Sitting of 29 April 1991

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

    Planning Legislation
    Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to review legislation relating to planning and development in Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): The need for changes to planning legislation is kept under constant review. The Planning and Compensation Bill now before the House will introduce various alterations to make the planning system in England and Wales fairer and more efficient.
    Mr. Smith: What does the Minister plan to do to stop the flagrant abuse of planning laws that has allowed the Vale of Glamorgan borough council to do a deal with local developers, which has resulted in the developers becoming millionaires overnight and in the people of Barry losing one of the last remaining open spaces in the town? Will the Minister consider calling in the plans for College fields in Barry? Will he introduce legislation to prevent councils from giving themselves planning permission when they either own land or have an unhealthy financial interest in it, to prevent that sort of thing from happening again?
    Mr. Bennett: I do not want to comment on the allegations made by the hon. Gentleman. The request for a call-in is being considered and I hope to give a decision shortly.
    Mr. Raffan: Is my hon. Friend aware that in his farewell speech to Delyn borough council planning committee, the highly respected chief planning officer Mr. Mike Smith warned the committee that increasingly it was acting against officers' recommendations, contrary to its own clearly laid down planning policies and contrary to the principles of equity and fairness? Does my hon. Friend share my concern about those serious allegiations and will he take them into consideration in his constant reviewing?
    Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear me say that I have not come across the speech to which he referred. Local authorities, in response to the needs of local people, must consider carefully the way in which they deal with planning applications. I am sure that when the local electorate decides how to vote in this week's elections it will consider the council's record in the past four years.

    Health Service
    Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairmen of health authorities in Wales to discuss the level of expenditure provision for the health service in Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I met health authority chairmen on 31 January and I hope to do so again in the near future.
    Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State is aware that both my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and I have been pressing him hard in recent years about the construction of the new East Glamorgan hospital. Can he confirm that he is going ahead with it and that we will have those new resources for the Rhondda and Taff-Ely area?
    Mr. Hunt: I am happy to confirm that today I approved plans for two new district general hospitals to be built for

    3
    the national health service in Wales at a cost of more than £130 million. I have approved proposals by the Mid Glamorgan health authority to build a new hospital on land at Ynys-Y-Plwm near Llantrisant and by West Glamorgan health authority to build one at Baglan moors, Port Talbot.
    Mr. Foot: When the right hon. Gentleman sees what an almighty botch his fellow Ministers are making of the national health service in England, will he work on the simple principle "Go thou and do otherwise"?
    Mr. Hunt: Not at all. As Ministers responsible for health, we work closely together throughout the United Kingdom. However, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have done a small calculation. If the national health service in Wales was now spending the amount that it was spending when the Labour party was last in government, at 1992 prices, the total amount spent in Wales would be £1,104 million. That appears to be a reasonable sum, until it is compared with the amount that the Government are spending in the coming year, which is £1,719 million. I have to ask the Opposition where the £615 million cuts would have been imposed. How many hospitals would have been closed if the Opposition were still in office?
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: At last Wednesday's meeting of the Welsh Select Committee, we took evidence from medical academics. The chief witness, a statistician, told us that it is not possible to construct a mathematical formula to use waiting lists meaningfully and that the only worthwhile statistic is the number of patients being treated in Wales each year. If we were to move to the spending levels practised by the Opposition would that not mean a cut in the 700,000 patients being treated each year in Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: That is right. It is about time that the Labour party, instead of throwing accusations at the Government, answered these clear questions. The number of people treated by the national health service in Wales is at an all-time record. In the year to June 1990, 472,000 in-patients and 2,300,000 out-patients received treatment and diagnosis. Since 1979, the number of in-patients treated is up by 36·6 per cent., the number of out-patients by 29·8 per cent. and the number of day cases by a staggering 246 per cent.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I welcome the building of two new hospitals in Wales. My hon. Friends have worked hard to persuade the Secretary of State and his predecessors to build those hospitals.
    Bearing in mind the proposed staff losses and cuts in patient services at Guy's hospital, will the right hon. Gentleman commit himself to opposing any bids by health authorities or hospitals to opt out?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has scored another spectacular own goal in attacking the Government's record on the health service in Wales, and he has not answered the question that I posed to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). If we still had a Labour Government, that Government would be spending £650 million less. I am proud of my record and that of my right hon. Friends in Wales, where we are now spending £602 for every man, woman and child.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest figures for unemployment in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: There were 12,364 and 108,049.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Those figures are horrendous.
    The right hon. Gentleman had to cancel his visit to north Wales recently. However, I am sure that he had time to read the front page of tile Denbighshire Free Press, which outlined the job losses in Boral Edenhall and ML Lifeguard. Will he consider pressing for regional development status for large areas in Wales to obtain European money to put matters right?
    Mr. Hunt: I had the opportunity to meet Commissioner Millan last week. I reinforced the case, which I believe is strong, for Wales to continue to receive grants at the record level that it has been receiving them from the Community under this Government. As for the future of Wales, I wish that the doom and gloom merchants on the Opposition Benches would stop trying to talk down Wales, and would join the rest of us in talking up our prospects.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State will be aware that, in recent months, the town of Holyhead has suffered considerably as a result of the loss of jobs in its port. Some money has been made available to improve the environment of the town, but little has been done in recent years to ensure that money is given for job creation. What plans has he or the Minister of State to improve the situation in Holyhead?
    Mr. Hunt: I greatly regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman has chosen not to take this opportunity to welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I believe that that appointment has been widely welcomed in Holyhead. During my visit there, when the hon. Gentleman was present, I received the message that there needed to be greater co-ordination of all the programmes affecting Ynys Môn and Holyhead. That is what my hon. Friend the Minister is now so competently doing.
    Mr. Bevan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that inward investment continues apace, and that real new jobs are being created?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes, inward investment is reaching new record levels in Wales. I am delighted to be able to announce today six new projects involving £5 million in industrial investment. The six projects are backed by financial assistance from the Government, and range from telecommunications to climbing equipment. They include investment from German and Portuguese companies.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Secretary of State admit that unemployment in Wales is escalating right out of control, resulting in misery, heartache, degradation and domestic upheaval? Is he aware that the training and enterprise councils in Wales have created considerable unemployment in the past couple of months? Is he aware that my early-day motion 546 called for a parliamentary inquiry into Mid Glamorgan TECs where finances and appointments have gone astray? A thorough investigation is needed, because thousands of trainers and trainees have

    5
    been put on the dole as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's action. Will he set up that necessary public inquiry? If not, is it because this matter is too hot for him to handle?
    Mr. Hunt: One day, the hon. Gentleman will recognise what most people in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom already recognize—that Wales has a marvellous system of training and enterprise councils. Wales was the first part of the United Kingdom where they were put into operation and they are doing a marvellous job. I congratulate everyone connected with the TEC movement on the work that they are doing. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics, I hope that he will observe one in which I take great pride: that in the past four years, long-term unemployment has gone down by 69 per cent.—from 78,014 in January 1986 to 24,020 in January 1991.
    Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman may wish to congratulate the six Welsh companies that have been given the Queen's award for industry, but, with unemployment rising at its fastest since the last Conservative recession, will he end his hesitant approach and bring forward a package of measures to help the Welsh unemployed? Does the Secretary of State back the Treasury or the Department of Employment in their dispute over special employment measures? It is far too glib of him to say that Wales is bucking the trend. There are far too many redundancies for that.
    Mr. Hunt: I have already announced this year 1,600 new jobs involving £80 million of new investment, to which I am pleased that the Government are contributing £13·5 million. Today, Iansing Linde, the Voice Processing Company Ltd. in Abergavenny, Lucas Meyer, Riverside Plastics, Honkley Engineering and Marine Company and HB Climbing Equipment are all announcing new investment projects. It is about time that the Opposition paid tribute to that.

    Health Authorities
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the performance of the new health authorities in Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The annual review of district health authorities in the autumn will provide a major opportunity to assess authorities' performance in their new role as purchasers of health care. This will be backed up by rigorous monthly monitoring of in-year performance against the targets set in district health authorities' purchasing plans.
    Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Minister is in favour of setting up the trust fund scheme in the national health service. Is he in a position to say how many hospitals in Wales have been consulted and how many he believes will opt for the new scheme? If he is, can he give an assurance to all Welsh hospital employees and to the people of Wales that it will not result in redundancies at the same rate as was announced last week for Guy's hospital and other hospitals in England?
    Mr. Bennett: So far, the Pembrokeshire district health authority has expressed interest in becoming a national health service hospital trust. That authority is balloting its
    6
    staff on the application. As for the hon. Gentleman's wider remarks, no Government can ever give a guarantee about the future and no party can ever say that the same financial disciplines as operate in the rest of the world will not operate in the national health service. That means that the NHS has to operate within the budget that is set for it at the beginning of each year.
    Mr. Alan Williams: The Under-Secretary will recollect that over 18 months ago, his Department and the health authority set up an inquiry into the future of the casualty unit in Swansea. At a very constructive meeting, the hon. Gentleman told me that he intended to make an announcement before the end of the last financial year. As 30,000 signatures appear on a petition that was presented to his Department, will he bear in mind that there will be great bitterness if eventually it emerges that the reason for the delay—a delay that he had not anticipated—is that the announcement might harm his party in next Thursday's local elections?
    Mr. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is a matter of great concern to the people of Swansea and that is why we are considering the points that have been made most seriously. The right hon. Gentleman presented me with a petition of 30,000 signatures. I visited the unit myself and during that visit I received a deputation. We are now considering further representations. It is taking longer because we are consulting so widely. I hope to reach a decision shortly, but the plans were put forward by the West Glamorgan health authority.
    Mr. Hain: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that a new hospital will be built for Neath and Port Talbot. It is long overdue and I congratulate the health unions, the community health council and local people for the way in which they have campaigned for many years to persuade the Welsh Office to support that new project. However, I remind the Secretary of State that there remains a deep health crisis in the area. For example, a constituent of mine who has been waiting 19 months for a cataract operation in Gwaun-cae-gurwen has been told that he will have to wait a further three months. The 1,400 patients on that waiting list are still waiting and the health authority has been told that it does not have the funding to meet that desperate need. When will the Government provide the necessary resources?
    Mr. Bennett: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I am grateful to him for his support for the new hospital. We greatly regret the increase in the waiting lists, but it is part of the success of the national health service that, because new technologies and treatments are becoming available and people are living longer, more people are being treated. That is an important fact to remember. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about his constituent, I shall write to him about the matter, but we have set up three sub-regional treatment centres, one of which is for cataract operations.

    Energy Savings
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much energy has been saved by the Welsh Office in each of the last five years; and what measures are being taken to make further savings for the future.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Energy consumption information is not available in a form that enables us to identify specific savings made in the years before 1990–91. Measures include the acquisition of a computer database to monitor performance, high efficiency lighting, water control and separate metering in the main headquarters buildings in Cathays park, and we aim to reduce energy expenditure by 15 per cent. over five years.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that reply and for the measures being taken. However, the Government still reveal complacency when estimates using current technology and getting a return on investment show potential savings of at least 20 per cent. Therefore, the Minister's targets are well below those accepted elsewhere. Will the Minister review his programme with a view to making further savings in the Welsh Office and in other authorities in Wales where the Welsh Office has some influence?
    Mr. Bennett: It is a bit tough to be accused of complacency when the Government have set up a special ministerial working party which constantly examines ways to save money in the Government's estate and when the Welsh Office is top of the league. We are No. 1 and we are working very hard to make sure that we have energy efficiency. That message is getting across not only in Government buildings but in schools and hospitals. The health service in Wales has already saved a considerable amount of money on energy efficiency.

    Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of grants from his Department to voluntary organisations in each of the past three years.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): The latest available figures, at outturn prices, are £8·96 million in 1987–88, £9·35 million in 1988–89 and £11·66 million in 1989–90, a real terms increase of some 14 per cent. over the period.
    Mr. Knox: By how much have grants increased in Wales since 1979 and how many organisations are in receipt of grants?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that since 1979–80 Welsh Office support has trebled in real terms, and some 320 voluntary bodies now benefit. It is the Government's policy to have a healthy and vigorous voluntary sector.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has decided what proportion of the new local government charge in Wales will be levied on property tax; and what proportion will be poll tax.
    Mr. David Hunt: The question does not arise, because I have already announced that I propose to abolish the community charge in Wales.
    Mr. Williams: In his statement last week on the new council tax, the Secretary of State said that there will be transitional relief for people facing excessive increases under the new structure. Will the beneficiaries be the people who live in large houses, who benefited so unfairly
    8
    from the poll tax? Does it make sense to continue to subsidise the better-off? Does the Minister accept that the poll tax punished the poor, whereas under the new structure banding and transitional relief will protect the rich?
    Mr. Hunt: No. Transitional relief should be available under any new system, and we have made that absolutely clear. People in Wales would lose only if we returned to the old rating system. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the figures that I have published, which show that in 1989–90—when Welsh people last paid rates—people paid on average £327. For this year, it would have had to increase to £385. In the coming year, the average bill per household for the new council tax will be £152. That is much fairer and better for the people of Wales.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the figures are available in the Vote Office, as I have experienced some difficulty in obtaining them? English Members may be upset to see that people on the highest rate in England are paying £668, but those in Wales are paying only £272. The bottom rate in Wales is £109, but is £267 in England. Is there any justification for Welsh people, who have lower costs of living, being subsidised by English taxpayers?
    Mr. Hunt: I understand that there has been rather a run on these exemplifications. According to my hon. Friend, the Vote Office has run out of copies, but as soon as I leave the Chamber, I shall ensure that further copies are made available. Under the Government, and only under the Government, Wales has had the best possible deal. Under a Labour Government, not only would we return to the unfair old rating system, with 1973 values and a complete revaluation, but average bills would leap up because we would be returning to the old Labour way of funding local services.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Secretary of State confirm the view expressed last week by the Secretary of State for the Environment that we shall be stuck with the poll tax for the next three years because the council tax in Wales cannot be introduced until the financial year 1994–95
    Mr. Hunt: That is not true. I had a positive and constructive meeting with the Assembly of Welsh County Councils and the Association of Welsh Districts. Consultation is well on course to introduce the council tax in Wales the year after next.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we have achieved the Wandsworth effect in parts of Wales only because of the intervention of my right hon. Friend and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? No one in Wales will be worse off this year under the new council tax, compared with the community charges that were to be imposed by Liberal and Labour councils in Wales.
    Mr. Hunt: That is true. The message on Thursday is simple for the people of Wales. If they vote Conservative, their councils will cost them less and they will get better services.
    Mr. Murphy: As the Welsh people will have to put up with the poll tax for at least another two or three years, and as the Conservative party is squabbling about the nature of the new tax and its banding arrangements, does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that, despite being

    9
    surrounded by English colleagues, he should accept a uniquely Welsh solution to the poll tax by listening to the people of Wales, who overwhelmingly believe in a fair rates system and immediate abolition of the poll tax?
    Mr. Hunt: I said that we are used to spectacular own goals by the Labour party, but we have just heard the best. The hon. Gentleman admitted that there is no prospect of a Labour Government when he said that the poll tax will remain in Wales for three years. In any event, that is untrue. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer that I gave a few moments ago, he would know that we are well on course to introduce the new council tax the year after next.
    If people read "Fair Rates", they will not only remember that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) once called rates the most unjust form of all taxes but see that the proposed rates system would involve going straight back to the old registers, which were introduced in 1973, and then having a complete revaluation. That would be bad news for the whole of Wales.

    Waiting Lists, Clwyd
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the amount of Welsh Office funding made available to Clwyd health authority over the last five years to reduce waiting lists.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Since the inception of the waiting times initiative in 1986, Clwyd health authority has received funding of over £330,000 to assist its own efforts in tackling waiting lists.
    Mr. Raffan: Why has Clwyd health authority received only that amount out of a total of £5·35 million for reducing waiting lists in Wales? Is my hon. Friend aware that that constitutes a little over 5 per cent. of the total amount, whereas Clwyd health authority covers 14 per cent. of the population in Wales, its in-patient waiting list has increased by 9·2 per cent. on last year and its out-patient waiting list has increased by 10·6 per cent. on last year?
    Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend forgets that out of the sum for the waiting times initiative comes the funding for the three treatment centres, which take up the largest proportion of the available money. Since 1979 in Clwyd, the number of in-patients treated, including day cases, has risen by 45 per cent. and the number of out-patients treated by 21 per cent. This year, we increased Clwyd health authority's budget by 9·8 per cent. Since 1979, the health authority's total increase has been 50 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister assure us that any increase in the funding available to Clwyd health authority will not be swallowed up by additional administrative costs? That is happening in Gwynedd, where, over the next two months, no fewer than 56 additional posts will be created—for example, for contract officers and business managers—at a cost of £800,000 a year. That finance needs to be at the sharp end to provide services for the people on waiting lists.
    Mr. Bennett: It is important that health authorities operate within a properly managed system. That is why we
    10
    have introduced reforms. They mean that people must keep track of how money is spent, so that we do not have health authorities running out of money two thirds of the way through the year because they have not been managed properly. Sixty-three per cent. of our staff are front-line staff, compared with 57 per cent. in 1979.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Is not it true that in Clwyd health authority, as in all health authorities in Wales, the health service is grossly underfunded compared with virtually every other western European country? Is not it time that the Minister gave a commitment that not a single health authority in Wales will run out of money by the end of this financial year and that a general practitioner can continue to refer his or her patients to any hospital in the country? Will the hon. Gentleman give a commitment that all the health authorities and GPs will be funded and will not run out of money?
    Mr. Bennett: I cannot give that commitment—any more than the Leader of the Opposition could on the "Walden" programme yesterday when challenged on this matter. If we were to run the health service at the last Labour Government's expenditure level, £650 million less would be spent. Under the Conservative Government, spending on the health service has increased by 56 per cent. in real terms.

    Prefabricated Houses, Swansea
    Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the assistance he will provide to Swansea city council to enable it to deal with the problem of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I have today announced an extra £4·29 million to 10 Welsh housing authorities to assist them in dealing with prefabricated reinforced concrete houses. I am pleased to say that the bid from Swansea city council for the reinstatement of private sector PRCs in the city will be met in full.
    Mr. Anderson: That welcome reply covers only part of the matter. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the assistance covers post-April 1984 houses? Do the Government accept Swansea city council's strategy for dealing with PRC houses—on the basis of the consultant's report, which advises covering the 1,301 houses over five years? Will the hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider Swansea city council's proposals—I confess that they have not yet been submitted to the Welsh Office—for additional funding to deal with PRC houses to ensure that money is available not just for those houses but for other sectors of housing in the city? Will he ensure that grants are available for refurbishment and site clearance? That is clearly the responsibility of the city council, not the housing associations.
    Mr. Bennett: I welcome the fact that Swansea city council's strategy involves working with housing associations and I shall certainly give sympathetic consideration to any further bids made by the city council. Clearly, however, I cannot make a pre-judgment on that and we shall consider resources when bids are made.

    Rail Travel (Safety)
    Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the state of the rail network in Wales, including aspects of safety.
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to improve safety of rail travel in Wales.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail at regular intervals to discuss a range of issues. They last met on 8 February and expect to do so again later this year. British Rail's plans for maintaining and improving its safety record are set out in its safety plan, which was published in February.
    Mr. Davies: The Minister of State may be aware that recently a young constituent of mine, who was coming home on leave from the Navy, fell to his death from a train between Newport and Cardiff. I do not wish to comment on the details of that case, but does the Minister agree that there is a considerable impression—based on observation—that British Rail staff are unable to ensure that train doors are shut tight before a train leaves a station? Does he further agree that if someone falls from a train when a door is not defective and has not been opened from the inside, the only reasonable conclusion is that the door was not shut tight at the preceding station?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I know of the specific case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers and we extend our sympathy to the young man's family. I cannot comment on that particular case, but the provisional figures for passenger fatalities caused by falls from trains in 1990 was 19, the same as it was for the previous two years. We have received coroners' reports on 11 of those 19 cases and none of the 11 deaths was caused by faulty door locks. From 1985 to 1989 there was no evidence of faulty doors resulting in one such death.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that it is a sad state of affairs that a leading newspaper, for example, can point out that there may have been more than 100 deaths during the past six years, which were not explained, by people falling out of trains? If doors can be opened during a journey, does he agree that we should be well advised to consider other systems of ensuring that doors remain locked and that passengers cannot open them? Will he ask British Rail what proposals it has for incorporating such a design feature into new rolling stock and whether it will modify existing rolling stock to ensure that doors do not open during journeys?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I assure the hon. Gentleman that independent consultants were appointed by British Rail and they concluded that train doors are safe. Their report has been considered by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, which will decide whether further action is necessary. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman that British Rail investigates fully every fall from a train and its report and that from the coroner's inquest are made available to Her Majesty's railway inspectorate. Even if a door is not closed properly, there is a safety catch device which prevents it from opening.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the draft Labour Budget produced by the right hon.
    12
    and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) there was not one extra penny for investment in the railway system and that the best way to get more money invested in the railway is to privatise it so that, like other privatised industries, it can go into the marketplace and obtain other capital investment?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Although that is technically a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, I assure my hon. Friend that there have been no financial constraints on safety expenditure. The Government endorsed in full expenditure of £70 million on additional safety measures in 1990–91 and British Rail plans to spend more than £300 million over the next three years. Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that the privatisation of British Rail is much to be desired.

    Community Charge Rebate Scheme
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received (a) in favour and (b) in opposition to the Welsh community charge rebate scheme for the coming year.
    Mr. David Hunt: There were 126, expressing a variety of views.
    Mr. Flynn: I am not very grateful for that evasion. May I point out to the Secretary of State that since he has been so generous in confessing that the presented demented system of reliefs in Wales is his brainchild, the system has become known as the "David Hunt levy". Will he give a guarantee that in the unlikely event that he is still in office in a year's time, my constituents in Bassaleg, Rhiwderin, Rogerstone, Allt-yr-yn and Caerleon, who now pay £50 more on the David Hunt levy than do their neighbours in other parts of Newport, will be compensated and that the crazy system will be ended?
    Mr. Hunt: This is another own goal by the hon. Gentleman. We are talking about a system that brought an additional £62 million to Wales. That means—I have to whisper this because of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset (Mr. Bruce)—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here."] What a relief. The average community charge paid in Wales this year will be £92 and that is before rebate. The hon. Gentleman should ask the Leader of the Opposition to confess that as well as the national health service not having a high priority in Labour party plans, local government does not have a high priority either. We may go back to the system of support that existed when there was last a Labour Government, which is very bad news for the people of Wales.
    Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Unless something has arisen during Question Time which requires my immediate attention, I take points of order later.
    Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I know that I did not call the hon. Gentleman, but that is not a matter for a point of order. I will take the point of order later.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Gulf War Church Service, Glasgow
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, whether they will be officially represented at the service at St. Mungo's cathedral, Glasgow, on 4 May in relation to the Gulf war.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): No, Sir, although each Church of England diocesan bishop attending is a Church Commissioner.
    Mr. Dalyell: Whereas it is quite proper that service men and their families should want to give thanks for their safe return, is it really in good taste that politicians should be present, given that the Kurds are in the mountains, the Shias are in the marshes, the war is clearly not over, Karbala and Najaf are in ruins and the United Nations has disowned the whole project?
    Mr. Alison: The old Church of England litany—I know that we are talking about the Church of Scotland—prays for divine deliverance from lightning and tempest, from plague, pestilence and famine and from battle, murder and sudden death. Many hundreds of young men in our forces in the Gulf will have echoed that prayer for deliverance, as will many thousands of their loved ones and hon. Members of all parties. Most people will feel that it is no bad thing that the survivors and their families and the hon. Members responsible for sending them to the Gulf should express their thanksgiving for their safe return in a religious service that will also remember the fallen.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that those of us who lost young men from our constituencies during the war recognise the importance of the service for their families? We welcome especially the fact that it will be an ecumenical service. That does not mean that any of us who attends will forget the problems that confront the Kurds and the Shi'ites in Iraq.
    Mr. Alison: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments which, perhaps not proportionately to the strength of her party in the House, represent the overwhelming view of most Scotsmen, Englishmen, Welshmen and Irishmen of the merits of the service.
    Sir John Stokes: Are not we an extraordinary nation in that when we are to have a service such as this, at which church and state are to be fully represented, some seek to run it down in this House, which is supposed to represent most people in the country? Surely we should be thankful that the service is to be held and thankful to God that our men came back safely.
    Mr. Alison: I thoroughly endorse my hon. Friend's view, although I should pay the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) the credit that I am sure is his due. He will have been invited, he has a military past and I very much hope that he will take the opportunity to attend the service.

    Women Commissioners
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many Church Commissioners are women.
    Mr. Alison: Six, Sir.
    Mr. Banks: That is a disgracefully small number given that, by my calculations, there are about 95 commissioners. Should not the right hon. Gentleman put pressure on the Church Commissioners to ensure that women are more adequately represented on the body? The Church is talking about having women priests. I support that principle and see no reason why we should not have women bishops or, indeed, a woman Pope—although I realise that the right hon. Gentleman does not answer for the Catholic religion. In the circumstances, would not it look much better for the Church if it had more women commissioners to start with?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has launched into a typical diatribe—as usual without having done adequate research. Of the total of 95 commissioners, 43 are diocesan bishops and it is no fault of the Church of England that there are no women bishops at present. Of the remainder of the commissioners, more than half are elected by the general assembly of the general synod of the Church of England. That electoral process produces as few women as the Labour party's electoral process produces women in the Labour party.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Staff Pay and Conditions
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, whether he proposes any changes to the procedures for setting pay and conditions for House of Commons staff; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. A. J. Beith (On behalf of the House of Commons Commissioners): No, Sir. There is a statutory responsibility imposed on the Commission by the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 to keep the pay and grading of staff in the House broadly in line with those in the home civil service.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on average, the staff in the canteen work for 47 hours a week and receive take-home pay of about £134? We should compare that with the bosses, who have recently managed to secure an extra 22·7 per cent. Tesco's boss is to get another £1 million a year, for example. Yet here in the House of Commons, the young people in the canteen are expected to work during the parliamentary recess, when Members of Parliament are on holiday, and this year they will have to work an extra five hours every week during the recess for no extra pay. Is not it time that the hon. Gentleman—this Liberal Democrat—did something about that?
    Mr. Beith: The arrangements that I have described were set up when a Labour Government were in power. The House of Commons Commission seeks to represent all parties in the House. We have no responsibility for pay outside the House and our responsibility inside it is to

    15
    ensure the link with civil service pay to which I referred. However, the Establishments Office is currently consulting the relevant unions as part of the process of conducting a review of the pay and grading of industrial and non-industrial grades employed by Departments of the House.

    Telephone Bill
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the House of Commons telephone bill for the last 12 months.
    Mr. Beith: The estimated cost of telecommunications services for the House in the last financial year is £2,169,982.
    Mr. Banks: I am sure that we get great benefit from that expenditure, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a considerable number of complaints about the telephone services that we receive. This is not a criticism of the staff, but those outside—our constituents and others who try to contact us—are always complaining about the time that it takes for the telephones to be answered. That is British Telecom's responsibility because BT sends in the people to staff the switchboard. Clearly, it is not doing the job properly. I am not in favour of Mercury and I was certainly not in favour of the privatisation of BT. However, now that BT has been privatised, cannot we consider the alternatives? For example, Mercury says that it can produce a saving of £50,000 a year and provide a better service. The hon. Gentleman should get off his behind and do something, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggested.
    Mr. Beith: The running of telecommunications services is a matter for the Services Committee. I understand that, some time ago, the Committee considered a request to allow Mercury to provide a share of the outgoing lines, but recommended no change. However, the matter is still under consideration. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are Mercury call-boxes within the precincts of the House.

    Crèche
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what latest consideration he has given for the provision of crèche facilities for staff.
    Mr. Beith: At its meeting on 13 February the Services Committee approved in principle the provision of child care facilities for Members, their staff and staff of the House. The House of Commons Commission has agreed that an examination should now take place to identify what accommodation could be allocated for that purpose and has instructed that further steps should be set in train to determine the likely costs and other financial implications. Once these are known, a survey of potential demand will be undertaken and a final decision taken on whether to proceed.
    Mr. Cohen: I welcome the very belated decision of the Services Committee to agree in principle to the provision of child-care facilities. The hon. Gentleman will recall a feasibility study which indicated that there was not the
    16
    necessary political will to provide a crèche. Can we be assured that that is no longer the case and that all existing accommodation will be scrutinised? The matter should not be left for the phase 2 programme some time in the next century. Staff members and their trade unions are asking whether the hon. Gentleman is serious about the provision of a crèche, or whether he is just toying with the idea.
    Mr. Beith: I am certainly in favour of the House proceeding quickly to the establishment of these facilities. However, the Services Committee is responsible for seeing whether, in our very crowded building, suitable accommodation can be found in advance of phase 2. Obviously that is important if rapid progress is to be made.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    British Members of the European Parliament
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to allow greater involvement in the House and its Committees by British Members of the European Parliament.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Active consideration is currently being given to ways in which British Members of the European Parliament can have improved access to the House. The relevant Sub-Committees of the Services Committee have been instructed to consider what refreshment facilities can be extended to them, and to what degree they may be given formal access to the Chamber and to Committees of the House. I hope to receive some recommendations shortly.
    Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those of us who support the democratic role of the House and recognise its importance would regard it as being of great value if members of the European Parliament were able to speak, but not vote, in our Committees—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—so that we might have much earlier warning of what happens in the European Parliament? Would not that be in the interests of this House? [Interruption.] What do we have to be afraid of?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will be aware that his suggestion has turned out to be somewhat controversial, at least among hon. Members in the Chamber at the moment. However, I agree that it is right to explore ways in which closer exchanges might take place. In the context of the intergovernmental conference on political union, it is important to remember that this House is one of the most active legislative bodies when it comes to scrutinising European Community legislation. We want to see a similar situation elsewhere and that will involve some degree of co-operation.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Leader of the House aware of the standards that Members of the European Parliament enjoy? If he is thinking about inviting them to share our dining facilities, he will have to ensure that the standard of the food in this place is greatly improved. I have been a Member of Parliament for 20 years and the menu in the Harcourt Room has not changed once in that time.
    Mr. MacGregor: I think that the menu has changed. The question of access to our refreshment facilities, particularly some of those that are available to hon.

    17
    Members, is currently being considered by the Sub-Committee. I do not think that relative standards are being taken into account; the question under consideration is access.
    Mr. Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend say why legislators in this House should be expected to pool their facilities with an advisory body?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that there is any question of pooling facilities. Given that Members of the British Parliament have access to facilities of the European Parliament, the question is whether some facilities here may be made available to Members of the European Parliament with a view to widening the exchange of views.

    Environment Debates
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what percentage of parliamentary lime has been spent on debating the problem of the national and global environment in each of the Sessions of the current Parliament; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: It is not possible to estimate the amount of time spent on environmental matters in the House because of the variety of opportunities for debate. The House is already clear about the priority which the Government are giving to such matters.
    Mr. Hughes: That is a very convenient cop-out of an answer, if I may say so. The reality is that the Department of the Environment spent most of its time ensuring that the House debated poll tax, son of poll tax or grandchild of poll tax. As a result, little Government time was spent on environmental issues. Will the Leader of the House accept that as a fact? Will he consider seriously allowing the House to establish the precedent of an annual debate, as part of the routine of the House, on the state of the global, continental and national environment?
    Mr. MacGregor: Attention to local government finance has not been confined to the Government side of the Chamber. Both sides of the House have focused their attention on it and the issue has been raised outside Government time. I accept, however, that the matter has been raised rather more extensively than others. I hope that we shall now see a greater concentration on other issues. The Government's proposals on local government finance have received a warm welcome from many quarters.
    The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the extensive White Paper that the Government produced on environmental matters. We have already taken up almost 100 of the initiatives set out in it. That is a clear sign of the priority that we give to such matters and the way in which we act on them. We must be cautious about the number of commitments that we give to annual debates on various subjects. I should be happy, however, to see further debates on environmental matters when they can be fitted into the time table.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Select Committee on the Environment has been extremely busy over some years trying to bring to the attention of the House, and to a wider audience, the problems that will be generated by global warming? Some months ago the Committee placed before the House a good report on the
    18
    problems that will arise from the decline of the jungles, but the House has not had an opportunity to debate it and does not seem likely to have one, unless someone gets a move on. The greatest threat that faces mankind is its destruction of its natural environment and the House should have an opportunity to debate it.
    Mr. MacGregor: Let me assure my hon. Friend that we take all international environmental matters extremely seriously, as can be seen from the many initiatives that the Government have taken. Many matters have had to be dealt with during the Session, not least the Gulf war. It is not possible to have general debates on every subject, but many opportunities are available to hon. Members to raise matters of concern.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Leader of the House reflect on what was an unsatisfactory answer? Surely he cannot claim any longer that there is a shortage of parliamentary time. It is crystal clear to us all that the Government are having enormous difficulty filling up the time that is available during the run-in to the general election. If, as increasingly seems likely, there will be an extremely long run-in, with the Government running away, would not it be a good idea to have some set-piece televised debates on the environment, on unemployment, on the poll tax, on hospital trusts and on other issues that will confront the nation during the next general election?
    Mr. MacGregor: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. We are carrying through a larger legislative programme this Session than last, with more Bills coming before the House. As he will have seen from the timetable in recent weeks—he will certainly see it in weeks to come—there is a great deal to do on the legislative front and that work will take a great deal of parliamentary time.

    European Standing Committees
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received calling for procedural changes to ensure that motions and amendments agreed by European Standing Committees are placed before the House for consideration: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have received no such representations other than those from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the Government made it clear that the views of the Committees would not necessarily be reported to the House unless the Government found them acceptable, hardly anyone is bothering to attend the sittings of these rather irrelevant Committees? On Wednesday last week, only four Members were present at the end of the sitting. Is he aware also that a further crisis has arisen because Ministers are not reporting on the proposed legislation as it is? Instead, they are reporting on what they think it might be by the time that Committee considers it. On Wednesday, with a huge crisis looming for British potato crisps manufacture, which could lose 600 jobs in this country, there was not one word about the issue in the papers before the Committee or in the Government motion. Would not it be better to scrap the Committees rather than have a democratic front?
    Mr. MacGregor: No, I do not think that it would be right to scrap the Committees. As I said at the outset, I believe that they are an effective way in which the House can carry out scrutiny. I have said that I am prepared to review those Committees, but I do not think that it would be right to scrap them.
    With regard to my hon. Friend's point about Government motions before the House, he will know of one case about which he and I have corresponded. In that regard, the Government acted entirely in accordance with the Standing Orders. However, in view of my hon. Friend's concern, I have asked the House authorities to consider whether the Order Paper can make the position clearer in such cases, perhaps with the date of the resolution passed by the Standing Committee being printed in the Order Paper beside the Government motion. I am also considering further my hon. Friend's idea about how that may be changed.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Leader of the House accept that all members of those European Committees believe that it is absolute nonsense that a motion agreed unanimously and as amended is reported to the House in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, but is then not the motion moved by the Government at a subsequent stage? The Committee then has the right to table an amendment, but not to speak to it or explain reasons. That is totally unsatisfactory and if no changes are made to the procedure, Members will refuse to attend those Committees.
    Mr. MacGregor: I make it clear that that happened on only one occasion. The change was made because, as the Minister explained to all members of the Committee, the actual terms of the motion were, in the Government's view, inaccurate and did not represent the position. Therefore, on that occasion, the Government tabled a motion and it would have been possible for any member of the Committee to table an amendment. However, as I said,
    20
    I constantly review the way in which those Committees work and I am now considering whether this can be done differently if a similar situation arises in future.

