue the essential support which this project has already received from the Department of Education and Science. It invested £49,000 in the development of the project. What is needed now is a further £50,000 to carry out an evaluation of the usefulness of this programme.
In this country we are world leaders in developing this kind of educational resource. There is the potential for generating useful export earnings and also for increasing Britain's moral and intellectual standing in the world. There is no doubt that more and more schools will take up Skills for the Primary School Child. Its acceptance and use by the teaching profession is assured. But scientific rigour requires that it be properly validated. This small amount of additional funding is necessary to that end—that is to say, a direct investment in our most important resource for the future, the children of our country.
It both fills the yawning gap that currently exists in personal and social education in our primary schools and also changes the behaviour of children for the better. As they become more aware of their own worth and that of others, they automatically become better citizens. I failed to point out that this project was originally designed to teach children about the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse. But its benefits go far beyond this. Educating children in such a way that they acquire skills that make them less isolated and more sociable is far more effective than simply adding a list of national rules of behaviour to the school and home rules to which they are already subject.
There is another factor at work here. In former times traditional ways and customs dictated codes of behaviour that were broadly accepted, whether they were enforced or consensual. In our culture during the past 100 years and in the cultures of many of our ethnic minorities during the past 20 to 30 years, the relaxing or breaking down, depending on your point of view, of traditional codes of behaviour has left young people with a bewildering sea of choices to make about how to live in an increasingly complex and even fragmented society.
732
Skills for the Primary School Child creates a structured programme through which children acquire the skill of making informed choices. The process through which they do this builds closer and more caring relationships between staff and pupils and among the children themselves. I am sure that this will also do more than anything to retain teachers in education. Its initial impetus was the need to educate children about the dangers of drug, alcohol and solvent abuse, but the results go far beyond even this major remit.
The children who participate also become less likely either to bully or to be bullied and better able to cope with situations of abuse from adults. In addition they are more self-confident and better able to relate to adults and to other children. Being given these skills and opportunities to make informed choices at an early age also greatly reduces the sense of alienation that so often sets in after the exciting newness of going to school has faded to the dreary dullness of introversion and passivity. Through that programme children become active participants in the whole process of learning, from which attitudes, values, influences and skills cannot be separated. I should like to add also that a population able to make rational, informed choices is essential for democratic government.
In another place on 15th July 1867 on the passing of the Reform Bill of that year, Robert Lowe, Lord Sherbrooke, said that he believed that it would now be necessary to prevail on our masters to learn their letters. One hundred and twenty three years later most people can read and write, but political and social life has become far more complex. We are many different groups. We are not two nations but one could almost say several nations in one.
Also in the economic sphere increasing specialisation, the emergence of enormous multinational conglomerate trading companies and the feeling that one is reduced to being a 25-digit reference number on a gas bill all detract from people's sense of belonging. That is dangerous; it is very dangerous.
I believe strongly that this educational programme devised and produced by TACADE will do much to reverse those trends, to improve behaviour in schools and provide an invaluable resource in combating the evil of drug and alcohol abuse. TACADE already has a successful track record in producing effective educational resources. Skills for Adolescence, TACADE's previous project, has been in use since 1986 and is now at various stages of implementation in half the secondary schools in the country. Hertfordshire and some other counties now use Skills for Adolescence in all their secondary schools.
As with Skills for the Primary School Child, which was a tool to combat substance abuse, there have been other proven benefits; namely, reduced levels of truancy, improvements in pupils' academic performance, increased motivation, teachers developing closer, more trusting relationships with pupils and finding discipline easier and pupils being more tolerant and mature in their relationships with their fellow pupils and with teachers. Parents who have

733
been involved have been very enthusiastic. Indeed part of the aim and success of the Skills for Adolescence project—I am sure that the same will apply to Skills for the Primary School Child—has been to form a bond and partnership between parents, pupils and teachers.
I should like to give a piece of anecdotal evidence which illustrates the wide-ranging benefits of these programmes and in particular the growth of trust between teacher and pupil. I have a letter from a teacher to a member of the TACADE staff about a teenage girl who was able to discuss for the first time the fact of and the feelings surrounding being sexually abused by a member of her family. As a result, the perpetrator was prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison. That came to light directly as a result of her participation in the Skills for Adolescence programme.
Skills for the Primary School Child and Skills for Adolescence are having a synergistic effect in making the most of existing resources. The £50,000 needed to evaluate results is a relatively minute amount of money and I hope that the Government will agree to fund the study.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, in the winter of 1944, not one of the best for Britain with the world at war and our economy in hock as we strove to fight for the peace to follow, I heard R.A. Butler on his education Bill and I heard Sir William on his social security provisions. At that time the mood of the country was amazing. While many noble Lords were still about the business of saving and serving democracy in various parts of the world, Britain was turning its mind to what it might do in the next 50 years to create greater opportunities and to give the children of this country a better chance to benefit from living in it than their parents had had.
One of the most significant things which happened in education at that time was the return from the services in 1945 of prisoners of war and ex-soldiers and ex-officers, men and women. The education system of which they had been a part had taught them that they were not suitable to command or lead, that they were to be in various slots of the economic and social position. Such people had been lifted out of that by the discovery that they had brilliancies which helped to win the war.
At this stage I want to say that it is time for the Government to point the eyes of the country optimistically forward. If anything of consequence to education is to come out of this debate, it should not be the negatives which have been so much a part of the debate so far. There has been much condemnation on various sides of people who are trying to do a good job within the system. There should be an identification of what is possible with the resources available.
When I went into the classroom in 1945, we were given the biggest rise which teachers had until then been granted. Our eyes were pointed forward. I was a two-year trained teacher. I was a product of the poor
734
man's university which did so much for education in Britain up to that time. We were taught that in education only one factor was important; namely, the child. In some of the destructive and rather snide comments which have been made as regards proposals for the future, very little emphasis has been placed upon the child. I believe that we should correct that at once.
In speaking in this debate, I must say that I have listened to long speeches by people in other debates. I have sat through them to the end. I believe that we should return to some of the principles of this House. When people contribute in a debate and make sweeping assertions which need checking, they should sit to the end of the debate and then face the music of the response which they may receive. I do not say that viciously; I say it because when I entered this House 15 years ago noble Lords were courteous to all taking part in the debates. The House should continue to live up to those high standards.
All the research which has been carried out in my lifetime in teaching—and I was in it until 1975—has proved one thing; namely, that the biggest single influence on the life of a child is the attitude of his parents to the school which he attends. All my experience in classrooms and staffrooms has taught me that the biggest single influence after that is the mood of the teacher who receives the child into the class and his or her identification with the community in which they may live.
Since 1945 and through all the administrations which have followed, the general morale of the teaching profession at infant, primary, secondary and university level has declined. The feelings which teachers have about their acceptance in society have been affected. Some of the comments made in this debate will have further depressed them and will have made them feel that what they are trying to do is not understood.
How do we set about reconstructing the education process so that teachers today are somehow given the same sort of influence and so that they feel they have a constructive job to do in the reconvening of the community spirit which has been so badly dented? How do we set about that? We will not do it by making snide, sweeping references.
I shall make one comment as kindly as I can. One of the saddest and most depressing remarks made in this debate—all the more sad and depressing because she believes it—was the remark by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that the rot lies in the education authorities.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, as a point of correction, that was in a letter written to me by a teacher. Those were not my own words.
Lord Parry: My Lords, of course I withdraw that, but the noble Baroness knows what I think. I wrote down the words "The rot lies in the education authorities". I totally accept that that was in a letter to the noble Baroness from a teacher but I shall respond to that in this way. The education which we inherited and the chances that we had—I mean those people

735
who were not expensively bought out of the system—are not the politics of envy. One of the weaknesses of cases made in this House is that some of the people making them have no knowledge of the public system because they were educated outside that system. Many Secretaries of State for Education found their first access to the public school system on the day they came into office, and only then discovered what it was all about.
I have served under every Education Secretary since Chuter-Ede who was president of the Board of Education until 1975. There have been some superb people in office, despite the background from which they came. But it is a weakness of the case when people educated in the public side of the education system see those running it contracting their children out.
I believe in a positive constructive way that we should analyse the value of the private school sector of the education system. If there are people who feel that they must spend £7,000 a year on educating their children outside the general system, we should analyse that cost. Let us ask ourselves what proportion of that cost goes to essential education. Let us cut out the snobbery, the frills, and decide what is the right level of expenditure. If it is right to say that the sum a noble Lord chooses to spend on the education of his child is £3.000, how can we justify arriving at sums of expenditure for the other side of the education system that may be derisory by comparison? My positive comment is that if the public school system—by that I mean the private school system—is so valuable to parents, we should aim suitably to fund our side of the system to move towards that other system. But let us not criticise education authorities. They must work within the system and the provisions made available to them. Many of us would not be in this House if it were not for the dedication of unpaid men and women who devoted their lives to education in the education authorities of this country.
I do not wish to omit some of the valuable points made by Members opposite. It is true that we sometimes wonder about the emphases placed on courses in teacher education. One of the reasons I went to university at 32 years of age was that I knew instinctively that I was not equipped to face the challenge of the classroom with a new and demanding child population. It should be easier for teachers to move from the classroom into further education. It should be easier also to sustain the in-service education to which I devoted part of my life. It is not enough that the teachers close down for one day a term and toddle off to a teacher seminar to hear some bright and shining star from Bristol talk of how clever he has been—I mean no disrespect to Bristol; wherever the man comes from.
Perhaps I may also say that we need a far better funded system. It is current party politics in Britain to say that the Labour Party has good ideas but to ask how it will it pay for them. I am not worried about that. If we motivate the will of the nation, people will always pay for education. We must find alternatives, and some have been suggested.
736
Let us return to the real grist of the mill. Evening classes have been cut back; teacher in-service education has been cut back; opportunities for leaving teaching and attending university have been cut back. Pressure on the education authorities funding has made it impossible for them to sustain some of the courses. I am not a great believer in car-boot sale funding of education. I believe that the funds should come from a proper understanding of the people and a proper dialogue with them as to how the resources should be spent. No government can write a blank cheque for education. We know that. There is no question about that.
Let me say this. There are certain matters which suddenly became policy. As the House will know, I am interested in the education of the mentally disadvantaged and the physically handicapped. At this time it is the conventional wisdom that we integrate those kids into the main stream. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who will be answering, on one occasion when I asked a question about this thought I was being too pessimistic. I hope I am being realistic and I shall ask a direct question on this. What I believe about optimism and pessimism is summed up in a Hungarian proverb which says that the only difference between the optimist and the pessimist is that the pessimist is better informed.
Regarding that issue, about which I have some knowledge, I ask how we can possibly move children who have been cared for in a protected and specially designed environment to a mainstream school where the head teacher is already organising car boot sales to raise funds to buy books for the general membership of the school. How can we modify a school to take the handicapped child? When we close down the school that has been carefully looked after by the community, has received a generous funding and has been given help from all kinds of sources, we are underprivileging the underprivileged, and doing it by accident.
I believe that every Member of this House, however educated, genuinely wants to see a better British education system. We are committed to it. Let us vote for it.
6.25 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, there is no doubt that the projected increase in the number of students at universities and polytechnics is most welcome and the Government deserve the highest congratulations for that policy, which we all want to see succeed. But I should like to take a few moments to consider one aspect of that expansion which needs more attention than it has so far received; that is where the extra students are to live when they arrive.
The increase that has already happened placed considerable strain on the universities and it can only worsen. With an inevitable shortage of purpose-built accommodation there will be an inevitable increase in demand on the by now limited private rental sector. Such increase in demand has already resulted in an increase in the rents charged for rooms. It does not appear that further space to rent can or will fill much of the gap, although it may help. It is perhaps