    European Community (Communications)
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a further statement on the extension of official telephone and postal facilities to hon. Members for contacts with the institutions of the European Community in Brussels and elsewhere, pursuant to his answer of 25 March, Official Report, column 607.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the House of Commons Commission has now approved arrangements to enable hon. Members to make free official telephone calls to institutions of the European Community and to certain other European organisations. A notice setting out the short direct dialling codes of the respective exchanges has already been sent to Members. Arrangements have also been approved to enable Members to send official mail free of charge to countries of the European Community. It is hoped that the service will be brought into use immediately after the spring recess.
    Mr. Dykes: May I thank my right hon. Friend most warmly for his speed in handling those matters once he assumed his present office? At present, hon. Members can telphone Europe from their own offices. Will he ensure that we can use specific dial handsets in other parts of the Palace of Westminster as quickly as possible?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The initial list of the extensions that may be dialled direct reflects the present capacity of the telephone exchange to accept such calls. However, the system will be upgraded within the next 12 months and that will provide increased capacity for further direct dialling to Europe. I am not sure whether that will make my hon. Friend's suggestion irrelevant, but I shall consider his suggestion. It is probably preferable to stick to the arrangements that we have already made.

NHS Trusts
3.32 pm
Mr. Robin Cook(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the business plans for self-governing trusts and recently announced job losses.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): The prospectuses of the trusts were published last year. There were no "secret" business plans. The business plans, which are required to be returned to the national health service management executive in the early part of this year, are part of the arrangements for monitoring both NHS trusts and directly managed units by the national health service management executive. As management documents, they were never intended under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to be public documents. The annual report of each trust will of course be published.
That leads me to a wider point about accountability. For the first time, we now have a system in place where, through the contractual arrangements, hospitals will be fully accountable to the district health authorities for the quality and quantity of the services they provide for patients.
Within that reformed system my job is to ensure that patients have the access that they need to comprehensive, free, health care. I exercise this responsibility through a strengthened chain of accountability from districts through regions to the NHS management executive.
With this accountability for the provision of health care goes more delegated management freedom for the hospitals themselves, including directly managed units. It is not for Governments to tell hospitals how to organise their services and how many staff to employ. That must be a matter for the hospitals themselves. In a service that employs over 1 million people, it would be ludricous if Ministers or civil servants attempted to run the service from Whitehall.
What I sought last year, and will seek this year when examining trust applications, is a management team which will match in professionalism the professional standards of the doctors and nurses themselves. For far too long we have had outstanding clinical professionalism allied to second-rate management systems. One cause of that over the years has been the political intervention in what are properly management decisions, of which this bogus pre-local elections row, stirred up by the Opposition parties, is a classic example.
Referring to the situation in London, I have noted the comprehensive review of their hospital proposed by the new management at Guy's. I am pleased to note that they have given a number of undertakings: that patient care will not suffer; that compulsory redundancies will be used only as a last resort; that services in the local community will be protected; and that quality of service is an overriding objective.
I am also pleased to be able to reassure the House that Lewisham and North Southwark health authority, in whose district Guy's hospital is situated, believes that the contracts which it has let to Guy's, and to other hospitals, provide satisfactorily for the health needs of its resident
22
population. Moreover, it recognises that prompt action is needed to tackle the financial situation at Guy's, and prefers that to unplanned action later in the year.
I am also pleased to record that, in Bradford, no reduction in services or activity is planned by the trust. It is the judgment of the public health authorities in the city that some increase in emphasis in primary and community services is right for local people. It is likely that, in terms of staff numbers, any reductions in hospital staff would be more than offset by further increases in community nursing and in the resources available to GPs.
The proposals by those two trusts illustrate a fundamental point. Neither district health authorities nor hospital managers are any longer prepared to accept that, simply because a hospital has always provided a certain service in a certain way, they should necessarily continue to do so. The needs of the patients they serve are constantly changing. Leading hospitals like Guy's and Bradford need to respond to those changes. Hospitals that can adapt successfully to change will flourish and expand. That is what I believe we are beginning to see happen in Bradford and south-east London; and, since any savings will go straight back into the health service, it will be the patient now, and in the future, who benefits.
Labour Members have nothing to say on health. Their leader yesterday finally let the cat out of the bag: under Labour there would be no more money for health. They have no proposals for dealing with the obvious managerial problems of the service. Their sole interest is in playing party politics with it. Their behaviour over the past few days is the final proof, if any was needed, that that is the truth.
Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State's assurance that health authorities are happy with the cuts would carry more weight if those health authorities represented anybody in the community for whom they now administer the health service.
Will the Secretary of State explain to the House how he reconciles his many statements over the weekend and his statement today to the House that there will be no cuts in patient care with the financial memorandum of Guy's, which was leaked today to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), and which states that managers recognise that in acute services there will be
"inevitable reductions in direct patient care"
and that in mental health services, which are local services, there will be "substantial reductions in service"? After those internal statements by the management of Guy's itself, should not the Secretary of State apologise for all those misleading statements?
If the business plans are to assist the Government in monitoring the progress of the trusts, why cannot those business plans be published so that we can all assist in the monitoring? What is in those business plans that needs to be hidden? How many more of those business plans contain cuts similar to those that we have heard about at Guy's this past weekend?
Will the Secretary of State publish the report on trusts from Coopers and Lybrand? Will he now tell the House what he has already told journalists—that last November Coopers and Lybrand found that only 12 of the 57 trusts had plans with which there were no financial difficulties? If that is true, was it not totally irresponsible of the right hon. Gentleman to go ahead with all 57 trusts? How did he keep

23
a straight face when he told the House on 4 December that, in deciding which hospitals should opt out, the key criterion was financial viability?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also explain how Guy's can be so much in debt and yet can afford to pay its chief executive the highest salary in the entire NHS? Is he aware that, in the past year, Guy's has advertised 44 new management posts at a total cost of £1·3 million—one quarter of its deficit? Will he explain how it can be value for money to hire more managers on bigger salaries to run a reduced service?
Finally, after this weekend, does not the Secretary of State realise that leaving hospitals to sink or swim in the marketplace is regarded by the public as a wholly unacceptable way of running their health service? Will he now accept that he cannot plough ahead with the second wave of opt-outs while hospitals in the first wave are foundering?
May I give you and the House notice, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition will return to this matter until we get an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will not take any more decisions on opt-out until the people of Britain have had their say in a general election about the health service they want?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that hospitals are not being left to sink or swim in the marketplace. Hospitals are being asked to respond to specific contracts from public health authorities to provide the services at the quality and the quantity that are needed. That is what we are seeing, and it will provide much better and more comprehensive health care.
The hon. Gentleman has once again shown that he has not troubled to understand the reforms that he criticises. It is not for a single hospital to provide comprehensive health care across the range that is needed by a district. Indeed, there are seven major hospitals and other minor hospitals within range of the district that we are talking about, and it is for those hospitals together to provide comprehensive health care, responding to the district's contracts. That is what the district is perfectly prepared to say that it has achieved.
We have discussed the Coopers and Lybrand reports before in the House. It is true that Coopers and Lybrand stated that a minority of the trusts had no financial problems at all. My judgment was that the new managements that we were seeking were far more likely to solve the underlying problems than the old systems that had created those very problems. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may think that that is odd, but it seems crazy that he should wish to return to the system that caused those problems in the first place.
The hon. Gentleman was forced by the House to back down two weeks ago in his threats to NHS managers, and his spending pledges were shot out of the water by his leader yesterday. He has no credibility whatsoever.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the cuts of £12·8 million in the Guy's and Lewisham budget in one year is the largest cut for any NHS unit since the national health service was set up? Did the right hon. Gentleman approve the plan last autumn knowing that there would be that cut,
24
or did he learn of the nature and size of the cut after he had approved the plan but before the cuts came into operation in April?
Is the Secretary of State aware that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the then Secretary of State for Health, told me in a debate in the House in the early hours of 13 March that one of the criteria for approving an opt-out plan was that services for the local community in Lewisham and Southwark would be preserved? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that almost nobody working at any level in Guy's hospital or using it as a patient believes that an overstretched, overworked work force can suffer a cut of 10 per cent. in its numbers and budget without the risk of the health care that is provided in the inner city being substantially affected for the worse?
Is not the reality that the Secretary of State has power, if he wishes to use it, under his legislation, to dissolve a health service trust? Should he not now dissolve that trust and allow that unit to be part of the national health service with everything else?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hospital is part of the national health service, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He has misunderstood what it is proposing, which surprises me, because I know that he has been in touch with the hospital. It is not proposing £12 million-worth of cuts. It has to put its underlying deficit in order, which amounts to about half that figure, and wishes to redirect another £6 million towards growing services, which is different from what the hon. Gentleman said. Among other things, it is saying that it will preserve and perhaps develop the local community aspects of its hospitals.
Indeed it is true that the hospital is overstretched, as are others in London. As anyone who knows anything about the NHS realises, there has been over-provision of total hospital numbers in London for 50 years as the population has moved away. Now we have to fund hospitals in London properly to offer the services needed in London, in addition to the specialties that are more widely needed. That is what Guy's is proposing to do, and that will secure its long-term future rather than going from crisis management to crisis management, which is what has happened for more than 20 years.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Secretary of State now do what his junior Minister refused to do last Wednesday: will he propose an emergency funding package to ensure that there are no redundancies or service cuts in hospitals in Bradford? The people of Bradford whose health needs are most acute do not want their hospitals to become supermarkets. We are not dealing with cans of food and packets of cornflakes; we are dealing with sick people, and we know that patient care will suffer if there are cuts.
The people of Bradford do not trust the trust, and most of all they do not trust the Government, because they know that the national health service is unsafe in Tory hands. They want the necessary money, staff and patient care, and, most of all, the damage that the Government have done to the NHS in the past 12 years to be repaired.
Mr. Waldegrave: They have been firmly told by the leader of the Labour party that they will not get a penny more from a Labour Government. The health service in Bradford and elsewhere in this country, and throughout the world, is developing in different ways. Primary care is

25
developing fast in Bradford, which has had some of the most dramatic improvements in the size of GP lists. I suspect that that is the way in which things will go in the future, with further development of primary and community services in Bradford.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to defend for ever the exact pattern of the hospital services that we have now, he will be in the position that his party has always been in—looking backwards, defending private interests—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—defending producer interests. I am perfectly prepared to stand by my accusation about private interests, too. The Labour party is more concerned with the interests of the Confederation of Health Service Employees arid the National Union of Public Employees than with patients. That remains as true now as it has been in the past.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a serious matter when the professor of surgery at Guy's warns publicly that manpower has got out of control and that management must get a grip on it? Would not management be failing in its duty to patients and to health care in the area if it ignored such remarks? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is regrettable that people should lose their jobs, especially in the health service, if the public can be satisfied that that will mean fewer ward closures, more patients being treated and more operations rather than have the Opposition's promises, that is the way forward?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The Labour party proposes to return us to the old management systems that created the problems with which the House is all too familiar. We are now doing the right thing, which is to put the management in the hospitals where it should be. When the management of one of our great hospitals takes action early in the year to balance its budget, that seems to me responsible behaviour which is in the interests of the patients and should be applauded.
Ms. Joan Ruddock: Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite its size and importance, Lewisham hospital has always been considered the poor relation of Guy's? Indeed, he did riot even mention it today. Having been dragged into the Guy's and Lewisham trust, Lewisham hospital is now in grave danger of being dragged down by it.
How many staff posts are to be cut at Lewisham hospital? What will be the reduction in the service standards available at that hospital? What will be the impact on mental health services, which are so crucial to the inner-city constituency that I represent? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the surgical ward that was closed temporarily last year will now be reopened as planned? What will be the impact on the imminent transfer of children's services from Sydenham hospital to Lewisham? Is phase 2 of Lewisham hospital still secure? Is it really true that my constituents have nothing to worry about, as he suggests?
Mr. Waldegrave: As a result of this electioneering campaign, they are probably worried now. The hon. Lady is quite right to rebuke me for not using the full title of the Guy's and Lewisham trust, because it is essential that Lewisham hospital as well as Guy's should have the full attention of management. I can tell the hon. Lady's constituents that those two hospitals are safe, and that the
26
proposals will develop their long-term future. As I am sure she understands, it is the duty of the district health authority to ensure comprehensive health care for her constituents. It has told me that it has no doubt that, with these changes, it will be able to ensure that.
Mr. Roger Sims: Does my right hon. Friend think that the first priority of the NHS should be to provide jobs or to provide a high standard of health care? If the trustees of Guy's or any other hospital believe—as the Guy's trustees do—that, by cutting costs, hospitals can provide a higher standard of care for the people in the immediate community, and, through contracts, for those outside the area—and, in so doing, provide better pay and conditions for their own staff—should they not be commended rather than criticised?
Mr. Waldegrave: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The number of people employed in the health service has increased at about twice the rate of the number of patients treated. We cannot be proud of that; it does not show a very impressive gain in efficiency over the years.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said this morning on television that he could not guarantee that jobs would not have to be lost in different parts of the health service, and that the number of jobs might have to be reduced in some areas. He might like to tell the House where he believes the number of jobs should be reduced, but he was right in saying that. The total number of doctors and nurses increases, but the shape and pattern of health care must change over the years.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Did the Secretary of State know, when he approved the detailed proposals for the Bradford trust, that one of its first actions would be to sack newly qualified nurses, and that, within a month of taking over the operation of all the acute hospitals in Bradford, it would announce the sacking of 300 staff at a saving of £7 million? If the Secretary of State knew that, was it not incompetent of him to allow the plan to go ahead? If he did not know that, does it not show that he is treated with complete contempt by the people who made those proposals?
The people of Bradford rejected the trust; the doctors, nurses and health workers rejected it. Why did not the Secretary of State listen to those people instead of to the spivs he appointed to run it? People will be satisfied that something is being done only when this miserable, incompetent Minister resigns.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the Minister—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was, I believe, a Minister in the Labour Government at the time that the International Monetary Fund arrived here. Inadvertently, I am sure, he gave a wrong fact to the House. As he well knows, there is no question of 300 sackings in Bradford. The trust has made it perfectly clear that it thinks it likely that there will not need to be any compulsory redundancies. It has already fulfilled a considerable part of its target by not filling vacancies. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark that there will be 300 sackings.
Last year I had to judge whether the management offered by the new trust was better and more likely to produce good health care for the people of Bradford than the existing system. I have no hesitation in saying that that

27
is so, that the hospital's quality will improve, and that it will maintain its output of work, as it says it intends to do over the next year.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in hospital trusts, such as the two in Leeds, the management are rightly asking the practitioners how they can get costs down so that they can treat more patients? Whereas in the past there was the long-term problem of financial pressures which sometimes involved cuts, under the new trust system there is no logic whatsoever in reducing patient numbers, because that would simply reduce income.
Mr. Waldegrave: There is no difference in the importance that both trusts and directly managed units ought to lay on finding proper cost savings to plough back into health care. As the Prime Minister made clear over the weekend, every penny of savings from this or any other exercise in the NHS goes straight back into health care. The Opposition ought to welcome that. Our job is to see that the funds that we vote treat efficiently as many patients as possible and at as high a quality as possible.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State realise that his comment that the anxieties of people up and down the country are related to electioneering does him no credit and adds not one iota to his own job security? What does he have to say to the people of Leeds, three weeks after the introduction of the hospital trust at the general infirmary? Its chief executive has told unit trust managers to make cuts of £5 million in services——
Dr. Hampson: Five per cent.
Mr. Fatchett: Five per cent. of £100 million is £5 million. It would help if there were some numeracy among Government Members.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the people of Leeds that that will not add to the waiting list and that it will not reduce patient care?
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Coopers and Lybrand report said that the Leeds general infirmary trust was not financially viable and that it would inevitably lead to cuts in services and jobs? Why does not the Secretary of State publish that report? Why did he let the trust go ahead in the knowledge that it would result in a cut in patient services?
Mr. Waldegrave: On the matter of electioneering, it seems to me a little more than a coincidence that this bogus campaign should be launched on the same day as the Opposition have arranged for a campaign paid for by NALGO on the self-same subject. Perhaps that is just a coincidence. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that problems—I am willing to acknowledge them—existed in that hospital before the trust was set up. My job was to decide whether the new trust management was more likely to solve those problems than the system that created them. That was my judgment. Since the hon. Gentleman knows that under Labour no more money will go to the NHS—his leader has told him so—what proposals can he make to improve the management?
Mr. Gary Waller: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that 50,000 extra doctors and nurses are working
28
in the NHS, compared with the position a decade ago, and that it would be ridiculous if the way in which staff are used did not change in response to clinical practice? Is it not regrettable that the situation in Bradford has been so distorted? Does not the creation of NHS trusts provide hospitals such as Bradford royal infirmary with the opportunity to use its resources in a way that puts patients first?
Mr. Waldegrave: That is right. In Bradford, as elsewhere, the shape of the NHS will undoubtedly change over the next 10 to 20 years. The pattern of hospital services will not remain exactly as it is now, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows. He is perfectly correct when he says that there are 60,000 more nurses; but there are also 16,000 more doctors and dentists than in 1979. I predict that the numbers will continue to rise. What is not certain and what would not necessarily be right would be if all those additional clinical people were in acute hospitals. They should be spread throughout the NHS to meet the needs of patients, not just the existing patterns of provision.
Mr. Terry Rooney: Will not the Secretary of State admit to yet another failed Tory experiment in Bradford? Will he explain why he has told the House today that there will be no cuts in patient care when the chief executive and the chairman of the trust have said publicly and in the press that there will be a 6 per cent. reduction in patient services? In the public consultation on the next trust to come before him, will the Secretary of State take account of the priority services rather than the lies which the management of the trust put forward last October?
Mr. Waldegrave: It is the duty of the district to provide comprehensive health care. It has made it perfectly clear that it has already placed contracts to meet local needs with that hospital, and other national health service hospitals. I hope that a considerable number of hospitals will seek trust status next year, because I am certain that that is the best way of managing hospitals.
Mr. Michael Morris: Will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise that trusts are, and always will be, part of the national health service and that the money involved is, and will continue to be, part of the national health service? Does he recall saying in answer to me that all the NHS trusts would not report to their regions but would report to the centre? That being so, can he reassure the House and all the trusts in general that, if any of them should get into transitional problems, there is some provision whereby he has reserve powers?
Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. I have reserve powers, which I would use if a district told me that the comprehensive health care that it needed to supply was not available from the hospitals because of changes in supply patterns. My hon. Friend is perfectly right, in believing that we shall be monitoring the trusts very closely.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I have an obligation to protect the business of the House. This is a private notice question—[Interruption.] Please hear me out. This is a private notice question that I would normally allow to run for about 20 minutes or perhaps for a

29
maximum of half an hour, but, in view of the great interest in this matter, and taking into account the subsequent business, exceptionally, I shall allow questions to run until 4.15 pm and then we must move on. If hon. Members ask brief questions, I hope that I shall be able to call most, if not all, of them.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Secretary of State recall how often he was warned in meetings, Adjournment debates and parliamentary questions that the trusts were set up in my borough and other parts of the west midlands in the face of overwhelming opposition? Can he say whether job losses will occur in the trusts that were set up in the borough? Is he aware that the miserable and dishonest way in which the Government are treating the health service will do as much damage to the Tory party and the Government as the poll tax has done? They are both products of prejudice and party dogma.
Mr. Waldegrave: We are told in the Evening Standard today that internal documents of the Labour party show that nobody believes its pledges on the national health service. That is entirely true and has been emphasised by what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday. The Opposition will provide no more money. We have increased the money available to the NHS faster than they did, and are addressing the real management problems.
Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that none of us can determine whether any hospital is correctly manned without an analysis of the staffing needs of that hospital in relation to its detailed health objectives? I can well understand that my right hon. Friend does not normally wish such figures to be published, but as two particular cases have been the subject of great public controversy, will he make them available to the Select Committee on Health, if not to the House?
Mr. Waldegrave: The proposals of the Guy's and Lewisham trust are for discussion with its staff and are far from finalised. I have no doubt that it would respond to the Select Committee as my Department would.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: What guarantees can the Secretary of State offer that essential services and the quality of care will be maintained at Guy's and Lewisham hospitals? Will provision be protected for particularly vulnerable categories such as geriatric patients and mentally ill people?
Mr. Waldegrave: I can guarantee that the quality of Guy's work will be the same as it always has been. On behalf of the district and the hon. Lady's constituents, we must protect comprehensive health care, which will come from a variety of hospitals. It is the district health authority's duty to ensure that it has the necessary provision. That is the purpose of the health reforms, and that is right.
Mrs. Edwiina Currie: Has not the number of people working in the national health service increased fourfold in its lifetime, while the number of patients treated has only doubled? Does not that suggest that there is a substantial amount of waste and bureaucracy in the NHS, that there probably always has been, and that it has been getting worse recently, at least partly because of the Government's generosity in funding it?
Mr. Waldegrave: The figures at least show that those who believe that they can maintain and improve health care with fewer staff are likely to be telling the truth, and they are likely to know more than some of the amateur experts in the House.
Ms. Diane Abbott: Will the Secretary of State answer the specific point that has been made more than once? All weekend we have had to listen to the right hon. Gentleman assuring us that cutting 600 jobs at Guy's will not affect the service. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) quoted specifically from an internal management document, which said that acute and mental services at Guy's will suffer. Who is right—Guy's management, or the Secretary of State?
Mr. Waldegrave: Guy's services must be of the highest quality. District purchasers must have a comprehensive range of services from Guy's, "Tommy's" and other hospitals. As a result of the system that the hon. Lady seems to support—I am surprised by that—hospitals are overstretched, none of them is providing a service of the quality necessary, and staff are highly demoralised.
Mr. Robin Squire: On the specific point of job losses, will my right hon. Friend compare the position of Marks and Spencer, which provides necessities such as clothing and food, with that of hospitals? Does he agree that customer satisfaction in Marks and Spencer will not be shaken as a result of its unfortunate announcement today? Had there not been so much second-guessing by politicians on day-to-day hospital management, the announcement would not have received such a bad and unfair reception from Opposition Members.
Mr. Waldegrave: The national health service is in a more privileged position than Marks and Spencer: it has a guaranteed real terms increase in funding for this financial year, which is more than any shop, however grand, can guarantee. However, good managements must try to spend money where it is necessary—on patients—and if that can be achieved with fewer people so that more money is ploughed back into patient care, that is surely right.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Secretary of State understand that there is a crisis of confidence in the basis of trusts? How can he convince my constituents in one of the poorest parts of Manchester—their hospital has opted out and every health indicator shows that their health and health care are worse than elsewhere—that the provision of services will continue and that they will not face cuts and a diminution in services? Why should we believe him?
Mr. Waldegrave:I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows his constituency extremely well. The best way of meeting the health needs of his constituents may be an expansion not of acute care but of community medicine. We cannot say that the only important NHS provision is acute hospitals, but I can reassure him that the trust in Manchester will continue, like other trusts, to offer patients a first-rate service.
Mr. Richard Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the annoyance and anger felt in the past by most, if not all, Members of Parliament for Hertfordshire about the unfair distribution of finance within the North West Thames region between the shires and London? We have 41 per cent. of the population but

31
receive only 33 per cent. of the money. That has led to ward closures, and is caused by overmanning, shroud waving and expensive operations in London. At last, we are moving towards equal treatment and the same cost per operation. Anyone who complains has no idea about value for money and does not care about my constituents.
Mr. Waldegrave: The first report that analysed the unfair share of hospital services in London was produced in 1905. Partly because of political pressures, it was never tackled. Anyone who knows anything about the health service will welcome the fact that, at last, we are beginning to match hospital services to where people live now and not where people lived in 1905.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the first decision in the first week by the three NHS trusts formed in Newcastle was to increase the salaries of the top managers by substantial and secret amounts? Does he recognise that the fourth trust application, launched today in Newcastle, for the Royal Victoria infirmary involved not only an important community hospital but a major centre of medical and dental education in England and a major centre of children's health services in England? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that part of the business plan that refers to the future of medical and dental education and its financing and that part of the application that concerns children's health will be made known to the people of Newcastle?
Mr. Waldegrave: Those vital services will prosper better under the clearer and more accountable management of a trust than they ever did under the previous system. That will be true of all services in the hon. Gentleman's city, as it is of services in other cities.
Mr. Richard Tracey: In the face of the sustained political attack on health trusts by the Labour party, there is great confidence in the management and structure of the Kingston health trust. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the television interview yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, the public must appreciate that what the Labour party says about health is just words and more words and provides nothing tangible?
Mr. Waldegrave: Although I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's first point, the position is worse, in that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has given a range of spending pledges—from minimum wages to no-fault compensation—which would cost hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of pounds. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition shot all those pledges out of the air. Therefore, those spending pledges will have to be financed out of patient care, because there is no other way to finance them.
Mr. John Battle: Is the Secretary of State aware of the announcement about Leeds general infirmary that there will be £5 million cuts this year and £10 million
32
cuts in the medium term? Is he aware also that it was made plain in the bid document that, if the budget did not balance, there would be reductions in services, staff or wages? What advice did the auditors' report give the right hon. Gentleman, and which of those actions did he sanction? Will he publish that report? Will the trusts be publicly accountable for their budgets before we are any further into this financial year?
Mr. Waldegrave: There was no auditors' report. The hon. Gentleman knows that in his hospital, as in others, there have been lurches from crisis to crisis. Is it not better that hospitals should manage their affairs to match income with expenditure so that there are no crisis cuts? Once again, I say to the hon. Gentleman that the district is perfectly satisfied that it can purchase on behalf of its people the comprehensive health care that is needed in his city.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I warmly support my right hon. Friend's policy. Will he take time, in the cause of accuracy and truth, to remind the BBC that, when describing hospital trusts, it should be aware that they are not hospitals that have opted out of the national health service?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. It is worth reaffirming the position, particularly as leaflets still being circulated in the Labour party's name refer to hospitals opting out of the NHS. That is not true, and the Labour party knows it. I am sorry if the BBC slipped into using that language; it was an uncharacteristic mistake.
Mr. Keith Bradley: One hospital that should not be affected by any changes in patterns of health care referral is the famous Christie hospital trust, in my constituency, which is a centre of national and regional excellence. Will the Secretary of State allay public anxiety which was raised by the fact that before the trust was even formed the hospital could not afford drugs essential for cancer care? Will he confirm that the trust will not be one of those with financial problems, that there will be no job losses, and that in future all patients can be referred to the hospital and will receive all the health care prescribed by consultants so that the public who require such excellence of cancer health care may be assured about the future?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the future of Christie hospital is assured and he also knows—or he should know—that the story of the drugs to which he referred was a little more complicated than he thought when he launched into it.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that questions to the Secretary of State may be tabled tomorrow for answer in a fortnight. Furthermore, I shall keep carefully in mind those hon. Members who have not been called today in order to give them precedence when we return to this issue.

Orders of the Day

  School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members who want to raise points of order do not wish to complain because they were not called on the private notice question.
  I have an obligation to protect the business of the House, and I shall have to put a 10-minute limit on speeches.
  Mr. John Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You referred at the outset to the importance of the subject when you said that you would allow questions to run until 4.15 pm. May I gently draw it to your attention that you did not call one hon. Member from one of the most impoverished regions in England—Merseyside? Do you think that that was fair?
  Mr. Speaker: I was not aware that any hospital trusts were closing on Merseyside. If I am wrong, I am sorry, but I was not aware of it. I have called all those hon. Members who I thought had a direct interest, and I regret if I missed the hon. Gentleman, but I shall bear him in mind in the future.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any intimation from the Home Secretary that he intends to make a statement banning one of the world's most odious men—General Pinochet—from visiting this country to take part in an arms exhibition? You must be aware that thousands of people have sought refuge in this country from his regime of terror who lost relatives in the secret prisons and torture chambers under his fascist regime.
  Mr. Speaker: I have had no such intimation, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I am sure that it will have been heard by those responsible.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Further to the point of order made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans). Were you not aware, Mr. Speaker, that not only do my hon. Friend and I have in our constituencies the most underfunded hospital trusts, but that our mental hospital and its grounds were sold while the patients were still in it? It is not fair if you do not recognise that Merseyside—and especially St. Helens—has the biggest problems.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sure that many hospitals have problems, especially the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, he must find other ways to raise the issue.
  Mr. George Foulkes: I fully understand that you did not call me, Mr. Speaker, because it was the English Health Secretary who was making a statement. In Scotland, we are a year behind. Proposals have just been introduced in Ayrshire, against the wishes of all the consultants, by an unelected
  34
  group of people. In Scotland we want to ensure that we learn from the English disasters as England did not learn from the Scottish poll tax disaster. If I apply for an Adjournment debate, will you consider my application sympathetically?
  Mr. Speaker: I always look sympathetically at the hon. Gentleman's requests, but not at bogus points of order.
  Many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, and I shall put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 o'clock and 8 o'clock. I hope that hon. Members who are called before 6 o'clock will take that into account to enable me possibly to relax that limit. I should like to call all hon. Members who are anxious to participate.
  I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.19 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I look forward to producing before the House many proposals on the education service, but it is extremely unlikely that I shall introduce at any stage a more significant step than the proposal that we are discussing today. We are addressing the most vital thing of all in considering the quality of our education service. The quality of the education that we give young people in our schools depends above all on the quality of the teaching profession that provides it.
  In the House, we can debate at great length the problems of the curriculum, of testing, and of buildings and equipment in schools. We can debate the qualifications they give and many other subjects. In the end, the real determinant of a good education system is that the teaching should be carried out by people who are good, dedicated and of the right intellectual quality, and who have the right commitment to the job. In an education service like our own state education service, the teaching staff need to be organised and respected as a profession. We all hope to see a teaching profession that cares for and enhances the professional values that it has sought to defend over the years.
  I also realise that, to get the high-quality, well motivated and professional group of teachers, that we require, teachers need a fair level of remuneration to reward ability and good performance. They also need a worthwhile career structure to be developed for them, so that they can see a progression to the top of the profession in line with their achievements as their career goes on.
  With the establishment of a review body to determine the pay and conditions of teachers, the Bill will pave the way for that aim, and it opens the period in which we shall see enhanced professionalism being encouraged among our teachers.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I may be anticipating my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks, but will the pay review body anticipate better rewards for heads and deputies who have such major responsibilities in schools? Above all, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind as the Bill goes through the House, and in subsequent efforts, the fact that the career teacher in the classroom is the person who should be better rewarded

  35
  commensurately than anyone else, and that he should be kept in the classroom and not constantly promoted out of it?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend touches on some extremely important points. I trust that, given its remit for pay, terms and conditions, the new review body will address itself not only to the overall level of remuneration of teachers but to the serious question of responsibility which my hon. Friend has raised. I hope that it will consider the question of proper differentials for headmasters and deputy heads, and for those who get to the top of the profession.
  I agree strongly with my hon. Friend that, when one considers the profession at present, one realises that it is the really successful classroom teacher, whose performance in front of the class is good, who has the best claim of all in remuneration and reward. I agree that, in the teaching profession, as in others, it is quite important that we cater for those who know that their personal talents lie above all in teaching in front of a class and who know that that is the way in which they would prefer to pursue their career to the day of their retirement.
  It cannot be right in teaching, any more than it is in nursing, in medicine or in a number of other professions, that to get to the top of the profession, one has to give up the vocation that has attracted one to the profession, and that one has to go into the realms of management. An excellent classroom teacher may not have the same abilities for that and may get considerably less satisfaction from it.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will move on a little.
  The review body will have to address the matters to which I have referred to get the right answers on pay, terms and conditions. As I have made clear, it is equally important that it should produce an atmosphere in determining those matters which will enhance the professionalism of teaching.
  In aid of that argument, I point to our experience with the other review bodies. They have produced a fair level of remuneration for the professions they cover, and they have also reinforced the professionalism of those professions. We have well established review bodies for doctors and dentists. Moreover, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, he established a new review body for nurses and midwives, which has transformed the atmosphere in which pay and conditions are determined—as compared with that which prevailed under the Whitley system—and enhanced professionalism. We may not yet have reached the levels of remuneration which all nurses would wish, but their pay and conditions have certainly been transformed.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield may have noted a public comment last week by the current general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, Miss Christine Hancock, who is a formidable advocate of the interests of nurses within the health service—sometimes against the Government—who commended the notion of
  36
  a review body to her fellow professionals in the teaching profession, saying that, in her opinion, the system had transformed the position of nurses.
  The Royal College of Nursing shares with the Professional Association of Teachers a commitment not to take industrial action and a desire for matters to be settled in a professional way, away from the world of industrial action. I believe that many teachers share the view of many nurses that that is the right direction in which to go.
  Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State realise that the way things have turned out has caused a great deal of confusion not merely among Conservative and Labour Members but in his own mind? The Government promised to give negotiating rights back to teachers. The matter was taken up by the International Labour Organisation of the United Nations, and finally agreed. The first School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill went through Committee and everyone awaited its implementation. Why did the Secretary of State suddenly change his mind at that stage? Does it not show a degree of chaos among the Government that they can go so far and then change their mind just like that?
  Mr. Clarke: There is great clarity of purpose among Conservative Members. As I shall seek to show in a moment, the confusion continues to lie with the Labour party. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) asks a fair question, although his recollection of recent events seems to be at fault. It almost sounded as though he had welcomed the original Bill, but I do not believe he did. Complaints were made to the ILO—if not with the hon. Gentleman's support, certainly with that of one of the unions with which he is closely associated—claiming that the Bill that the Government have now withdrawn——
  Mr. Flannery: Oh.
  Mr. Clarke: Clearly, with hindsight, the hon. Gentleman begins to find qualities in it. I hope that he will be persuaded, however, that the present Bill represents an improvement.
  In July last year, we brought forward proposals for the new machinery contained in the Bill that completed its Committee stage. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, then Secretary of State for Education and Science, introduced those proposals after the Government had anxiously considered what we should do next, following the long period after 1987 when' we had failed to reach agreement with the teaching profession on how to move away from the interim advisory committee and sort out teachers' pay, terms and conditions. At that time, my right hon. Friend was quite attracted by the idea of a review body, as were quite a large number of members of the Government but the concept was heartily opposed by many teachers, and there was still more than a suggestion of industrial militancy in the air.
  As we proceeded, it became clear that circumstances had changed significantly. I remind the hon. Member for Hillsborough and others that, while we were preparing for a return to a system of negotiations with a Government override, the six trade unions concerned were finding it impossible to agree on the allocation of seats on the employees' side of the committee. That was an extremely bad omen when it came to looking forward to the smooth progress of negotiations. Two of the trade unions were in

  37
  conflict with the other four about the status of the sub-committee that was to be established for head teachers and deputies Conservative Members on the Standing Committee were divided on that subject, and the trade unions certainly were.
  In my opinion, it became ever clearer that large numbers of members of the teaching profession did not relish going back to collective bargaining—certainly if it were to be accompanied by industrial action of a kind which, in my opinion, a minority of the members of one large trade union still hanker after. This was underlined at the teachers' Easter conferences. A faction of the National Union of Teachers, who had got hold of the hall in whatever seaside town they were ensconced, passed all kinds of wild motions. These were disowned as much as possible by their own executive, as it knew that the teaching profession outside did not want this kind of return to industrial action.
  The situation today is different from that which prevailed last July. Now, five of the six teaching trade unions support the notion of a review body. Some have been campaigning for it. Indeed, I believe that the opposition within the NUT is more muted than some of its militants would wish.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The information that the Secretary of State has just given the House is simply untrue. The fact is that he received from the teachers' organisations a letter telling him the number of seats that each union had agreed should represent teachers on the negotiating body. I received a copy of that letter. It is not true to say that teachers could not agree among themselves.
  Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly search for that letter. My hon. Friend the Minister of State tells me that we certainly had not reached that stage by the end of the Committee's deliberations. Certainly, the contents of the letter were not communicated to me personally. My understanding is that teachers had not so agreed.
  There were all the warning signs of the dangers of going back to the difficulties of Burnham. Members of this House have sat on Burnham committees—some representing the employers, and some the employees. Those who remember Burnham may recall that on only three occasions in 20 years did that machinery result in a negotiated agreement between employees and employers. I believe that the preparations for the new negotiating process had begun to show all the warning signs of its being unlikely to produce easy agreement on either structure or progress, and of its being inferior, as a means of going about the settlement of teachers' pay, to the review body process that I now advocate.
  Mr. Jack Straw: I must press the Secretary of State on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). I see that the answer is coming straight from the officials' Box. I shall continue while the Secretary of State attempts to read the official's writing. Was the Secretary of State accurate when, a moment ago, he claimed that the trade unions had been unable to agree about composition? On this point, there is complete disagreement between the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), like me, needs a little reminding of
  38
  the exact situation. The Professional Association of Teachers and the Secondary Heads Association were in disagreement with the other unions on the number of seats that each union should have on the negotiating committee. In addition, the Secondary Heads Association was in disagreement with the others on the number of votes that each union should have. All they had done was reach agreement in principle on counting relevant numbers of members as part of the negotiations. I do not think that there is agreement about the number of relevant members that each of them claims. Those who guard my correspondence continue to share my view that two unions still disagreed with the other four on the number of seats on the bargaining council, and one union disagreed with the others on the number of votes. I have already reminded the House of the history of Burnham. We were in serious danger of going back down that road.
  I have described all the circumstances that have changed since the summer of last year. For some time now, the Government have been contemplating this change. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on taking office and previously, underlined his personal commitment to tackling the problem of the morale of teachers—raising the self-esteem of the profession—and addressing questions of professional status. The Prime Minister's commitment underlines the change between the proposals that were before the House and the review body to which we are now committed.
  Mr. Straw: A report appeared in The Times Educational Supplement on Friday—as far as I am aware, no disclaimer has been issued by the Department—that, in the course of an interview, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that, when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had opposed a pay review body. Is that correct?
  Mr. Clarke: I was not involved in the discussions with the Treasury last summer, so the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I have no idea. I know that, in discussions to which I was party, during the summer of 1990, the Government agreed to put forward the proposals that took the form of the Bill. As I have recounted, matters moved on. My right hon. Friend who is now the Prime Minister was firmly of the intent to raise the status of the profession and to consider again remuneration within it. That was the position at the end of last year. The Government have decided to introduce the Bill and to recommend a review body, for the reasons that I have set out.
  As we are clearly set on that course, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has the opportunity to clarify the Labour party's reaction and its preference. I have been comparing the so-called reasoned amendment with the hon. Gentleman's first response on behalf of the Labour party when I made my announcement on 17 April. Most of those who are in the Chamber will remember his outrage and indignation when he leapt to his feet in response to my statement. He sought passionately to defend teachers' right to strike. He opposed root and branch the proposals that have now become the Bill, because he claimed that they went behind the principles of collective bargaining and the right to industrial action. He thought that important principles were being undermined, to the disadvantage of teachers.

  39
  The hon. Gentleman's reaction should not have surprised me as much as it did. The Labour party's attitude towards the public services has been dominated by its approach to industrial action. It is my recollection that, for as long as I have been a Member of this place, the Labour party has always supported every strike or every example of industrial action that has been taken by any group of public service workers against a Conservative Government. When the Labour party is in opposition, it supports each and every strike by teachers, hospital workers or whoever. When the party is in government, however, it gives in to them—sometimes with good grace and sometimes with bad, sometimes quickly and sometimes after a winter of discontent, but in the end, they always give in to them.
  The Labour party's approach to these matters is best epitomised by the fact that the Chamber usually fills when there is a threat in the air of "good" industrial action by the public service. The Chamber was more crowded than I have seen it for many a long year for exchanges on the health service because the National Union of Public Employees was worried about redundancies at overmanned hospitals in both London and Bradford. No question of patient health ever brings Labour Members to the Chamber in such numbers.
  As the Labour party is usually committed to the right to strike, it seems that the reasoned amendment moves away a little from that approach, although not too far. The reasoned amendment tries slightly to alter the tone; it does not refer to the right to strike. I hope that that means that the Opposition accept that industrial action against pupils is something to which groups of teachers should never have recourse. I trust that that will be underlined with clarity today.
  The Government are proceeding with the appointment of a review body on the basis that it will bring an end to industrial action in our classrooms. If industrial action were to be taken, or to be threatened, on the pay or terms of conditions of teachers within the remit of the review body, there would be no commencement order under the Bill, and the interim advisory committee would have to continue in existence for some time, and for some considerable time more, until common sense prevailed.
  The reasoned amendment goes to other matters. Perhaps I pay the amendment a bit of a compliment by describing it as reasoned. I am not sure whether its contents contain much rhyme or reason when they are related to the principal subject matter of the Bill. On 17 April, I asked the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and his colleague the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) whether the Labour party was in favour of or against establishing a pay review body for teachers. That may have been a difficult question on 17 April, but it should now be capable of an answer. There is no such answer in the reasoned amendment. That minor detail of the Bill is not referred to by the Opposition.
  The reasoned amendment criticises the Government for
  "failing to meet its own deadline to restore pay settlement machinery by 1990".
  Does the Labour party remain in favour of restoring collective bargaining? Is the Labour party lined up against five out of six of the teaching unions and also against the silent majority of the NUT in wanting to return to Burnham and not have a review body? Anything else that
  40
  the hon. Member for Blackburn may say on this subject will be beside the point if he attempts once again to discuss the matter without telling us whether Labour favours a review body.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I completely support the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and his comments about strikes. However, does he agree that pay review bodies are a better and more important defence for groups which typically do not have political clout and do not go on strike? In a recent written answer to me, it was revealed that university teachers have not received a real pay increase for more than 20 years. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is possible and certainly desirable to set up a similar pay review body for university staff as well?
  Mr. Clarke: I will probably have an opportunity on another occasion to debate with my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) whether university lecturers have received a real pay rise in the past 20 years. Their real-terms pay is now considerably higher than it was when this Government came to office.
  As a former university teacher, my hon. Friend asks his question at a singularly inapposite time. The Association of University Teachers is at the moment balloting its members on whether they should take industrial action in support of their pay claim, and no doubt the Labour party would egg them on. However, my hon. Friend is right: those who take such industrial action tend to be less successful than those who have a review body.
  The Government have established review bodies for only a comparatively small and discrete number of professions affecting a large number of people because of the particular role of those professions in delivering a particular service. There are other non-striking professional groups in the health service and others in local government, central Government and elsewhere. The Government have identified doctors with dentists and nurses with midwives and also parts of the judiciary and the armed forces, and we have resolutely said that review bodies should not automatically extend beyond those groups.
  The teaching profession is at the heart of providing a service intended to raise educational standards of people of statutory age. I am certain that many other groups will envy the review body status that we are giving schoolteachers. Many other groups would prefer to have their pay settled in that way. I regret to say that the reply to most of them will be that the Government cannot contemplate their claims. It is only because of the particular status of school teaching and the Government's particular desire to enhance the status of schoolteachers vis-a-vis the general population that we are prepared to establish a review body for that group and not to contemplate applications to extend the principle to any other group.
  The AUT has strayed off side, at least with regard to this Government if not with regard to the Opposition, by balloting on strike action. Perhaps by contemplating strike action, the union believes that it will cause the Labour party to look favourably upon it.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has referred to the critical importance of schoolteachers in delivering

  41
  skills and the basic education required in a modern economy. However, I should have thought that those in higher education, particularly those in universities, play just as important a role in terms of a modern economy. As the central point for the support of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers for my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals was that the
  "very question of industrial action would recede into the mists of history"
  does my right hon. and learned Friend not realise that there is an unfortunate trend in higher education in that we are constantly talking about industrial action? Would not a review body for higher education ensure that industrial action would recede into the mists of history? My right hon. and learned Friend should ask the Opposition whether they favour review bodies for higher education. One suspects that they do.
  Mr. Clarke: The Labour party's view on such matters usually depends on what the trade unions recommend. The Opposition become a little baffled when five trade unions out of six are prepared to accept a no industrial action agreement, but that normally does not arise and, so far as I am aware, it does not arise with regard to the AUT.
  For some years now, the Government have resisted applications for review bodies from many different groups. Many people would advocate giving up collective bargaining and industrial action if they could have review body status. By its very nature, review body status must be selective. It would not be possible to finance and manage public services if the vast majority of public servants had their status determined by review bodies. I believe that two thirds of the civil service would happily settle tomorrow for review body status governing their pay.
  The professions that have been granted review body status including doctors and dentists by a previous Government, nurses and midwives by this Government and the armed forces——
  Mr. Straw: What about Members of Parliament?
  Mr. Clarke: We had a Members' review body, but it was never followed and we have now abandoned it. Hon. Members are not held in such high regard by the public or even by themselves, it would seem, judging by voting patterns on Members' salaries. Only a small and select group of professions have their pay determined by review bodies and it is my duty to resist any applications to extend it.
  What is the Labour party's view about a review body? That is the only unanswered question today. The public are in favour of the Government's recommendation, as are the vast majority of teachers. There is no serious question mark left over the proposal except why on earth the Opposition cannot bring themselves to support it without hesitation or conditions.
  Mr. Steinberg: The Secretary of State has made much play of no industrial action. Is the pay review body to be imposed or granted on the condition that there will be no industrial action? Will that be written into the legislation? I can see no reference to that in the Bill, and if it is not written into the Bill, how is he going to enforce it?
  Mr. Clarke: The intention to set up a review body is on condition that there is no industrial action with regard to matters within the remit of the review body. The condition
  42
  is not in the Bill and I am not going to be bogged down in the internal procedures of trade unions by asking them to send me letters to confirm such conditions. The best way to judge matters is by their actions.
  When the Bill has received its Second Reading, passed through its parliamentary stages and received Royal Assent, we will hear no more about industrial action from any section of the teaching profession. We will have rendered it extinct. We are proceeding on condition of no industrial action, and obviously, circumstances would change so far as the Government are concerned if industrial action was taken or threatened again.
  We are following a perfectly good precedent. I worked with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield when he established the review body for nurses and midwives. We had exactly the same discussions. We would never have convinced the Confederation of Health Service Employees or the National Union of Public Employees to sign a no-strike agreement. They would have been drummed out of the brownies by the Labour movement if they had signed one, and they would have been expelled from the Trades Union Congress and disowned at Labour party conferences.
  My right hon. Friend, supported by myself and the Government, set up a review body and declared it to be on the basis that there was to be no industrial action. We have not heard a word from any section of the nursing profession about industrial action from that day to this. The Royal College of Nursing has actually grown in strength, because the basis on which that profession proceeds is that industrial action is out of the question for nurses who deal with patients.
  That, in my opinion, is the atmosphere inside the teaching profession as well. Five unions, as it happens, will tell us—and will even sign it—that they will not take industrial action again. The sixth, in practice, I guarantee will follow that pattern exactly. However, if industrial action were ever taken or threatened, the review body basis for setting their pay would be off. How could we face the AUT? Its members might even be prepared to give up industrial action if they were offered review body status, which is much coveted by public sector employees.
  Clause 1 sets up the review body. One controversial point in it for the hon. Member for Blackburn is that it gives the Secretary of State power to give directions to the review body. That is described in his reasoned amendment as unacceptable. He will probably start drawing comparisons between this and the financial remit which used to be given to the interim advisory committee before it produced its four reports.
  It is not a power to set a financial remit of that kind. It actually sets out in statutory form the power of the Secretary of State to tell the review body to have regard to affordability and the need to recruit and retain people of adequate motivation. It exists in the Bill because that direction or request is given by the Government to the other review bodies. They are non-statutory review bodies, so the power to give that kind of guidance must be put in statute on the face of the Bill. It is on all fours with the other review bodies, and does not justify the Opposition's complaint in their reasoned amendment.
  Clause 1 also underlines the fact that appointment to the review body should be made by the Prime Minister, and that the review body will report to the Prime Minister. That is an important difference between the review body and the interim advisory committee. Great stress was

  43
  always placed upon that to me by representatives of the medical profession. Doctors and dentists insisted that, if they were to have that arrangement, it was to be an independent body set up by the head of the Government—the Prime Minister—that it should report to the Prime Minister, and that the Prime Minister should preside over the decision taken in the light of the review body's recommendations.
  Clause 2 covers the making of orders in the light of the review body's recommendations, and provides for some consultation with local authorities and with other employers and trade unions before making those orders. That gives me the opportunity of repeating what I have said before, as is always said in respect of other review bodies—that the Government will be committed to implementing the recommendations of the review body unless there are clear and compelling reasons to the contrary.
  Clause 3 has only one feature of interest to the House, which is that it allows grant-maintained schools not to be bound by the orders that follow the review body recommendation if they so wish. I very much doubt whether many grant-maintained schools will choose to settle their own pay and conditions in a hurry. My advice to them would be to go cautiously. They are small units, and they work within the same financial envelope as other schools. I do not expect that many grant-maintained schools will set themselves up as totally autonomous negotiating bodies, working out wholly separate levels of pay for their staff.
  However, they would be well advised, as time goes on, after consultation with their own teachers, to consider the prospects of making variations, opting for additional payments for particular local patterns of work, perhaps additional payments for longer school hours of the kind that city technology colleges work, perhaps some payments for extra-curricular activities that are beyond those that we normally expect a teacher to engage in, and so on. I advise grant-maintained schools with some care to contemplate using as a management tool, in the best sense of those words, the provision in clause 3 which would enable them to opt out, and therefore to vary the terms and conditions of their staff.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: On opting out, in view of the caution that the Secretary of State has expressed and the obvious impact that it may have elsewhere, why has he given himself no discretion to consider whether such a proposal is satisfactory? When a proposal is made to him, under the terms of the Bill he is compelled to accept it, even if he feels that there are strong reasons why it should be referred back.
  Mr. Clarke: I do not think that that is necessary. We have taken on board the point that was strongly urged on my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Standing Committee. This Bill, unlike the former one, gives grant-maintained schools the ability to opt out of national arrangements if they wish, but it stipulates that they should do so only after consultation with their own staff—their own teachers. That is some caution against a school suddenly doing something that is in nobody's interests in the locality concerned.
  44
  The Bill finally makes provision that it will come into force by order. I have already made it clear that that commencement order would not be made if threats of industrial action are made by those who would otherwise be covered by the arrangements.
  I commend the Bill to the House. Of course, it leaves in the minds of most schoolteachers in particular, I should imagine, one large unanswered question: exactly what levels of pay and remuneration for the teaching profession will emerge as a result of this new machinery, which we hope to have in place in time to determine the settlement for April of next year? Of course we have no means of knowing. It is the essence of this machinery that we are setting up an independent body that will give advice to the Government in the light of all the evidence that it gets.
  Undoubtedly, my duty on behalf of the Government will be to preside over the giving of evidence to the review body, which will stress the advances that have been made by teachers in recent years, stress the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, talk about the need to concentrate principally on the need to recruit and retain people of the right ability, and so on. Employers and trade unions may submit evidence that has a strikingly different emphasis on what should determine pay for next year and beyond. At the end of that process, the review body will determine matters objectively.
  I can only point to the history of what has happened to review body groups compared with other public sector workers in recent years. Some quite good tables have been produced. I use ones by the Treasury, but the BBC commissioned some that came to the same conclusion recently, showing what has happened to various groups and public sector workers over the 10 years of this Government's existence compared with the economy as a whole.
  Two groups of public servants stand out above any others in terms of increases in their earnings. They are, first, nurses and midwives and, secondly, doctors and dentists. When one says that, people tend to say, "You have forgotten the police force. Surely the police force has had a big percentage increase in its earnings." It is fourth in the table. Doctors and nurses are well ahead.
  The missing third are schoolteachers, who have not done as badly over the past 10 years as many of them or as some of the public sometimes believe. The rest of the public service comes nowhere—going down the table below. I believe that that reflects the respect that university teachers—[Interruption.] I am glad to say that university teachers do not appear on my copious list of examples.
  In addition to having done better than other groups, the review bodies have one other marked success to chalk up when one considers how those professions have been compared since they have had review bodies, compared with the past and other groups. The review body system has tended to ensure a steady progression in the pay of the professions. The history of the pay of nurses, doctors, teachers and many others shows a pattern of progression which shows that, after something of a hiccup of a dramatic increase—a Halsbury, a Clegg, or something of that kind—a decline takes place while tensions build, and then there is another big hiccup when another big increase comes along.
  One of the advantages of a review body is that it tends to produce a smoother line because, year in and year out, the same review body takes an independent look at the right level of settlement. I happily submit the Government

  45
  to that. We need an independent body for schoolteachers which will tell us what the levels of pay need to be in the light of affordability and the need to recruit arid retain good people.
  We shall implement the recommendations unless there are clear and compelling reasons why we should not. By doing that, I believe that we shall forge a new relationship between the Government and our teachers. We shall be giving teachers the professional status that they deserve. They will be in the ranks of genuine professionals and treated like other professionals as far as remuneration and terms and conditions are concerned. They will be rewarded for the professional dedication they show towards their pupils.
  A society that treats the occupation of teaching children with that kind of respect is a society that shows that it is treating the educational standards of its children with the same proper respect. That is the attitude towards educational standards and the teaching profession which the Prime Minister proposes that his Government should take and which the Government are determined to take in the interests of achieving the education service that we all want. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5 Pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which gives unacceptable powers to the Secretary of State to issue directions to the Pay Review Body, undermining its independence of judgement; which contains no proposals to raise teachers' professionalism by the establishment of a General Teachers' Council; which makes clear that Her Majesty's Government has broken faith with the profession by failing to meet its own deadline to restore pay settlement machinery by 1990 and has broken faith with honourable and Right honourable Members by giving explanations as to the reasons for the delay in securing a Report stage of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill which were disingenous; and because the policies of Her Majesty's Government have led to a serious decline in the morale, motivation, recruitment and retention of teachers, and in their relative pay.
  I begin with a quotation:
  "There is a crisis of confidence amongst teachers of such growing magnitude that it now threatens the entire spectrum of the Government's educational reforms.
  So marked is the decline of status, and self-esteem of the teaching profession, that unless the Conservative Government address the root causes of this problem:
  The educational system as a whole will face a prolonged period of steady deterioration. The Government will, ultimately, and sooner rather than later, be forced to compromise on the implementation of its recent reforms … From all sides the Conservative Government is being assailed and challenged on its education reforms and for failing the Nation's children, parents and teachers."
  That quotation comes from the Carlton Club paper, which is marked "strictly private and confidential"—I am not surprised about that—and which is headed "Education in the 1990s—A Current Assessment—Requirements for the Manifesto". It is based upon what is described as an "investigative seminar" which was called by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. (Sir N. Fowler) and attended by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and by the Secretary of State's special adviser. The paper contains admission after admission by leading Conservative education policy makers about the parlous state of our education service. It provides a much more accurate backdrop for today's debate than the claims that were made earlier in the debate by the Secretary of State.
  46
  There is certainly a deep crisis of confidence among teachers. The first question to ask is why there is such a crisis. It is widely agreed that in no other period—certainly not in this century—has the morale and self-esteem of the teaching profession, and its standing in the eyes of the public, been lower. Part of the explanation for that crisis of confidence is simple and relates to pay. As last April's report of the Select Committee on Education and Science showed, there has been no real-terms increase in teachers' pay since 1987. More importantly, teachers' pay relative to that of other non-manual workers has been declining consistently since 1974, with the hiccups to which the Secretary of State referred, and is still falling further and further behind. As the Secretary of State acknowledged, those differences are particularly marked for those whose career ambition is to teach rather than to administer. I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State now regards as his overwhelming priority the proper rewarding of those who make a career out of teaching, not out of administration.
  The Secretary of State commented on my remarks about the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions following his statement on 17 April, and said that I had commended its work. I have commended the work of the IAC which, among other things, has made some pertinent remarks about teachers' morale. However, one of the truths about the IAC is that, because of the constraints on its terms of reference, and despite its best judgments, it has not been able to secure a single percentage increase in teachers' real pay.
  Although the decline in teachers' relative pay is important in explaining the decline in morale, it has served to reinforce—and has been reinforced by—two other things. The first is the long-standing anti-intellectual, anti-education culture that has been so marked in England, but not in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, for a century or more. I have always found Bernard Shaw's jibe, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach" depressing not only because he said it, but because it has had such resonance across society and down the generations.
  No blame directly attaches to the Government for that anti-intellectual and anti-education culture in our society, but blame does attach to them for the fact that, over the past 12 years, they have made the climate in which teachers have to work so much more difficult. They have constantly demeaned and diminished the value of teachers and the value placed on them by society. There are plenty of illustrations of that, such as the national curriculum.
  There was no consultation in 1987 with the people who would have to put the national curriculum into practice. A so-called "consultative document" was issued three months after the general election. Comments were invited over a short period, but no notice was taken of what was said by the teachers' organisations or anybody else—not about whether the national curriculum was desirable, but simply about whether it would work. The consequence has been that it does not work and that, almost from the day when it was formally established, it has had to be unpicked. That lack of consultation led to what Prince Charles referred to last week as "innovation fatigue" as a result of half-baked measures being introduced and then retreated from.
  There has been a similar saga on testing. Again, there has not been any proper consultation—not about whether there should be testing, but about how it should be operated effectively. The ludicrously complicated standard

  47
  assessment tasks were piloted last year. Because proper note was not taken of the feelings of the profession on whether that weight of SATs would serve any purpose, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State now describe what was supposed to be the introduction of national testing as "national pilots". Have the Secretary of State and his colleagues ever stopped to think about how those constant changes—that "innovation fatigue"—have affected teachers' morale and their view of how they are regarded by Ministers?
  Ministers have repeatedly insinuated that teachers cannot be trusted. I shall discuss the changes that have been made in the history and geography national curriculum orders later, but the Secretary of State must bear in mind that by suddenly and impetuously forcing on the profession changes for which no ground had been laid, he has challenged the professionalism and integrity of the history and geography teachers in our secondary schools. That is not only my view; it is the view of those teachers who feel bitter about the way in which they have been treated.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hesitated to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's somewhat wild historical theories earlier, but I have been listening with amazement to his account of how the national curriculum and testing have been introduced without any consultation. He knows that the whole process is heavily laden with consultation. For the curriculum orders, for example, a working party is first set up to produce an interim report. That is published and excites a lot of comment. In the light of those comments, the working party then produces a final report, which is then passed to the National Curriculum Council, which consults on it before recommending draft orders to me. I produce the draft orders and we then consult upon them. In the light of that consultation, we make final orders, and those are what we are debating tonight.
  Does the hon. Gentleman describe that as a process of non-consultation, which holds the teaching profession in contempt? There was an enormous amount of consultation, at the end of which the hon. Gentleman winds up arguing that, as Secretary of State, I should not make any changes. If he adopted his own procedures, he would find himself rubber-stamping an endless process of consultation built into the arrangements.
  Mr. Straw: If the Secretary of State had listened carefully to what I was saying, he would know that I was referring to the way in which the national curriculum was constructed in the first place. He was not a Minister in the Department of Education and Science at the time, and neither were any of his colleagues. A consultative document was issued a month after the general election in July 1987, with a deadline of a few weeks for comments. Despite the fact that all the professional organisations submitted comments and said, for example, that key stage 4 would not work as the previous Secretary of State had planned, their comments were ignored.
  All the efforts that we and the organisations made to try to get some sense into Ministers and to make them realise that the curriculum was being overloaded for 14-year-olds, were simply ignored. The integrity of the teaching profession was challenged not only by the history and geography orders that we shall debate later but by the way
  48
  in which they were introduced. The Secretary of State gave the profession no notice of those changes, thereby suggesting that he lacked confidence in the profession.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is the reason that the hon. Gentleman has totally failed to address himself to the Bill that he has been totally deserted by his erstwhile troops? Is he aware of the letter from Nigel de Gruchy of the National Association of Schoolmasters/ Union of Women Teachers, in which he expresses strong support for today's proposals:
  "But hopefully with a fairer system than ever pertained in the past for determining teachers' pay and conditions, the profession will be left free to get on with the all-important job of teaching in the classroom and raising standards to the level everyone appears to want"—
  with the sole exception of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Straw: I am well aware of that letter, and I shall deal with the attitude of teachers in a moment. I was speaking directly to the reasoned amendment that Mr. Speaker has been pleased to call, and I was saying why the Conservative party is so windy about the professionalism and morale of teachers, and why it has had to devote paragraph after paragraph in its draft manifesto scraping around for measures that might dig it out of the hole into which it has got its reputation on education.
  One reason was the challenge to teachers' professionalism and the second is that teachers have a strong sense that Ministers regard the education service as one for other people's children and not for their own. This has everything to do with teachers' professionalism and their morale, because the Government have been leading the profession, or seeking to lead the education system for the past 12 years and, as the Carlton Club accepts, they have failed to do so.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) wrote a good pamphlet which was published by the Tory Reform Group in December, called "The Blocked Society". He said of Ministers and hon. Members, among others, in relation to the state education service:
  "They are neither in it nor of it. They patronise it in words … but not by attendance."
  That is the truth.
  Mr. George Walden rose——
  Mr. Straw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not realise quite what a truth he was telling when he said of the Secretary of State that he patronised the state education service in words but not by attendance. I wonder whether the Secretary of State realises how damaging it is to his authority that, in six months as Secretary of State, he has spent less than one day visiting state schools. He may groan but, given his lack of a background in the state education service, as he is now the leader of state schools does he not think that it would have been a good idea to visit a few schools before pontificating about them?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I attended one for my education, unlike the hon. Gentleman, who attended a minor public school. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 14 minutes. Is he in favour of a review body for teachers? He does not seem to wish to move towards that question.
  Mr. Straw: I am coming to that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to wait his turn. I am making my speech in my own way.
  Mr. Walden: I am grateful for the additional publicity that the hon. Gentleman has given to my pamphlet, but, no doubt inadvertently, he has quoted me completely out of context. When I said:
  "They patronise it in words … but not by attendance",
  I was not referring to Ministers, although in another part of the pamphlet I pointed out that Ministers make the choice of sending their children to private schools, as I do. The reason that I do so is so that my children will not be subjected to the egalitarian philosophy of teaching which has flooded the profession and for which the Opposition are responsible. I entirely understand the choice of any of my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet who behave in the same way. I got the impression that the hon. Gentleman was trying to drive a wedge between myself and the Front Bench. Therefore, I should like to say that I support my right hon. and learned Friend's measure today 100 per cent. It is courageous, energetic and imaginative, and exactly the sort of thing that I would expect from an imaginative and energetic Secretary of State.
  Mr. Straw: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman feels the need to retrieve his position. He opened the paragraph by saying:
  "This Conservative Government does its best for the children of others",
  Then he goes on to say:
  "They are neither in it, nor of it".
  In another paragraph, which will be in lots of Labour party pamphlets, it says:
  "It used to be a cheap parliamentary jibe for Labour to ask why it was that so few Tory Ministers used the state schools. There was a time when there were answers, but there are no answers now, because the question has been subtly adjusted: when the Government claim that the state sector has changed out of all recognition as a result of their policies, why do Government ministers still steer clear of it? The only answer now is the truth, and the truth is scarcely sayable by any Government Minister."
  That may be so, but the truth will certainly be "sayable" by us.
  Mr. Clarke: The state system ought to attract many of those people who send their children to independent schools. What would make the state system more attractive, and what we ought to be agreeing on, would be if the enhanced professional status of teachers reduced the risk of strike action in state classrooms. That is why the hon. Gentleman should soon move on to say whether he is in favour of a review body, or whether he thinks it is more important that strike action should be kept open as a possibility in classrooms.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is right about that, and I shall return to it in more detail. However, I can tell him something else that would make state education more attractive—if he did not come out with the sort of ludicrous statements that are quoted in Woman—[Laughter.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman may think that it is a joke, but he is quoted as saying:
  "I have never met anybody who did not wish to send their children into independent education if they could afford it."
  Mr. Clarke rose——
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment when I have finished the quote.
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is quoting the Daily Mirror, a newspaper that only a buffoon would quote. The Daily Mirror, which is read by morons, produced that
  50
  sentence. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the article in Woman, he will see the sentence that he quoted, followed by my saying that that is a sad state of affairs and that it is necessary to improve the state education system to stop that being the case.
  Mr. Straw: He is very windy. As far as I understood it, the Secretary of State is admitting that he said it. He may have said something else as well, but he said:
  "I have never met anybody who did not wish to send their children into independent education if they could afford it."
  I do not know whether he approved it, but I know that he said it, and it happens not to be my experience. As even The Northern Echo pointed out today, the Secretary of State must live in a closed world if he thinks that everyone who sends their children into state education does so only because they cannot get them into private schools. That is an utter calumny, and it is insulting to all the good aspects of the state education service.
  Of the attacks on the professionalism of teachers that I have described, perhaps the greatest of all was the unilateral withdrawal of teachers' negotiating rights in 1987. That deeply damaged teachers' self-esteem, as did the way in which Ministers have prevaricated over new negotiating machinery. On Second Reading of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill in December 1986, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—referring to the power to grant extensions under the Bill—sought to make much of the fact that
  "the advisory committee should be established on an interim basis only—until 1990"—[Official Report, 8 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 43.]
  Not three years, but at least five years will have elapsed before any pay negotiating machinery can be restored to replace that of the interim advisory committee. That represents a breach of faith with the profession, and one for which teachers have not lightly forgiven the Government or the Secretary of State.
  Restoring the morale of the teaching profession requires much more than new and agreed negotiating machinery, or even the sort of pre-election pay increase that no doubt the Secretary of State will have in mind if the election is delayed. It requires a Government with a real commitment to state education—a Government who honour and value teachers. That plainly does not apply to this Government. However, a proposal supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House would give a clear signal of the renewed importance attached to the teaching profession: the proposal for the establishment of a general teaching council. Such a council would hold a register of the profession, help to determine entry to and exit from the profession and give advice on a wide range of matters relating to supply and training.
  The cost of establishing the council would be relatively low. It could be done easily if the will were there. It was backed by the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, chaired by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State has not supported that proposal. To coin a phrase, he patronises the profession in words but not in deeds.
  The Secretary of State keeps asking me whether the Labour party supports review bodies. I was intrigued that, just after he had asked me to give a "yes or no" answer to that question, he was posed a similar question by his hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), and for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson).
  Mr. Ken Eastham: Friends?
  Mr. Straw: Technically, at least, they are hon. Friends.
  The Secretary of State was unable to give a "yes or no" answer, because the answer depends on the circumstances. Neither, as I recall, was he able to give a clear "yes or no" answer when he was being pressed to establish a review body for the ambulance personnel during their dispute 18 months ago.
  The Labour party has long supported the establishment of independent review bodies when that is agreed between the parties. I referred to that—I am surprised that the Secretary of State has not quoted me—during the debate on teachers' pay and conditions on 6 June 1990, when we were dealing with the pay and conditions order for last year. We are sceptical about the proposals in the Bill. They do not seem to be consistent with a fully independent review body. That view is gaining increasing currency among those who the Secretary of State claims support the Bill. For example, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association has said of the Government's proposals:
  "we must seriously, and perhaps fundamentally, question their adequacy".
  Dr. Hampson: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, because I scrutinised with care what he said on 17 April. He very carefully did not accept the principle of a review body for schoolteachers. Does he now accept the principle of a review body for schoolteachers and a review body for university teachers, whatever the specifics?
  Mr. Straw: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman read what I said on 17 April. If so, he ought to read it again. I have just explained that we are in favour of not only the principle but the practice of review bodies when they are agreed between the parties. We are sceptical about whether the proposals in the Bill will meet our requirement that the review body be independent.
  Mr. Hampson rose——
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will hold on, I will explain that for him.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have some sympathy with the criticisms in the reasoned amendment. However, he is not being clear. If the reasoned amendment were passed and the Bill withdrawn, would he ask the Government to come back to the House—or would he do so himself—with a differently worded measure introducing a review body; or would he regard the opposition of one of the teachers' trade unions as a block, no matter how the review body was set up?
  Mr. Straw: No. I would not regard that as a block for a moment. I would have sought proper consultation with the parties about the proposal. One of the truths about the proposal, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) knows, is that consultation on review bodies was ruled out in the Green Paper published by the Government in 1987. The idea of a review body simply was not on the table from that day until the Secretary of State made his announcement on 17 April 1991.
  As I said, AMMA, which supports the principle of a review body, has serious doubts about the practice of the proposed review body. I want to come to the part of the argument about the direction-making power in clause 1. As the Secretary of State made clear on 17 April, the usual procedure is for the Government first to establish its terms
  52
  of reference, then to give evidence to the review body, including evidence on the economic circumstances that the Government think should be taken into account. The Government have a reserve position; they will accept the recommendations of the review body unless there are clear and compelling grounds for not doing so.
  We accept that practice and would not depart from it. However, a question arises—why does the Secretary of State feel it necessary to include in the Bill powers of direction that do not exist for other review bodies, even in this non-statutory form? The wording of clause 1(4) is almost identical to the wording of section 2(4) of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987, which gave the Secretary of State substantial powers of direction to the interim advisory committee. Those powers were used, and were the principal reason why the interim advisory committee was unable to follow its own conclusions and recommend increases which it judged necessary to maintain recruitment, retention and morale.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: It said so.
  Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend said, it said so. In case the Secretary of State has missed it, section 2(4) of the 1987 Act says:
  "The Secretary of State may give directions to the Committee with respect to matters referred to them as to considerations to which they are to have regard and financial or other constraints to which their recommendations are to be subject".
  Clause 1(4) of the Bill says:
  "With respect to matters referred to the review body by him, the Secretary of State may give directions to the review body as to considerations to which they are to have regard".
  The only words that are different are the words "and financial or other constraints". The Secretary of State knows that those words are wide enough for him to give directions in practice as to the financial and other constraints that are to be imposed on the review body.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose——
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the Secretary of State in a minute, because this is an important point. Clause 1(1) allows the Prime Minister to establish the review body and the Secretary of State to refer to it
  "such matters relating to the statutory conditions of the employment of school teachers"
  as he may from time to time decide. Therefore, he determines the terms of reference. I cannot for the life of me understand why that directional power is necessary unless it is to be used to constrain the review body, in the same way as the interim advisory committee has been constrained, on matters of affordability.
  Mr. Clarke: In his analysis of what is really a Committee point, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that the 1987 Act contains a reference to the financial constraints to which the independent advisory committee was to be subject when making its recommendations. This is merely a general power to give directions to review bodies as to considerations to which they are to have regard. I have already said that they are to be asked to have regard to affordability—as evidenced, among other things, by the standard spending assessments for education—and also to the need to recruit and retain people of adequate motivation. That is not the same as having a financial limit given to them. The 1987 Act made the interim advisory committee subject to a financial remit.
  Mr. Straw: With great respect, this cannot be dismissed as a Committee point. Central to the operation of the Bill is whether the review body will be able to exercise independence of judgment. It will not be exactly the same as other review bodies. Their terms of reference are established. The Government give evidence about issues such as affordability and the standard spending assessment and then reserve their position. In this case, there will be a statutory power to give directions. The Bill does not say that the review body "can" have regard to the directions; it "must" have regard to them.
  The Secretary of State knows full well that, when words such as that are used in a measure, the review body will have to pay regard to those considerations; it will not be given the opportunity to weigh the evidence. Instead, it is being told that its starting point on any issue regarding which the Government have given directions must be that. When the teachers's unions understand the point in more detail, they will say that this is unacceptable and is likely to undermine faith in the review body's independence.
  If the Secretary of State wants this arrangement to be successful, between now and the Committee stage he ought to look carefully into whether it is necessary. My guess is that it was inserted by the Treasury as a belt and braces provision. It is not needed if this body is to operate as an ordinary review body. The fact from which we do not resile is that, on the basis of clear and compelling grounds, the Government can change or phase in a review body recommendation and can give evidence. That ought to provide sufficient protection. The similarity of the wording in this Bill and the 1987 Act regarding the direction-making power must lead to the review body's practice being closely related to that of the interim advisory committee.
  Mr. Clarke: To repeat what I said before, the Government will not be giving the review body a financial remit of the type that the interim advisory committee had. We shall reject recommendations only for clear and compelling reasons. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the review body should be established on that basis? The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) asked the hon. Gentleman the same question, and, interestingly, he asked him whether he would he in favour of that, if one of the unions disagreed. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) seems to be wandering off to every other point that he can think of without answering perfectly clear questions. Does he agree with my statement of policy? Would he be put off, as the hon. Member for Truro asked him, if one union disagreed?
  Mr. Straw: I have already answered emphatically the question about one union. As for the Secretary of State's question, an explanation has still to be offered to me as to why direction-making powers should be included in the Bill. If they are unnecessary, they should not be there. They would be a temptation to Ministers, a temptation that they would use.
  Mr. Walden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not intend to give way to him. I have been speaking for 33 minutes and have already allowed a great many interventions. I want to get to the end of my speech.
  The Secretary of State referred to industrial action. He said that the Labour party has already supported every
  54
  strike by public sector workers. He must know that that is a calumny. If we are to have a serious debate about how to raise the professionalism and self-esteem of teachers, he must know that that is untrue. There have been many occasions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name one."]—I shall name one: the NUT conference at Easter took the decision to threaten strike action.—[HON. MEMBERS: "You supported that."] That is literally untrue.
  I defer to nobody in my view that, so far as humanly possible, industrial action should be avoided inside schools. Even The Sun managed to see the distinction. That is a completely different point from the suggestion that the right to strike should be removed. On 17 April, the Secretary of State tried to bluster his way through. He suggested that this policy would go ahead only if the unions agreed to remove the right to strike. That turned out to be a fig leaf, but a transparent one. The Bill says nothing at all about that. There have just been a few words from the Secretary of State. He has insinuated that, somehow, all this depends upon the removal of the right to strike. It does not.
  All hon. Members want education to be free from industrial action, but the Government must recognise that they bear a heavy responsibility for any disruption that has taken place in the past. Moreover, they bear a heavy responsibility in the future.
  Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No. I want to come to the end of my remarks.
  Mrs. Currie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely we need to know, in view of what the hon. Gentleman says, whether he intends to vote for or against the Bill, or to abstain.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The way that hon. Members vote in the House has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair.
  Mr. Straw: Our reasoned amendment speaks of the Secretary of State breaking faith with the teaching profession and also breaking faith with the House. Our view is that the way that he conducted himself in relation to the first School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill was a breach of faith and that the Secretary of State's conduct was unacceptable.
  When he spoke on 17 April, the Secretary of State said that, if we looked back to the Second Reading debate, we should realise that the Government were careful to keep their options open. We find nothing of the kind. If we look back to the debate on 27 November 1990 we find that the Secretary of State said:
  "The Bill contains the agreed policy of this Government. I can certainly speak for two of the candidates for the position of Prime Minister who are committed to the Bill".
  At the end of his speech he said:
  "I therefore commend the Bill to the House."—[Official Report, 27 November 1990; Vo. 181, c. 743–56.]
  There were no "ifs" or "buts" in his Second Reading speech, and there were no "ifs" or "buts" in Committee.
  The Secretary of State pretends that there has been a change of climate since November. That is a bogus explanation. What has happened since November is that there has been a change of Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister says that he wants to do something about education, but he has also said that he is not quite sure what, according to The Times. Since November, he has