737
significant that many young people choose to study at northern institutions of education largely because rents there are cheaper.
I ask the Government how they believe the universities and polytechnics can best be helped to construct more halls of residence, flats or whatever to meet the expected increase in demand; or is it their policy to make students from the poorer homes study at the place nearest to where they live so that all they need is their bus fare? If that is the case, it is a radical and unwelcome change of policy.
In this matter I wear two hats: one a university hat and another as chairman of a building society. We tried to make the two coincide and use building society funds to finance accommodation specifically for students. Over 500 places in the North of England have been funded within the last few years. However, that is now becoming much more difficult.
We are starting to build a hall for 126 students in Newcastle. Given the present day costs of building, that will work out at £13,000 for each bedspace. I hate the word "bedspace" but I cannot think of a better one. I believe we all know what it means. At current interest rates the mortgage interest alone works out at almost £2,000 per annum per unit. That is close to the student's annual grant of £2,250. Those figures assume no site costs and rates at only ½ per cent. over the base rate on a 40-year mortgage, which no bank would even contemplate. The student must pay that figure. He is thus left with only £250 of grant and a loan of £420 if he has no other income. The students are now very conscious that they are paying some part of the poll tax and have just lost housing benefit during the long vacation.
On those figures few new flats can be constructed and will not be occupied if they are. What can be done? I do not see any way that those figures can be reduced without some kind of help from the Government. I wish I could. Funds could perhaps be channelled through the universities and polytechnics funding councils, from which source nothing has so far come; perhaps there could be a higher grant or a loan in cases of hardship. There is an access fund of £25 million, as noble Lords will be aware. That may help but it is widely regarded as inadequate. I am told that it has so far helped mostly those in trouble with rents in private rented accommodation.
I am not sure of the scale of this problem nationally. I have no means of working it out. However, if we are talking about 20,000 new bed spaces over the next five years—which assumes that not more than 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. of the students use them—that might come to £260 million over that period. A 25 per cent. subsidy on that would be £13 million a year. However, the figures are written literally on the back of an envelope and I am not sure that they are accurate.
I hope that the Government will give an indication of what they believe should be done. Will it be possible for some sort of student housing corporation to be considered in order to assist those educational
738
institutions which have a long-term programme and have formed a trust in partnership with financial businesses and builders; and, with the help of local authorities, find the land and guarantee the loans for the conversion of unused property? Even a guarantee to fund a shortfall after the mortgage period ended would be of great assistance and would cost nothing.
Finally, I believe that without some assistance of that kind, the expansion of higher education, which everyone in this House very much wants to see, could be seriously jeopardised.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the previous speaker always commands the full attention of the House wherever he happens to be sitting, either on the Benches with which I normally associate him or in his present position. What he had to say was followed closely by us all; but I hope he will forgive me if I do not develop his arguments.
We have had a memorable debate. I always find it prudent to congratulate most warmly the speaker sitting nearest to me. However, it is not only for that reason that I salute my noble friend Lord Parry. I cannot remember anyone who made a more powerful speech in an educational debate than my noble friend. His experience is certainly much more deep-rooted in education than is mine. I became engaged to be married in the waiting room of the Workers Educational Association at Stoke-on-Trent, if any noble Lords know that part of the world. In those days I taught at two state schools, and I have been a university teacher since then.
My noble friend Lord Parry spoke of education as it is, from the point of view of those who have lived through it and those who teach. I am glad that he defended the teachers. When all is said and done, they have not had a very good deal from some of the speakers today; though that does not apply to these Benches. The thought that the teachers are getting full justice is to my mind—and it is a personal opinion—absurd. They are not receiving justice in this country at present.
My noble friend Lord Peston opened a debate on education earlier in the year. I described his speech as brilliant and comprehensive. I said that he had not had time to deal with religion but no doubt would be leaving that to my noble friend Lady Blackstone, who was winding up. I must make the same comment today, but the other way round. The noble Baroness made a speech that was brilliant and comprehensive and no doubt left the subject of religion for my noble friend Lord Peston when he winds up. Between them, in the course of these two debates, no doubt the subject will be covered.
Religion might conceivably have been covered from the Bishops' Bench. It is not for me, an Anglican defector of 50 years' standing, to say anything critical about the absence of bishops today. However, considering that this is a debate on education, we might have hoped for an important contribution from the ecclesiastical Bench. I realise that I may be completely out of touch and that they have special

739
reasons for not being here. As I am incapable of taking their place, I leave what is, to me, the most important of all educational subjects for the bishops to deal with on the next occasion, and for my noble friend Lord Peston when he winds up.
I venture to deal with the polytechnics. I had thought of saying something about the noble Lord, Lord Annan, but he is not in the Chamber at present so those remarks will also have to be passed over. The noble Lord is on record, during an earlier debate, as describing the polytechnics as the great success story of the 1980s. On that point, at least, I agree with him. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, also agrees, as does the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I was not entirely happy about some of the later remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson; but I know that his heart is in the right place in regard to polytechnics. His other remarks will no doubt be dealt with firmly by my noble Friend Lord Peston.
The facts are reasonably familiar. Incidentally, this is National Polytechnics Week, which celebrates the 21st anniversary of the creation of modern polytechnics. I hope that all noble Lords are doing something about that. I do not know what the noble Baroness, Lady Blotch, is doing, but perhaps she will tell the House what the Government have in mind for National Polytechnics Week. I am not sure that she is even wearing a badge! At any rate, this is National Polytechnics Week, and the polytechnics have been described by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, as a great success story.
It has often been said in these debates—perhaps too often by me, but one cannot repeat the truth too often—that polytechnics are the largest sector in higher education and cover over 55 per cent. of higher education students. I shall not go into detail at this time of night, but that gives some indication of their significance. It is generally accepted—it has never been denied—that their standards are comparable with those of the universities. We can therefore accept that they are doing a fine job.
However, what are the Government doing to assist the polytechnics? Again, I have made these points on previous occasions; but until the Government improve their record, I am afraid that I shall keep on repeating them. It would be nice to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has to say in this regard because I respect his views. If anyone wishes to read a brilliant book, I suggest that they read his book called Our Age, which has just been published. I do not agree with the book in all respects; but if one wishes to have one's mind provoked into active thought, I suggest reading that book.
I refer to the binary line. I should have thought that the time has now come to announce the end of the binary line. I know that on an earlier occasion I said that I had once defended the binary line; but that was many years ago when I was younger and more foolish and was some sort of ministerial hack, so I hope your Lordships will not count that against me. The binary line has had it. We do not want it any more.
740
We should consider a few facts in regard to polytechnics. The achievements of the polytechnics have been carried out on 40 per cent. less funding per student than for comparable students in universities. Is anybody in this House able to justify the universities' position? I hope that the Minister will not. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, might, but perhaps he has moved beyond that position. However, the nation is getting polytechnic education on the cheap. I hope that that will not continue.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the noble Earl suggesting that the universities should be brought down to the polytechnic unit of resource?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I know that that is a feed question in order to obtain a conclusive answer. The noble Lord cannot imagine that I am off my head. Of course I do not suggest any such thing. I have to be a little more offensive to the noble Lord than I had intended to be because if he making that suggestion, he should not continue his career in higher education but should go back to school. I did not intend to be offensive, but since such a ridiculous question has been put to me I cannot help but reply on the same lines.
It seems to me that the position will get worse. According to my figures—
Lord Dainton: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the polytechnics do not cover any of the expensive subjects such as medicine, dentistry, agriculture, or veterinary science? There is no point in taking average figures unless one takes account of the great range of unit costs. If one makes the proper allowances, the situation is entirely different.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am glad of that even more expert comment from the noble Lord. However, the polytechnics consider that they should be given facilities for research that are at present being denied them. That situation alters the balance in the other direction. The situation will worsen. In that regard I do not think that the remarks of the noble Lord, who is highly expert, are helpful. The income per student will fall yet again. That cannot be due to any change in the curriculum. The income per student will fall again, adding to the decline of 20 per cent. per student over the past 10 years. The Government keep praising the polytechnics, but what are they doing about the situation? They are doing them down.
Either one accepts the polytechnics on the same basis as the universities and gives them parity of esteem or one does not. I plead for parity of esteem, for an end of the binary system and for funding on the same basis. I hope that the noble Baroness, who showed good will in regard to polytechnics on the last occasion, will be able to say something encouraging on this occasion.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I hope I will he forgiven for confining my remarks to Oxford, a university which has its fair share of poor undergraduates. I make no apology for covering some of the ground that has already been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Viscount,

741
Lord Ridley, because I should like to talk about access funds. I am talking about Oxford because that is what I know about. My own educational credentials are that I was educated by a correspondence course until I was 11 years of age; then I went to an excellent London secondary school, and then I went to Oxford on a state scholarship. Therefore, I know what it is like not to be rich.
I welcome a great deal of what the Government have done but I remain deeply concerned about the access funds both for undergraduates and postgraduates and for the funding of postgraduates in general. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffbam Prior, has dealt with that matter in a masterly maiden speech.
According to the Secretary of State, £25 million was to be allocated to the access fund in 1990/91 to alleviate in particular student hardship arising from the removal of students from the social security system. Fourteen million pounds was for undergraduates, £6 million for postgraduates and £5 million for students in further education. So far, the University Funding Council has received a total of £9.42 million for the universities, and of that Oxford's share is £360,000.
A survey that was conducted by the Student Financial Support Monitoring Unit, which works very closely with both the university and the city, estimated that claims on the fund to replace lost housing benefit and income support will probably be in the region of £1.5 million.
It is clear, as the universities and many others warned, that the access funds will be wholly inadequate. It is a very great pity that the amendment that was initiated in this House advocating the restoration of housing benefit for some students had to be ruled out on grounds of privilege. In Oxford, students have to pay an average of over £40 a week for the whole calendar year, for the year that many of them have to live out of college. The colleges are trying to build more accommodation and the university and colleges together have bought property to meet the urgent need this year.
It must be clear that a top-up loan of £420, a maintenance grant—what is left of it—which has not been adjusted since 1979, and an access fund of well under half a million pounds for undergraduates and postgraduates cannot possibly compensate for the withdrawal of housing and social security benefits. Many students will suffer great financial hardship. That is a very expensive way to run a railway, since it is likely to lead to a high drop-out rate—something which we have not so far experienced.
Severe stress amongst students is very wasteful. For those doing postgraduate work the situation is especially serious because they receive no top up loan. Those students with Research Council and British Academy grants receive £3,725 per annum. The university estimates that no one can survive without a minimum of £4,800. Postgraduates are expected to work on their research for the full calendar year less
742
four weeks and they are under pressure to complete their doctorates in three years. Therefore, they cannot do lucrative jobs in order to earn more money, even if that situation were academically desirable.
Successive Secretaries of State have been concerned that the resources of the country—in this case the universities—should be wisely used. The Government's paper, The Development of Higher Education in the 1990s, stated that the future health of higher education and its funding from public and private sources depended significantly upon its own success in generating the qualified manpower that the country needs and which is vital to the country's economic performance.
I have always been energetic in promoting the links between industry and education, but in applying a purely financial yardstick to the entire issue of funding, the Government are putting the seed corn of all our academic institutions at risk.
In the face of such relentless stress graduates will not undertake the postgraduate work which will sustain research. The number of British postgraduate students in Oxford has dropped by one-third since 1980 and the situation is now becoming dramatic. The same drastic fall has been observed in the United States over the past five years and there it has been justifiably described as leading to the decimation of the ranks of the young academics—the seed corn. It cannot but lead to a serious erosion of the quality of university life both in teaching and in research. Why do we have universities with a superb reputation for their research if our own postgraduates cannot afford to work there? Our own physics fellow in my college of Somerville, who is one of this year's Fellows of the Royal Society, steadily loses her best postgraduates to the United States, and the only reason for that is money.
I know that Her Majesty's Government are concerned about the quality of academic life and that no public purse is bottomless, but I appeal to the Secretary of State's vision and common sense. I ask him to listen to the universities, to find a way to meet the special needs of postgraduates and meanwhile to review and significantly increase the access funds.
As a country, we cannot afford to put short-term financial arguments before the long-term needs of education, which is in itself our human riches and investment. To put it another way, quality costs money. As the Council for Industry and Higher Education stated three years ago, at present the United Kingdom's plans for the development of highly educated people are at odds with its ambitions for renewal and growth.
In 1989 the previous Secretary of State reaffirmed his commitment to a doubling of numbers in higher education over the next 25 years. I firmly believe that the Government genuinely want to achieve that position, but it will not happen if the financial hurdles for future postgraduates, many of whom should be teaching the next generation of students, are made higher and higher. Education is a national necessity and not a luxury.

743
We have been speaking about foreign languages and most of our debates concern communication and persuading people to listen to us. I took a year off to learn Russian when I was in the Foreign Office and I was sent to a Russian family in Paris to do my practical. They were very stern and rigorous and used to take me out to dinner parties where everyone was forbidden to speak to me except in Russian. Therefore my conversation was considerably limited in the early months. On the very first occasion when I had a conversation of any kind, my neighbour said to me very carefully and slowly in Russian, "What is your favourite sport?" He thought that that was a suitable question to ask a young English woman. I could not think of any sports in Russian until I finally remembered the word for "swimming". I said to him equally slowly and clearly, "I am very fond of swimming." He looked horrified. Unfortunately, I then remembered the word for "long distance" and I said, "I am particularly fond of long-distance swimming." After that, he would not speak to me again. Luckily the hostess had overheard this conversation and at the end of the dinner she broke the rules and asked me in French, "Why did you say that extraordinary thing to Prince so and so?" I told her that "swimming" was the only word that I could remember that was a sport. She said, "What a pity. You did not say that." I said, "What did I say?" She said, "You told him you were very fond of spitting."
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, a 13 year-old girl I know who attends one of the best comprehensive schools in Norfolk was asked to do a biology project on blood. There were no textbooks to take home so she went to her school library. There were no relevant books there. Being a resourceful girl, she went to her central public library only to find, on increasingly empty shelves, one relevant book: an elderly tome on anatomy. She took it home, copied out large chunks of it, confessing that she did not really understand very much of it. Such incidents are replicated up and down the country. At primary level, at secondary level and at higher education level, our education system is starved of books. As headmasters will testify, after dedicated teachers and supportive homes, it is books that contribute most to children's progress. It is on that subject that I should like to make a few remarks today.
Book expenditure, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already reminded us, has been declining throughout the 1980s. In cash terms, it was £65 million in 1981. By 1988–89 book expenditure had risen to just £75 million. Had it kept pace with inflation, it would have been nearer £110 million. In other words, there was a real cut of some £35 million. Indeed, between 1987–88 and 1988–89, half of the English counties cut expenditure on books both in real terms and in cash terms.
With local management of schools, that situation has now become worse, especially for smaller schools with staffs of perhaps only 10, and where staffs are mature, experienced and stable. Under LMS, schools are funded on average salaries but have to pay actual
744
salaries. Such schools are therefore penalised for the older and experienced staff they have and find themselves too often in budget deficit. The governors of three or four of the first and middle schools to whom I was talking last weekend find themselves with budget deficits of from £20,000 to £30,000 on budgets of around £250,000. All expect to see their classroom size rising from below 30 to 36 or more, and all expect to cut by at least 50 per cent. the hours they can offer to children with special needs. First schools are dropping rising-fives entry, and middle schools are ending expenditure on music, craft and design. Internal repairs and decoration are being left undone. In all of those cases, one or two of their most experienced teachers face the sack.
As for capitation—books and equipment—one headmaster who helped to pilot LMS has already had to cut his book budget by half in two years. Another does not expect to buy any books for the next three years. A third cannot even fund pencils and paper—that is left to the PTA—let alone meet the requirements of the national curriculum, let alone buy books. I emphasise that those are all good schools with the benefit of experienced staff, and being penalised for it. Under LMS they face a budget deficit which is felt particularly by capitation. How many noble Lords would want their children or grandchildren to attend schools so severely under-resourced?
The book stock of secondary schools is also dire. In 1989 HMIs surveyed the 58 school libraries of six local education authorities. They reported:
"In some schools, more than 70 per cent. of the stock is obsolete".
Because the stock is old, the children do not use the books. The HMIs reported that in Barnsley one school had 36 loans from its library in a month. Another school library had 72 fiction titles—22 had not been borrowed for 15 years. Kent's 140 secondary schools had on average 1.5 library books per pupil: the library of an average Kent secondary school would probably go into half a dozen suburban bookcases: the HMIs recommend 10 books per child. By any standards, these are desperate figures and reflect the low amount of money being spent.
I suggest that as a result of those problems the demands of the national curriculum are not being met, project work for GCSEs and A-levels cannot be resourced and A/S-levels cannot be mounted. When we lose books, education loses depth and breadth at the same time.
Can our children turn to public libraries? They might but for the fact that over the past 10 years the opening hours of public libraries have been cut by 15 per cent., and public library book funds have been slashed in real terms by almost one third.
The situation is equally bad in universities. If one asks students what is their greatest academic problem, they will not say essays or examinations, they will say getting hold of the books. With frozen grants, they cannot buy them. They turn to the university libraries. Yet as book prices have risen by nearly 40 per cent. in the past five years, and science monographs by 100 per cent., and as acquisition budgets have been barely