  55
  been scrubbing about trying to find out what it is that he should do. He has come up with this inadequate proposal. The Secretary of State has a duty to be honest with the House.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who speaks on education matters for the Opposition——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is not giving way. This is totally irresponsible and undisciplined behaviour.
  Mr. Straw: When I wrote to the Secretary of State asking him what had happened to the Bill, he said to me:
  "As you know, there is considerable pressure of business in the House. We are of course looking at the timetable for this Bill alongside competing priorities for Parliamentary time."
  That explanation was simply untrue. The Secretary of State owes an apology to the House for offering hon. Members statements that are completely inconsistent with the facts.
  As the draft Conservative education manifesto says, there is a crisis of confidence among teachers. The bill, in the hands of the Government, is the cause of that crisis and not its solution. I commend our amendment to the House.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Before proceeding further, I have an announcement for the House. In his wisdom, Mr. Speaker has now lifted the 10-minute limit on speeches, leaving it to the common sense and self-discipline of Members to see that all those wishing to be called are able to speak before the House divides at 10 o'clock.
  5.40 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall be brief and shall keep within the 10-minute limit that was previously in force.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, I introduced the review body for nurses, and there are one or two lessons to be learned from that. I listened with mounting disbelief to the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). As I understand it, his policy on the review body is that, if the NUT agrees, he will agree, and if the NUT does not agree, he will not agree. It is demeaning for a major political party simply to wait to be told what position to take. The hon. Gentleman's speech was disappointing and thin, and was attended pretty thinly by an Opposition on a three-line Whip. In my view, the hon. Gentleman is leading his own party down the wrong road and it would be a tragedy if he succeeded in doing the same with the teaching profession.
  There is no question but that, over the past 20 or 30 years, Governments of all parties have faced substantial difficulties in finding the right mechanism for determining the pay of large public service professions. Any Government would need to balance a number of demands. There is a need to be fair to the particular profession when the Government are ultimately the employer or provide the finance for the salaries; there is also a need to be fair to the taxpayer and the public, because large settlements are expensive for the public and can pre-empt money to other public services.
  56
  Education is no more an island than the health service, and one has to take all those considerations into account. It is crucial to be fair to the public who are intended to benefit from any public service—in this case, education, but it also applies to the health service. It is clear that the public do not benefit from a public service suffering from industrial action and strikes. Nothing can be worse for health or education than strike action, which scars those services.
  Getting the balance right is a problem for the Government. It was a problem for the last Labour Government and for previous Conservative and Labour Governments. Only a party bigot would argue otherwise. The issue is not simple, but the problem occurs in a large profession when the Government are the employer or finance it. It is much simpler in practical terms in an individual school or hospital and can be settled on that level, but all experience shows that problems arise in large professional groups.
  No system of pay determination is perfect, but in education, the pay review body is the best hope and has worked out most fairly for all. All experience shows that the last thing that leaders of professions covered by pay review bodies want to do is give up those pay review bodies. The last thing that the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, the director-general of the British Medical Association or whoever represents the top civil servants would want to do is give up their pay review bodies. They value them and consider them most important. That is why I find the Opposition's position on pay review bodies so extraordinary and incomprehensible. They have a three-line Whip against the award of a pay review body, which is probably the best thing that has happened to the teaching profession for many years.
  The usual criticism of pay review bodies does not normally come from the left. The classic opposition comes from the right, and is along the lines that review bodies get in the way of the market and we should not interfere with the running of the market. I was presented with that criticism when I introduced the pay review body for nurses. It is not what I imagine Labour clubs throughout the country to discuss every Friday and Saturday. Opposition to pay review bodies can also come from Treasury Ministers—under Labour or Conservative Governments—who will probably say for the next 30 years, as they have said for the past 30 years, that a review body limits the Government's freedom. To be frank, anyone who has had to deal with a review body knows that it limits the Government's freedom. That is the price that the Government have to pay.
  I know that things have changed since I left the Government just over 12 months ago. I have no knowledge of the negotiations that took place to provide a review body on teachers' pay, but the idea that, in all the discussions and debates on the matter, Treasury Ministers were saying that the country and the profession needed a review body is quite comical. I cannot imagine that Treasury Ministers were going up and down Whitehall with placards in favour of a review body for the teaching profession. Unless Chief Secretaries have changed in the past 12 months, that is an entirely fanciful idea.
  Anyone who has sat round the Cabinet table considering the outcome of review body reports knows perfectly well that they limit the freedom of the Government. It is certainly possible to stage reports, and in the past we have done precisely that, but one would

  57
  think three or four times before rejecting such a report. The power to do so exists, but it is rarely used—for the good reason that, having set up a review body, the last thing the Government would want is for that review body to resign, pack up and disappear.
  If the only thing that worries and concerns the Opposition is the independence of the pay review body, I stress that a 11 experience is that once a pay review body is established, its independence is taken for granted. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I were negotiating with the Treasury on public spending, he regularly used the expression, "If the Chief Secretary offered me that deal, I would bite his hand off." That sums up my view on what the teachers should do presented with the proposition that my right hon. and learned Friend is offering them this afternoon. If the teachers want to make comparisons, they should look at the nursing profession and compare the experience of the nursing profession before and after the review body was set up.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn made an extraordinarily weak speech, but he knows more than most about what happened to the nursing profession before and after the review body was set up. The hon. Gentleman was the special adviser to Lady Castle who hammered the nurses into the ground in the mid-1970s. If the hon. Gentleman wants the figures, I can provide them.
  In 1974–75, nurses and midwives were given a 20 per cent. increase. That sounds all very well, but the retail prices index was 26·3 per cent. and the index of average earnings was 27·6 per cent. Next year, the figure was 8 per cent., the RPI was 12 per cent. and the index of average earnings was almost 14 per cent. In 1976–77, the award was 5 per cent., the RPI was 17·6 per cent. and the index of average earnings was 8·5 per cent. Under the review body, in 1983–84 the increase for nurses was 7·5 per cent., the RPI was 4 per cent. and the index of average earnings was 5 per cent. In 1984–85, the increase was 8·6 per cent., the RPI was 6·9 per cent. and the figure for average earnings was 5·3 per cent. In 1988–89, the increase was 17·9 per cent., the RPI was 4·8 per cent. and average earnings were 8·5 per cent.
  Nurses have done spectacularly well under their review body. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State rightly said, for that reason professional leaders who have experience of the system value it very much. If one said to the BMA, "We are going to take away the review body," the health service would grind to a halt.
  My advice to teachers is that, by rejecting a pay review body, they would be missing an historic opportunity. It is the one step that could do the most to meet their professional aspirations. If they do not want a review body, they can simply reject it by taking strike action. The Government: are limiting their freedom in pay determination; the quid pro quo is that there should be no strike action. Every review body operates under that condition, and I very much hope that that will always be so.
  The vast majority of the teaching profession want not to take industrial action but to have a sensible and fair method of determining their pay, which is the purpose of the pay review body. It is the best deal for teachers.
  Children are crucial to this debate. They cannot benefit from a system that can lead to industrial action, which is so against their best interests.
  Only one group can oppose the proposal on logical grounds—union activists whose raison d'etre is being able
  58
  to threaten industrial action to get their way. There is no doubt that there is a role for trade unions in the review body system. They must give evidence to the review body, which will be questioned. Their skill and the quality of their evidence will determine much.
  There is no role for the threatener—the NUT delegate we see on our television screen each Easter. Most of the public and the profession will not shed tears if such a character disappears into the background, where he belongs.
  By opposing the Bill with a three-line Whip, the Labour party has made one of the worst mistakes of this Paliament. It has shown that its true interests are not the public, children or teachers, and that it remains the prisoner of the big public service unions. In a sense, that is why the Government were elected in 1979. The most revealing aspect of the debate—the hon. Member for Blackburn did not mention this—is that the Labour party remains in a—I was going to say "equivocal" but it is worse that that—subservient position to the big public service unions.
  Education, the classroom and the pay of professional teachers should not be an industrial battlefield. The Bill gives us the best hope of moving from that prospect to a much fairer and better way of determining teachers' pay. For that reason, I support the Bill, but above all I hope that the teaching profession will respond to it. I believe that the Government are right and that the Labour party has been disastrously wrong in its tactics this afternoon.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) lectured us about making the worst mistake in this Parliament, but he knows much about bad mistakes in this Parliament. He was one of the people behind the poll tax. Was that not a mistake? Is it not a continuing mistake? Son of poll tax is in the background. We shall see whether that is a mistake. We do not need lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about bad mistakes in this Parliament. We have seen such mistakes in the past 12 years, never mind in one Parliament, so let us not have that nonsense. If the right hon. Gentleman prefers that nonsense, he is welcome to it.
  A glaring omission from the debate has been the fact that, in the past few years, teachers have had neither a review body nor any pre-negotiation. Their negotiating rights were taken away. I oppose the Bill, and I hope that Labour Members will oppose it. I have faith that they will, but when negotiations—[Interruption.] The Minister constantly mutters, but I never know what he is saying. Would he like me to give way?
  Mr. Eggar: It is clear to the hon. Gentleman, as it was to Conservative Members, that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has not made his position clear. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask the hon. Member for Blackburn whether the Labour party favours the review body.
  Mr. Flannery: I do not need to do so; my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) stated bluntly that he opposes the Bill, and it needs opposing. It is one of the most serious things that the teaching profession has faced since the last war.

  59
  Conservative Members send their children to private schools. Education is in the hands of people who hate the state sector. It is no good them smiling, because that is the reality. The Bill strikes a blow at the reason——
  Mr. John Marshall rose——
  Mr. Flannery: We want to allow every hon. Member who is present to speak, and I want to contribute my little bit. I shall not go on too long—I promise.
  The Bill strikes a blow at the fundamental principles of trade unionism. Trade unions were created for two fundamental reasons—for the free negotiation of pay, and for the free negotiation of conditions of service. They came into being after Tolpuddle, and they exist today for the same reason.
  Unions that support the pay review body have expressed profound reservations. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn quoted from a document issued by the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. It says:
  "Second Reading: Monday 29th April 1991",
  which I believe is today. [Interruption.] I am trying to show Conservative Members that this is an up-to-date document. It continues:
  "The Association regrets the haste with which the Government has brought forward this pivotal debate."
  That statement was made by AMMA, not by me or the National Union of Teachers. The association continued:
  "it is less than two weeks since the first announcement by the Secretary of State for Education and Science"—
  the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not in his seat—
  "that it has become the Government's intention to give teachers a Review Body. There has been no opportunity for consultation to have yet taken place and we are therefore necessarily limited in our understanding of the Government's full proposals. We very much hope that Ministers will explain their plans more clearly in the course of the Second Reading debate."
  Why have the Government suddenly changed their mind? I have been a member of almost every Standing Committee on education matters since I became a Member, but I was ill during the discussion of the first School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill. For six or seven weeks, the Government were determined to give negotiating rights back to teachers. That decision was not made out of thin air. They were repeatedly told by the International Labour Organisation, a United Nations body, that they were breaking international law by taking away teachers' negotiating rights. If hon. Members want to see the record of that statement, they can get hold of it. Most Labour Members have seen it.
  AMMA stated:
  "Members will recall that, in November 1990, the Association urged rejection of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill at Second Reading. Our view was then based on two grounds, that

  '(1) new procedures and powers in the Bill for the local determination of teachers' pay and conditions of employment are, at the least, ill-judged and premature; and

  (2) the reserve powers accruing to the Secretary of State are so excessive as to jeopardise the success of negotiating machinery established under the Bill.'"

  The association welcomed the fact that teachers' negotiating machinery would be restored and is surprised as anyone that the Government have decided not to do so. Referring to the latest Bill, the association stated:
  60
  "The Bill as drafted would empower the Secretary of State to 'give directions to the review body as to considerations to which they are to have regard."'
  The association—not the NUT or the Labour Front Bench—referred to other review bodies. It did not mean the review body that is offered to the teaching profession now. The association stated:
  "Other review bodies, which have achieved success over a long period, operate instead within concise standing terms of reference `to advise the Prime Minister on the remuneration' of a named group of employees."
  The other review bodies did not exist to act as negotiators and to tell teachers that they must accept what is offered whether they like it or not.
  It is true that offers to other professions have been reasonable, but there is not much faith in the idea that an offer from the Government to teachers will be reasonable. Teachers, like NUT leaders and the Labour party, do not want anything to upset teaching in the classroom. They made it clear that they were putting the matter to a poll. I am confident—I know a thing or two about it—that teachers would refuse to take strike action. The NUT leadership, including me, have been struggling for a different system.
  AMMA stated:
  "The additional considerations to which the Government wishes a review body to have regard, year by year, are submitted only in the form of evidence from the relevant Department. We see no justification for the proposed departure from this precedent of evidence, which is essentially reasoned in its nature, being the medium of communication to a genuinely independent body."
  The association does not want any action to be taken, although it would have liked negotiating rights to be established. It proposes substituting a review body for negotiating rights. I believe that the association is making a mistake, but only time will tell. The NUT, of which I am a member, wants teachers' negotiating rights to be restored and is opposed to the review body.
  The International Labour Organisation made it clear that the Government should restore negotiating rights. Even the Government repeatedly stated that the withdrawal of those rights was only temporary and that they would be given back. The Government are violating international law by taking away those rights. Teachers have no negotiating rights and no review body.
  Article 4 of ILO convention 98 contains crucial words, which I underline in my mind:
  "machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers' organisations and workers' organisations with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements."
  That is what the ILO wants, whether the Government like it or not.
  Teachers are eagerly making concessions to the Government in the belief that the Government will make some concessions to them. The teachers are mistaken. They are taking the Government on trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn referred to clause 2. The explanatory and financial memorandum states that clause 2
  "enables the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to make an order without having received a report from the review body; provides that the remuneration of school teachers is to be determined and paid by local education authorities and the governors of grant-maintained schools in accordance with the provisions of such orders".
  The Secretary of State can make a wide-ranging order without having heard a word from the review body. Is that

  61
  the way in which the review body will be used at the beginning? I hope not. There are more disquieting measures in the Bill.
  None of us wants anything to upset classrooms. Many Labour Members were teachers, as were some Conservative Members. I believe that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) was a science teacher and that he did not want his classrooms disrupted. The Government have made a mess of the entire education system. Some years ago, a gentleman in the Tory party spoke about democracy. He said that it was untidy, ponderous and slow but was the best thing we had. Those were the words of Winston Churchill at about the beginning of the war.
  Conservatives Members are characterised by gross impatience. Instead of negotiating with teachers on pay and conditions, they took away negotiating rights and precipitated all the trouble that we are experiencing. If they had not done that, there would have been no need for two Bills to restore negotiating rights. Our children would have been taught, possibly without regular testing for seven-year-olds. I said that I was backing the Bill in one sense only. The purpose of the first Bill was to return negotiating rights to teachers. Labour Members struggled to achieve certain conditions within those negotiating rights. I do not believe that any real conditions were offered, but at least negotiating rights were expected to follow then.
  The argument that the review body is a negotiating organisation is nonsense. It can impose what it wishes, and teachers believe, from their experience, that that is what it will do. Those unions and parties that believe that the review body is a negotiating organisation and that have abandoned the fundamental right to free negotiation are relinquishing a right for which our ancestors fought hard over a couple of hundred years. I would not want it to be given up easily. All other European nations have freedom of negotiation.
  Mr. Hawkins: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "returning to negotiating rights?" I do not believe that he means returning to Burnham. If my memory serves me rightly, the Burnham negotiating machinery agreed on a settlement only about three times in a couple of decades. It was a major forum for disagreement. I should have thought that a review body was a better way of solving problems.
  Mr. Flannery: I should not dream of lecturing the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) on what I mean by negotiating rights. He knows that I mean free negotiations between employers and teachers. I said nothing about going back to Burnham—only he has that leaning, which is nonsense. I do not want to go back to Burnham; it is dead and gone and we have since come a long way. The hon. Gentleman accuses us of wanting to go back to Burnham as he accuses us of wanting strike action. Both ideas are nonsense, and he knows that.
  Mr. Hawkins: Then what?
  Mr. Flannery: We shall have a review body, whether we want one or not. The Government took away negotiating rights without giving us any say in the matter. They promised to restore them, but did not do so.
  The Government will impose a review body, and I only hope that it is honourable, not like the words that I read
  62
  from the Bill. The Education Reform Act 1988—which should have been called the Education Deform Act—gave about 400 new powers to the Secretary of State. We were appalled, and we can see the chaos that resulted in schools.
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks: If the hon. Member does not want a pay review body or a return to Burnham, what does he want?
  Mr. Flannery: I made it clear to the hon. Member for High Peak. I told him that I wanted negotating rights. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) cannot have been listening. I read out what the International Labour Organisation said. Shall I read it again? Hon. Members should stop telling me to do what I have already done. Conservative Members are hard pressed.
  On Second Reading——
  Mrs. Hicks rose——
  Sir Norman Fowler rose——
  Mr. Flannery: There is a queue. The hon. Lady was a member of the Select Committee, so I shall give way to her.
  Mrs. Hicks: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said perfectly clearly, but, perhaps like my colleagues, I do not understand his interpretation of negotiating rights. What will it mean in practice in terms of achieving a solution to the problem of teachers who naturally want an annual increase in salary?
  Mr. Flannery: Does the hon. Lady really want me to tell her? There is a table: employers sit on one side and union representatives sit on the other. They talk to each other and put forward arguments. Sometimes it changes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Burnham."] Whenever anybody negotiates, Conservative Members say that it is like Burnham. That is their opinion. They are old-fashioned. They do not seem to be in the present age. I know that the Government are in a mess—a 12-year-old dilemma. They do not know where they are, but I thought that they would understand some simple matters, such as negotiating rights.
  Mr. Steinberg rose——
  Mr. Flannery: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, as he was also a member of the Select Committee.
  Mr. Steinberg: I am enjoying my hon. Friend's contribution. We desperately missed him from the Committee on the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill.
  Mr. Flannery: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Steinberg: I will accept a drink tonight.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks), may I say that Ministers—one of whom is sitting on the Front Bench—argued vehemently in Committee for negotiating rights between trade union representatives and employers. That is exactly what we want. The Minister who is sitting with his hands in his pockets—I think they are in his pockets—argued vehemently for those rights no more than two or three months ago.
  Mr. Flannery: That was not so much an inquiry as an attempt to help me along. I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said.

  63
  We are dealing with a serious issue. I want not a review body but a right to free negotiation such as that held by every teacher body in all democratic nations. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for High Peak keeps interrupting me from a sedentary position. If he is not clear about what negotiating rights mean, we should have a talk. God help anyone who negotiates with the Tory party for an increase in pay and conditions, because he will not get it.
  The Government are offering a bribe. It would stick in their craw to give us the right to honourable negotiation, so they are thinking of something else, and that something else is a review body. They have promised all sorts of things, but I want to ask a serious question. They make promises about what they will do for teachers, but can we believe that the party that imposed the poll tax will keep its promises to help teachers?
  The Conservative party has played havoc with almost every section of working people by splitting them—such as the ambulance men and nurses—and by attacking them—as it is still doing—and by imposing the poll tax, and now the son of poll tax, and by attacking our health service. Let me make it clear once again that the Conservatives voted against the health service. I do not want to pursue that idea, but the Conservatives said that we should not have a health service. [Interruption.] Yes, they voted against it, but that is a big theme.
  The teaching unions and anyone who follows the same lines as those taken by the five unions will discover that they are barking up the wrong tree and that this ruthless Government, who are in the last phases of office, are, in desperation, getting up to all types of tricks. They are offering bribes—the review body is a bribe to teachers. I am sad that five unions have accepted it, although my own union—the National Union of Teachers—has not. I hope that the Labour party will not accept it.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I have been looking forward to making this speech for a long time. As one who has consistently supported the concept of a pay review body for teachers, I am delighted to support the Bill. It marks a watershed for the teaching profession and for the future of education, because, if we are to learn anything from history, we must learn from its mistakes.
  We have heard much about negotiating rights. I first became involved in national education in 1974 and, as many hon. Members know, the Houghton award to teachers was made in the same year. It was a recognition that, in spite of negotiating rights, which existed in a form that we know—or knew—as Burnham, teachers' pay had been allowed to fall behind. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, it had fallen under successive Governments. The Houghton award was a massive hike, but it was significant that it referred to what came to be known in the jargon of negotiations between teacher employers and teaching unions as the "Houghton teacher".
  The Houghton teacher was a teacher whom the report regarded as someone who would receive a professional salary while exercising a professional commitment which,
  64
  I am bound to say, has been shown by the vast majority of teachers, regardless of some of the nonsense—such as strike action—that we have seen during the past decade.
  My involvement went further than merely becoming a member of a national education body. I had the dubious privilege—privilege because to deal with anything to do with education is a privilege and dubious because any contact with Burnham must be regarded in that way—of becoming a member of the Burnham committee. I was the deputy leader of the employers' side of the management panel.
  To talk about meaningful negotiations during the period of the Burnham committee is nonsense and a contradiction in terms. While one union was negotiating across the table, the leader of another union was outside, giving his press conference and explaining how much better he could do. It was a shambles, which had a further complication. I know that because I trod the path from Church house to the office of the Secretary of State in Elizabeth house to see whether the employers could get an extra 0·5 per cent. to try to conclude the negotiations. Burnham had few friends then, and it has even fewer friends today.
  During that period, an opportunity was offered to the unions in 1974. It was lost not because it was thrown away by the vast majority of teachers, who responded well, but because of the internecine disputes between trade unions that would not accept the opportunity.
  We must recognise that the Bill is an acceptance that we have come a long way. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I did not favour the original School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill, because I felt that it was a move backwards to a sort of son of Burnham. I could see nothing in that Bill which would move us significantly forward. I have been a long-time supporter of a pay review body. Things have been changing for a long time. We have seen a far more progressive and foward-looking attitude from many of the teacher unions which is far more in touch, and far more in keeping, with the aspirations of their members.
  The changes have brought us to where we are today. Five of the teacher unions support the Bill. They may have qualifications and reservations, but one of the great strengths of the Bill is that it is buttressed by an absence of a statutory requirement not to strike. That is an acceptance of the changes that have taken place. I have been greatly encouraged during the past month by many of the statements from the second largest teacher union which have been supportive of the concept. The unions were looking forwards, not backwards, and recognising that the problems that bedevilled Burnham and its negotiations had to be abandoned for ever, and that a new mechanism and a new opportunity had to be seized. The Bill is that new opportunity.
  To turn our backs on the Bill now would deny teachers what all members of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts acknowledged. We may have had different reasons and we could support some of the proposals wholeheartedly, and some less so. We recognised the problem that teachers faced and we recognised the considerable problem of lack of morale which teachers expressed to us. Over and over again, their view came across to us. It was not just a matter of pay, although that was fundamentally important; it was a matter of status and of esteem.

  65
  Teachers were conscious that they had slipped in public esteem. They were conscious that whether parents were sympathetic to some of their broad aims begged the question. They were conscious that parents were fed up to the back teeth with their children's education being disrupted. The unions have recognised that. They realise that to go again down the road of disruption would be the final nail in the coffin of esteem for teachers and of teachers' morale. The Bill is the way forward and the opportunity.
  From figures that have been put before the House today, we have learnt that groups of people who are covered by a pay review body will, in general terms, do far better than those who are not. That clearly signals the Government's intention to raise the morale of teachers, to give them the professional standing they deserve and to say to parents that the Government's commitment to a strong, well-paid and esteemed teaching profession lies at the centre of their education policies.
  Governments can legislate until they are blue in the face on the national curriculum, but the success of the reforms depends solely on the teacher delivering them in the classroom. If we can get the teachers behind us--I believe that the Bill will do so in a way that has not been possible before—we shall do an enormous service to education.
  I find it incomprehensible that Opposition Front Bench Members have taken their view today. I have had many conversations about education with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I am broadly in agreement with many points that he has made, as I am with many of the points made by Opposition members of the Select Committee. I had respect for many of their views. I listened today with a sense of disbelief, because all that we have heard shows that the Labour party is firmly wedded to the past rather than looking forward very much to the future.
  I have said that I believe that the Bill is a watershed—I do not believe that I can overstate that point. However, if not only the Labour party, but any of the teacher unions—one is standing out at the moment—reject this opportunity, they are doing a grave disservice to teachers and to education, and an even greater disservice to children.
  The delivery of education to our children must be central to any education policy. That is at the heart of our debate. I urge Opposition Members and the members of the National Union of Teachers who stand against the Bill to recognise it as an opportunity. The failure to do so will mean that they stand condemned as wedded to the past and entrenched in a culture that signally failed to deliver what teachers wanted and what education needed, and which deprived many of our children in the past year. I will now finish my speech; I am astonished by my moderation.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ensure that there is no doubt, and to save interventions in the early part of my speech—I have no intention of speaking for as long as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) did—I must tell the House that I and my party unequivocally support the move towards a review body, although we have reservations about the way in which the move was made and about the details of the proposal. We take that view for many of the reasons given by Conservative Members who support the implementation of a review body.
  66
  Above all, we take that view because the last thing that is needed now—just as it was the last thing that was needed five months ago when we discussed similar provisions here—is further delay and confusion. The main problem for teachers today is not the level of pay, although there are problems, but morale in the profession and the way in which teachers feel that they have been treated.
  One big step towards correcting that problem is to sort out the way in which teachers' pay and conditions are determined. The status that should come with a review body, provided that it is made to work, which will require support not only from teachers, but from the Government, will be, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) said, a turning point for teachers. I certainly hope it is.
  The Government would have commanded more support for their position had they shown a little more humility in their presentation. There is no question but that the Government's position has changed dramatically since they presented the original Bill five months ago. It is difficult for them to justify dressing the present Bill up as merely a reaction to changed circumstances. The truth is that many of those in the ministerial team favoured a review body in the first place but were prevented from advocating such a move. With a change of Minister and a change of Prime Minister, they found it rather easier to persuade their colleagues of the merits of their case. A little humility would not have gone amiss. Ministers should have said that the Government did not have it right in the first place but have now taken a large step forward.
  At least the Government's position has the benefit of some clarity, which is more than can be said for that of the Labour party. I think that the Labour party is split. I say that because, although it is clear what some Labour Back Benchers think, we cannot be altogether certain what the Front-Bench spokesmen think. I think that the Front-Bench spokesmen are broadly in favour of the principle of a review body, but not on the terms that the Government now propose. That is our position, too, although we state it more clearly than Labour Members have so far managed to do.
  In the debate on the original Bill—five months ago almost to the day—the Secretary of State told us that all the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative party were united in their support for the Bill and that there was no doubt about the party's position on it. Presumably the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to alleviate any doubt about whether the Bill would make normal progress regardless of the musical chairs at the top. I queried whether that was the case, and suggested that, in view of the arguments that candidates in the leadership contest were advancing, it might be wise to pause for reflection—to have a breathing space—before reaching a decision. I suggested that, in view of what the candidates were saying, a review body might be more appropriate than the arrangements that Ministers were then pressing upon us.
  That was not to be. The Secretary of State said:
  "it is time now to put more permanent arrangements into place."—[Official Report, 27 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 743.]
  At the second sitting of the Standing Committee, the Minister of State said:
  "We want to proceed as rapidly as possible. That is why we want to make good progress in the Committee."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 December 1990; c. 40.]
  I expressed my doubts and warned him that he might live to regret it. We then suffered many weeks of discussions on the Bill.
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman enjoyed it.
  Mr. Taylor: I enjoyed it, but I am not sure that all of us enjoyed all of the Committee's proceedings. Now that the Government have withdrawn the Bill, I suspect that many of us feel that we might have found better things to do than engaging in wasted work. Moreover, I wonder what our proceedings on the Bill cost.
  Despite my criticism of the Labour party's response to the proposal and of Opposition Members' cloudy approach today, and despite my support for the broad principle of a review body, I must express considerable support for the reasoned amendment, principally because of the appalling way in which Ministers have treated the House. There can be no excuse whatever for Ministers, who knew that they were engaged in a process that could lead to the tearing up of the original Bill and the presentation of another Bill, not to have informed politicians and the general public of what was going on so that they could contribute to the process and so that time and money were not wasted.
  We should compare the secrecy that prevailed until the final announcement was made with the professions of consultations that preceded the original Bill. We were told that the reason why, for five years, teachers had gone without satisfactory pay machinery, was that consultation needed to be undertaken and plans laid, and that everyone needed to be involved in making the decision. The Government finally came up with the original Bill and, even as we were debating it, they were writing without any consultation a completely different Bill—the Bill that we are debating today.
  Whatever the rights and wrongs of the principle of the Bill, there is no doubt whatever in my mind that the way in which the matter was handled was entirely wrong. Worst of all, once the Bill left Committee, we had a long delay, with no explanation, and Ministers were engaged in clear deceit, claiming that the only reason for the delay was the lack of parliamentary time. At one stage, when I asked the Secretary of State what was going on, he ducked into the toilet in the Lobby. Having discussed the matter with the hon. Member for Blackburn, I understand that he had exactly the same experience.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State has a weak bladder, in which case I am sure we all sympathise, but it seems extraordinary that, in each case, his complaint should have been brought on by inquiries about what was happening to the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill. We were deliberately misled. There are not many ways in which we can express our concern in this place and, in my view, that is good enough reason to support the reasoned amendment—to express our dissatisfaction with the way in which the decisions have been taken.
  Let me raise a few specific points about the Bill. Are Ministers considering extending benefits to teachers in other sectors of education—for example, university teachers—who suffer from low pay and poor morale? In particular, what thought has been given to teachers in sixth form colleges and colleges of tertiary education, who have been opted out of the marvellous review system that the Government are establishing, with no real explanation of what is to take its place in their case? They are in an invidious position.
  That is especially true of some teachers in my constituency, who work in a sixth form attached to a school in respect of which a move to tertiary status was
  68
  approved the day before the Secretary of State made the announcement. They are hardly likely to be pleased with the circumstances into which they have been cast. I suspect that Ministers have not thought the matter through. In any case, those teachers' position is wholly invidious.
  I hope that it will be possible to make quick progress and that the matter can be resolved without the need to extend the operation of the interim advisory committee for another year. I know that Ministers want to make progress, but that may not be easy given the present time scale. I should appreciate it if Ministers would spell out the timetable that they envisage end, in particular, when they expect the review body to start its work. Will it be early this autumn or not until next year? At what stage can we expect the review body and Ministers to lay down a timetable within which they expect to work? A measure of consultation earlier in the process would undoubtedly have helped the Government to get the legislation through and, given the way in which they have proceeded, Ministers have only themselves to blame if they experience difficulties.
  My concern for speed arises not simply from a desire to try to help the Government to fulfil promises that they have already missed by a couple of years. It seems to me that if the present Bill is a turning point it is because of the benefits that will flow from the establishment of a review body, and no one will want those benefits to be unnecessarily delayed. The sooner teachers get the professional status, financial backing and moral support they deserve, the better it will be for children in schools.
  Mr. Steinberg: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he sees as the difference between a pay review body and the interim advisory committee?
  Mr. Taylor: It is not my intention to go into a rather long peroration. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be on the Standing Committee. At that stage, the matter that he raises can be debated in detail.
  Mr. Steinberg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: There are several points that I want to raise, and I do not want to delay the debate unnecessarily. Let us hope that we shall get some answers.
  Teachers need to be convinced that the Government recognise the problems they face in their day-to-day work—rundown buildings, insufficient equipment, large classes, mounting bureaucracy, the rapid introduction of the national curriculum and assessment. The list is endless. It is a debate that we have rehearsed. I hope that the introduction of a review body will go some way towards solving the problems, but by no stretch of the imagination should we see it as a final solution.
  In view of the status and the pay machinery that the Government want to introduce for teachers, they ought to consider again the creation of a general teaching council. This would be an appropriate time to introduce just that. Such a body would link very well into the review system. There is no doubt that a general teaching council would have things to say. I hope that, in the current climate, Ministers will feel more able to consider taking such a course.
  We need clarification, too, of what is meant by the Secretary of State's assertion that the proposals are made on the basis that teachers will not take industrial action. Clearly, there is room for one trade union, or for