745
constant in cash terms, the number of books bought by many universities has virtually halved. One university has bought 17,000 fewer books in the past five years than in the previous five years even though student numbers have risen.
Many universities now stop buying books in March. Next year many will stop buying in January. In some universities no science books are being bought at all, since science periodicals have to be protected and they are escalating in cost even faster than books, at some 18 per cent. a year. Chemical Abstracts, which are essential reading, cost more than £8,000 for a single year's run of one copy. If you break the run, you destroy the value of the periodical. As periodicals topslice university library budgets, less money is left for other books to meet the needs of more and more students. Unless we can fund book purchase properly, as well as student grants, we shall not be able to sustain three-year honours degree courses, since the library is the hub of the academic community.
Under-investment is equally dire in the area of scientific equipment. In 1989 the advisory board to the research councils surveyed all British universities but one, and five polytechnics. It identified 16,000 pieces of research equipment such as microscopes. According to the advisory board, 14 per cent. was inadequate or obsolete; 17 per cent. was in poor condition or inoperable; and 37 per cent. of it was more than 10 years old. Over four-fifths of all university departments reported that they were unable to perform or had seriously to delay critical experiments, due to lack of equipment. Investment of nearly £453 million is needed to make good the backlog on an equipment stock whose replacement value is now some £600 million.
As the dean of chemistry from my own university reported:
"Visitors from other UK departments are usually favourably impressed. Those from the USA or other industrialised countries are amazed that we cope with so little equipment and that so much of it is obsolescent or obsolete".
This is the research on which this country's scientific innovation rests. Yet despite the report, the Government have again funded their ear-marked equipment grant to universities by less than inflation. I do not think the Government can know what is happening inside our schools as concerns books and inside our universities as concerns books and equipment. If they do know, they are being unbelievably complacent. The £15 million MacGregor money for national curriculum development and the £9 million Baker money for universities was welcome but woefully inadequate.
Books are about literacy in primary schools. They are about skills, and overcoming handicap and deprivation. They are about examination projects; they are about the national curriculum; they are about cost-effectiveness and they are about research. They make possible all of those things. However, I should like to suggest that books are more than that; they allow pupils and students—that is, our children—to
746
roam freely and imaginatively in other times, other places and other cultures. To under-fund books is to under-equip minds and to under-resource all our futures. I suggest that that is what this Government are doing.
7 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am in great difficulty about how to open my contribution to this debate. My noble friend Lord Longford mentioned my failure to discuss the subject of religion on the last occasion I spoke. I shall tell him that, quite honestly, if I were a free agent I would devote the whole of my speech to that subject. However, I am not a free agent for a reason that he will understand. Some years ago my wife told me that under no circumstances should I ever express my views on religion in public; indeed, if she had her way, I would not express them in private. I should point out to my noble friend that underlying all my views on education are classical liberal principles—that is, principles of freedom of thought and freedom of expression—and certainly therefore I shall never be one to prevent those in the religious business from expressing their views on education. I only wish that they would show a similar tolerance towards people who share my views on the matter.
My noble friend Lady Blackstone used the word "investment" in the Motion which is before the House. I shall say a few words on that aspect of the matter in a moment. However, I believe that she would agree, as we all do, that education must not just be thought of as an investment. First and foremost, it must be a valuable experience in its own right. I know that we have discussed many technical matters today but one must not lose sight of the fact that these are marvellous years and the young people must appreciate what they are doing at the time they are being educated.
I turn now to concentrate on investment. I hope that there is one aspect upon which we can agree when we discuss education. I trust that we can scotch once and for all the canard which is often put forward by noble Lords opposite about wealth only being created in the private sector. If one ever needed a case to prove that that is nonsense, surely it comes to light when we consider that education takes place largely in the public sector. The one reason I bridle so much whenever I hear noble Lords opposite producing that cliché is that I wonder what they think the rest of us do and have done with our lives.
As a university teacher, I believe that I have been a wealth creator, as have my colleagues. When I look around at my students who go to work in the City of London as foreign exchange dealers, and into banks and building societies—I do not deny that they are creating wealth—I think that one ought to ask how they have been able to do so. Without boasting, I believe that they can do so in part because I told them how to do it. Therefore, if they are wealth creators I feel that I am also a wealth creator.
My second observation on investment relates specifically to the importance of nursery schools, which my noble friend emphasised. The interesting

747
factor about such schools is that they are a particularly good investment in the child. Such investment pays off over the longest period imaginable. By definition it starts to pay off, as it were, 17 years earlier than investment in higher education. Moreover, that pay-off in itself is an educational pay-off, at least in part, in so far as we wish children to derive the most out of primary and secondary schools. In my opinion we can and must lay the foundation in nursery schools. Curiously enough, the right honourable lady the Prime Minister used to hold that view about 20 years ago. One wonders what happened to the impetus for nursery schools on that side of the political divide. Therefore, in arguing for investment in education I should especially argue the case for nursery schools.
I should like now to say a few words about the national curriculum. The curriculum as sketched out at present is recognised by everyone as being overloaded and too complex. It is certainly not helpful to children at the lower end of the ability scale. My noble friend Lady Phillips pointed out that the use of the expression "non-academic" is pejorative and tends to put such young people down. I agree with her. However, the difficulty is in finding another expression for people whose interests are not primarily academic.
The main objection to the curriculum in its present form is precisely that which we put forward when we debated the matter two or three years ago; namely, that it squeezes out so many other valuable activities in the arts and also, as we have now discovered, in sports. I find the situation extremely worrying. It is especially worrying and upsetting because during my early days in your Lordships' House we debated what became the Education Act 1988. I worked with my noble friend Lady David and learnt much about how the House operates.
I found most upsetting that one could put down an amendment —I did so with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who I regret is not present in the Chamber but who reminded us of the occasion—which was not at all contrary to the spirit of the Government's legislation. Many of us argued at the time that it was actually helpful to their objectives and moreover it was supported by Members on all sides of the House. The amendment concentrated on the importance of giving the core curriculum the central role and not insisting upon the remainder, even though much of that was desirable.
However, one can put down such an amendment and it can simply be rejected by the government spokesman on the grounds that the Government do not want an amendment. That is a completely unreasonable and irrational rejection, after which they bring in the so-called backwoodsmen—I suppose I should refer to them as backwoodspersons—who do not listen to the debate but who are required to traipse through the Lobby simply to ensure that the Government get their own way. The Government then spend the succeeding five years trying to undo what they insisted upon. That is exactly what the right honourable gentleman the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science was doing. My guess is that
748
the present Secretary of State will continue with the unravelling of something which could have been avoided in the first place. I have learnt that lesson, and I hope that in the near future when we are in government I shall remember it in terms of giving practical responses to sensible suggestions from the other side.
I should now like to turn my attention to higher education and the question of quality. Other noble Lords—especially my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton—dealt with the disaster of the UFC. I was somewhat doubtful about the UFC; but I cannot pretend to have predicted that it would turn out to be the calamity which we currently see. I also find it curious to note that the chairman of the UFC did not feel it worth while to speak in the debate or even to listen to what anyone else had to say. I suppose he feels that spreading alarm and despondency throughout the universities is a higher priority.
In my view the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, are correct. However, my worry goes further than that. I echo the view on higher education expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Of course you cannot have quality on the cheap. However, we still talk about maintaining standards and say that the crisis is yet to come. I am not so confident about that prediction. I believe that it is at least possible that standards are falling. I am as strong a supporter of the polytechnics as are my noble friend Lord Longford and others; but I am also concerned a bout whether standards may be falling in that area.
When I refer to standards, I refer to educational standards. I do not see it as a kind of batch process where we consider how quickly we can get the young people through their education and ram stuff into them. I have always argued that I could teach all the economics I know to my students in much less time. Indeed, I could teach almost anyone to pass an economics degree within a very short time, mainly because I am quite good at explaining learning. I do not remotely regard that as having anything to do with education and in practice I do not do it. What worries me especially about polytechnics is that they will be pushed more and more into exercising so-called efficiency measures—namely, those with adverse staff student ratios—which do not produce good education. I must therefore issue that word of warning.
More generally, on the question of higher education, I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she can give us any information as to what is happening about the loan scheme. Perhaps she will be able to tell us what rate of interest students will be charged under the scheme. I also echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. I should like to know what is happening about access funds, which do not seem to be operating as we had expected. Again, that is not surprising because of the enormous administrative problems connected with those funds. I also noticed that when in trouble the Government revert to one of their standard responses—they have decided to look yet again at student

749
unions, as I understand it, with a view to making out that they are somehow the cause of all the problems. I find that hard to believe.
I have two further remarks to make while I am on the subject of higher education. I wish to echo all those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, on his speech. I agree with his remarks about postgraduate and postdoctoral education. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, made similar remarks. It is a subject to which we shall perhaps return in a short debate because it is one which is worth exploring in much more detail in its own right.
Having congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, I have, with great regret, to take the opposite view of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. My initial response on hearing his contribution was to say, "My time is valuable, and I shall ignore his contribution". The best I can say about it is that it was ill informed, but speaking as a teacher I found his remarks about teachers to be defamatory. I wondered whether he understood what he was saying. I should like to know whether the Minister will say that his views are the Government's views. Having been a teacher all my life I have always worked 60 to 70 hours a week. When my friends in the private sector were having Saturdays and Sundays off to play golf or to be at home with their children I was still working.
I wonder what the noble Lord thinks that he is saying. I take such remarks personally. He is making them not just to me but to other noble Lords, because the House is full of academics and former academics. That is just not the type of thing to say. Perhaps I may finish with a further insult to the noble Lord. He said that he was part of the CNAA. Having been on the CNAA and having felt that it had done a good job, I believe that the time has come to free the polytechnics from it. Having heard his contribution to the debate I am now doubly certain that I am right in my views.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I began by saying that I was an outsider looking in at the unusual world of higher education. The figures, timings and so on that I gave clearly related to senior lecturers in the polytechnics. I contrasted their workload with the workload of an NHS ward sister. I did not go into details of the teachers' load at other levels of the system and all the rest of it. That was the precise comparison that I was seeking to make.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, the noble Lord said—I greatly resented it—that teachers were not professional. Teachers are professionals and always have been.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not say that. I said that the problem with teacher trainers is that they try to make themselves into a profession when the profession is in fact teaching.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it seems to get worse. The noble Lord has made it clear that he does not understand anything about this subject. Perhaps I may make it clear to him that at the height of my
750
powers as a professor I taught for six hours a week only, in the sense that he uses the words, but I was still doing 70 to 80 hours' work a week. I was doing as much work as a ward sister, although I would not claim that I was as useful as a ward sister. I have rather strong views about what happens in hospitals. I was not that useful, but I was as useful as the average managing director of a private enterprise company, who has never worked my kind of hours. The noble Lord should know that if he makes such defamatory remarks some of us will respond strongly to them.
Finally on the universities, I came across a quotation from Sam Johnson the other day which I thought that your Lordships might like to hear. He said:
"It is surely not without just reproach that a nation of which the commerce is hourly extending and the wealth increasing denies any participation in its prosperity to its literary societies. While its merchants or its nobles are raising palaces it suffers its universities to moulder into dust".
I shall turn now to teachers. Teachers are always criticised for what goes wrong and for not achieving the impossible. What one must do—I was pleased that many noble Lords said this—is praise them for what goes right. A great deal goes right in our schools because of the teachers' devotion, and, I add, despite the Government. It may well be, as my noble friend Lady Phillips said, that we interfere too much with the teachers but we often interfere with cause when we are trying to be helpful. We must learn not to be unhelpful. That teachers are excessively criticised is patent, and that we must stick up for them is an obligation.
I shall refer to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, merely because he attacked my noble friend, and so implicitly attacked me, because we did not tell him enough about Labour Party policies. I have been around your Lordships' House for a while, and one of the favourite things that the Government do is to say, "We are doing something stupid. What is your policy?" The answer is that we are not going to do that same stupid thing. The Government then say that we have no policies. That is absurd. Our policy is not to be stupid.
I remember the football Bill. "We are going to engage in a ludicrous membership scheme. What are you going to do?" Our answer was that we were not going to engage in that ludicrous football membership scheme. The classic example is the poll tax. The Government introduced the poll tax, something that all noble Lords opposite now bitterly regret. The Government said to us, "What is your policy?" Our policy was that we were not going to introduce the poll tax. The list continues. My favourite example is the CTCs. We shall not continue with them. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone pointed out, nor will the Government.
When it comes to resources we have the ultimate in stupidity. I pointed out in our economic debate last week that the Government's great error was to waste the oil revenues on a great consumer boom. The Government then said, "What will you do?" The answer is that we would not have wasted the oil revenues. It will be hard for us to regain them, but

751
when the Government insist on being stupid they cannot criticise us merely because we say that we shall not be stupid.
I have some more positive things to say. I can give your Lordships a list of the policies that we shall be pushing strongly. First and foremost, we shall be pushing for greater parental participation in all school activities. The evidence is overwhelming that the more one can include parents the more productive the education system will be. Our concept of the home/school contract is a good one. We shall press it strongly. We shall reform the A-levels. There is nothing to stop the Government doing so. They have had the evidence for some time, but they have invented the bizarre concept of the gold standard of the A-levels, when in fact they are saying that they are willing to ruin everything that happens in schools to, as it were, meet some of the demands of some university teachers.
What we must do is ask what is the best education for 16 to 18 year-olds and then see what follows for higher education. That is the rational way. We shall reform teacher training; introduce the education council; improve the induction of new teachers; improve career development; and provide incentives for staying on in the teaching profession, something that is vital in any reform of the pay structure. We shall also provide better rewards for career teachers to encourage them to stay in teaching. One of the great problems, and it is even true of higher education, is that if one wants to get on one has to give up doing the very thing that one is there for; namely, teaching.
As I have said, we shall reform the national curriculum and also introduce a four-year technical and vocational traineeship with a core curriculum. We shall hope that that will be an entrance qualification to higher education for those who want it. I have said, as have my noble friends, that we shall give education the highest priority, but that must of course be subject to the proviso that the first task of the next government must be to extricate the economy from the mess that this Government have got it into. Excellent forecaster though I am, I admit that I have great difficulty predicting the precise scale of the economic problems that will confront us. On present forecasts, it looks as though it will be nothing short of disastrous and quite a lot of time will be needed to sort it out. Therefore, it would be foolhardy of me or of any of my right honourable and honourable friends to commit any sum of money before saving the economy.
I am confident that, as we have done in the past, we shall solve these problems, and the resources that will then become available will be channelled so far as possible into education. We shall do that for two reasons. First, our children and young people deserve it. That is exactly the point made by my noble friend Lord Parry when he said, paraphrasing Tawney, that what the wealthy desire for their children we desire and will guarantee for all children. That seems to me to be the fundamental principle of education in which I have believed all my life. The other reason is the principle that my noble friend Lady Blackstone emphasised: we will channel resources into education
752
and training because they are an investment. Indeed, they are the investment that we need if our long-term economic future is to be safeguarded.
Perhaps I may throw the points back to the noble Baroness. Having said what we will do and how we will fight the next election, I am not sure on what programme the present Government will fight the election; nor am I sure who will do the fighting. I am even less sure whom they will fight against. However, we shall emphasise our commitment to education; we shall emphasise our commitment to raising standards and finding suitable resources. I believe that we will be able to persuade the electorate that that is one among many reasons why we deserve the victory which I am sure is now within our grasp.
7.21 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I start by offering to my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior my most hearty congratulations for a splendid speech. He brought all the wealth of his experience and talents to bear on this debate. We look forward with enormous enthusiasm to his participation in debates in the House. For the record, I should point out that Swaffham Prior is in Cambridgeshire, not Norfolk.
This has been a wide-ranging debate. The Motion is extremely wide ranging and it will be almost impossible for me to do justice to it in my response, but I shall do what I can in the time available.
No one, either on this side or in the whole House, can possibly argue against the desirability of increasing investment in the education system at all stages and of improving the quality of what is provided. However, as other noble Lords have indicated, a serious debate depends upon propositions about relative priorities, about how much more should be spent and at the expense of what competing claims. I fear that such propositions have not been well argued by noble Lords, except by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He simply said that he would not do what we do.
We have had vigorous and hypercritical speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Hollis, and less vigorous from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who always manages to temper what he has to say with an understanding of some of the actions of the Government.
All the criticisms being ranged against the Government today come from a party whose record bears no comparison whatever with ours over the past 10 years. Under the Labour Government, spending on education fell by £1.6 billion in real terms. Spending as a percentage of GNP fell one percentage point. Teachers' pay rose by only 6 per cent., and under this Government in real terms it rose by 39 per cent. Classes were larger; fewer young people stayed on at school; when the Labour Party left office it was only 40 per cent. but that figure has now risen to 55 per cent.
More recently, on 8th February 1990, the newspaper the Independent pointed out that successive Labour Governments and numerous Labour local authorities must bear their share of responsibility for

753
the unhappy way in which education theory and practice have evolved over the past 25 years. Forced to acknowledge that it is the Conservative Government which has made the running in the reforming of schools, the Labour Party has spent most of its time criticising, often unjustly, the state of our schools and achieving little except the demoralisation of teachers. The Independent continued that Labour's last outline of its policy is contained in the document Looking to the Future, which was published in May, 1990. It rests on three principles: more spending, more bureaucracy and no choice.
Tomorrow a document will be published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It will be available for all noble Lords to read. The document opens with the statement that Britain devotes a proportionately bigger share of national income to education than the United States, Japan or Germany. It continues with many more favourable statistics about what Britain is doing for our young people in this country.
The Government share the desire to increase the quality of education and have a coherent programme for achieving that generally uncontroversial objective. I shall come to that in a moment. As to the investment of public money, we should all like to be able to afford to invest more. However, the Government can point to the following.
In the Autumn Statement the week before last, we announced a 16 per cent. increase in standard spending for schools, and a 10.5 per cent. increase in expenditure on higher education. These represent increases in real terms of 10 per cent. and 4.5 per cent. respectively over the comparable figures for 1990–91. These figures plainly demonstrate that the Government will continue to invest in improving standards. Perhaps I may comment to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that he said he was tired of hearing statistics; but these are real statistics, real resources, which go to our schools to provide education for our young people.
We hear much about crumbling school buildings; and the Government recognise that there is more to do to improve the fabric. A Select Committee in another place has reported on the maintenance of schools. At present that report is with the Secretary of State and his response to it is being prepared. The publication of the report is very much a matter for that Select Committee. However, again all noble Baronesses have exaggerated the figures on that issue.
Capital investment on schools has been substantial. Local authorities and governors of voluntary schools have spent nearly £2.6 billion since 1986. This year capital guidelines for education are being increased to £538 million in 1991–92; an 11 per cent. increase on the sum available this year. This year's figure was a 37 per cent. increase on last year. Grants to voluntary schools will increase by 21 per cent.
Spending per pupil in nursery and primary schools rose by 35 per cent. between 1979 and 1988. That is again in real terms. Spending per secondary pupil rose
754
by nearly 50 per cent. over the same period; and overall spending in both sectors rose by over 40 per cent., again in real terms.
As to the implied reproach in the terms of the Motion put by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I must say that it costs nothing for Opposition Members to claim that they will spend even more "as resources allow". I hope that she and other noble Lords acknowledge the difficult judgments involved in striking the right balance between public expenditure on the one hand and on the other the investment in industry on which the future of our economy largely depends.
There is just one more statistic. By next year, one in five of all young people will enter higher education, compared with only one in eight at the end of the last decade when the Labour Party left office. The Government recognise that there is more to achieve, but I do not think that we need to be unduly apologetic about current levels of investment.
There is a very proper desire to improve standards of education. This is of vital interest to us all. In this country, as in others, higher standards are a necessary condition of economic growth and greater cultural and spiritual awareness. We neglect them all at our peril. This Government have put higher standards at the top of their educational agenda and have taken major steps to achieve them. We are particularly anxious at suggestions that in some key areas—reading and computation, for example—standards may have slipped.
It would be wholly wrong to say that standards are in general decline. There have been notable improvements. This year, record numbers of pupils gained GCSE with grades at least the equivalent of the old O-level, and nearly all pupils now leave school with at least a pass in English and mathematics. I take note of the value of those passes that young people achieve, and I took careful note of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Although too many pupils still leave education too early, our performance relative to that of our European neighbours is steadily improving. Last year, over 55 per cent. stayed on in full-time education when they reached 16—that is a 7 per cent. increase in three years—with record numbers going on successfully to A-levels.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, did not include in the figures she quoted those staying on in education outside the school system nor those undertaking part-time education beyond the age of 16. The figure for young people undertaking education and training both in and outside schools is a staggering 90 per cent.
It was clear by the mid-eighties, however, that improvements such as these were simply too slow to keep up with our national expectations or with progress overseas. The time had come for action—not a quick fix but reforms which would go to the heart of the problem and set us on a course for solid and lasting success. The national curriculum is such a reform; through it the Government are providing for the first time a clear framework for the teaching and