  69
  individuals in the profession, to take ad hoc action that is not supported by the vast majority. While a state of chaos is hardly likely to encourage the good operation of the review body, I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government are no more inclined than is the Labour party to be swayed off course by the individual actions of a handful of teachers, or even of one trade union, particularly in the early days, when there may be inter-union and other political reasons for trying to rock the boat with a view to preventing this proposal from working.
  Should such a situation arise, I would regret it most deeply, but I see the potential. It is important that Ministers should say that they would not allow it to distract them from the process on which they are now embarked.
  There remains the further important issue of how much direction will be given to what must be a fully independent body and must be seen as such. The Bill as it stands gives the Secretary of State strong powers of direction that other review bodies do not have. This point has been referred to by several hon. Members. I listened carefully to the comments of the Secretary of State, and was glad to hear him make it clear that he does not intend to use those powers. In the nature of events, of course, he may not be in office very long, and whoever succeeds him may have different views.
  It is not apparent to me why stronger powers than the Secretary of State says he wants should have been written into the Bill. I therefore hope that, in Committee, Ministers will look carefully at the amendments that will no doubt be tabled. I myself shall seek to introduce amendments to bring the provisions into line with the powers that the Secretary of State says he wants, as distinct from those that, currently, he seems intent on giving himself.
  The rush with which this Bill has been introduced disguises another major change that the Government have undertaken to make. I refer to the removal of the power of the local education authorities to opt out of the national settlement. That is a very important and constructive move, which will facilitate the work of the review body. In this regard, Ministers ought to have the humility to confess that they have accepted the arguments, put forward by myself and by Labour Members, stressing that opting out would not be an appropriate course, particularly at the time of the introduction of a whole new structure. Indeed, the two things are contradictory. This time, Ministers avoided the contradiction, and that is to be welcomed.
  But there is still the question of the opting out of grant-maintained schools. In this regard, the point that I put to the Secretary of State was not fully answered. The point to which I refer is that, given that the Secretary of State believes that there are real reasons why grant-maintained schools should not wish to opt out of the review body settlements, and that there are serious and genuine concerns about what would happen were they to do so—within a school and, indeed, bearing in mind the knock-on effect outside—it is extraordinary that this Bill requires the Secretary of State automatically to accept a proposal by the governing body of a grant-maintained school, even if the Minister has serious doubts about the way in which it is drawn up, about whether it has been properly considered, and about all its ramifications.
  It is most important, at this stage, that Ministers have a reserve power to use their discretion. If the Secretary of
  70
  State wants to accept a proposal, he may do so, but why should he not be provided with this power? It is not often that I argue that a Secretary of State ought to have more power than he has given himself, but in this case the protection of teachers and, more important, of pupils and future pupils is a most important consideration.
  What is most important of all is that this legislation, after amendment, should provide a review body containing the basis of a teacher pay machinery that is permanent and acceptable, commands widespread support—we may yet get there with the Labour party—and has the confidence of the overwhelming majority of teachers. That will call for the greatest open-mindedness and the widest consultation. In that respect, the Government's record could not be worse. However, the future could be very good indeed if Ministers were prepared to open their minds to suggestions. Perhaps the best thing that could emerge from this debate is a statement of the willingness of Ministers to go into Committee with something that is absent from Minister in most Committees—open minds and a willingness to accept changes such as have been suggested today.
  6.47 pm
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Essential to any modern debate on education reform must surely be the quality of our teachers and the remuneration of the profession, yet it seems to have taken a very long time to get to the stage we have now reached. The responsibility for that delay is, in large part, a result of the fact that are six different teaching unions representing one profession, and of the inability of those unions, particularly in the mid-1980s, to achieve any consensus on negotiated pay settlements. The result was a strike-ridden profession with warring factions which has damaged not only pupils but also the profession. Many teachers have had difficulty recovering from this damage.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) seemed almost to advocate such a lack of consensus—a return to the problems that we saw in the mid-1980s. That would be a retrograde step. If the unions have not been able to agree between themselves, it is hardly surprising that the Government have been faced with a dilemma in deciding how best to approach the settlement of teachers' pay and conditions, and to restore teachers to their rightful place in the community, where the majority will command the respect that they deserve. That is undoubtedly the aim of this Bill. It is not before time, and I welcome it.
  Three key factors are vital if our education standards are to be improved. We have heard a lot lately about education. One of the key factors must be an improvement in teachers' morale and an emphasis on professionalism. Secondly, there must be recognition of the benefits of traditional teaching methods, not least in respect of reading, writing and arithmetic. We ought to be able to take these essential foundations for granted. Alas, reports still show that we cannot assume that all teachers are providing them.
  The third ingredient is the regular assessment of pupils throughout their school life. Our children are the country's future, and we entrust their future to the capable hands of well-qualified teachers. What is Britain's future in a fiercely competitive Europe if we fail to guarantee all our pupils the best teachers and the best state education?

  71
  Over the past 10 years, the Government have examined teaching methods and the assessment of pupils, despite continuous Labour opposition and opposition from some teachers. We Conservatives understand what teachers want and what parents want. We have been determined to act in the best interests of parents and their children. We have not considered sufficiently, and nor have previous Governments, how best to recognise the essential role that is played by teachers in achieving the aims that we have set for them. I agree that in the past few years these aims have been various but vital to our reforms, and have invariably necessitated change.
  For too long, declining standards in our schools were ignored, and the rot was allowed to set in. I am sure that we all recognise that a mammoth force was required to bring about change. We could not allow a vociferous minority of militant teachers to try to undermine proposals and to stand in the way of the better future of our pupils that the Government are determined to implement.
  Only this Easter, the National Union of Teachers again raised its ugly head and threatened to ensure that our children would not have the assessments that they require, but the falling membership of the NUT—from 259,000 in 1984 to 213,000 in 1989—speaks volumes on behalf of the disenchanted professionals who, I believe, share our sentiments. They have not wished to be shown in the bad light of the NUT. We have heard the NUT's verdicts on the pay review body—
  "We are totally opposed. It is quite terrifying."
  I find it terrifying that it sees the pay review body as terrifying. I am worried that its members are in charge of our children.
  The verdicts of the NUT must be compared with those of the Professional Association of Teachers. The association stated:
  "Burying pay bargaining for teachers"—
  I hope that the hon. Member for Hillsborough will listen to this carefully—
  "is the best news since slavery was abolished in this country. Annual pay bargaining has never done anything for the professional image of teachers. Teachers want to be treated as professionals. That is now going to happen."
  Allied to the debate on teachers' pay and the review body must be the debate on appraisal. We must be guaranteed that teachers deserve the review body and in fairness to our competent and dedicated teachers—I have thousands of them in my constituency—I would have introduced teacher assessment long before pupil assessment. It is essential that we identify teachers who need more assistance. If we fail to do so, pupils will suffer unnecessarily.
  At last a Government have recognised the need for a review body and the compulsory appraisal of all teachers. To have left the decision in the hands of local authorities—some of them are in favour of appraisal, and some are not—would have been folly. Despite teacher shortages in some subjects, we should be mindful that we must recruit and retain the best teachers. We must not hang on to teachers merely for the sake of keeping up numbers. My experience in many aspects of education has taught me all too often that the teachers who have so much about them are the very ones who are motivated to get out of the profession and to stay out. We must retain the competent
  72
  teachers, and we must recognise the merits of advising the incompetent. We do no favours by turning a blind eye to someone who is not cut out for teaching.
  If we are to examine the payment of teachers and their terms and conditions, parents will want to be reassured that we shall continue to scrutinise teacher training methods in our colleges to ensure that the "progressives" no longer teach our teachers, who then teach our children, in a rather "progessive" way that does not lead to the best results, as we have seen.
  We must be assured that those who want to become teachers have their aptitude for teaching closely and carefully assessed. The question that is still being asked is whether it is too easy to become a teacher. Only in the ways that I have outlined can we raise the status of the profession, and that is the aim of the review body.
  The true professionals will surely recognise and welcome the new pay review body, which will not work within any predetermined financial constraints. In addition to pay settlements, it will consider terms and conditions of service. Such a body will recognise for the first time, I believe, the status of teachers. Those of us who visit schools regularly know how demoralised teachers have felt. The Government have kept to their word, and have said that they will give recognition to the value that they place in them.
  It is almost unbelievable that the Opposition do not wish to put teachers on a par with other professionals. Surely teachers will be staggered when they learn that the Opposition think that they, teachers, should not be given equal treatment with dentists, doctors, nurses, architects and judges, for example, who all have their own pay review body. What is wrong with teachers? Do they not deserve the same treatment? The Government's proposals will take teachers back to where they belong.
  How often have we heard Labour Members criticising us for reducing the morale of teachers? When we are given the opportunity to improve teachers' morale, the Opposition choose to oppose the introduction and implementation of a pay review body. I should like to see a return to the days when teachers were seen as pillars of the community, people who should be applauded and respected. I look forward to the time when a parent can be proud to say that his child will become a teacher. Nowadays, we hear people reject that ambition, and that is a sad reflection of the state that we have reached.
  Five out of six teaching unions have recognised the opportunity offered them by the Government. The Bill paves the way by recognising that motivated and good classroom teachers should be rewarded. Seven out of every 10 secondary teachers and half of all primary teachers receive an incentive allowance of some sort. With our reforms of local management of schools and grant-maintained status, we are introducing much greater flexibility. Last week, for example, we heard of a comprehensive school in Bromley that wants to reward its good teachers. In other words, it wishes to ensure that its teachers maintain a standard, which will ensure a certain level of motivation and dedication. Provided that each teacher comes up to standard, I hope that he or she will receive £1,000 in performance-related pay on top of his or her incentive allowances and basic salary.
  What is wrong with that? For too long we have worked within too narrow a framework. I am pleased that the Government are opening so many opportunities, but progress could be increased by an examination of

  73
  inner-city areas. We used to encourage teachers into areas where they would work under a great deal of stress, and it is sad that the educational priority allowances are no longer paid. I recognise that teachers working in socially deprived areas are often some of our best teachers. If they worked in a school two or three miles away in the greener suburbs, they would receive the same salary as they are receiving in the deprived area. The pay review body should consider whether we should give greater rewards to teachers working in socially deprived areas.
  I had hoped tonight to hear what the Labour party intends to do. The Labour party has told us on many occasions that it will place education high on its agenda. I despair of the Labour party, because it has opposed every reform to improve standards and to give parents greater choice and it now opposes a pay review body for teachers. I pray to God that the Labour Government never get their hands on my children. If there were a Labour Government, people would be remortgaging their homes to ensure that they could take their children out of state schools and get them into independent schools. That is a frightening prospect.
  The Labour party has said much about the right to strike. What about the right to professionalism? In their opposition to this Bill, the Opposition are out of date and out of touch with the aspirations and desires of the majority of our teachers. The Opposition also talk about spending. We are all aware of the Labour Government's record on spending. Under Labour, teachers' pay rose by a measly 6 per cent. We have increased teachers' pay by 30 per cent. although I hope that the pay review body will recognise that there is room for improvement.
  Teachers know that under a Labour Government they would not have the opportunity of a pay review body and would not receive more money or improved conditions. The Labour party has learnt nothing. I am delighted to say that we are now topping off our reforms with one of the most vital ingredients to restore the status of teachers. I shall be proud to support the Bill in the Lobby tonight. Opposition Members will trail across the Floor of the House towards the No Lobby.
  Because I believe in our teaching profession, I shall vote for the pay review body, and I believe that the majority of teachers will recognise the Government's good sense.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The speech by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) just about sums up the Tory party and its attitude to education and why the teaching profession is so depressed and has such low morale today.
  The Bill is more about the level of local taxes and in particular the poll tax over the next few years, and the review of local government structure, than it is about teachers' pay and conditions. The Government, and in particular the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, frankly do not give a damn about state education, the teachers or their pay and conditions. I wonder whether the Secretary of State cares about state education at all.
  I prepared my speech last night. However, I was amazed when I read an account of the recent statement made by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to a women's magazine, reported in this morning's Northern Echo. Now I know that he does not give a damn about education.
  74
  The Bill is simple in comparison to the first Bill that was rushed through Committee earlier this year. It was rushed through because we were told that the Government were keen to introduce machinery to give negotiating rights back to teachers. Like the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), I believe that the Government have handled teachers' pay and conditions in a shoddy way. They have deceived Parliament.
  Education, like everything else, is in a mess. The profession is demoralised. It is working its fingers to the bone, but it is being kicked in the teeth by the Government. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) and I agree that the Government are doing a grave disservice to education. The Government are trying to destroy comprehensive education and the state system.
  I want to quote the editorial of the Northern Echo—which is not often supportive of the Labour Party—because I believe that it sums up education under the Tories, particularly under the present Secretary of State for Education and Science. It states:
  "Mr. Clarke has managed to whip up one controversy after another over Britain's schools. First it was the `date-capping' of history, a nonsensical move to stop the teaching of anything which has happened during a child's own lifetime. Recently he dropped the rules introduced by Kenneth Baker in 1988 which prevented opted-out schools becoming grammar schools within five years. Now they can become selective as soon as they want. His theory is that it gives parents a choice of what school they want for their children. In practice, it will doubtless allow the governors a choice of whose children they don't want in their schools. Now Mr. Clarke has launched an attack on those Members of Parliament who send their children to state schools to further their own careers—in other words, he reckons that the state system cannot hold a candle to the independent sector and his opponents should realise it. Mr. Clarke thus reveals deep hostility to the notion of a universal and free education system of which he is the custodian. He says that he has never met anyone who would not have sent their child to an independent school if they could afford it. Such comments show the extent to which the head of our state school system is out of touch with the state. It is true that many parents are considering giving their children a private education—and more in the North are doing so. But this has as much to do with their growing concern about the quality of state education as their alleged confidence in the private sector. And that concern is hardly surprising when the minister responsible for our schools writes them off as second rate."
  That just about sums up the Secretary of State's attitude to education.
  Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Member is developing a thesis in which he claims that Conservative Members do not use the state education system, and that is of course nonsense. I for one use it. Does he accept that Conservative local education authorities such as Harrow and Barnet produce decent results, while Labour authorities such as the late and unlamented Inner London education authority produce pretty awful results?
  Mr. Steinberg: I can speak only for my local education authority and the authorities about which I am aware. I am proud to send my kids to a state school. I do not need the independent sector. A headline in the press this morning read "Labour Children are Sacrificed." My kids have never been sacrificed. My daughter went to Belmont school, the local comprehensive. She then went to Framwellgate Moor, which is a good school in Durham. where she took her O and A-levels. She is now studying law at Nottingham. That is not failure, and my daughter was not sacrificed for the sake of the independent sector.

  75
  I have no qualms about sending my children to the state system, but I wonder how many Government Front-Bench Members have qualms about sending theirs to the state system.
  Because the Government are putting the dogma of the marketplace into education, schools are being forced to compete with one another for students. They are getting less and less money—unless, of course, they opt out of local education control or they are city technology colleges. The private sector has been expanded both openly through the assisted places scheme and deviously with schools being encouraged to be selective by back-door methods.
  The whole country is worried about our education system, which has become a major political issue, and naturally and rightly so. Without a well-educated population, we cannot compete with our European counterparts. While our European partners and rivals invest in education and training, what do our Government do? They test seven-year-olds. It is vital that more resources are devoted to education in our schools. Higher standards can be achieved only by having high-quality teachers. What do we have? We have schools that are falling down, severe teacher shortages with few high-quality people entering the profession, and many good teachers leaving the profession.
  Many teachers are demoralised by the poor esteem in which they are held. Many work under great pressure in under-resourced schools. Their professional competence is questioned time and again by the Government and by members of the Conservative party. The work load of teachers has increased dramatically with the introduction of the national curriculum and standard assessment tasks. The lack of time and resources only adds to the pressure on teachers. Teachers feel absolutely overwhelmed.
  Very recently, I received a letter from Mrs. Warburton, the head teacher of an infant school in Durham, Belmont County infants school. She said:
  "When I was appointed as Head Teacher of this school in 1989 I was given to understand that LMS would not concern schools of this size until after 1994. 'Good'—I thought—`Time to implement the National Curriculum, get used to Assessment, then when all this is up and running I'll have time to devote to managing a budget.' Alas, it was not to be.
  The work load is almost unmanageable. One feels that one cannot do one job properly because there are so many other urgent demands. The most unfortunate effect I feel is that I am losing touch with what is happening in the classrooms—I have so very little time to spend there—I know it is not my job to teach as such, yet how can I make decisions and advise the staff if I do not have contact with the children? … We are more than happy to accept extra relevant work which will enable our pupils to realise their full potential. But is spending my time in an office with mountains of paperwork and insufficient clerical staff hours relevant to the education of these pupils? I'm afraid I feel that some sort of it is not, and that my training is being wasted."
  She said that in the past couple of weeks she and her staff have felt depressed. They wonder what is the point. They cannot see the credit for the good job that they are doing. That is typical of virtually every teacher in the country today. Every teacher feels overworked, underpaid and depressed because of the Government.
  To add to all that, most telling is the way in which teachers' pay has fallen in relation to average earnings. The Government claim that teachers' pay has risen dramatically. The earnings of other occupations with
  76
  which teaching must compete have risen far faster. The Government point to the period since the abolition of teachers' negotiating rights and the introduction of the interim advisory committee in 1987. According to evidence that was given by the Department of Education and Science to the Select Committee, teachers' salaries were 116 per cent. of average non-manual earnings. The first phase of implementation of the 1990 pay award saw it fall to 104 per cent. By the end of the second stage of the award, it had fallen to 97 per cent.
  To reinstate the position that teachers had in 1987 would have required an additional 13·8 per cent. To bring it back to the levels that were laid down by Houghton in 1974 would have needed an extra 40 per cent. However, in 1991, what do teachers actually receive? The IAC recommended a pay increase of 8·4 to 10·1 per cent. for the teaching profession and that teachers should receive 9 per cent. from 1 April 1991. The Secretary of State said that he accepted that in full. As we all know, that is a con because he has implemented the rise from 1 April at 7·5 per cent. and a further 1·5 per cent. from 1 December. In other words, not only have teachers not caught up to the 1987 or 1974 levels but they are now £1·50 a week worse off for every £100 that they earn until 1 December. That is a further erosion of their salaries and the result of a pay settlement that has been imposed on teachers.
  Mr. John Marshall: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has lost not only me but all hon. Members in his comments about absolutes and relativities. However, does he accept that teachers' pay has gone up substantially in real terms? If he says that other professions have done even better, does not that underline the fact that all real incomes in this country have risen substantially since 1979?
  Mr. Steinberg: I ask the hon. Gentleman to ask many people in the teaching profession, and in many other professions for that matter, whether their wages have increased in real terms since 1987 or 1979. We have only to ask them how much more they pay for their mortgages in 1991 than they paid in 1979. Teachers and members of other professions in the public sector have dropped further and further behind, with teachers being in a worse position than the majority of other workers.
  We cannot recruit and retain teachers, either now or in future, when their salaries are so uncompetitive. In that context, great importance attaches to the way in which teachers' remuneration and conditions of service will be determined in future. The original School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill was bad, and I said so on many occasions on Second Reading and in Committee. However, at least it provided teachers with the opportunity to negotiate with their employers. This Bill takes that right from them.
  The No. 2 Bill is appalling. It introduces a pay review body which by definition denies the right to free collective bargaining between employers and employees. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and I have said, the International Labour Organisation has twice upheld complaints from the National Union of Teachers that the Government's withdrawal of teachers' negotiating rights breached its convention on free collective bargaining to which the British Government are a signatory.
  Despite the ILO's call for the Government to make arrangements for teachers' pay to be determined by

  77
  collective bargaining, the Government have refused to comply with that international ruling. The Bill makes it absolutely clear that the Government have no intention of restoring schoolteachers' negotiating rights. To address the current problems of recruitment, retention and the work load of the teacher, it is vital for direct negotiations to take place between employers and teachers.
  Employers have experience and understanding of the implications of changes to teachers' pay and conditions that would be lacking in a Government-appointed body. I completely reject the principle of a review body at the expense of negotiating rights. There cannot be any confidence in pay review bodies when the findings of similar bodies for nurses, doctors, dentists, paramedical staff, the armed forces, senior civil servants and members of the judiciary have been modified in seven out of the past eight years. The only time the Government made no variations in the recommendations or findings of the review bodies was in 1987—and we all know what happened in 1987.
  Under the Bill, the Prime Minister is to appoint the review body and its chairman. How can that be seen as independent? To make matters worse, the Secretary of State for Education and Science then directs the review body and determines what can be referred to it, giving the teachers and their employers no opportunity to raise matters of national importance or significance to the profession. How can that be independent? Having set up the body, the Secretary of State reserves the right to ignore its recommendations and then, independently, autocratically and autonomously, makes other provision "as he thinks fit".
  To make matters worse, and just in case all that has not castrated the review body sufficiently, in consultation with the chairman—remember, he has been appointed by the Prime Minister—the Secretary of State can bypass the procedure completely; and all that after the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Education and Science a few weeks ago that he did not meddle in the running of schools. He has now given himself the power to intervene in any school on staffing matters, payments for teachers or changes in teachers' conditions of service.
  Clause 3 builds in what I suspect is the real purpose of the Bill—the encouragement of school-by-school arrangements. With continual Government pressure for schools to opt out, I suspect that it is intended that the review body shall be an interim body, with local education authorities eventually disappearing from sight.
  Thus I find the Bill dishonest—the hidden agenda remains totally hidden. The Bill is about the control of education. It is about giving the opportunity for central control of strategic policy, coupled with a denial of the right of proper negotiation at any level on pay and conditions. Despite what Conservative Members have said, that can lead only to continued frustration for the teaching profession, causing greater recruitment and retention problems in the long run.
  Where are the real changes in the proposals from what happens now with the present interim advisory committee? Frankly, as I read the Bill, there are no changes at all. Everything will be exactly the same, but given a different name. Yet again, the Government have broken their promises.
  The consultations of the past three years on the restoration of negotiating rights have meant absolutely nothing. As I said earlier in an intervention, only a few
  78
  months ago Ministers were arguing for the restoration of negotiating rights—albeit that it was flawed—but now, presumably next week when the Bill is in Committee, Ministers will argue against the restoration of negotiating rights. They do not know where they are.
  Like the entire Government and the majority of Conservative Members, Ministers are absolutely shell-shocked. We have had Bill No. 1 on this and Bill No. 2 on that. We have had so many U-turns over the past 12 months that this place looks more like Brands Hatch or Silverstone than the place from which the Government run the country. The truth is that this Government are no longer fit to govern. They continually get things wrong. They do one thing, but shortly afterwards have to change it because of the mess that they made.
  Whatever the Secretary of State may say, this is a time of severe teacher shortages. Recruitment and retention are crucial and the profession's morale is at an all-time low. How many of us have visited schools in our constituencies only to hear teachers say, "Thank God I have reached the age when I can apply for early retirement"? Only last week, a group of sixth formers came down to visit me from a school in Durham. The teacher with them said that he had now reached the age of 50 and, thank God, was leaving the profession. He said that he was sick to death of it and glad to get out. He knew that there was about to be a review body because I reminded him of it, but it did not seem to make him want to change his opinion.
  The Bill serves to undermine education still further. The proposed legislation is totally unacceptable. We live in a society that subscribes to the principle of free collective bargaining between employer and employee, where a worker has the right to withdraw his labour and to take industrial action. The Secretary of State implied that the pay review body would be dependent on a no-strike agreement. If I were still a teacher, I would never have given that guarantee. I would not forfeit my democratic rights, and I believe that many teachers will agree with my sentiment. I totally reject the proposal for a pay review body at the expense of free collective bargaining and the restoration of teachers's negotiating rights.
  Mr. David Madel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to detain you, but we have just heard a rather long speech. Do you agree that there may be a case for imposing the 10-minute rule between now and 9 o'clock to allow more of us to speak? [Interruption.] The Opposition have had their say.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am getting slightly anxious about the length of speeches and the number of hon. Members who still wish to speak. I hope that those who are fortunate enough to be called will bear that in mind.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Alan Amos: I shall endeavour to avoid causing you any anxiety, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Bill is very good for the teaching profession and therefore for education. It is eminently reasonable and fair, and it is sad but significant to see the Opposition thrashing about rather unconvincingly to try to find reasons to oppose it. What do the Opposition put first—the right of one union to undertake industrial actions, or the educational future of our youngsters?

  79
  With the many other hon. Members who have welcomed the Government's proposals in the Bill, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on the flexibility, insight and common sense that he has shown in responding to a changed situation, and having the guts to put into effect a measure that deserves to be welcomed by everybody who genuinely has the best interests of both teachers and school children at heart.
  Let there be no doubt—this is a watershed in our educational system. The main thrust of the new proposals is to bestow a level of professionalism and status on teachers that they totally deserve. What could be more laudable than to raise the professional status of the teaching force by determining their pay and conditions via an independent review body—I stress the word "independent"—reporting direct to the Prime Minister, in exactly the same way as we handle doctors, dentists, nurses, the armed forces, senior civil servants, and judges?
  The review body will be comprehensive in its scope and impartial in its decisions. Its main task will be to establish a system that will recruit and retain good teachers and thereby build upon the already much improved career structure introduced by the Government in recent years. There will be no cash limit or predetermined financial constraint upon the deliberations of the review body, but the Secretary of State must, of course, lay down certain guidelines and other considerations in the national interest. All interested bodies, including the employers, will be consulted and evidence taken from a very wide range of organisations. There will not even have to be a 'no strike agreement'.
  I do not believe that any reasonable group of people could seriously argue that these conditions are in any way onerous or unfair, or against their interests. The fact is that the other review bodies work very well and the staff involved have never expressed any desire to get rid of them. All the groups covered in this way are professions and I maintain that strike action is inherently incompatible with the status of professionals. Strikes and other forms of action are the proper and legitimate tools of industrial unions, not of groups such as teachers. We want teachers to be professionals, and we intend to treat them as such.
  The other reason why all teachers should welcome the establishment of an independent review body is that review body recommendations are usually implemented in full, although occasionally phased in over a short transitional period. Under clause 2, the Secretary of State will also have a fair amount of flexibility in the way in which he can give effect to the body's recommendations.
  In addition, I commend clause 5(3), which will sensibly avoid any misunderstanding about what are, and what are not, extra-curricular responsibilities. In any case, the Bill makes it clear that negotiations between local education authorities and teachers can still take place on non-statutory conditions of employment.
  A review body will raise the importance of any settlement on pay and conditions to a higher level than any amount of collective bargaining could. In taking evidence from all interested bodies, a full hearing and full consideration will be given to the complete spectrum of teaching concerns. The days when not only the country but the future of our children was held to ransom by the whims
  80
  and prejudices of the more militant teaching unions is at an end. It has been claimed that the right to strike has been removed from the teaching profession, and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred to
  "the … removal of the right to strike which the statement implies."
  The facts do not bear that out. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman would realise if he were in his seat, there is no intention to write a no strike clause into the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said earlier that that was the case, and when he responded to the hon. Member for Blackburn on 17 April he said of the right to strike:
  "We are not going to take away that right by law."—[Official Report, 17 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 435–36.]
  So let us squash that bogus argument once and for all.
  In any case, why can Opposition Members not accept that, in treating teachers as a profession, it is fair to expect them to reciprocate? By insisting on an absolute right to take industrial action, they are refusing to accept that sensible and professional decisions can be reached by an independent body. The Opposition must accept that teachers can make intelligent decisions that do not rely on the fear and destructive nature of industrial action. Let there be no doubt that the only people who suffer from industrial action are the children who are too often left to cope with public exams and decisions on their future without the help and backing from the striking teachers who are more concerned with obtaining a few more pounds in their pay packets than helping the children in their care. I am proud to say that, when I was a teacher in a state comprehensive, I refused to take any form of industrial action.
  Indeed, the unions and most teachers have had a pay review body for a long time. Pay review is supported by five out of the six recognised teacher bodies. The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers has warmly welcomed the proposals and has given them strong support, as has the Secondary Heads Association, the Professional Association of Teachers and the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. In a letter sent to a number of my colleagues today, AMMA says that it welcomes
  "the recognition of school teachers' professional commitment now offered by Ministers".
  It also says that AMMA
  "greatly welcome the basis upon which the Secretary of State has brought forward this new proposal."
  Only NUT officials seem to be opposed to the plans. Why can the Opposition not accept that these proposals are what the teachers themselves want, and that Labour can no longer impose strike action, through its union friends, on teachers who do not want it? Those days are over. Why do the Opposition insist on refusing to listen to what teachers want, and what is in their best interests?
  It is significant that the teacher organisations that support a review body are all associations: NAS, SHA, PAT and AM MA. It is opposed only by the National Union of Teachers, which shows a difference of emphasis and outlook by the unions.
  The Opposition are obsessed with collective bargaining and with industrial action. They want to impose the negotiating rights of an industrial trade union onto a professional body. The teaching profession will gain much more from an independent review body than any number of negotiating rights. In the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill, the Government have shown the desire to