755
assessment of 10 foundation subjects in all our state schools. Teachers, parents and pupils everywhere will know what they are aiming for and how it can be achieved.
The arrangements for each subject are being constructed in the most careful and systematic way. They take the example of the best and replicate it for the benefit of all our schools. There is extensive consultation in every case. The statutory orders for English, maths, science and technology have already been made and are being implemented in schools. There are encouraging early signs that teaching and learning are beginning to improve in consequence. Eventually, we believe, the national curriculum will have far-reaching effects in raising standards but we must beware of expecting instant success.
Part of the purpose of the national curriculum is to ensure that all pupils get a broad, balanced education and to ensure that all follow a curriculum that keeps up the core subjects of English, maths and a proper course of science through to the end of compulsory schooling. We are making good progress in these directions now, although much remains to be done —for example, in providing modern foreign language study for all to the age of 16.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, is not with us but I must say that I believe we have gone a long way towards achieving the objective that he sought. The national curriculum which this Government have introduced gives us for the first time a clear framework within which these improvements can be secured. Meanwhile there is still unease and no magic way of dispelling it. Parents are worried when they see reports that reading standards may have fallen in some areas. We do not scoff at such reports. I wish to thank my noble friend for bringing that point to our attention. While we have not yet substantiated the report referred to, we need to take criticism seriously. Employers seek a higher calibre of recruits. We have to be sensitive to those concerns, and we are.
Recently concern has focused on reading capability at the age of seven. HM inspectors over the years have been able to point to much good and effective work in teaching young children to read, so we must beware of talking genuine progress down. But, recognising public concern, the Government have asked the School Examinations and Assessment Council to survey the available evidence on reading skills at the age of seven and HM inspectors have been focusing on the teaching of reading in their inspections of primary schools this autumn term. This will give a clearer national picture and an opportunity to take stock before the full impact of the national curriculum is felt.
I have explained how the national curriculum provides clear goals which challenge and stretch pupils to their full potential, but that is only half the story. Through regular assessment, teachers and parents can get hard information about pupils' attainments against those goals. That information will enable teachers to plan classroom work to the best advantage and tackle the needs of pupils both individually and collectively. From next year it will begin to be
756
supplemented by assessment against benchmarks for the country as a whole. Those benchmarks will be absolute tests. The first national assessment will be for seven year-olds and will focus quite properly on the fundamentals of schooling: literacy, numeracy and basic scientific skills.
We are tackling long-standing problems which have called for new and radical solutions. That is why the Education Reform Act introduced such important changes in the way schools are run.
All but a handful of LEAs have introduced schemes for the local management of schools. On a personal note, I am glad to recall that Cambridgeshire was one of the first LEAS to pioneer the idea of greater financial delegation. Local management will give schools fairer shares of the education budget and greater autonomy in the management of their affairs. The Local Management of Schools scheme does not in itself alter the total resources available, but it distributes them in a more open way, based on better and clearer criteria, and it improves the effective deployment of resources. The challenge is to implement the Education Reform Act. That, in the Government's view, is the way to raise standards.
I wish to say a few words about grant maintained schools. The increase from 18 grant maintained schools in September 1989 to 44 in September 1990 has been most encouraging. To date, 55 applications for grant maintained status have been approved. This reinforces the Government's belief that the grant maintained sector is here to stay. Where grant maintained schools have been established, there is evidence that they are popular and oversubscribed.
I have already mentioned improvements in the proportion of young people staying on in full-time education when they reach the age of 16. We have set in hand a programme of work towards improving the standard and relevance of post-16 education through proposals for future AS and A-level syllabuses; work on the core skills—those were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Annan—recommended by the National Curriculum Council to ensure that all courses have a measure of breadth and balance; and work to promote vocational qualifications and to improve the status of vocational qualifications. I shall elaborate on that point. The Government are committed to ensuring that the education and training system for post-16 year-olds caters for all. We want young people aged 16 to 19 in schools, in further education and in work to develop the skills they will need in an increasingly complex world.
We are committed to increasing post-16 year olds' participation. As I have said, over 55 per cent. of our young people now continue in full-time education at 16. However, we must not be apathetic about that. Improvements in participation must not be at the expense of standards. That would be a hollow victory. We intend to build on the best of the current systems. I am speaking of the academic system of A-level and AS examinations.
We noted what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said. The Government have not set their face against

757
reform but they have certainly set their face against any kind of compromise as regards standards. A-levels will remain and standards will not be compromised. However, we have talked about readdressing the issue of balance and breadth. A-levels are more popular than they have ever been. The new AS courses, which cover half the ground of an A-level but to the same standard are also increasingly popular. We are committed to maintaining and improving, where possible, the standards of these examinations. We expect towards the end of the year to receive some proposals from the School Examinations and Assessment Council as to how that might best be done. We will look at any such proposals very carefully, particularly in the context of their possible impact on standards. My colleagues in the Government have made it clear that they could not accept any proposals which put at risk the benchmark of A-level excellence by either reducing the depth of study or undermining the essential content which existing A-levels require in order to obtain a given grade.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, argued for more breadth but also catalogued the reasons why we should not neglect depth. I believe that we have addressed both the points that the noble Lord made. Should the council decide to propose changes in present practice, the onus would be on the council and on those who supported it to demonstrate clearly that standards would not be compromised and that the changes would be fully justified.
We recognise that A-level and AS examinations are only currently taken by around 30 per cent. of all young people. We want to see this proportion increase but, for a majority, vocational qualifications are more appropriate. That is why we are encouraging more young people to follow the vocational route. We want national vocational qualifications to have a higher profile and a more prestigious place in our national education provision. The Government are considering the scope which exists for more vocational qualifications to be available in schools. We want to make it much easier for students to move between the two streams. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that we are taking seriously a proposition made to us by BTEC on BTEC first courses in maintained schools. As I have already said, we are committed to a broader and more balanced curriculum.
I shall turn now to the under-fives. I am conscious that I have not yet mentioned the education of the under-fives. I must repair that omission before I say more about post-compulsory education. The Government set store by the present diversity of provision for these young children. The spectrum of provision is very wide-ranging, from nursery schools and classes to workplace creches, day nurseries and childminders. This reflects the widely varying requirements of children and their parents and allows many parents a choice between alternatives. This is healthy as they are best placed to judge their own and their children's needs. But parents can and should
758
have the opportunity to play a leading role in the education of their children. This is the philosophy on which the playgroup movement is built. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in paying tribute to the work of pre-school playgroups up and down the countryside.
Noble Lords will know that the Government have always emphasised quality. For that reason my honourable friend who is now Minister of State in the Home Office was earlier commissioned to chair a committee of inquiry with a group of experts to look into the quality of the educational experience which should be offered to three and four year-olds. The Government are concerned to improve educational content across various settings, a point for which the committee's terms of reference allowed. The committee's report is now with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is considering it. Noble Lords will also be aware of the measures in the Children Act last year to improve local co-ordination of care and educational provision.
Teacher supply has also been mentioned. I could go on for ever and repeat, as I often do at the Dispatch Box, the enormous number of measures that we have put in place to help on that front. Action on pay is one of a number of measures to improve teacher recruitment. For example, this year's pay settlement helped LEAs in London to offer incentives to attract more teachers. There are also other measures, including a new education support grant for returners and mature entrants; bursaries for prospective teachers of maths, physics and technology; and a work-experience scheme to give students a taste of teaching before they make up their minds about careers.
I believe that the views of all noble Lords in this Chamber should be respected. I noted what my noble friend Lord Pearson said and I shall give careful consideration to it. He welcomed the licensed and articled teacher routes which provide a way into teaching for those who do not want to go back to college in the traditional way. More than 50 LEAs have applied for and received training grants for licensed teachers. The scheme is proving timely and attractive for people who choose that route into teaching.
The Government will continue to recognise the importance of investment in the education system. A very important point raised in the debate concerned the Universities Funding Council, which was mentioned by many noble Lords. The Government are manifestly investing additional resources in the expansion of higher education. Again the figures compare very favourably with those of the party of noble Lords opposite. We are entitled to look for greater cost efficiency. As we have seen in the past, that is not inconsistent with the maintenance of quality. However, the Universities Funding Council has obviously not had an easy time. I have noted noble Lords' comments that it has not deserved one. However, the Government share the disappointment of the Universities Funding Council at the universities' response to the bidding exercise.

759
The common aim now must be the early establishment of a sound basis for the future which inter alia provides universities with an appropriate planning period. That is doubtless one of the matters that the Universities Funding Council will have considered at its meeting today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others have reminded us that higher education is about more than numbers. I should like to deal briefly with the issues of purpose and quality. The Government fully accept that the pursuit of knowledge lies at the heart of higher education. Higher education also of course yields a range of personal, social, cultural and economic benefits. It does not detract from any of those complementary purposes to seek to ensure that they are met in cost-effective ways.
The nature of higher education means that responsibility for content and quality lies essentially in the hands of individual institutions. Therefore, expansion to date has been in institutions whose quality is envied in Europe and elsewhere. As that expansion continues, the nature of higher education may change as new client groups come into scope.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, raised the subject of adult and continuing education. I am glad to say that that is not an area of education which is neglected in your Lordships' House. Nearly 3½ million adults in England and Wales enrol each year in some form of education. Courses range widely: degree courses, at the Open University, Bitkbeck College and elsewhere; retraining courses at many levels; basic skill courses; philosophy; do-it-yourself and keep-fit classes; and much else. There are many providers: local education authorities, further and higher education institutions, voluntary and community organisations and indeed the media.
The Government's stance is to identify at national level needs which may be inadequately met. I want to lay particular stress on two. First, the fostering of access to higher education continues to be a leading strand of our policy. The special access courses have an important part to play here: the number of courses in England has risen from 130 in 1984 to 522 last year. Last year we persuaded the CNAA and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to establish an access course recognition group to safeguard standards and to promote the currency of the courses within higher education.
Our other priority is to promote activity in support of the skills of the workforce. I give two examples. We have placed much emphasis on updating and retraining. There has been average growth of some 20 per cent. a year in enrolments for such work in further and higher education. Our target is that by 1992 10 per cent. of the workforce a year should be undertaking such training in further and higher education. We look to universities, polytechnics and colleges to integrate such work into the normal work of their institutions.
No less important is our support for adult basic education. Our record in supporting the adult literacy programme is a good one.
760
I know that I must now wind up my speech, but I should like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that I shall continue to give unequivocal and enthusiastic support for the work of the polytechnics. I am not sure what I shall do to celebrate polytechnics week. Perhaps I should write to my son, who is engaged on a very successful course at a polytechnic at this moment.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Parry, in paying tribute to councillors who serve on local education authorities up and down the land. I served for many years on a local education authority. However, I should like to say, as I said many times in my own authority, that no school in Cambridgeshire was a better school just because I went to a great many local education authority meetings. Schools were better schools if they had good staff, good head teachers, responsive parents and responsive children. That is what makes good schools, not councillors attending meetings.
On the subject of TACADE I should like to say that the DES has already contributed £50,000 towards the cost of the project during the past three years. The DES has also contributed £9,000 towards other TACADE initiatives and has committed a further £30,000 to assist TACADE in raising private sector funding to support its further work. The department has therefore provided grant of almost £90,000 to TACADE since 1987. However, if TACADE wishes to submit to the department details and costings and its valuation of proposals for the project relating to skills for the primary school child, funding will be considered. Of course no guarantee of either full or partial support can be given in advance of any application.
I have been beaten by time and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for not addressing all the other points. I shall of course write to noble Lords.
We recognise the need for vigilance over the standards of public examinations. We have clearly identified the need for greater rigour and clarity in the organisation and assessment of the curriculum in primary and secondary schools. We shall not be satisfied until far more young people take part in full-time education and training. We shall aim for further cost-effective expansion in higher education. This Government have shown a steady determination in their pursuit of quality throughout the last decade and under successive Secretaries of State—and I noted the point made about the rapidity with which successive Secretaries of State have moved on from the department. I can talk, my Lords. I am the third Minister to have my job in the department since July.
The Education Reform Act has set the agenda for the next 10 years. As in any great matter, we shall not be satisfied until the reforms are thoroughly in place. I hope that I have replied to most of the points raised in the debate. As I promised, I shall write to noble Lords with further details if they wish.
Lord Parry: My Lords, as the noble Baroness sits down I should like to congratulate her on the way in

761
which she has tried to tackle every issue. May I assume that she will write to me on the matter of integration of the handicapped?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, of course I shall write to the noble Lord.
7.49 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate on investment and quality of education, which is a very broad subject. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for taking the time and trouble to reply to many of the points raised. There were of course a number of issues on which I could not entirely agree with her. Similarly, there were points raised by other noble Lords on the Benches opposite which we would wish to take up on another occasion.
However, there are two points on which I felt that the Minister was particularly complacent and to which we shall want to return. I was very surprised to hear her remarks about 16 to 19 year-old participation, particularly in relation to participation rates in other countries. It may be the case that there is now some relative improvement.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me for interrupting. If she looks tomorrow at Hansard she will see that in fact I said that we must not be complacent. If I sounded slightly buoyant, it was because my figures were more favourable than the figures of the noble Lord's party when it was in office.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was referring to participation in full-time education. The Minister tried to bring in part-time participation, where the figures are different. The issues involved are quite different. We are talking about young people on work-based training courses as well.
I also felt that she was somewhat complacent in her remarks about the funding of higher education, in which there is a continued squeeze on the unit of resource in both our universities and polytechnics. That is true again this year in the latest settlement when set against the Government's expectation that student numbers should increase by 5 per cent.
We shall want to come back on other occasions to many of those issues. We shall table Motions for further debates on the subject of education, perhaps, as my noble friend Lord Peston said, in some cases short debates rather than five-hour debates.
It remains for me once again to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, on his excellent maiden speech and to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.51 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Some noble Lords have expressed a small measure of curiosity about the
762
contents of the Bill that we shall discuss this evening and the fact that I am moving it. In the course of my remarks I hope that that curiosity will be satisfied.
The Bill carries out one task in particular in seeking to amend Section 31 of the Gaming Act 1968. That Act governs the operation of commercial casinos in England, Wales and Scotland. It also regulates other forms of gaming. The single amendment proposed by the Bill before us will affect only the approximately 120 premises (as of this evening, I believe that there are 119) which are currently licensed in Great Britain to provide casino games such as roulette, blackjack, baccarat and dice. I mentioned Great Britain. Your Lordships will note that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland.
The sole purpose of the Bill is to allow a casino to have on its premises up to a maximum of four jackpot gaming machines, as they are known. Under the 1968 Act the present limit is two such machines. That limit has applied since the Act came into force approximately 20 years ago. The change which an increase from two to four machines, as proposed by the Bill, will represent is significantly less than the limit which was recommended by the Royal Commission on Gambling in 1978. Its report reasoned that the number of jackpot machines permitted should be related to the size of the particular casino and specifically to the number of gaming tables on the premises. The report cautioned—I quote:
"No one wants to see jackpot machines installed in serried ranks in the way they are in Las Vegas casinos or in clubs in some parts of Australia".
It added the observation that:
"most [British] casino proprietors themselves would dislike this prospect, which they would see as bringing about a detrimental change in the character and atmosphere of their establishments".
Those are two important reservations.
I hasten to add that I have no interest in those areas. I have never been to Australia although I must confess—and noble Lords may be surprised to hear this—that I spent an interesting but unprofitable evening in Las Vegas as part of a parliamentary delegation studying defence, not gambling. I had a view of the gambling areas in Las Vegas, and it was a sight that I would not recommend to your Lordships or anyone of similar disposition.
In taking account of the two reservations which I mentioned as part of the Royal Commission's report of 1978, the commission concluded that:
"licensed casinos should be allowed to install one jackpot machine for every two gaming tables at the premises on which gaming licence duty is paid".
That was a logical formula, but the Bill does not go nearly so far. It would not allow a casino with 12 tables to install six machines, or another casino with 24 tables to have up to a dozen machines. The Bill would apply a universal limit of four machines to any one premises. The reason is that the Gaming Board for Great Britain, which is the statutory body set up under the 1968 Act to regulate gaming in this country, is concerned that:
"the special character of casinos in Great Britain should not be altered".

763
However, the board accepts that:
"the number of machines could be doubled without detriment but that four represents a limit which it would be undesirable to exceed".
The Gaming Board has said that it is prepared to lend its support to what the Bill which is before us this evening proposes. That is very valuable support and I express my gratitude to the board for its comments and the support that it gave to me and to this Bill.
The board adds the proviso that it would only allow the support that it has expressed so far on the basis that the stipulated maxima for stakes and prizes remain the same for all jackpot machines regardless of the premises in which they are sited. There is nothing in the Bill which would alter that basis.
I shall not take your Lordships down the interesting avenue of different gaming machines. I shall simply refer to jackpot machines, which are the concern of this Bill. There are other machines called amusement-with-prizes machines but jackpot machines are regarded as primarily for gambling. The stipulated maxima to which the board's proviso referred are currently a stake of 20p for a maximum prize of £150.
Under the 1968 Act, the so-called jackpot machines are confined to premises which are licensed and for that particular category your Lordships will find that the premises are casinos and bingo clubs. Alternatively they are confined to premises which are registered. Those cover sports, political and similar types of members' clubs, and miners' welfare institutes, which are spelt out in interesting detail in the schedules to the 1968 Gaming Act. The current maxima for stakes and prizes were agreed in 1987 by an organisation called BACTA (the British Amusement Catering Trades Association) and the board. I understand that BACTA has a great interest in these types of jackpot machine.
The number of jackpot machines throughout Great Britain might arouse your Lordships' curiosity. According to the figures given by Customs and Excise, in the year ended 31st March 1989—the latest year for which figures are available—there were in Great Britain over 190,000 amusement-with-prizes machines (to which the Bill does not refer) and approximately 41,000 jackpot machines. However, of those 41,000 jackpot machines, not more than 232 machines were on casino premises, which are the only premises in Great Britain specifically licensed for what I shall call professional gaming. In fact there were even fewer than that number because, although each of the 116 casinos in 1989 was entitled to two jackpot machines, some of them (I understand about three or four) had none of those machines at all. A casino is permitted to apply instead for a specified number of amusementwith-prizes machines under a direction by its local licensing authority. I understand that some casinos are able to choose amusement-with-prizes machines in place of jackpot machines. Those are separate machines not covered by the Bill. However, casinos cannot have both. The Bill spells out the number of jackpot machines and the premises.
While most of the casinos that I have mentioned opt for the two jackpot entitlement with their casino
764
licence, a few high stake casinos in London prefer no gaming machines. I understand that at present there are 119 casinos in England, Wales and Scotland of which 103 are in England, four in Wales and no fewer than 12 in Scotland. Thus, the measure proposed in the Bill adds no more than about 0.5 per cent. —a minuscule number—to the 40,000 jackpot machines around the country.
Noble Lords may ask: why bother? Only 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. of the adult population in Great Britain frequent casinos. However, it was precisely to meet the demand for professional or hard gaming by that minority that the licensing of casinos under strict regulations was introduced in the 1968 Act, with great skill and effort. I stress that point. To ensure that there is no emergence of public gaming houses, or easy access for those who might be unfamiliar with such games, casinos have to be clubs to which the general public—even your Lordships—will have no access save as a club member, and guests who have made a deliberate, considered decision to join that club. No one can enter the gaming taking place—whether at tables or on machines—unless they are over 18 years of age and members of the club who have signed at those premises a declaration of intention to take part in gaming in those casinos, and have then waited 48 hours before being allowed admission to play. That point may settle some points that have been raised by noble Lords to me in informal discussions.
Would noble Lords consider what other premises are safer, more secure, or more suited to the siting of gambling machines? Over the past 20 years, since the limit of two jackpots for each casino came into force with the Gaming Act, attendances have somewhat naturally increased. I understand that the largest group in the operation of provincial casinos has seen growth of some 10 per cent. per annum in all but one year of a five-year period in its number of members and players.
Even noble Lords who do not frequent casinos, or have no interest in these licensed gaming machines, may agree that it is unreasonable that casino club members and their guests who can play roulette, blackjack and dice without let or hindrance must queue up if they wish to play on one of the two jackpot machines. The maximum stake on such machines is 10p or 20p. That is a considerably reduced stake compared with the stakes which will be wagered on any other of the tables in that casino. They must queue up for no other reason than the arbitrary limit of two machines. That limit was set nearly two decades ago. The Royal Commission on Gambling recognised the anomaly 12 years ago. I have quoted a reference to your Lordships. It has not yet been found possible for the Government to find any time to amend legislation to remedy that point.
The remedy that I propose in the Bill is fairly simple. Section 31 of the original 1968 Act defines a jackpot machine by specifying the manner in which it must operate and the premises to which, as a gambling machine, it must be confined. The limits on stakes and prizes have already been mentioned. The premises are