  81
  reconsider new proposals. It would have been easier for the Government to have pressed ahead with the original Bill. There is no reason to stick to the original proposals when the opportunity for a better one comes along, and especially one that the teachers themselves want. Most important of all, the work of the existing review bodies has ensured that the other professions have kept up in real terms. That is an essential fact.
  When one looks at the Government's proud record on education during the past 12 years, one can clearly see that, in any case, there is absolutely no need for industrial action and strikes. Between 1979 and 1990, the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools improved from 23·1 to 22·0 and in secondary schools from 16·7 to 15·3. Government spending over the same period in real terms is up from £22·2 billion to £25·1 billion; spending per capita in nursery and primary schools, again in real terms, is up from £943 to £1,100, an increase of 15 per cent.; in secondary schools it is up from £1,327 to £1,690, a significant increase of 22 per cent.; and the number of school leavers with five or more GCSEs, or equivalents, is the highest ever at 31·9 per cent., and the figure for the percentage of 18-year-olds achieving one or more A-level passes, at 17·6 per cent. is also the highest yet.
  What the independent pay review body offers is exactly what teachers want—a recognition of their status and a commensurate financial reward—a professional means of dealing with pay and conditions. As a teacher in a state comprehensive school for eight years, I know that to be the case. The nature of a teacher's job is of necessity undergoing a fundamental and long overdue change, both in what is taught and how it is taught: the national curriculum, local management, standardised testing, teacher appraisal and so on. All these place extra burdens and responsibilities on the teaching force. We are asking them to be more professional, better trained and more highly qualified, skilled and flexible. I am therefore pleased that we are now setting up the machinery by which we will recognise that fact. As a former chairman of an education committee, I remember only too well the regular, predictable prolonged chaos and uncertainty under the old free-for-all negotiating chaos of the Burnham committee. It was an absolute shambles. The interim advisory committee has done a lot of good work, but it was never a full or permanent solution to this matter.
  Because local councils run education and spend the money, but central Government pay the bills, we have a structure in which accountability and responsibility are a mess. The review body will elevate teachers' pay and conditions on to a much simpler and more professional level, and that is why I fully support the Bill.
  I pay tribute to the vast majority of the teachers in my constituency, whom I have met as I go round visiting the schools, who maintaian a good standard of discipline and produce good public examination results. They are dedicated, want to make a success of the reforms, want to get on with their jobs, and be treated as professionals. They want nothing to do with the trade union-minded militant minority of left-wing trouble makers and union officials who, by their behaviour and repeated industrial action year in and year out in recent years, have undermined the whole profession. That is something that the Government are now putting right.
  7.31 pm
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I agree with the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) in his warm tribute to teachers, who have, in the main, remained loyal professionals and have continued the difficult task of educating our children through the many changes that they have undergone during a turbulent and difficult period. However, I take issue with him when he describes the Government's record in the past decade as "proud". Teaching has been turbulent and difficult, and it has not been recognised as a profession.
  I welcome the change in emphasis towards teachers and the recognition of teaching as a profession. I welcome the implicit commitment to acknowledge their status and to improve their pay. In that spirit, I welcome the pay review body.
  Earlier in the debate, hon. Members were vying with one another about their credentials, saying who had experienced state education and whose children were being educated in the state system. My credentials are impeccable. I was educated in the state system and my children are being educated in that system in London, where it has been undergoing an especially difficult time following the break up of the Inner London education authority. Education at both sixth-form secondary level and primary level—as I know from the experience of my three children—has survived only because of the dedication and professionalism of the many teachers who have stayed the course.
  That is not to say that I have not observed periods of intense disruption as a result of the industrial action of three or four years ago. I think that some of the problems now experienced by sixth forms in London are a direct consequence. During their second, third and fourth years of secondary education, some children lost contact with their school and their teachers, and have never regained it.
  Some parents, of course, have the commitment—and, perhaps, the money—to enable their children to retake their exams, and to stay the course by patching things up with extra French lessons and so forth. Not all of them have the commitment or the wherewithal to do so, however, and other children have paid the price of the appalling disruption that we saw a few years ago. That is why I am wholeheartedly committed to any action that removes teachers from the striking arena: such action can only be to the good. Many teachers—including many of the better ones—have lost heart and left the profession in recent years. Although I have criticised the Government's education record, I can honestly say that I have seen as many teachers leave as a result of the excesses of the ILEA. I supported reform of the ILEA rather than its abolition, but I know that the task of teachers has been made near-impossible by the pressure imposed by wayward local education authorities in some areas, and by their unacceptable interventions in the form of "isms" from here, there and everywhere. We must devise a suitable pay mechanism, which will attract and retain teachers of the right calibre and ensure that they stay.
  The SDP has long been committed to the establishment of a pay review body. As early as 1985, we advocated in a Green Paper that a system should be set up to determine public sector pay, which would be recognised as fair and which would keep public sector groups broadly in line with their private sector counterparts. Our main concern then,

  83
  as now, was that the system should be independent, and that disagreements should be settled through arbitration. We hoped that that would be accompanied by a no industrial action agreement, into which the teachers would enter freely for recognition of their professional status.
  That is the right approach, and it is long overdue. I must emphasise, however, that I believe that it would work much better in the context of a general teaching council, which has already been mentioned this evening. We need a self-regulatory body of teachers and for teachers, to monitor standards, approve training, adjudicate and raise professional standards.
  Although I consider the attraction and retention of teachers of the right calibre a vital ingredient, and although I firmly believe that structural changes achieve nothing unless those teachers are in place, I also think that some of the structural changes in the pipeline will prove detrimental.
  We did not support the Education Reform Act 1988, for two reasons. First, as I have said, we advocated the reform rather than the abolition of the ILEA. Secondly, for reasons closely connected with today's debate, we had grave reservations about grant-maintained schools—especially because we could not obtain a reassurance from the then Secretary of State that grant-maintained status would not be used as a way of returning to selectivity. The last thing I want is a return to the old secondary modern and grammar school system.
  That is not to say, however, that I do not believe that mistakes were made in the comprehensive system. I do not want to stray too far from the subject of the debate, but let me throw an idea into the melting pot. I believe that the comprehensive schools failed because we made them much too large. We did that so that each school would generate a viable sixth form; the old grammar schools attracted less than a third of the pupils.
  The comprehensives failed all round. They were too large to accommodate children aged 11, 12 and 13; the children lost contact with their teachers; headmasters did not know individual pupils; and they failed in their essential task of creating viable sixth forms. It is now all too common for London comprehensives, even the largest, to form consortia and seek sixth form college arrangements to try to make their sixth forms work. I think that it would have been much better for the comprehensive system if we had aimed for schools for 11 to 16-year-olds, along with tertiary colleges. Then the comprehensives would not have had to be so large.
  Young people change. At 16, they are in many ways too old to want to be schoolchildren, while not being old enough to enter an adult college. A break from school at the age of 16 would allow them to enter an environment that would be halfway between school and college.
  I know to my cost—and I have talked to many other parents who feel the same—that it is too much to ask 16 to 19-year-olds to be given too much responsibility. It is too much to expect them always to know where they should be, and to be there when no one else will know whether they are there or not. At that age, young people develop interests outside their studies, and, if they lose track of school or school loses track of them, they have not the motivation or the commitment to complete the A-level or further education studies.
  84
  Not only are too few pupils staying on because of the present system; many others are falling by the wayside. It would, I think, be a great pity if the testing that I have tentatively approved were used to reintroduce selectivity at the age of 11, but testing has a vital part to play. If a general teaching council were established, teachers would, as a body, accept the principles entailed in conducting those tests and using them sensibly.
  Next week and the week after, I shall see seven-year-olds being tested at school, and shall be able to judge for myself. Judging by my preliminary conversations with teachers, however, I believe that their anxieties focus not on the nature of testing or on whether it is right, but on the fact that they are not receiving the support in their schools that would release them from their duty to teach the rest of the class. For several days—perhaps weeks—they will be dealing with small groups of children, putting them through the tests. Head teachers and supply teachers are having to be diverted.
  What else can be done to improve the staying-on rate? That is an important part of the overall question. It is a travesty that we are now lower in the league tables than countries such as Korea and Thailand; there can be no justification for that. I urge the Government to reconsider the introduction of education maintenance allowances for 16 to 19-year-olds, many of whom are in no man's land, where financial support from their parents is uncertain. If the parent is on income support, that dries up for them and young people find it impossible to continue their education.
  I welcome the pay review body. I should prefer an independent general teaching council. I should also prefer arbitration. However, we have taken a major step in the right direction.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I listened with great interest to the balanced speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). I was particularly interested in what she had to say about education for 16 to 19-year-olds. It is tempting to develop my ideas on that subject. I must admit that, for some time, I have been enthusiastic about a professional teachers' council that would be not too far removed from a general teaching council. That subject has been raised in all parts of the House at various times during the debate. The most important point to come out of the hon. Lady's speech is that she and her colleagues support the idea of a pay review body for teachers. It was perfectly clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) that he and his colleagues also support the idea.
  The most extraordinary feature of the debate so far is the total confusion in the ranks of the Labour party. I am not at all clear what the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) meant. Later in the debate, perhaps it will be made clear. However, what is clear is that some Labour Opposition Members are totally opposed to these ideas. In their case, at least I understood their arguments; otherwise, confusion seems to reign.
  The main reason for my participation in the debate is to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) said. He said that this is one of the most important developments in education for some time. Since I, together with many of my colleagues, have been arguing for a pay review body for teachers, I can only regard this

  85
  as one of the pleasantest opportunities to speak in a debate that I can recall. This is a good step, and I support it 100 per cent.
  It was extraordinary to hear some Labour Opposition Members—for example, the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)—state at great length that they were not arguing for a return to the chaotic Burnham negotiations, but that is precisely what they were arguing for. There is no way in which they or their National Union of Teachers colleagues can pretend otherwise. They want Burnham back.
  I taught for 23 years. Burnham was not popular with teachers. It did not deliver a good deal for them. It was also counter-productive. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby developed that theme, and there is no need for me to develop it further. We do not want to go back to Burnham. That is why I regard the Bill as a major step forward, which I strongly support.
  The hon. Member for Truro said that the first School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill was a waste of time. I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, and I do not agree. I remember, together with a few of my colleagues, using the opportunity that the Bill afforded to develop the argument for an independent pay review body when the time was suitable. I must admit that at that time I did not realise that the suitable time would be quite so soon, but I do not complain about that.
  What is even more important, in the context of the details of the Bill, is that, together with a number of my colleagues, I remember arguing that provision should be made for a consultation process within grant-maintained schools, if they should decide to dissociate themselves or separate themselves from the pay process. If I read it correctly, that provision is incorporated in clause 3.
  What I hope will become clear when the Bill is debated in Committee is whether a measure of local pay bargaining will be allowed. I believe that there should be an independent pay review body, so I support the Bill. However, I see no reason why there should not be an element of local pay bargaining—for example. where special local conditions cause a shortage of teachers, or where there is a shortage of specialist teachers, or where there may be other good reasons for local pay bargaining. I hope that the Minister will say something about that when he winds up the debate.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I am interested in the consistency of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Earlier, he said that national pay negotiations would lead to conflict, and he equated bargaining with industrial action. At local level, however, he does not equate bargaining with industrial action. What is the difference?
  Mr. Thompson: Having heard the speeches of some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, I doubt whether I shall be able to persuade him that I believe that there is no correspondence between the chaotic Burnham system, so well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby who had experience of it before he became a Member of Parliament, and a measure of local pay bargaining at school level. The important point is that I believe that it is right to move towards a pay review body. The other one is icing on the cake. I hope that I shall hear later from the Minister that, by some means or another, local pay bargaining can be introduced.
  86
  There is wide support for a pay review body. Individual teachers support it. They have done so for years. Moreover, the majority of the teachers' unions are in favour of the proposal. There is also widespread support for it on both sides of the House. Like my hon. Friends, I believe that this is the best opportunity that teachers have had in my lifetime to be regarded as a truly professional body. I cannot emphasise that point too strongly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) paid tribute to the many good teachers in his constituency. The majority of teachers are good professional people. They will no doubt welcome his encouragement for their professional status to be further enhanced. Those who do not act professionally will find that the measure helps to put that right, in that it will encourage them to be more professional.
  I am delighted that the Bill also enables us to discuss strike action is schools. When I was a member of the teaching profession, many teachers never took industrial action and many who did took it reluctantly. They did not want to take industrial action, but they felt compelled to do so. It must be a good step forward if we can devise a system in which we move away from industrial action in our schools. That is why I so strongly support not just the Bill but the thinking behind it. It has come rather later than I should have liked, but now that it has finally arrived, I welcome it. Children should no longer have to experience strike action in their schools. It does them a disservice, and I support the Secretary of State's proposal.
  I hope that one small point will be considered when teachers' pay is debated, either now or later. I support those who have already said that, in considering teachers' pay, we should deal in particular with the pay of experienced classroom teachers. I cannot emphasise too much that it does our schools no good if our system encourages good classroom teachers to believe that they must become head teachers, deputy head teachers, local government officers or HMIs if they are to earn more money. That point was emphasised during an intervention. I strongly support those hon. Members who feel that it should be made worth their while for good teachers to stay in the classroom. They should not have to regard it as natural to get out of the classroom to earn more money for their families.
  There has been much talk in the debate about the morale and status of the teaching profession. I do not intend to say a great deal about that, apart from pointing out that other countries have a similar problem. We must not be misled into believing that this is a peculiarly British problem. It is one that we share with our continental neighbours and with the United States of America.
  I hope that the Bill is part of a package of measures to address the problem of teachers' morale, status and professionalism, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will use this opportunity to examine teacher training. I recently spoke to one or two young people who have attended teacher training colleges, as a result of which some of them gave up the idea of teaching.
  I have always thought that my view of teacher training was rather archaic. Perhaps I am prejudiced, but I still believe that trendy ideas are too much to the fore, that there is political indoctrination in teacher training colleges and that many of the lecturers have an inadequate knowledge of the subject that they are supposed to be teaching. When one hears what goes on in many of our

  87
  teacher training colleges, it is a shocking indictment. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take some action.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Does what the hon. Gentleman has just said represent simply his own feelings on the matter, or has he real evidence for his allegations? All the colleges running B.Ed. and postgraduate courses have been approved by the Department of Education and Science. If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, it is a serious matter, and specific colleges should be investigated.
  Mr. Thompson: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully, he would recall that I was wondering whether it was my own prejudice, although I had spoken to people who had been through the system and attended teacher training colleges over the years. I am not suggesting that all teacher training colleges are the same or that all lecturers are the same, but most people would agree that the overall picture is not good. Hon. Members' views may differ, but I am sure that they will agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who I am glad to see in his place, should take the earliest opportunity to examine what is going on in teacher training colleges.
  As pay, curriculum reform and other matters that are central to the organisation of our education system are very much under the influence, if not the control, of my right hon. Friend, I suggest that, following the successful transfer to the centre of funding of polytechnics and further education colleges, we should look again at the role of local education authorities.
  Since the recent debates on local government finance, the local education authorities expect changes and reform, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not duck the challenge of that aspect of education. Labour local authorities have certainly failed in their administration of education. Labour Members have failed to explain their attitude to the Bill this evening, and recent statements show that the Labour party is still facing in the wrong direction on education.
  The Bill is a breakthrough for those of us who want to enhance the quality, status and professionalism of teachers. I welcome it as a vital step towards a better education system, and I am delighted to give it 100 per cent. support.
  8.3 pm
  Mrs. Sylvia Heal (Mid-Staffordshire): Nineteen eighty-eight was certainly a year for teachers to remember. It saw the introduction of the Education Reform Act and the demise of teachers' rights to collective bargaining and pay negotiations. Those two factors, and the decline in their relative pay and conditions of service, have had a considerable effect on teachers.
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) referred to the disgraceful way in which Education Ministers treated the House in their handling of the previous Bill on teachers' pay. In endorsing his comments, I add that that was yet another example of the disgraceful way in which the Conservative Government and Education Ministers have treated the teaching profession.
  Having spoken to teachers and head teachers in my constituency, I want to talk about the real views, concerns and conditions of those working in education. Low morale
  88
  related to pay and conditions is a major talking point among the teaching profession. All teachers I met referred to the Education Reform Act and the many demands that it has placed upon class teachers, heads of department, deputies and head teachers. They have all said that the changes have been too many and too fast.
  They have all been critical of the mountains of paperwork they receive and their lack of time to cope with the new demands. They complain about the lack of time to prepare and plan for all the extras in the national curriculum as well as the daily demands of teaching—perhaps a class of 32 lively youngsters. The range of subjects and the methods of teaching mean that there are many practical activities which require much more planning and preparation.
  Time is also a problem for head teachers. The introduction of local management of schools means that much of the administrative work previously undertaken by the local education authorities now has to be carried out by head teachers. They have to make time available for attending additional meetings of governors and subcommittees. They have to make time to deal with finance, although most of them are not and do not want to be accountants and administrators. Those additional responsibilities mean a reduction in the time available for head teachers to maintain contact with pupils and staff. They receive no additional payment or extra help.
  When Labour politicians talk about teachers' morale, they are accurately reflecting what they have been told by those in the front line—the teachers at the chalk face, those working in the classrooms. The teachers I have spoken to are all struggling to maintain morale, and they rely mainly on one another to boost that morale. They feel undervalued and under stress. I make no apology for repeating what has already been said in the debate.
  A general practitioner neighbour of mine speaks of diagnosing "Baker depression" among teachers. Regardless of who is the present Secretary of State, the originator of many of the problems was his predecessor, the current Home Secretary. We must now avoid any further lowering of morale as teachers have less control over their conditions of service and more leave the profession as a result.
  Those in the profession are keen to maintain and improve the quality of education. Ministers are keen on talking about that, but if it is to be achieved, we require teachers who are professionally trained, who have self-esteem and who feel that they are valued. Conditions of service and working conditions are extremely important. The Labour party has often referred to our crumbling schools, in which the majority of children are taught and the majority of teachers work. Teachers face difficult conditions in the classroom and in what is available to help them to cope with the many problems of children in our schools today. Teachers have to deal not just with practical teaching problems but with the emotional difficulties that children, and therefore teachers themselves, have to face.
  State schools are staffed by high-quality teachers and, despite the difficulties under which they work, the results they achieve are good. Teachers in Mid-Staffordshire and throughout the country want proper recognition of their professional training and skills and of the responsibility that we place on them to provide the motivation and education that this country desperately needs for its children.

  89
  Teachers have seen their pay decline in recent years, and have had no increase in real terms since 1987. The many teachers who leave the profession show their dissatisfaction with their pay and conditions of service. Issues relating to conditions of service are complicated, but a pay review does not negotiate but merely allocates.
  Since 1988, there have been many unresolved problems for the teaching profession such as supply teachers' pay, cover duties and increments. It is therefore understandable that those who accept the review body instead of having their negotiating rights returned do so with reservations. It is understandable, too, when one considers the term "independent review body", but reads in the Bill the intervention powers that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have on composition and on the directives that can be given. Those comments were admirably made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg).
  The teachers and children of this country deserve a better deal from this Government. The teachers of this country deserve a fair deal—and they certainly have not had one from the Conservative Administration.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. David Madel: The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) mentioned school buildings. I agree that we need to make more rapid progress in improving them. I hope that the new council tax will lead to a more stable and fairer revenue support grant system that will stop pulling money from counties in the south, such as Bedfordshire, to those in the north without having regard, as the RSG has had, to the need for school buildings. Bedfordshire is somewhat behind, but I hope that the new system of council tax and of allocating resources will lead to the improvement for which Conservative Members and the hon. Lady have called.
  I welcome the Bill, as an imaginative attempt to solve the issue of teachers' pay, after an extremely disturbed position in part of the past decade. I hope that the review body will remember that if, as I believe, we are heading for a decade of low inflation, there is no need to recommend a one-year deal for teachers' pay; it should be perfectly possible to recommend a two or three-year deal. Such deals are being made in parts of industry because they lead to greater stability and free management from time and negotiation. If the Government succeed in keeping inflation low, what works effectively for the private sector could easily work well for the public sector.
  One of the review body's first tasks should be to consider how teachers' duties have been extended, what is expected of them and how the position has changed in the past 10 years. As has been said many times in the debate, there has been no lack of new initiatives since 1980, and there has been no education drift. There has been GCSE course work, the technical and vocational education initiative, the national curriculum, AS-levels and records of achievement, to name but a few. All those changes need time to show their importance, so we need time to measure thoroughly and accurately how successful they have been. A common thread has been the increase in non-teaching support to ensure that the initiatives succeed.
  In deciding what to recommend on teachers' statutory conditions of employment, I hope that the review body will pay particular regard to the need carefully to consider
  90
  how best to use teachers' time. We all want quality teaching, which includes lesson preparation, teaching, marking, examining and extra-curricular activities, but conditions of employment must recognise that teachers need time to think about the development of the curriculum and how they are planning their work. In the next 10 years, the development of the curriculum will be important for the improvement of education standards.
  A modern industrial society will inevitably require the curriculum, particularly the science and technology part, to change. I welcome the fact that business is much more involved in the school curriculum and is putting forward its ideas. However, not only employers but the craft and skill unions have a contribution to make in suggesting how the curriculum should develop, and most certainly have a contribution to make in explaining how changes in the curriculum have affected work on the factory floor, especially in the skills that we need. I want the extension of the partnership between education and business to include the skill and craft trade unions. The pay review body must consider such matters, because at the heart of its work are the conditions of employment for teachers and development of the curriculum.
  Clause 2 empowers the Secretary of State to give direction to the review body on the considerations to which they should have regard and the time within which they are required to report. I want to make a point about teachers' hours of work and education duties which, if considered sensibly by the review body, may lead to an improvement in classroom standards. Much evidence shows the importance of homework and that, if it is done properly and regularly, and if it is major aim and ethos of a school, it translates into a much better examination performance and creates improved classroom atmosphere. In many homes, it is simply not possible for young people to have the necessary peace and quiet, and freedom from interruption, to complete homework. Young people should be able voluntarily to stay on after school to do their homework, but that would require teacher-only supervision. It is no good imagining that volunteers could do the job; teachers would be needed.
  I hope that, in its recommendations, the review body will recognise that a teachers' contract of employment may include a requirement to supervise homework at school and that we shall not have an argument between the profession, the review body and the Government on how far such duties extend. I stress that that would be voluntary and that it is impossible to say how many schools will take advantage of it, but in some parts of the country pupils are encouraged to stay at school to do their homework.
  I hope that there will be increasing recognition that that is a good education practice. Such duties will be included in teachers' pay and conditions only if the review body says, "We recognise that teachers' hours could include such necessary supervision, and we shall therefore make such a recommendation to the Secretary of State."
  There have been two main parental worries in the past decade. The first fear is of classroom disruption by teachers taking industrial action. That is now over. The Bill will seal peace among teachers, education authorities and the Government. The second fear is of classroom disruption by rowdy and anti-social pupils, which is a much more difficult problem with which to deal. The

  91
  chances of dealing with it successfully are mightily improved if the teaching profession works with the community, the Government and interested parties.
  Public education is a central civic function. To promote within the local authority sector a sensible balance between good school management and a fair allocation of resources is a central task of Government. The pay review body will ensure that there is a fair allocation of resources, which inevitably includes fair and reasonable salaries for teachers. I wish the Bill well. It will bring industrial peace throughout the education service.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: The first point we need to remember as we debate the Bill is that the Conservative party has been in power for 12 years. It has not suddenly been thrust into office, and it did not suddenly find that all these problems were building up because of a previous Administration. During the past decade or so, Conservative Administrations have failed to deal with education problems.
  Dr. Hampson: I hesitate to intervene. Having been a Member for so long, I remember when Shirley Williams, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, talked about national curricula, but nothing was done. Instead, budgets were cut more heavily in 1976 under a Labour Government than at any other time since the war. The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that there is a long lead time in education. Translating plans into legislation, instituting systems in schools and training teachers probably takes 15 years. If anyone has responsibility, it is the Labour Government for the decisions they did not take and for the rotten decisions they did take.
  Mr. Griffiths: I can hardly thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. At that time, I was a teacher. Education problems are far greater now, after 12 years of Conservative rule. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to come with me to any school, in my constituency or his, to ask teachers who have experienced education over that period what they think. The hon. Gentleman will be surprised at the answer, because it will not agree with his comments.
  At the end of 12 years of Conservative government, we have chaos in the education system. Although some welcomed some aspects of the Government's reforms—for example, the national curriculum—teachers have been wringing their hands in despair at the way in which they are expected to carry them out and because of difficulties in terms of the number of subjects allocated and the testing originally envisaged. Teachers feel desperate when they consider how to ensure that the children in their charge are properly educated and to meet the demands of the testing which the Government introduced.
  No wonder Her Majesty's inspectorate and the interim advisory committee give clear warnings about teachers' pay and conditions. The interim advisory committee's last report stated:
  "We are in no doubt at all that teacher morale is lower than in our first two years".
  The senior chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate said:
  "too many teachers feel that their profession and its work are misjudged and seriously undervalued".
  92
  No hon. Member can say that the responsibility lies with decisions made in the mid-1970s. It lies with decisions made during the past decade. The difficulty in facing up to that problem led us to this debate.
  During the latter part of the 1980s, teachers' pay lagged behind that of comparable groups. In October 1987, the starting salary of a graduate teacher was £10,330; today, it is £9,990. A teacher on incentive allowance B in October 1987 had a salary worth £17,390; today, it is worth £16,660. The value of a teacher's salary has decreased.
  The review of the Government's education record by the infamous Carlton club's political committee stated:
  "To put matters into perspective, teachers' salaries are:—

  50 per cent. less than those of Medical Practitioners.

  75 per cent. less than Accountants.

  80 per cent. less than Civil Engineers.

  It is a truism to state that a country only gets those professionals it is prepared to pay for. On the salaries now being paid to teachers it is, frankly, a wonder (and a huge testimony to their sense of vocation) that so many dedicated men and women remain in the profession."
  That was the view of the people at the heart of the Conservative party, not of Labour local authorities or of those of the Labour Front Bench. If the Government cannot face up to that criticism, they cannot face up to any criticism.
  The Carlton club's political committee stated:
  "the Government should also recognise that it will win the respect of the public at large if it errs a little on the side of generosity in rewarding 'the better teacher'."
  The political committee stated that there was a need for a
  "thorough independent review of teachers' pay"
  with a
  "significant upgrading of teachers' pay".
  All the evidence from the Opposition and even from the heart of the Tory party shows the need to pay teachers a decent wage so that they feel that the fine words lately showered on them mean something.
  At the beginning of the debate, parents' commitment to the state education system was questioned. The Secretary of State said that anyone who read the Daily Mirror was a moron. I am sure that they are the words that the record will show tomorrow.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that they were the words, which were somewhat misguided on my part. I sought to comment on the lack of wisdom of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in choosing that newspaper as a source for his comments, but it was more a comment on the newspaper and on the user of the quotation than on the readers.
  Mr. Griffiths: It was a fit of pique, anger and misjudgment by the Secretary of State to describe readers of the Daily Mirror as morons. I understand his desire to put the record straight. However, it seemed that, during the interview given to Woman, the Secretary of State was saying that, because of the difficulties faced by state schools, he did not know of any parents who wanted to send their children there, or that, at least, if they had the money they would desert wholesale to the private sector.
  If the Secretary of State is prepared to listen, I can assure him that the majority of parents in my constituency—and, I am sure, that of almost every hon. Member—are committed to the state education system and want their children to go to schools that are not too far away and where they can be assured that teachers are well-paid, fully committed and happy and have high morale, so that they

  93
  can contribute to the education of their children, who in their turn will contribute to the economic and social well being of the country.
  I mentioned the four comprehensive schools in my constituency such as Brynteg and Bryntirion in Bridgend and Cynffig comprehensive in Kenfig Hill and Porthcawl comprehensive in Porthcawl. Those comprehensive schools have a record of academic achievement and extra-curricular activities such as concerts and musical shows. I am sure that, if the Secretary of State were able to visit a state school, he would be welcome and would applaud those schools for their standards, for the commitment of the parents and for the fact that they are happy for their children to go there. Not all parents are satisfied, because clearly, all parents want schools to do better for their children, hut, nevertheless, the majority are committed to and support schools such as those in my constituency.
  One of the problems with the Bill is that of resources and the directions that the Secretary of State might want to apply to the independent review body. It was not clear either from what the Secretary of State said or from some of the exchanges whether the review body for teachers would operate in exactly the same way as those for dentists or doctors. If he were to make it clear that the ground rules would be exactly the same, the misgivings of some teachers' unions could be overcome.
  It is a pity that, before introducing the Bill, the Secretary of State did not consult teachers' organisations and the local authorities, which are the employers. If he had done so, it might have been possible to come up with a pay review body which, in principle, had the assent of all parties involved. As the Secretary of State knows, the Labour party is, in principle, in favour of independent review bodies. It has advocated them in the past, and I am sure that if, on this occasion, wide consultation had been carried out, everyone would have been happy to support the Bill. It is the lack of clarity about the Secretary of State's intentions that gives us cause for concern.
  The Secretary of State should also bear it in mind on the question of resources that local authorities all too often fail in their task of providing education, either because they do not receive sufficient funding from the Government or because they deliberately choose to use the funding for purposes other than those intended by the Government.
  I use the example of nursery education. The 20 leading authorities in the provision of nursery education are Labour-controlled and the 20 worst are largely led by Conservatives. Let us take the specific example of the county of Gwent, where there will shortly be a by-election. That county provides 60 per cent. of its three and four-year-olds with nursery opportunities. In the neighbouring county of Hereford and Worcester, the figure is about 20 per cent., and in Gloucestershire, it is about 30 per cent. What a contrast between a Labour authority and two Conservative authorities.
  It is on the question of nursery education that the famous Carlton club report accuses the Government of supplying inaccurate information in Conservative party literature and of not respecting its great importance.
  When the Government deal with the pay review body, I hope that they will be prepared to consider the questions which have been raised about the Secretary of State's
  94
  powers and, even, at this stage, to call in all the unions and the local education authorities to see if there can be general agreement and some changes to the Bill.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Michael Irvine: I followed the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) with interest but I am still not clear whether he supports the independent pay review body outlined in the Bill.
  The most revealing speech from the Opposition was perhaps that made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). He was in no doubt that he opposed the concept of such a body. He said—I took a careful note—that he really did oppose the Bill. He paused for thought and then said that he hoped that his party did too; the Bill needed opposing. His touching and rather plaintive expression of hope that the Labour party would oppose the Bill clearly showed that he—like the majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends—had been left in the dark by the contortions, the uncertainties and the evasions of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]
  I am not responsible for where he is now. He is no doubt soothing himself after the ordeal that he experienced this afternoon. For the record, it was 25 minutes—I was watching the clock carefully—before he even attempted to deal with the Bill. We had 25 minutes of irrelevant preamble, followed by 15 tentative and uncertain minutes during which he gingerly circled the Bill, never coming properly to terms with it. His embarrassment was plain to see.
  Dr. Hampson: It was even worse. It became evident that, because he thought that the Association of University Teachers was in favour of a professional review body, he endorsed it,but because the National Union of Teachers was against one for schoolteachers, he was against it.
  Mr. Irvine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has identified with precision one of the appalling contortions in which the hon. Member for Blackburn found himself. I want now to move on from that to the reasons for the difficulties that lay behind his speech.
  The embarrassment of the hon. Member for Blackburn almost certainly stemmed from the fact that within hours of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State making his announcement on 17 April, five out of six of the main teaching unions had come out in support of the review body; the exception was the National Union of Teachers. That put the hon. Gentleman fairly and squarely on the spot. Despite the fact that the other teaching unions favoured the concept of an independent pay review body and despite the fact that a majority of members of the National Union of Teachers probably favoured the idea, a powerful element in the NUT leadership is set on a return either to Burnham or to something closely related to it. The hon. Member for Blackburn dares not affront that powerful element—hence his evasions, contortions and uncertainties.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that in one excellently run primary school in my constituency, 100 per cent. of teachers were in the NUT? When there was last a strike, all except two came out of the NUT. Teachers do not want the right to strike,

  95
  that the hon. Member for Hillsborough apparently wants. They want the right to have a professional body to decide their fate.
  Mr. Irvine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my point.
  We have had enough of the difficulties, uncertainties and miseries of the hon. Member for Blackburn. I will get on to a more positive aspect of the Bill. The status of their profession is naturally of particular concern to the vast majority of teachers. They recognise the damage that was done to the good name of their profession by the breakdown of Burnham and by the industrial disruption undertaken by a minority of teachers in the mid-1980s. The vast majority of teachers are rightly determined to re-establish their status and to emphasise their professionalism. The Bill is a significant step towards them doing so.
  It is true that an independent pay review body is one thing and that obtaining from the Government the full implementation of that body's recommendations is another. However, teachers who are cynical or distrustful should remember that the recommendations of their independent pay review body will inevitably carry a great deal of clout and that that clout will be exercised in a highly sensitive and political area on which both main parties have laid great store. It will not be easy for a Government, whatever their political hue, to ride roughshod over the independent pay review body's recommendations.
  I hope that, in determining the appropriate pay levels for teachers, the new pay review body will recognise the importance not merely of recruiting and retaining sufficient teachers, but of recruiting and retaining teachers of quality. The problem is not just making the numbers fit, but raising the quality level. That point was made effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) when the House debated the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill in November. I was not present in the Chamber to hear the speech, but I read it in Hansard and I thought that it was excellent.
  The need for teachers of quality is especially great nowadays. In a more competitive world, the benefits and skills that children can gain from good teaching are even more at a premium and the task facing teachers is in many ways more daunting than it used to be. There are more behaviour problems with which to deal, and there are far more children from broken homes and unsettled backgrounds. There is generally less respect for authority. All too often, there is not enough interest from parents, and there is a reduced level of attentiveness and application from children who are brought up to expect instant and effortless entertainment from television, videos and the like.
  All that puts unprecedented pressure on teachers and makes it that much more important for teachers of quality to be recruited and retained. I very much agreed with what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) said about the importance of ensuring that the pay of the experienced classroom teacher is given special attention.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) referred to local management of schools as a burden. In my constituency, local management of schools, far from being a burden, is improving morale among teachers. I
  96
  know many teachers who had reservations about local management of schools and who now strongly support it. I also know some teachers who opposed it outright and who have now swung round to being in favour of it.
  Great credit is due to the Suffolk education authority for the local management of schools formula that it devised and for the effort it put into training and preparing teachers for it. That effort has paid rich dividends. Local management of schools is working well in Suffolk. It has definitely played its part in boosting morale among teachers and school governors.
  After going through an intensely difficult period, the teaching profession is now on the way to recovering its morale and self-confidence. This excellent Bill, in giving teachers their own pay review body and emphasising their professional status, will powerfully reinforce the welcome and continuing improvement in the status of the profession.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: A succession of Conservative Members have repeated that they are unclear about the Labour party's position. Perhaps they have not read the Order Paper, where we set out with perfect clarity the grounds on which we oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. The reasoned amendment refers to the "unacceptable powers" that the Bill gives the Secretary of State and to the lack of any proposals
  "to raise teachers' professionalism by the establishment of a General Teachers Council."
  Alternatively, Conservative Members may have developed a blind spot. After 12 years, Conservative Members reject any deviation from counter-productive diktat. In 12 years in government, Conservative Members have lost the habit of listening, not least to what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says. They have turned a blind eye to the effects of their actions over those 12 years. That is what our debate is about.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was entirely correct in listing the series of assaults that successive Conservative Administrations have inflicted on the material and spiritual well-being of the teaching profession. There has been a steady decline in teachers' pay, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn referred, and teachers have been affected by so-called "innovation fatigue". There has been too much innovation, introduced too quickly and always "within current resources". That is the usual incantation. There have been constant challenges to teachers' professionalism and the cumulative effects of drowning in a sea of paper.
  A university report, to be published later this year shows that secondary teachers spend an average of 63 hours a week on school work—most of it outside the classroom. They spend only one third of their time on teaching, and have less than 20 minutes a day for breaks and lunch. Teachers' conscientiousness, rather than their salary, status or prescribed working hours, is the critical factor in the excessive and unhealthy amount of time that they devote to their work.
  Teachers do all that in slum conditions. My own local authority, Knowsley, can afford only £2·5 million for repair and maintenance work on its schools, although, according to a professional assessment, £8·5 million is needed to bring the school buildings up to scratch. That figure can be multiplied across all the local authorities in the land. That is in stark contrast to the bankrolling of the