765
referred to in parenthesis in Clause 1 of the new Bill, and in Section 31 of the Gaming Act 1968. Clause 1 refers to,
"(use of machines by virtue of licence or registration)".
Premises under licence are casinos and bingo clubs. However, bingo clubs are excluded from the effect of the amendment in the proposed new subsection (2) (a). The words are again in parenthesis. Both casinos and bingo clubs are licensed under Part II of the original 1968 Act.
Premises under registration are clubs or miners' welfare institutes registered under Part III, within which Section 31 of the 1968 Act falls, which are concerned entirely with machines, or Part II of the 1968 Act which deals with kinds of gaming other than on machines. Thus Clause 1(2) (a) of the amending Bill raises the limit from two jackpot machines to four on licensed casino premises other than bingo premises. Paragraph (b) maintains the limit of two such machines "in any other case". In other words, the provisions refer to bingo and all clubs and miners' welfare institutes which are registered, whether under Part II or III of the 1968 Act.
In the light of the very proper constraints that we have in this country on certain types of gaming, I wish to stress again that the amending Bill to the Gaming Act 1968 would be confined in its effect to casinos alone, and to no other premises. The number of casinos is small. They are places specifically licensed for gambling under very tight and professional control, with inspection by the Gaming Board and the police.
The change would be less than the limit recommended by the Royal Commission in 1978, which I read to your Lordships earlier. There is nothing in the proposal which would militate against the social objectives of the Gaming Act. I am advised that the Gaming Board supports the measure. I know that we have the support of the current chairman of the Gaming Board, together with the very distinguished past chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. Sadly, through my fault in arranging the debate for this evening, he has to be away. However, I believe that he is with us in spirit although he cannot be here.
I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not object to what I have set out in the Bill. I await his remarks and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, with interest. I understand that the trade associations and national bodies who represent other users of the jackpot machines, whether licensed or registered, have no objections. Those organisations include the Bingo Association of Great Britain, the Clubs and Institutes Union, the Royal British Legion and other similar clubs.
I apologise that I have spoken for longer than I should have done. The Bill is simple and I believe effective. Above all, it has the support of the Gaming Board, which supervises the gaming that takes place in casinos which are professionally and well run. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
766
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time —(Lord Lyell.)
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his very full and clear explanation of the Bill. One of the merits of the Bill is that it is not too difficult to understand. The noble Lord has made quite certain that there is no part about which we are not clear.
We on these Benches have no objection to the changes proposed in the Bill for the following reasons. We understand, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has explained, that it is not inconsistent with the Rothschild Royal Commission on Gambling report which recommended that casinos might be permitted an even larger number of machines than is proposed in the Bill. We are very glad that it has the blessing of the Rothschild report. We also understand that the Home Office is happy with the Bill. That too must be in its favour.
We support the change because it is asked for on practical grounds rather than with the aim of attracting more people into the premises and therefore increasing the number of people who gamble. As the noble Lord made clear, the Gaming Board for Great Britain has no objection to the change because it is restricted to casinos where gambling already takes place. At this point I wish to stress that we on this side of the House are against—I am speaking outside the Bill—an increase in the number of gaming machines because young people and previous non-gamblers might be attracted.
I remember the first time I spoke from this Front Bench. The subject was amusement arcades and the anxiety that was felt then was that many schoolchildren were being drawn by the excitement and glamour of these machines. That led to truancy from school and on to petty crime in order to gain money to pay for gambling. The children became quite hooked on it.
I am a non-gambler although I seem to have spoken on this subject on many occasions. It is wrong to try to attract non-gamblers towards that pastime. I understand the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, as to why casinos wish to increase the number of machines. There are increasing numbers of people who go to casinos and there are queues for the two machines on the premises. The queues increase and therefore an addition in the number of machines would make life better generally in these clubs.
I wish to ask the noble Lord a couple of questions on the points about which I am not quite clear. I am not sure whether I should ask the noble Lord the questions or whether the Minister who is to respond will be able to deal with them. I should like to know the number of machines currently being operated in casinos. The noble Lord gave some figures but I was not clear whether he was referring to the number of machines in casinos or the number of machines in general. Can the Minister or the noble Lord tell me whether the number of machines in casinos has

767
increased or decreased since 1968? I should like to be given an estimate of the increase in the number of machines which is expected as a result of the Bill.
Can the Minister or the noble Lord tell me whether the Bill will require any changes to the licences currently held by casino operators or whether they can operate with the licences already held? I should also like to know whether Her Majesty's Government have received representations from any other interested parties. I understand that working men's clubs feel that there is an anomaly in that casinos are able to increase their number of machines whereas the clubs, which also have an increasing number of clients, are not allowed to add to their total of machines under the Bill. Can the Minister say whether the Government have had representations from any other organisations which are affected by this Bill?
In principle, we certainly agree with the objective of the Bill. It will improve life within casinos and provide practical help in increasing the number of machines. We wish the noble Lord success with the Bill.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it may be helpful if I indicate the Government's view of the Bill which my noble friend Lord Lyell has introduced and explained to us in a very full manner.
We see the proposal in the Bill to increase from two to four the number of jackpot gaming machines permitted in casinos as a modest proposal which fits well within the established framework of gambling in this country. Because jackpot machines provide for a much harder form of gambling than the common amusement-with-prizes machine, or fruit machine as it is usually referred to, their number and location are closely prescribed by law. Only premises licensed or registered under the Gaming Act 1968 are entitled to install these machines and Section 31 of the Act limits them to two each.
As my noble friend pointed out, as long ago as 1979 the Rothschild Royal Commission on Gambling concluded that it was anomalous for premises expressly set aside for hard gaming to be treated on an equal footing with, for example, a village cricket club. By way of a remedy the commission adopted the proposal put forward by the British Casino Association—I am pleased to see that the chairman of that body, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is in his place this evening—namely, that a casino's entitlement to jackpot machines be linked to the number of gaming tables, and recommended a ratio of one machine for every two tables. Such an arrangement is in our view no longer practicable.
The Royal Commission's recommendation was made when gaming duty was assessed, partly on the number of gaming tables, and casino proprietors were under an obligation to notify changes in the number of tables to Customs and Excise. Duty is no longer assessed on that basis. Since the 1984 Finance Act it has instead been assessed on the basis of a casino's gross gaming yield, that is to say, the amount staked, less winnings. Subject only to any undertaking given to the licensing justices, there are now no controls on
768
the number of gaming tables; they are limited only by the available gaming area. As a result, entitlement to jackpot machines could vary without notice as a casino proprietor increased or decreased his complement of gaming tables.
The solution which has been developed by the British Casino Association and is now brought forward in this Bill to increase the entitlement to four machines per casino overcomes this difficulty. Furthermore, by maintaining a reasonable upper limit on the number of machines the Bill avoids Las Vegas style serried ranks of jackpot machines which were opposed both by the Rothschild Royal Commission and the Gaming Board for Great Britain as alien to the character and atmosphere of casinos in this country.
The Bill also, quite rightly in our view, maintains the existing limit of two machines for premises other than casinos which are permitted to use jackpot machines. I am referring to licensed bingo clubs and registered clubs. Such premises are not intended primarily for hard gaming and so are in many respects less tightly regulated than casinos. There is, therefore, no justification for extending to these other premises the concession contained in the Bill.
On a more general point, since 1986 there have already been three Gaming (Amendment) Acts, the last of which received Royal Assent as recently as July. In the past that exposed us to the criticism that gaming legislation was being reformed in a piecemeal fashion. The noble Baroness made that criticism on an earlier occasion. The basic framework for the control of gaming in this country which is provided for by the Gaming Act is generally recognised to have withstood the test of time. Complex legislation of this nature, which has been on the statute book for over 20 years, is bound from time to time to require updating to take account of changes in circumstances or to plug loopholes which have come to light. However, that does not warrant revamping the whole Act, which has generally worked well. From time to time amendments are necessary, many of which are instigated by relevant trade associations, as in this case, and not by the Government.
The noble Baroness asked what representations the Government had received. I understand that we have not received any representations other than those from the BCA and working men's clubs. In both cases they were made to the Gaming Board.
My noble friend's Bill must be considered in the context that I have outlined. As I said, it provides for a modest increase in the number of hard gaming machines permitted in casinos and in so doing does not disturb the framework of the 1968 Act. We understand that the Gaming Board has no objections, as my noble friend indicated. In those circumstances, the Government are content for the Bill to proceed, subject to the views of your Lordships.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful for the welcome given to the Bill this evening. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for her kind and helpful comments. I am grateful to her for what she

769
said. She asked me one or two questions. She quite rightly stressed her fears about young people. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, nobody under the age of 18 may become a member of or enter a casino as a guest in order to game. Therefore, young people under the age of 18 would not have access to the machines or premises set out in the Bill.
The noble Baroness asked about the size of the increase over the years. It is my understanding that as of last year 116 casinos were licensed. Of those licensed under the terms of the 1968 Act, between 80 and 90 per cent. took up their entitlement to the jackpot machines within the first year. The figures which I gave have been constant throughout the 20 years or so since the master Act came into operation. Therefore, there has been a demand which was recognised in the original Act. I hope that that demand has been satisfied, and according to figures which I gave to your Lordships there would be an increase of a maximum number of 238 machines as a result of the successful completion of this Bill through your Lordships' House and another place.
The noble Baroness asked about any changes in the Bill in terms of licences. As I understand it, the number of machines which a casino may have under the licences which are granted by the local authorities
770
and the Gaming Board are set out in Section 31 of the Act which my Bill seeks to amend. Therefore, there will be no change.
The third question asked by the noble Baroness has been partially answered by my noble friend on the Front Bench. There have been no representations about which I have heard. One representation was mentioned to me this morning outside this Chamber. However, as my noble friend set out in his comments, it is likely that there may be objections to widening the scope of my Bill to other registered premises.
I am very grateful for the comments made and the welcome given by my noble friend on the Front Bench to the Bill and the measures proposed. He has raised a number of additional points which I do not believe your Lordships would wish me to go into this evening. I am grateful to him for what he said. I agree with him that Section 31 of the master Act is particularly important and I hope that the Bill which I have proposed to your Lordships this evening will go a long way towards remedying one particular aspect of Section 31 of the master Act.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty four minutes past eight o'clock.

  CAYMAN ISLANDS: CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
  CAYMAN ISLANDS: CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
  BEREAVEMENT DAMAGES
  BEREAVEMENT DAMAGES
  POLICE FORCES' INCOME: AUDIT COMMISSION REPORT
  POLICE FORCES' INCOME: AUDIT COMMISSION REPORT
  MILLBANK AUTISTIC UNIT
  MILLBANK AUTISTIC UNIT
  PERTH/INVERNESS ROAD: TRAFFIC GROWTH
  PERTH/INVERNESS ROAD: TRAFFIC GROWTH