  97
  city technology colleges and the grant-maintained schools, which are the darlings of the Government. It is all stick and no carrot. What a way to handle an intelligent and spohisticated profession.
  Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman referred to the grant-maintained schools as the darlings of the Government. Will he confirm that they are also the darlings of parents, and that the number of pupils applying for entry to them has increased substantially in the past two or three years?
  Mr. O'Hara: The statistical evidence shows that there has been a pathetic response to the invitation to opt out. We have the evidence of a school in my own local authority area. When opting out was suggested, there was a 94·7 per cent. vote against, on a turnout of 75 per cent. That represents a pretty conclusive rejection of the notion.
  Conservative Member's insensitivity was impressively demonstrated by their supercilious dismissal of the question why they do not patronise the state education system—except, that is, in their demeanour towards it.
  During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, the hon. Member for Buckingharn (Mr. Walden) made a revealing intervention, in which he defended the abandonment of the state sector by Ministers and Conservative Members on the grounds of the egalitarianism for which that sector stands. I hope that the Prime Minister, who advocates the classless society, was not listening at that point.
  "Egalitarianism" is an interesting word. It refers both to equality of opportunity and to equity of provision—to "la carriere ouverte aux talents" and to positive discrimination in favour of those in greatest need. If that is not what a classless society means, I do not know what is. On both counts—opportunity and equity—egalitarianism will not do for Conservative Members. They do not want opportunity—except for their own children—and they do not like to allocate resources to the majority who patronise state schools.
  That mean thread of dogma runs through so much that the Government have done since 1979. In the early days, the assisted places scheme provided a "ladder out of the state system"—as eloquent an admission as one could get that the state system was second class, was not good enough, was something from which to escape.
  The dynamic of the city technology colleges was that success for the minority could be provided only at the expense of the majority. Entry to CTCs must be selective, and they are obscenely stuffed with funding. Grant-maintained schools provide a similar example of bribery and bankrolling. Only this week, grant-maintained schools have been given the mechanism to become selective, if they wish, as soon as possible.
  What about the national curriculum? As hon. Members have said, it was on its way. It was an open door, but by running a bulldozer against that open door, the Government did untold damage. They almost ruined a good idea by their insensitive imposition of the national curriculum—although not in the private schools to which so many Conservative Members send their children.
  All that was done, and for what?
  "The Government will be judged in part on its perceived achievements and shortcomings in this crucial area"—
  education, that is.
  "It must be recognised that there is mounting concern that Conservative reforms have yet to produce results"—
  98
  after 12 years. Hon. Members will recognise my quotation, which comes from the Carlton club political committee report. There is some good stuff in that report. Apparently, we are bottom of the league table of nursery provision, our school governors have excessive powers and we have failed to curb the Church school sector. It is just as well that there are not many votes left for the Conservative party to lose in Knowsley, South, because—who knows—people there may read the meanderings of the Carlton club political committee in bed.
  Is it any wonder that the teaching profession feels demoralised or that the Government feel that they must make some concession to those who must be the prime agents in retrieving this desparate situation? Is it any wonder that, after 12 years of iron rations, the demoralised teaching profession is prepared to accept half a cake—albeit with caution, as suggested in the quotation from the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred, in which that body expressed its regret at the haste with which the Bill has been introduced.
  Even this much is offered grudgingly. The Secretary of State reserves intolerable powers of direction in this toothless tiger of a Bill. For the benefit of Conservative Members, I should say, "Watch my lips." This is the point of our opposition to the Bill. If the Bill is not toothless, it will be because it has a set of dentures designed by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will assure us that he will not hand-pick the members of the body, and that he will ensure full and fair representation of all the interests affected by the review body.
  Why does not the Secretary of State go further and consider allowing the teaching profession its own professional body, as befits its professional importance? Who was it who said:
  "increasing the status of the teaching profession through the endorsement of a Royal College of Teaching is a concept strongly favoured by all advisers"?
  It was the Carlton club group again. Short of a royal college, which the Labour party would prefer, I support the granting to the teaching profession of a review body. I cannot, however, support the Bill, because of the unacceptable powers of direction that it gives to the Secretary of State. According to the explanatory and financial memorandum, the Bill
  "empowers the Secretary of State, where, following a report from the review body and having consulted associations of local education authorities and others, he decides to make fresh provision as regards the statutory conditions of employment of school teachers, to do so by an order, subject in specified circumstances to the negative resolution procedure".
  That is the nub of the matter.
  I referred earlier to a fundamental difference of ideology between the Labour and Conservative parties in their attitudes towards egalitarianism. There is another fundamental difference. I refer to my party's concern for good industrial relations, for the exercise of professional responsibility—for good psychology, perhaps. In the context of this Bill, it is appropriate to consider what teachers might think. Any decent teacher will tell one of the importance of giving his pupils a sense of being valued and involved in the enterprise of learning. So it is with colleagues in a common enterprise. What enterprise could

  99
  be more important for the Government, for the country and for those who devote their lives and careers to it than the education of the nation's children?
  Before Conservative Members leap up to present a picture of a Labour Government and the teaching profession linked arm in arm, like the Kop choir singing "You'll Never Walk Alone", I hasten to say that that would be a travesty of the truth. We in Liverpool have two football teams. The other is Everton, whose motto is "Nil Satis Nisi Optimum"—"Nothing will do but the best". For the next Labour Government, only the best will do for education. The best cannot be achieved without the full co-operation of a teaching force with a sense of professional respect and responsibility. The Bill is irredeemably flawed in its capacity to provide that essential ingredient for success in our education system throughout the 1990s.
  9 pm
  Dr. Keith Hampson: I could make many comments on the speech of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), but I want to be brief. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill is flawed. In fact, the flawed point in the Opposition's case is the one to which he referred. The Opposition say that they would not mind having a review body but that the one proposed is inappropriate because of the built-in responsibility of the Secretary of State. In the Standing Committee that considered the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said:
  "We accept in principle that the Secretary of State should have the power to propose the final settlement in any pay award."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24 January 1991; c. 208.]
  That situation cannot be avoided.
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has not read the report of the Standing Committee that considered the Education Reform Bill of 1988. If he had done so, he would realise how flawed is his argument against the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). Throughout the proceedings of the Standing Committee to which I have just referred, Ministers denied what was really the intention behind the legislation. Our point is that the Government should be honest and straightforward. That is what the hon. Gentleman does not like.
  Dr. Hampson: The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to reply for the Opposition. Let me draw her attention to the Official Report of 17 April, in which she will find these words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State:
  "As the Government face the fare and pay the bill, the Government have to have that power in the last resort"—[Official Report, 17 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 442.]
  I thought that we had made that obvious throughout the proceedings.
  What we have seen tonight is the total embarrassment—I hesitate to use the word "hypocrisy"—of Labour Members, who know that the course on which the Government are embarked is correct. The Government have changed course, and some of us are delighted about that. Surely Labour Members ought to be equally
  100
  delighted. Why are they not? They think that the AUT is in favour of a professional pay body. I am not sure that it is.
  We all know Labour Members' connections with the NUT. The Labour party and the National Union of Teachers have been hand in glove for decades. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) is paid by the NUT. She will be slightly embarrassed—[interruption.] If the hon. Lady allows me to continue, she will realise that it is not necessary to interrupt. I am not attacking her; I am merely pointing out that no doubt she is in a dilemma because she is the paid representative of the NUT and has a declared interest in the Royal College of Nursing. It seems to me that she has split loyalties.
  Opposition Members have declared themselves as being in favour of the principle of the Bill but have scrabbled around for a way to oppose the precise nature of the Government's proposition. It is a case of wishy-washy dithering. I have been a member of the Carlton club for well over 20 years. By citing the Carlton club as the equivalent of a Government manifesto or a statement of Government policy, Opposition Members are scraping the bottom of the barrel. I was not even a member of the Carlton club group that has been referred to. Immodest as I am, I should not put much store by a situation in which I had not even been asked whether I should like to turn up. I have not even seen the document.
  There are hardly any Opposition Members present at the moment, but I should like some of those who referred to the famous Carlton club paper to swear that they have read it. We all know what happens. These days, Labour spokesmen are supplied with a research brief. They have all been referred to the best bits of the Carlton club paper to quote.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Hampson: I shall not give way. I can see that the hon. Gentleman has a copy of the paper.
  Mr. Griffiths: And I have read it.
  Dr. Hampson: I cannot believe that all those who have spoken from the Opposition Benches this evening had a copy, because——
  Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Hampson: I told the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that I would not give way. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) wishes to speak, I shall bring my remarks to an end in about five minutes.
  I endorse the part of the paper that states that we must reward the better teacher. Most of us accept that teaching is fundamental to the entire learning process, but who resists that? The answer is the National Union of Teachers. It has never wanted pay differentials, and accordingly the Labour party has resisted the idea, as always. Labour-controlled councils such as Leeds have not accepted the technical and vocational education initiative. That is an example of another major reform on which the Labour party has turned its back.
  The Labour party considered the national curriculum. A former Labour Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, thought that it was essential if standards of education were to be raised. None the less, the Labour party turned its back on the concept. Every major

  101
  education reform has been instinctively rejected by the Labour party because of its relationship with the teaching unions.
  The Labour party is grudgingly accepting the national curriculum nowadays, but it talks about upheaval and turbulence in schools. I say to the teachers that there would be a damned sight less turbulence in schools if we had acted earlier during the Labour Administration and dealt with the examination system, a national curriculum and all the other education reforms with which the Government are having to deal.
  There is no point in Opposition Members saying that we are faced with the inheritance of the past decade. They know as well as I do that by the time we have educated sixth formers in mathematics and they have graduated, passed through teacher training and become teachers, and a framework for a national curriculum has been formulated, a lead time of about 15 years will have been spent.
  The Opposition must bear responsibility for their dithering, their lack of decision making and the lack of funding for the education service when they were in government. They are responsible for what took place a decade or a decade and a half ago. The results with which we are faced are the results of their shortcomings. My right hon. and hon. Friends will be responsible for the standards of the education system in a decade or a decade and a halls time. I am sure that the standards will be much higher than those of today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) stressed the need for good school management. Leadership is important if a school is to work, and that reflects on the quality of the headmaster. I trust that we shall not turn headmasters into managers. We must consider imaginatively how part-time accountants and others can be introduced to schools to examine financial and management systems rather than to impose such systems on the headmaster.
  I entirely endorse the arguments advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for introducing a pay review body. There is a case, however, for examining the pay of those who are engaged in higher education. We must have a body that embodies teachers that are involved in further and higher education so that we can have sensible relativities. Schoolteachers have done relatively well compared with teachers in higher education.
  I know that it is easy to score points and we all might have wished teachers to have higher pay, but the salaries of schoolteachers have increased five times as quickly under Conservative Governments as under the Labour Government. I will not give the reasons for that, but that is what has happened. Although we might have preferred a further advance, salaries have risen by 30 per cent. in real terms while Labour could not raise them by more than 6 per cent.
  We must also consider what has happened to people in higher education. When we consider morale in higher education and the talk of disruption, we should accord to them the professional status which in this Bill we are according to schoolteachers. The record of those in higher education in terms of the number of students passing through the system, the improved productivity and improved student-staff ratios are yardsticks that deserve recognition.
  We have one of the tightest degree programmes of any western European higher education system and we are
  102
  now arguing that degree courses should last two years. We have a very cost-effective higher education system, and its reputation hangs on the quality of the people teaching in it. They deserve the same status that we are seeking to accord to schoolteachers.
  9.10 pm
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: The Secretary of State for Education and Science and several Conservative Members have mouthed phrases about having respect for teachers. However, it seems that that respect does not extend to reinstating teachers' negotiating rights. Nor does it extend to teachers at Culloden school in my constituency, who were witch-hunted by The Mail on Sunday. The Secretary of State joined that witch hunt by failing even to adhere to his Department's requirement that a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate should be sent to the governors, staff and the local education authority at least two weeks before it was made public. The report was leaked to The Mail on Sunday two days before and sent to the governors on the same day that it was sent to the rest of the press. Culloden school is in an area where 68 per cent. of the people are unemployed. Harassing its teachers was not a show of respect, and it certainly will not help to bring about improvements in the school.
  Many teachers have supported the idea of a review body as a lesser evil. They thought that they would have to fight for increases in salary school by school. They did not realise that the review body would be loaded with extra powers for the Secretary of State to give directions on pay and conditions of employment.
  Several Conservative Members said that good teachers should be rewarded. All teachers should be good teachers, or they should not be teaching. The Government believe that it is cheaper to reward a small group than to give a decent salary to the majority of teachers.
  On Saturday, there was a knock on my door and a young lady came to collect my census form. She told me that I must put it in an envelope because she knew me; we used to teach together. She was using her evenings and weekends to collect census forms because she could not afford to pay her mortgage. That is a true reflection of teachers' conditions. That is why so many teachers are taking early retirement and why teachers who can find jobs in other areas are voting with their feet. That is why students will not enter teaching if they have a choice.
  If the shortage of teachers worsens and the situation becomes chronic, craven researchers like Bennett will produce evidence to show that children learn better in large classes; but not of course in independent schools, just in schools for working-class—the majority—children.
  The Secretary of State showed his ignorance about modern methods of education when he referred to teachers being judged by their performance in front of the class. He was casting his mind back to his own school days and the days of chalk and talk. Those days have long passed. Teachers no longer teach that way. In this modern world, it is not suitable for children who can see the whole world opening up before them on television to be taught by old-fashioned methods.
  I might surprise the Secretary of State by telling him that, in my years as a teacher, I was rather conservative in my approach to teaching methods. I used to teach phonics. I annoyed many head teachers by putting an ABC on the wall, and teaching children the sounds and names of

  103
  letters. I believe in teaching tables. The ready reckoners of the days when people learned tables were not so different from the pocket calculators of today. People still need their tables. I deplore the fact that children are no longer taught poetry by heart. I have spoken to many 80-year-olds who recited with joy verses that they had learnt when they were children.
  I am not a faddist. Too many fashions have come and gone. Too many times I have seen the baby thrown out with the bath water. But the Secretary of State is a faddist. He wants to hark back to the phonic method only, and the graded reading system which parents regard as a ladder. They find out what book the child next door is on, and harass their child if she or he is not on the same book. That does not produce good results; it just produces nervous children. The Secretary of State wants a system akin to the monitor system for trained teachers. He really wants payment by results, too. He is harking back to a previous age.
  The opposite is needed in this fast-changing world. We need to teach children flexibility. They need to learn to use reference books to find out how to do things. They are not open vessels into which we can pour information for them to regurgitate in tests.
  The seven-plus test will do much more harm than good. Teachers will have less time to spend in teaching, and far more administration which is overburdening them already. Although a small percentage of children who would do well will get pleasure and advancement from it, the majority of children will lose their confidence. The main thing that a teacher teaches is self-confidence and improving the self-image. If children are happy and confident, one can teach them. If one introduces systems such as a public examination at seven, one will destroy the self-confidence of vast numbers of children, as the 11-plus did. I taught such children. It took years to restore their self-image and to enable them to learn properly again.
  The other day I received a letter from a parent who said, "I do not want my child to take a public examination. The head teacher tells me that, if I send him to school, he has to take it, and if I keep him away I am breaking the law. Where is my choice?" That is a good question which I put to the Minister of State: where is the parental choice? None of those regulations applies to independent schools. The significance of that is not lost on parents. If it is good for state schools, why is it not good for independent schools?
  I must conclude because, although I have sat here for six hours, I have only a few minutes to talk. The Secretary of State has been talking to the press about independent schools and about how everyone who can afford it would send their children to them. What they are paying for is small classes. That is what we want for all children. They also pay for social advancement—the contacts they make, the old school tie network—that puts so many nitwits into management that it has been destroying our industry. That is something else that they are paying for.
  When I was training, the Butler Act had just come into effect. Many of the good provisions of that Act were never put into practice. I hope that many of the bad provisions of this Government's regulations, including this Bill, will not come into effect because we shall have a rapid change of Government.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I guess that it is almost unique in parliamentary history to have two opportunities in the same parliamentary year to debate broadly the same issues, with slightly different Bills but very much the same themes. The first of those debates will be remembered for the fact that during it there was the leadership election for the Conservative party. I suspect that it offered a counter-attraction. When I read the Official Report of the Second Reading debate I realised that there were one or two moments when the Benches on the other side of the House were virtually empty.
  I suspect that on this occasion, the debate will not be remembered for the election of the new leader of the Conservative party, because obviously that has not taken place today. It is much more likely to be remembered for the Secretary of State's gaff when he commented on a few million of his fellow citizens who read one daily newspaper. That most unfortunate comment leads us to question his ability to behave rationally in certain circumstances.
  Let us now see whether we can come to some point of consensus or unanimity across the House. Virtually all hon. Members have wanted to sing the praises of teachers and to talk about their professionalism. Opposition Members welcome that consensus. We recognise that the teachers have enabled the changes in our education system to be made. Without teachers, there would be no delivery of the national curriculum, no seven-plus tests and no successful introduction of the GCSEs. Teachers have done much of that with an increased work load and often in difficult circumstances. It is right that the House should put on record its support for teachers and their professionalism and recognise the job that they have done in the past few years.
  In his graphic speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) itemised the increased work load faced by teachers, their patience and their commitment to their pupils. That is something that we all recognise. Incidentally, we missed my hon. Friend's presence on the Standing Committee that considered the first Bill. Indeed, there are those who have spread the rumour that the only reason for the introduction of this No. 2 Bill is that it will give my hon. Friend the opportunity to speak in the Standing Committee that considers it. I am sure that he will take advantage of that opportunity on a number of occasions and speak with great enthusiasm.
  Once again, my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough brought to our debate his ability to understand the problems of the classroom, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) who made the good point that many teachers work in circumstances that are far from convenient or conducive to good quality education. She referred, for example, to crumbling schools. It is a scandal that about £4,000 million-worth of repairs and new build necessary are necessary to bring the quality of our schools up to standard. [Interruption.] I missed what the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, but I am probably fortunate in that respect.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I said that a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer put an embargo on school

  105
  building because he had to kow-tow to the International Monetary Fund. That led to a backlog in school building and school repairs.
  Mr. Fatchett: I am rather sorry that I gave way to the hon. Lady, because, yet again, her point is incorrect. If she looks at the record and compares the statistics, she will see that Labour's record on school building was considerably better than that of this Government. I fear that the hon. Lady never recognises good facts, but always knows good prejudice and peddles it.
  We have seen a number of prejudices in the debate. The hon. Members for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) talked about the quality of education being subverted by what they called "progressive teaching methods". That is now the theme of the Secretary of State. He has discovered what he too calls "progressive methods" and accuses those responsible for progressive methods of reducing the overall quality of education. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), I thought that it might be interesting to discover the basis on which the Secretary of State was making those assertions.
  The hon. Members for Wolverhampton, North-East and for Norwich, North may well have more detailed experience, but the Secretary of State talks about the quality and direction of teacher education in a way that leads one to assume that he had some practical experience and had visited teacher training colleges throughout the country. We can all remember his comments about teacher training colleges. It was clear that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not paid such visits, other DES Ministers had done so. It seemed clear that the combined expertise of the DES at ministerial level resulted from a number of visits to teacher training colleges to find exactly what happens in them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East tabled a question, which was answered this afternoon, asking the Secretary of State to list the colleges of teacher education and training and the university and polytechnic departments of education that had been visited by all DES Ministers in the past six months. I stress that the question did not refer only to the Secretary of State. When I hold up the answer, the House can see that it is not a long list. It lists four Ministers and between them——
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Five.
  Mr. Fatchett: I do them an injustice—there is a growing organisation. Between them, they have been to two colleges of education: the college of Ripon and St. John in York; and the Roehampton institute. Those two institutions have a lot to worry about, as they give grounds for many of the prejudices peddled from the Conservative side of the Chamber.
  We have also heard about the argument for increased teacher professionalism. We would certainly support that. The hon. Member for Norwich, North argued that case strongly, as did the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). I welcomed her speech. It was almost a history lesson, because she kept talking about her party. I was not quite sure whether there was still a political party or whether she was talking about a social event in Greenwich at the weekend. Nevertheless, she was able to use the royal "we" with great skill on behalf of her two colleagues. I assume that there are still two.
  106
  I must confess that I went to Plymouth the other week to take a passing interest in the local election there. I noticed that the Social Democratic party there calls itself the Social Democrats of Plymouth so that it can retain the initials. It has maintained the initials, but I am not sure whether it has maintained the faith and the consensus.
  Like virtually all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, the hon. Member for Greenwich said that she was in favour of professionalism for teachers, and I agree with her. In that context, it would be useful if the Government were prepared to support the notion of a general teaching council, which we have suggested on previous occasions. We think that that would be a good instrument to improve teacher professionalism, to give the profession a sense of purpose and to improve teachers' self-confidence. The Government have made a number of comments tonight about enhancing professionalism and I hope that they will accept the notion of introducing such a council.
  Dr. Hampson: What will it do?
  Mr. Fatchett: I am always happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary interventions. We enjoyed one ealier this afternoon. The general teaching council would set standards of teacher education and in-service training; it would provide the professionalism that is known in other professions, such as medicine and law, which is a crucial and important task, and, it will give teachers the sense of self-confidence and purpose——
  Dr. Hampson: What about discipline?
  Mr. Fatchett:—and the sense of discipline that is lacking.
  Another aspect of professionalism mentioned by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East was the introduction of teacher appraisal, which she favoured. She wanted a national scheme for teacher appraisal. She must talk to the Secretary of State. There is no reason why she cannot do that.
  Mr. David Davis (Boothferry): He might do a runner.
  Mr. Fatchett: No, he will not, and he certainly will not do a runner to visit schools and colleges. The Secretary of State will be there and the hon. Lady should pick up the telephone, ring the Department of Education and Science, and have a word with him. Then she will find out that he gave only a quarter of the amount recommended by the independent body to the national appraisal scheme for teachers. If the Secretary of State had been serious about teacher professionalism he would have made the resources available so that the job could be done properly.
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said that the House had reason to criticise Ministers
  "for the appalling way in which the Government had treated the House".
  He went on to use the word "deceit" about the Government's intentions and referred to the considerable delay between the date that the first Bill came out of Standing Committee to the date that the statement was made on 17 April.
  We know that there is not a great deal of consistency between what was said on 27 November and what has been said this evening. It is interesting that, on the previous occasion, eight Conservative Back Benchers spoke. Each and every one of them spoke, with great enthusiasm, in favour of the first Bill, as did the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: So did you.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State has already made one big gaff this evening; it is useful for him to keep quiet on occasion. I point out to him that we voted on a reasoned amendment in the previous debate.
  Eight Conservative Back Benchers spoke in favour of the earlier Bill with great enthusiasm. It is interesting to note that not one has spoken in tonight's debate.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: They were gagged.
  Mr. Fatchett: They were not gagged but embarrassed. Seven of them have not even been in the Chamber. The Secretary of State has no need to check. Unlike him, I do my homework, and I can tell him that there were eight speakers—seven of whom were not in the Chamber tonight—and each supported collective bargaining for teachers and opt-out for schools in individual local education authorities.
  It is a distinguished list: the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), and the two whose contributions I enjoy the most, the hon. Members for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)—the Nervo and Knox of education debates. The hon. Member for Dartford said in the previous debate that he had advocated the Bill during his five years as a Minister in the Department of Education and Science. He was so enthusiastic about the first Bill that he felt that all his previous arguments and persuasion of Ministers has at last worked. Sadly, he lost his job in the process.
  The Secretary of State is now reading through the report of the proceedings of the debate.
  Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the debate, perhaps he will help me. I am looking for the reasoned amendment to see whether Labour Members gave their views on a review body. He has spoken for a quarter of an hour without mentioning those words, although they are the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Fatchett: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the reasoned amendment, he will see what it says. It was not only the view of the Labour party, but that of the then Secretary of State. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) may be interested in this point. I asked the Secretary of State whether the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister, felt that the teachers should have a pay review body. He will find this at column 749. The Secretary of State's response is clear enough. He said:
  "However, I do not believe that we shall embark on a fresh review of pay arrangements, when the Bill"—
  that is, the first Bill—
  "contains excellent arrangements that should be enacted and put into force."—[Official Report, 27 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 749.]
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am glad to see that I did not answer the question. The time has now come for him to answer the question. Is the Labour party in favour of a review body?
  Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State's tactic when he is asked a question is to reply with a question. That is what
  108
  he did earlier. No one can accuse the Secretary of State of consistency—[Interruption.] I shall deal with all the points; we have enough time.
  In the first debate, we heard much right-wing ideology in favour of individual local education authorities opting out of central pay bargaining. That was seen as the answer to teacher shortages and the lack of motivation. Speaker after speaker on Second Reading and in Committee said that opt-out in individual local authorities was the answer to the problems of teacher shortages and pay. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), who is not with us at the moment, was very enthusiastic about it in relation to clauses 8 and 9. He said that that was the key to greater flexibility and to greater incentive for individual teachers. Those were the arguments that the hon. Gentleman voted for on the previous occasion. We were told that they were important.
  Let me say, as I like consensus to be maintained, that I am delighted that the arguments that my hon. Friends and I used in Committee against clauses 8 and 9 and opting out have been listened to and that the Government have dropped that right-wing nonsense from the Bill. I hope that we never again hear of the idea of individual local education authorities being able to opt out of the national pay structure for teachers. That ideology has been buried.
  As for this Bill, and our reasoned amendments, our point is that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State extensive powers of direction and detail. He argued on previous occasions that the teachers' organisations favour a pay review body, but he was less than fair to them. He knows that the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association has said that, while it may favour the principle of a pay review body, it is less than happy with the powers that are being given to the Secretary of State. We were told by the Secretary of State that he would not interfere, that powers of direction had to be included in the Bill but that they are not important.
  The Secretary of State then relied on an argument that I believe is the thinnest argument of all: that the powers have to be there because this is a statutory body but that they will not be used in any malicious or evil way "because you can trust me and I am a decent bloke." I have heard some weak arguments in the Chamber but that is one of the weakest I have ever heard. We may accept that this Secretary of State is a decent bloke, but we should like those powers to be substantially reduced.
  What did the Secretary of State have to offer teachers? He offered them no additional money or resources but promised that the pay review body—I noted his words—could take account of the standard spending assessments for the level of investment in education. If account had been taken of the SSAs in 1989 and 1990, they would have led to a cut of £1·5 billion in education expenditure. That is what would have happened if individual local authorities had operated the Government's imposed, centralised target. Are teachers being offered a cut in resources? Teachers will not find such a offer attractive. Although Conservative Members may believe that the notion of a pay review body is acceptable, they ought to recognise that a pay review body will not be acceptable if it is used, as has happened during the last few years with the interim advisory committee, to reduce the real value of teachers' pay.
  There is broad agreement that we need a well-paid and well-motivated professional teacher force. It is also clear that the country needs a Government who believe in and

  109
  care for state education and who will deliver success in our education system. That is why we need a Labour Government. That is why the people of this country want a Labour Government. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for our amendment.
  9.38 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): Well, Mr. Speaker, after an hour and 15 minutes of contributions from Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, we still do not know where the Opposition stand. Will they, won't they? The answer is neither: they simply do not know.
  Apart from that, we have had a good debate. There have been some excellent contributions. In particular, I welcome my hon. Friend's contributions and almost all those of Opposition Members who drew attention to the important role and the achievements of teachers.
  They drew attention to teachers' commitment to improving standards and their solid professionalism in coping with change and implementing the far-reaching educational reforms that have been a feature of the past few years.
  The House listened with particular attention to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). He knows better than most the difficulties that have faced Ministers in introducing the Bill. I was particularly grateful to him for his support as I am sure was my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) welcomed the Bill with great passion and commitment. He made it clear that he had wanted such a measure for a number of years. The whole House responded to the way in which he put his case.
  Second Reading debates exist so that we can debate general principles, the broad thrust of policies and the nature of the proposed legislation. Conservative Members have explained clearly the essential features of the Bill. We have shown how a review body will recognise and strengthen the professional status of teachers. We have pointed to the extensive support for our proposals among teachers' unions and associations, and among teachers at large. We have made it clear that the award of review body status is a milestone in the development of the modern teaching profession.
  Conservative Members have played their part in full measure. We have heard today telling examples of what can be achieved through good management and the effective use of resources. We have heard about the commitment of so many teachers to raising standards, and about the genuine desire that teachers show to meet the needs and aspirations of parents and pupils.
  The picture of the teaching profession painted by most hon. Members during the debate chimes with my own experience. During my visits to schools, I meet dedicated teachers and enthusiastic pupils. I find it hard to discern the poor standards which others appear to see so readily. However, there are problems. Too many children have lower levels of attainment than they should have. Too many finish their education at 16 and the teaching force in some areas is not as strong as we need it to be. Resources are not always targeted effectively to raise standards and to respond to parents' concern.
  Opposition Members insist on talking about the problems in schools. They stress the difficulties and failures
  110
  and accentuate the negative. They do our teachers and children a grave disservice by ignoring or underplaying teachers' achievements and successes.
  It is perhaps not surprising that many teachers believe that their achievements do not gain them the recognition they deserve. The Bill is an essential step in the process of restoring teachers' self-respect. My right hon. Friend and I share wholeheartedly the concern of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to raise the standing of teachers in society. The establishment of the review body is a tangible expression of that commitment.
  Mr. Straw: As the Prime Minister is now here, will the Minister take his advice on a question that the Secretary of State felt unable to answer, on the grounds that he was not involved in the discussions? The Times Educational Supplement reported that the Treasury, with the present Prime Minister as Chancellor, had opposed a pay review body. Was that correct? I am happy to continue talking while the Minister takes the advice of his right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Eggar: I do not need to take advice from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We are looking forward. We are introducing a pay review body. That decision would not have been possible without the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. We expected to hear whether the Opposition support a pay review body. We have had 75 minutes of waffle but no answer to that fundamental question.
  We have heard much about teachers' rights. Anyone listening to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) would think that that amounted to teachers' rights to take industrial action and to send children home. Conservative Members know that the rights teachers hold dear are the rights to respect, to professional status, to fair treatment and to fair pay.
  There is a further right that the hon. Member for Blackburn has denied teachers—the right to know the policy of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. We know the position on the pay review body of all my hon. Friends and all Opposition Members, with the exception of the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). Everyone else has made their position absolutely clear.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: At what stage did Ministers decide to review the policy in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill?
  Mr. Eggar: Ministers must consider policy in the light of developments. As the Bill progressed, we carefully monitored the attitude of teacher unions and associations and held discussions on the best way forward. We eventually reached the conclusion, with the full support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that the best way forward for the teaching profession and our children was the introduction of a pay review body.
  Dr. Hampson: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) dithered on whether he could bring himself to oppose a professional review body because the NUT is against it, but the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) did seem to endorse the view expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)—that the Labour party believes in teachers' right to strike. A pay review body will enhance the teaching profession and avoid classroom disruption.
  Mr. Eggar: Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have extolled the virtue of teachers' right to strike, but have forgotten the right of children to learn.
  I urge Opposition Members to take immediate steps to make it clear to the teaching profession whether they support a pay review body. The issues are not complicated, and the alternatives are not wide-ranging. The hon. Member for Blackburn does not need a plethora of facts and figures. As a special concession, we shall not ask him to cost his proposed alternative to a pay review body, but will he please let us know what the Opposition's position is?
  There has been a torrent of words from the Opposition, but they have said nothing. They should stop dithering and trying the patience of the House, and should make their position clear. They owe that to teachers and to the country. I am willing to give way to the hon. Member for Blackburn. His silence speaks volumes.
  Is the answer of the Opposition to the clear and simple question, "What pay machinery do you want?" a simple "Don't know; we shall have to consult the NUT"? The Opposition may not know what they think, but teachers do and will draw their own conclusions from their silence.
  At one point in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn, I thought that we might be getting an answer. He said, yes, he wanted a pay review body for teachers, but, no, he would not support our Bill, which introduces a pay review body: yes, he wants a pay review, but, no, he will not accept our pay review body. That is not a clear policy for the Opposition.
  Then the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) entered the fray. In an intervention, he asked the hon. Member for Blackburn whether he believed that a small minority of teachers—presumably members of the NUT—would force the Labour party not to introduce a pay review body. The hon. Member for Blackburn said, "No, we will not be dictated to by a small minority of teachers," but he did not make it clear exactly why and in what circumstances he would have a pay review body. He said that the Labour party needed agreement, but he did not make it clear whether that agreement would be of all teachers, including all or part of the NUT.
  I had thought that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) would save his boss, the hon. Member for Blackburn, from the ignominy of not making the position clear, but he did not. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central spoke for 25 minutes before even mentioning a pay review body. Having done so, he simply talked about the virtues of the Labour party. The Labour party may have many virtues, but one of them is not the virtue of making its position about a pay review body clear.
  To be fair to the hon. Member for Blackburn——
  Mr. Straw: No.
  Mr. Eggar: I understand why the hon. Member for Blackburn does not want me to be fair. He made a substantive point, which was picked up by the hon. Member for Truro, when he referred to clause 1(4), especially the power of the Secretary of State to give directions. Because of the way in which teachers are employed, they have statutory pay and conditions. From that point of view, they are unique among those groups that have the benefit of a pay review body.
  Because of the nature of teachers' employment, we have introduced a Bill to cover them. The point of the Bill is to
  112
  ensure that everyone knows that teachers will be placed in the same position as other groups that have the benefit of pay review bodies, such as dentists and doctors. It is michief-making to suggest that the considerations in clause 1(4) are there to do anything more than replicate the existing informal arrangements that govern the review bodies for dentists and doctors.
  The important point about clause 1(4) is that, despite what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said and the hon. Member for Blackburn implied, it does not give the Secretary of State the power to impose a financial constraint on the pay review body. In that sense, it is crucially different from the independent advisory committee, and it is as similar as we can make it to other pay review bodies.
  The review body will be free to make up its mind on the basis of all the evidence put to it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that we will implement its recommendations unless there are clear and compelling reasons to do otherwise.
  Mr. Straw: On what conceivable authority does the hon. Gentleman justify his claim that the wide power in clause 1(4) for the Secretary of State to give the review body directions to which it must have regard will not include financial directions? There is no point in referring to the fact that the 1987 Act went further. As the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State know, if this provision were interpreted by the courts, they would look at the words in the Bill. The Bill gives unqualified powers to the Secretary of State to issue directions as to the considerations to which the review body is to have regard. In what way do those words exclude financial considerations?
  Mr. Eggar: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would get the point by now. The review body has to have regard to whatever directions the Secretary of State gives, but it does not have to abide by them. That is the critical difference between the position under the IAC and the position under the review body. That is why the new structure is as identical as we can make it to the existing review bodies.
  Mr. Straw: We are making a little progress. We have now established that, as well as the Secretary of State being able to set terms of reference under clause 1(1) and having the reserve power not to accept the recommendations, the directions could include financial directions. The only difference betweeen us and the Minister is that he is saying that the review body could ignore them. Is that correct?
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is scrabbling around desperately to find an excuse for not answering the fundamental question, which is, "Do the Opposition support a pay review body?" My right hon. and learned Friend made the answer clear, and so have I. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have plenty of chances to explore the question further in Committee if he still wishes to do so. However, I suspect that, by the time we reach the Committee stage, the Opposition will have realised that they must be clear on the essential question that we are discussing. They cannot continue to obfuscate this issue, which is vital to teachers, to children and to their parents.
  Mr. Walden: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the real world, the most likely outcome of a pay review body for teachers would be a significant rise for teachers? Does

  113
  not that put the Opposition spokesman on education in an even more ridiculous position because, in the real world, he is opposing—or failing to commend—my right hon. Friend on that move? Is it not true that the decision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education to set up the new mechanism in the full knowledge that it will in all probability lead to a significant rise for teachers underlines the Government's bold, imaginative and constructive policy?
  Mr. Eggar: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is extraordinary that the Opposition, who supported a review body for so many public sector bodies, should refuse to support one for teachers. Why? They know that their paymasters—the unions—are divided, and, especially, that the National Union of Teachers cannot make up its mind about the position it should take.
  In fairness, the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) spoke eloquently on behalf of the minority of the NUT. They abide by their desire to have negotiating rights, and are absolutely determined to insist that teachers should be able to take industrial action at the drop of a hat. They are the authentic voice of the Labour party, and they were as uneasy as we were about the obfuscation by their Front Bench. For the sake of teachers and children, we want to know the answer to the basic question. We have still not heard the answer from the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Leeds, Central.
  The Bill is a tribute to what the teaching profession has achieved since Burnham went down in chaos. It holds out the prospect of recognition and stability in the years ahead. It is good news for teachers, and it will be good news for children and for their parents. The people who count are the children. They must come first every time. We are concerned to ensure that teachers regain their professional status, that our children are never again threatened by industrial action and that our teachers and children are able to benefit from the introduction of the national curriculum and the other reforms that we have introduced over the past few years.
  We have made it clear that we will accept and implement the recommendations of the review body unless there are clear and compelling reasons for doing otherwise. We know that the Opposition agree that, at the end of the day, the Government of the day must have the last word because they are the paymaster.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell rose——
  Mr. Eggar: The Bill is straightforward and its message is simple. That may be what the Opposition find so distressing. The hon. Member for Blackburn and his hon. Friends have nowhere to hide. I cannot imagine that teachers will neglect or reject the offer on the table. Teachers are too level-headed and responsible to let the opportunity of the Bill slip away.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 310.

  Division No. 129]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ashton, Joe

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Allen, Graham

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Barron, Kevin

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Battle, John

  114

  Beckett, Margaret

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Beith, A. J.

  Hoyle, Doug

  Bellotti, David

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Benton, Joseph

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Illsley, Eric

  Blair, Tony

  Ingram, Adam

  Boateng, Paul

  Janner, Greville

  Boyes, Roland

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Bradley, Keith

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Kennedy, Charles

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Buckley, George J.

  Leighton, Ron

  Caborn, Richard

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Livsey, Richard

  Canavan, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  McAllion, John

  Clelland, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cohen, Harry

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  McFall, John

  Corbett, Robin

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McKelvey, William

  Cousins, Jim

  McLeish, Henry

  Crowther, Stan

  McMaster, Gordon

  Cryer, Bob

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cummings, John

  McWilliam, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Madden, Max

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Darling, Alistair

  Marek, Dr John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Maxton, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Meale, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Doran, Frank

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Eastham, Ken

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mullin, Chris

  Fearn, Ronald

  Nellist, Dave

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Fisher, Mark

  O'Brien, William

  Flannery, Martin

  O'Hara, Edward

  Flynn, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Foster, Derek

  Parry, Robert

  Foulkes, George

  Patchett, Terry

  Fyfe, Maria

  Pendry, Tom

  Galloway, George

  Pike, Peter L.

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  George, Bruce

  Prescott, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Gordon, Mildred

  Radice, Giles

  Gould, Bryan

  Randall, Stuart

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Redmond, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Reid, Dr John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Richardson, Jo

  Hain, Peter

  Robertson, George

  Hardy, Peter

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Rogers, Allan

  Haynes, Frank

  Rooker, Jeff

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Rooney, Terence

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Henderson, Doug

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hinchliffe, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Howells, Geraint

  Short, Clare

  115

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walley, Joan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

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

  Wareing, Robert N.

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

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Snape, Peter

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wilson, Brian

  Stott, Roger

  Winnick, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Worthington, Tony

  Straw, Jack

  Wray, Jimmy

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Dennis

  Mr. Martyn Jones and

  Wallace, James

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Colvin, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Allason, Rupert

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Amess, David

  Couchman, James

  Amos, Alan

  Cran, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Curry, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

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

  Ashby, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Day, Stephen

  Atkins, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Atkinson, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baldry, Tony

  Dover, Den

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dunn, Bob

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dykes, Hugh

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Eggar, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Evennett, David

  Benyon, W.

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fallon, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Favell, Tony

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bottomley, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  French, Douglas

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Fry, Peter

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bowis, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gill, Christopher

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

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

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gorst, John

  Burns, Simon

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gregory, Conal

  Carrington, Matthew

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Carttiss, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Cartwright, John

  Grist, Ian

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Ground, Patrick

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grylls, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hague, William

  Chope, Christopher

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Hannam, John

  116

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

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mudd, David

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Norris, Steve

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hill, James

  Page, Richard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Paice, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Holt, Richard

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Price, Sir David

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Raffan, Keith

  Irvine, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Jack, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Jackson, Robert

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Janman, Tim

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jessel, Toby

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kilfedder, James

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rost, Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knox, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shelton, Sir William

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Speed, Keith

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Maclean, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, David

  Stern, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sumberg, David

  Mates, Michael

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mills, Iain

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Moate, Roger

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thorne, Neil

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tracey, Richard

  117

  Tredinnick, David

  Whitney, Ray

  Trippier, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trotter, Neville

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wilkinson, John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wilshire, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Walden, George

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waller, Gary

  Wood, Timothy

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Ward, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Warren, Kenneth

  Watts, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill

    SCHOOL TEACHERS PAY AND CONDITIONS (No. 2) BILL [Money]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act, and

    (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Fallon.]

  National Curriculum
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
  That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Geography) (England) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 678), dated 13th March 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be annulled.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following motion:
  That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in History) (England) Order 1991 (SI, 1991, No. 681), dated 13th March 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be annulled.
  I appeal to Front-Bench spokesmen and Back-Bench Members on both sides of the Chamber to be brief. Many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
  Mr. Straw: I think that the House knows that the Opposition accept the principle of the national curriculum. It is right that Parliament should have a role in laying down the framework of what is taught in schools and in better defining the entitlement of each child during its years of compulsory education. There were always dangers that without proper checks parliamentary and ministerial power could be abused or used for partisan ends, and for that reason a careful procedure for establishing a national curriculum and agreeing it was laid down in the Education Reform Act 1988.
  The effective and fair operation of the procedures was always to depend, as so often in this country, upon convention and self-denial by politicians rather than by explicit rule. As history and politics are so intertwined, history was bound to pose the greatest test of those procedures. The original proposals of the history working party aroused great debate about the balance between facts and understanding, and the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), now the Leader of the House, referred the matter back to the National Curriculum Council. The council took account of his views, and many others, and made revised proposals for which there was wide agreement both inside and outside the profession.
  In setting out his views in July 1990, the previous Secretary of State explicitly endorsed the proposal for 20th century history to be taught to the present day. He argued only for a "better overview" of 20th-century history, including in particular the development of the European Community.
  On 2 November 1990, the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), replaced the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South. Over Christmas, we understand, and without any debate or consultation, he took his blue pencil to the draft curriculum. He decided that history was to stop in the mid 1960s. His method of amendment was crude and the result was bizarre. The Berlin wall was deleted. It was replaced by the Berlin airlift. "Modern Britain" was replaced by "Victorian Britain", the "middle east" by "Germany", and separately by the "Ottoman empire" and the "Irish Republic" by the "Irish Free State and Eire". An attainment target about

  119
  "changing attitudes towards the European Community"
  was replaced by one about
  "attitudes of different countries to the League of Nations".
  Early 1960s end-dates were then inserted. The consequence of these was that the Americans were about to win in Vietnam, apartheid was fully effective in South Africa, large parts of Africa were still colonies and the middle east stopped with the six-day war in 1967.
  As is often the case with such vulgar exercises, some parts escaped notice, as if to mock the censors. So a supplementary unit continues, unamended, to require study from before 1500 to until the present day.
  In making those decisions, the Secretary of State claimed that national curriculum history should not go beyond the early 1960s because of the difficulty of treating such matters with an "historical perspective". He said that everything post early-1960s was "current affairs". He failed to take accounst of the fact that two thirds of all general certificate of secondary education history syllabuses go beyond the early 1960s. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been unable to produce before Parliament any evidence of a lack of historical perspective in such teaching. Indeed, on 12 February he told me that political bias was not the reason for his decision. In the absence of any evidence to justify his decision, the Secretary of State must recognise that he has gratuitously attacked the skill and professional integrity of history teachers.
  The Secretary of State's claim that anything after the late 1960s is current affairs is patently absurd. None of the children studying the curriculum will have been born before 1980. Current affairs are about affairs that are current in the news. There is no room for it in the already overcrowded timetable of secondary schools. When he responds to this brief debate, the Secretary of State may claim that he is not prohibiting the teaching of post-1960 or post-1970 history. That is disingenuous, because the timetables are packed out with the requirements of the national curriculum. What adds to the vacuity of the Secretary of State's prohibition is that it will not apply to children in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland or to children in private schools which conveniently are exempt from the national curriculum.
  The Secretary of State applied a similar crude approach to geography. Without notice to anyone, he decided to remove inquiry skills, the use of secondary sources and diagrams from statements of attainment because he said that, however desirable, they are not particular to geography. In saying that, he found himself in conflict with everyone who has knowledge of the subject and also with parts of his own Government. Last year's Department of the Environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", envisaged an important role for geography making young people more aware of and able to participate in action about environmental methods.
  Even the Secretary of State was surprised by the depth and extent of the criticism of his decisions about history and geography. That criticism came from unexpected quarters. For example, Lord Blake, a Conservative peer and an official biographer of the Conservative party——
  Mr. Giles Radice: And a decent historian.
  Mr. Straw: Yes, and a decent historian. Lord Blake said
  "It is ridiculous to stop history in the 1960s. It could stop round about the 1980s. There, you are coming into an era of controversial politics with the Thatcher revolution and that should be discussed in current-affairs lessons."
  He said that it was ridiculous to stop it in the 1960s or 1970s.
  In the orders that we are discussing, the Secretary of State recognised his earlier error and impetuosity and tried to climb down. However, the result is quite unsatisfactory. The 30-year rule has been abandoned, but it is to be replaced by a 20-year rule. Date-capping will stand in all its arbitrary absurdity. As Robert Medley, the chairman of the Historical Association's school council, said:
  "We don't think changing it from a 30-year rule to a 20-year rule has made any difference. The principle of the thing is still daft."
  Many of the original silly changes, including swapping the European Community with the League of Nations and modern Britain for Victorian Britain, remain in the supplementary order. They are included in the programme of studies for the fourth key stage, levels 4 to10. They include the cut-off dates in the mid-1960s.
  With regard to geography, the Secretary of State reintroduced the study of competition over land use and the conflicting demands on places of scenic attraction. However, he refused to accept a much more fundamental point—the need for an emphasis on an investigative approach to geography, which the Geographical Association has said is fundamental to what geography is about.
  With the power over the curriculum which has been taken by Ministers and by the House go some very important responsibilities, not least to ensure that we do not treat the curriculum in a partisan way. So far as possible, changes should be made in a consensual way and we should not treat the curriculum as a party political football.
  The Secretary of State's two predecessors, both Conservatives, were alive to their responsibilities and they acted carefully when seeking to make changes in draft orders. They also gave notice of any changes that they had in mind with reference to proposals for working parties. The present Secretary of State has acted differently. Apart from the merit, or lack of merit, in his proposals, there is the charge that he has failed to follow the spirit of the procedures. In particular, on 2 November he took no account whatsoever of the position of his predecessors, and he then made proposals, of which no notice had ever been made by his predecessors, on points to which they had never taken objection in the drafts of the working party and National Curriculum Council reports.
  The Secretary of State's predecessors were alive to their responsibilities, but this Secretary of State has shown by his conduct that he is incapable of appreciating those responsibilities, let alone measuring up to them. Because of that, we tabled the prayers to annul the orders, and I support them.
  10.24 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): We have just had a debate in which the Opposition refused to take any clear stand on an extremely important matter for the future. We now have the Opposition spokesman taking a totally bogus stand, trying to find partisan controversy where none should exist, on

  121
  the past, as it happens, and on geography. I entirely refute his suggestion that what has happened brings a hint of party politics into the national curriculum. When the National Curriculum Council put proposals to me, I put out a draft order, with the reactions of me, Her Majesty's inspectorate and my Department to that draft order. We consulted on it. In the light of that consultation, we produced final orders.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is not trying to damage the national curriculum, but he will do so if he tries to invent partisan disputes at the late stage of a process of putting into place the orders for two key parts of the curriculum—geography and history.
  I trust that, by now, hon. Members support the principle of the national curriculum, and also support the fact that the national curriculum will include history and geography as two of the key subjects. We all know that history and geography in particular have been fading in importance and sometimes in the strength with which they have been taught in schools in recent years. Her Majesty's inspectors have found standards of work in primary schools generally weak in both subjects. In secondary schools, HMI has found that the so-called humanities approach adopted by some schools fails to do justice to either history or geography. The Government are reviving history and geography as serious subjects in our schools for our pupils. The Government may take credit for including them in the national curriculum and for making the orders.
  The orders set out a solid foundation of knowledge, understanding and skills which all children should have in both subjects. We are reinstating those important parts of our knowledge, life, culture and history in our schools.
  The process that I have described was always envisaged in orders that have been fully consulted on at every stage, of publishing draft orders with the Secretary of State's reactions to the final proposals from the National Curriculum Council, at which it arrived after consultation, and building on consultation that it has carried out from the final proposals of the working party. I then consulted on those and, in the end, made various changes when I first published the draft and again in the light of the final consultation.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: This is a prayer, and we have a little more than an hour left, and I made a long speech on the Bill. I might give way in a while, but I shall have to see how long I take.
  Let me begin with geography. The geography order sets out to make sure that our young people learn some geography, not just vague concepts and attitudes which relate to various subjects. In geography, we have restored learning about places and where they are—something which nowadays is too often played down in some schools. The most elementary cross-examination of pupils reveals that their knowledge of where places are in the world is not what it should be. I, together with many parents, employers and others, believe that knowing about places—to use that simplistic phrase to describe an awareness of the geography of the world—is important.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way yet, for the reason that I have given.
  Of course, that is not the be-all and end-all of geography. Angry teachers have told me that all I am doing is wanting to go back to teaching about the capes and bays of England. I would not dream of putting such a burden on a geography teacher. It is essential to have some knowledge of place if pupils are to go on to develop some understanding of the world and the way in which different countries and places relate to each other.
  The order also ensures that all pupils will be taught how to use maps and other geographical skills. They will develop their knowledge of human and physical geography in the context of real places. Last but not least, the order recognises the importance of learning about the environment. There was a flurry of excitement when it was said that I had struck out environmental geography. In fact, it is one of the five attainment targets for geography. Indeed, together with physical geography, it is the part of the NCC's proposals that I have scarcely touched at all. I made no changes to either before going to the draft order phase. Overall, the order's coverage of places, of human and physical geography and of the environment has been widely welcomed by geographers.
  It was against that background—against the fact that the great bulk of the subject has been modified in a way that has not excited any controversy—that some controversy arose about some of the changes. With respect, much of the criticism was based on a misunderstanding and a certain reading of lobbying letters and press reports rather more than on any reading of the orders themselves. I do not usually dismiss all criticisms, but I received many letters from people who had plainly not read the orders. They were the people who said that I had struck out all environmental geography, whereas it remains one fifth of the attainment targets, and quite untouched.
  The Geographical Association has sent out a standard letter—I do not complain about that—to every Member of Parliament and many other people and to all the members of the association, complaining about the changes that have been made, but it does not actually state what those changes are. With the greatest respect, a lot of heat has been generated, but perhaps not a great deal of light about what the association was complaining about. The association's full submission was presented to me after we had introduced the draft order and before we made the final order, and I accepted many of its points. We have had a new lay-out for the programmes of study, which the association was right to say were previously laid out in a confused fashion. That was a major re-write. We put back conflicts over land use and, as the hon. Member for Blackburn fairly conceded, the points about landscape.
  However, the hon. Gentleman did not address the two remaining issues about which people are still arguing. The first is the concern that I am said to have removed inquiry skills from being part of geography. I accept that inquiry is an important part of geographical work. Pupils should take an active role in their lessons and inquire about the nature of the issues that emerge in the course of their study of geography and of our fragile environment. The programmes of study for geography clearly state that inquiry should form part of geography lessons.
  However, I did remove some of the detailed requirements in the programmes of study, stating exactly what pupils should do—and I do not apologise for that.

  123
  The orders should not prescribe everything that happens in the classroom and take away all discretion from the teacher. In addition, some of the things that are allegedly related to inquiry skills in geography are so general as to be almost meaningless in the context of this part of the curriculum.
  Two examples of my deletions are:
  "Explore how people vary in their views about the value and enjoyment of environments."
  There is no reference to where or to what kind of environment. The other example reads:
  "Collect, present and interpret data as part of an inquiry."
  That does not even specify "as part of a geographical inquiry". All that sort of stuff was taken out of an overloaded order largely to tidy it up—[Interruption.] It is not silly—at least I am referring to what I deleted. The hon. Member for Blackburn huffed and puffed but did not complain about anything that I had taken out. He gave no examples, yet I made countless changes when going through the order.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose——
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way once on geography when I have finished this point.
  The fuss is meant to be about inquiry processes, and attitudes and values. Again, I accept that geography lessons will deal with issues on which there are conflicting points of view. It is the teacher's job to explain them to pupils in a balanced way. It is total nonsense for the hon. Member for Blackburn to keep saying that I have attacked the integrity of teachers. I have not done that in either geography or history from beginning to end. It is a proper and necessary part of geography, and the order provides for it.
  I was not persuaded that pupils should be tested on their knowledge of what people thought about an issue, in isolation from knowledge and understanding of the relevant facts. It is taking the study of attitudes in geography too far if one tests people on their knowledge about other people's attitudes to somewhere, without knowing much about where that somewhere is, or what the attitudes are for.
  The result is a tidier order, which is more manageable in the classroom. I have accepted far more of the representations received during consultation than I have rejected. I accept the assertion of the hon. Member for Blackburn that he has read the order, as opposed to many people who have only read the standard letter. However, in so far as the hon. Gentleman is specific about what was wrong in geography, given that last week his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales said that there was too much concentration on process in parts of the curriculum and not enough on content, I think that the order has a lot of content—far more than there has been in geography for many years. It is no good saying that there should be more process, and carrying on about inquiry skills, attitudes and opinions, put in to the exclusion of content or so that it is unmanageable.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: May I question the Secretary of State on the subject of collecting data? One of the key elements in geography teaching is that pupils should go out from the classroom to collect information and then bring it back and analyse it. It has been suggested that the
  124
  Minister is taking out the collection of data because he is trying to discourage field work, which he knows is expensive. The Government have not been prepared to make the resources available so that all pupils can get some time out of their classroom to look at the environment.
  Mr. Clarke: The use of maps and field work are in place in the order. We have cut out of the syllabus examining people on the collection of data that might have no relevance to geography. The hon. Gentleman will find that the order provides for plenty of going out of the classroom to collect things, and for the sort of experience that he describes.
  History was bound to excite the most public debate. I am glad to say that most of that took place before my time as Secretary of State, although I would have happily joined in, as I am closely interested in the subject. History arouses strong feelings and passionate disagreements. Inevitably there are political undercurrents to the debate about history, which have been pretty thoroughly aired in the past year or two.
  The result has been no fewer than three separate stages of consultation about history, instead of the usual two. My predecessor thoroughly explored opinion before he responded, even in the first place, to the history working group's report. Of course the outcome will not satisfy everyone. It is impossible to come to any conclusion in this field. However, I believe that we have reached a broad consensus on what school history should be like, which is reflected in the order.
  By the time I arrived, the mass of political representation—both left and right made representations ferociously to my predecessors—had more or less died down. That meant that I was not able to inject any of my reactions to the content of the programme of study. I find it a bit odd that the renaissance and much of European history plays such a small part in the curriculum, but that is all water under the bridge, and I would not dream of reopening the debate.
  There is an argument about whether there is enough factual knowledge in the programme. I still get that attack from those who are slightly on the right of politics, because the attainment targets in history are in general terms, and the substance of history is all in the programmes of study. It would be a great misfortune—a disaster—if knowledge of historical fact was ironed out of the whole subject and the attainment targets were attitude-dominated.
  I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Blackburn agrees, because I am sure that there are people to the left of him in the Labour party who are shocked to discover that dead people, dates and things that happened in the past are being referred to at all. I can reassure those who believe, as I do, that one of the great things in history is to teach a good corpus of factual knowledge, that it is not possible to achieve any levels in the attainment targets without reference to programmes of study.
  Although we may all have our personal preferences—I have expressed surprise that the renaissance features to such a limited extent; it is not a period on which I claim to be particularly strong, but it is surely a key period in the history of mankind—a good body of knowledge is none the less represented, and pupils will be tested on it according to the attainment targets.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is it true that, some time after Commander Saunders-Watson had written his report, a memorandum

  125
  was issued by Professor Brian Griffiths rubbishing that report? If so, can a copy of the Griffiths memorandum be put in the Library?
  Mr. Clarke: As that would have happened before my time, I do not know whether it is true or not. Representations about history, however, flowed in from all sides. Now, when the dust has settled down, we are left with one issue: the distinction that I have insisted on drawing between history and current affairs. The hon. Member for Blackburn is still going on about that.
  No one is saying that there should be no reference to current affairs in the classroom. Plainly—particularly as children grow older—plenty of discussion about current affairs will take place. That is fine: it happened in my day, and it should still happen nowadays. I have never attacked the ability of good teachers to handle such discussion in a detached and objective way. I trust that a high proportion of children debated the recent events in the Gulf, and that opinions of all kinds were expressed; and I have no doubt that that was managed sensibly in the classroom. We are arguing about whether current affairs should be made a legally required part of the history syllabus.
  If the order were allowed to include all events up to the present day in the curriculum, we should not merely be giving teachers discretion to allow current affairs to be raised. They already have that discretion, and we are not stopping them raising any subject. If the change were made, they would be required by law to cover today's events as part of the history curriculum, and would have to test pupils' understanding of current political issues as part of the history testing process. I find that slightly bizarre, but it is what the hon. Member for Blackburn wants.
  Mr. Giles Radice: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will if I finish before 10.45 pm.
  Another important principle is the definition of history. What is the nature of history? No one is banning current affairs; no one is saying that pupils cannot discuss what is happening today. There is, however, a strong argument, which I personally support, that history—in so far as it is worth while to define the subject; some people have written volumes in an attempt to do so—involves the making of judgments concerned with historical perspective. There is no doubt that a judgment made at even a short distance from the event or pattern of events and involving a backward-looking view will differ from an instant reaction to the morning's newspapers, whose contents would, if the Opposition's proposal were accepted, be described as "history" for the purposes of the national curriculum.
  The original draft order included a date, which did not occur throughout but was a key part of the order. That was challenged. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who came to tell me that he thought that one cut-off point was somewhat arbitrary and that, apart from anything else, repeated orders would be needed to bring the position up to date each year—unless history became ever more distant, falling away behind us, as a result of a parliamentary order.
  My hon. Friend came up with the best suggestion that I heard throughout the consultation period. If we altered the wording of the order so that it referred to a cut-off of
  126
  about 20 years ago—not a fixed date—historical perspective and the ability to form judgments on it would roll forward with time. I have no doubt that all the orders will be reviewed from time to time as the curriculum evolves and people form a view about what subject matter it should contain.
  Mr. Radice: Surely that phrase "about 20 years ago" exposes the problem. Such people as Professor Keith Robbins and Lord Blake have pointed this out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Let us take our entry into the Common Market, which happened, I believe, in January 1972—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nineteen seventy-three"] That makes my point even better. That event would be ruled out, by legal requirement. Therefore, one learns about the debates that took place in the House, but one does not learn about the date of entry. According to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's definition, that would be the case. That is precisely why Lord Blake and Professor Keith Robbins, who is president of the Historical Association, said that this is not a stupid argument. It is an argument made by serious historians—historians rather more serious than the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and he ought to take it seriously.
  Mr. Clarke: They may be more serious historians than I, but, with respect, they have misunderstood the nature of the order. Their argument is founded on the mistaken belief that a ban is being placed on anything that happened more than 20 years ago. That is not the case. Any history teacher who wishes to take the history of our relationship with the European Community up to the date of our entry or beyond is perfectly free to do so. No one is banning it. As for the curriculum and the testing, the date is about 20 years ago.
  The first draft, when I went for the early 1960s, sought to illustrate in various areas of history how one might take a suitable cut-off point—the death of President Kennedy or the death of Khruschev—near enough around 20 years ago in order to consider a particular sequence of events that represent the logical end of a course of study. I believe that that was justified. It would be absolutely absurd to alter it and make it a legal requirement that, as part of the history curriculum, pupils should be tested on their knowledge of bang up-to-date events and exchanges taking place across the Dispatch Box at the moment. Pupils are perfectly free to discuss all that with their teachers, but it certainly should be no part of the legally required history curriculum.
  I discussed with those who advise me all sorts of other things that led to a great deal of re-writing of the history syllabus that no one seemed to have noticed. That again led me to have slight doubts as to whether anybody had read it properly. Some of the examples seemed to me slightly odd. I did not understand them, so we changed them.
  Under the heading "The use of historical sources" the draft that reached me asked pupils to
  "Show how a US account of the building of the Berlin Wall provides evidence of US attitudes towards the event but reveals little about why the Wall was built."
  That seemed to me to presuppose that all American authors have the same view and that there was a United States account. It was not obvious to me what United States attitudes to the wall that question would reveal. The various Americans I know hold a wide range of views about the Berlin wall. I do not see why any American

  127
  account will reveal why the wall was built. A number of Americans have a pretty shrewd idea why the wall was built, so I did not understand the question.
  "Explain why gaps in sources relating to collectivisation in the USSR in the 1930s make it difficult to reach definitive conclusions."
  It is difficult to reach definitive conclusions on any historical subject that I have encountered. Most historians will probably say that it is unwise to do so. I could not understand what that was meant to mean. Does it mean that we do not know exactly how many people died? Does it mean that we do not know exactly what the collectivisation process is? What was it going into the national curriculum for, and as an example of what? We changed it and gave a whole lot of other examples for which the Government can modestly take credit, because so far no one has criticised any of them.
  128
  The hon. Member for Blackburn did not leave it to others; he says that he does not like any of the examples and that he thinks that they are partisan and biased. They are plainly not. It is a good, objective history course.
  The order is an important step forward. It puts into the schools curriculum sensible history and geography that will be properly tested. These subjects are put back where they deserve to be—in the main stream of our education system. Some hon. Members may not have read what is contained in the folders that lie in front of them. Anybody who can get through the full compass of the geography curriculum and the full compass of the history curriculum and at the end get attainment level 10 may be no wiser, but he or she will certainly be better informed. It is a good, solid body of teaching that we are putting into our schools, and it is high time, too. These bogus arguments about the curriculum are rather silly.
  10.49 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: I shall not detain the House long as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. In what was a most disingenuous speech, the Secretary of State was really telling the House that the orders do nothing. We know that that is not the case, and so do the Historical Association and the teaching profession.
  I would make the same speech if we were in government, trying to persuade the House to accept such a measure. I fear any Government telling teachers what they shall not teach. It is fair enough to have a national curriculum setting out what children should be taught, but it is wrong to say what should not be taught or to tell teachers how to teach their subjects. Whatever the Secretary of State may have said, that is how teachers will perceive the measure. They know that there is an embargo on teaching 20 years of history. History teachers, headmasters and particularly school governors are not educational lawyers. They will feel restrained in the teaching of their subject.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was absolutely right. Teaching geography in the way that he described turns youngsters into little explorers. In a small way, they are doing what an explorer does in Africa, and they should be examined in that. It is more dangerous when the Government seek to interfere in the teaching of history.
  The Secretary of State mentioned the Gulf war. It would be perfectly reasonable for a teacher who was teaching mediaeval history and covering the history of the crusades and their effects on history to discuss the Gulf war. The Gulf war is now history. History starts now, just as the future starts now. It is a seamless robe and we cannot have a 20-year rule.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Oakes: I promised Mr. Speaker that I would be brief. I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets a chance to speak.
  It would be perfectly feasible for a teacher to discuss western interference in the middle east and its effects on history. The purpose of teaching history is not to recount a list of facts but for children to learn about the past in relation to the present and apply that knowledge to future events. That is essential in a democracy. If teachers are teaching about the famine in Ireland, it is perfectly relevant for them to refer to that and to examine the Secretary of State's brilliant talks—he is doing a tremendous job—in the light of the historical perspective of the horrors in Ireland, which are still remembered 150 years later. It would be perfectly logical for an examination question to ask how our Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can succeed against that background.
  Finally, I am addressing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all right hon. and hon. Members as 650 history teachers. We all take tourists around this place. We talk about Simon de Montfort and the row between the Lords and the Commons. We talk about the civil war and show them the painting with Mr. Speaker Lenthall. We then take them into the Chamber and out into Westminster Hall. When I take people round, I talk about the fight for democracy over hundreds of years—it did not happen overnight—and I tell them about events that have occurred in the past 20
  130
  years. I tell them about the IRA bomb in Westminster Hall and the damage that was caused. I take them outside and tell them about the murder of Airey Neave in 1979 when he was coming out of the car park. I do so because history is a seamless robe. I would tell those children that the fight for democracy is not over because there are still terrorist forces that would destroy it.
  If I were a history teacher—I might be wrong and the Secretary of State might be right—I would be fearful of putting my job on the line by including such information in my teaching of historical events before the 20-year rule.
  The Government should withdraw the orders, which are either useless or harmful in a democratic society.
  10.55 pm
  Sir Timothy Raison: I was not on the Standing Committee that considered the Education Reform Bill, but I was struck by how little attention was paid to the content of the national curriculum. There were battles on opting out, the Inner London education authority and so on, but remarkably little time was spent in considering the curriculum.
  It was a pity that the question was not raised or seriously discussed of whether history should be not only one of the 10 subjects available in the national curriculum but one of the core subjects. I believe that it should have been a core subject. I tabled an amendment to that effect on Report, but it was not called.
  History has almost unique qualities. It is the best tool for studying relationships in society. One gets a sense of a shared past and of shared or perhaps unshared divergences. A. L. Rowse said that history gives a unity to all the other arts subjects, and anthropology, sociology, economics, law and languages all draw on history. It helps to transmit the best in our culture from one generation to another, which should be the essence of education, and contains much great literature. It spans the factual and the romatic and teaches honest analysis. It is a pity that it does not play a larger part in the curriculum.
  Everybody will agree that at the heart of history is the sense of perspective, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred. It is derived from its focus on the past. We know that history has been defined over and again, but the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as
  "that branch of knowledge which deals with past events, as recorded in writings or otherwise ascertained; the formal record of the past."
  We must accept that. We all realise that history can be extrapolated. A good history teacher will draw lessons from history that are applicable today, but it is more important that children up to 16 get a grasp of the basic facts and methods of history rather than it being turned into a current affairs seminar.
  In a sense, I might argue otherwise. One of the features of the past few years that will not be included in the main core is the demise of socialism. It might be good if everybody learned about that at school, but I am prepared to forgo that in the interests of achieving some principle in history.
  The 20-year period, roughly speaking, coincides with my period as a Member of Parliament. The main events of the 1970s were our entry into the European Community, the saga of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, followed by the miners' strike, our taking direct rule in Northern Ireland, the recourse of the Labour

  131
  Government to the IMF in 1976, the battle about devolution, the events of the winter of 1978–79 and the arrival in 1979 of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) as Prime Minister.
  Those were important and, in some cases, stirring events. They will become the absolute stuff of history, and there are two ingredients in almost every case. The first is that most of them still arouse intensely political passions—they would stir the House this evening if we were to start arguing about them—and the second is that, by and large, we do not yet have the historical writings to enable us to deal with them satisfactorily. History requires perspective. We do not yet have the literature to allow us to deal with those matters as thoroughly as we would like.
  I quote my experience. A year or two ago, I sat down to write a history of Conservative social policy since the war. I have no doubt that the period in the post-war years when I was writing as an historian from a more distant past was very much better history than the past decade when, to some extent, I was involved in events. That is the essence of history: one must stand back.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is right to take the stance he took. As he said, it does not preclude mention of recent events. It could not possibly do so. Nevertheless, we should adopt the view that history belongs to the more distant past and is best taught on that basis. Any attempt to do otherwise would undermine many of the characteristics that make it such an important subject.
  11 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: This is an interesting and worthwhile debate, and I regret that we do not have longer to give to this important subject. There is a paradox in Government policy in the home affairs sectors. Earlier today the Secretary of State for Health said that it was not his job to become involved in the details of administration of parts of the health service. Later in the day the Secretary of State for Education and Science gave his reasons for including something and excluding something else.
  Our wish to incorporate a coherent view of what should be taught in history and geography comes not before time. As the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) said, they are important subjects. I regret that they are not given sufficient recognition as proper subjects that educated people in a range of disciplines later.
  I am one of those—I suppose that many hon. Members share this disadvantage—whose teenage education in history and geography suffered from being extremely partial. Whole periods of history and sectors of geography went untaught. I accept that the national curriculum seems to deal with that partial teaching approach, but it stops too early and has made some mistakes.
  However well informed or ill informed the Secretary of State for Education and Science thinks the people who wrote to us are, it is regrettable that the professional groupings of those responsible for teaching history and geography are not happy about what they will soon be asked to teach. It would have been far better if we had tried earlier to reach greater agreement among the parties and, more important, the politicians and professionals.
  132
  Problems remain. There will be partial teaching for those who finish their schooling in either history or geography at 14. I think that I am right in saying that the only piece of 20th century history that will have been taught to people who finish after the third key stage will be the history of the second world war. That is a grave error and distorts social and historical trends throughout the century.
  Similar problems arise because of our lack of knowledge about the alternative short courses. The Secretary of State announced in Leeds that there would be short courses for those who stay on at school to complement compulsory education to 14 so that people do not leave school with third key stage education in history or geography. Sadly, we still do not know what those short courses will include. It might alleviate some fears if we did know. We do not have the details of those courses—they are concept rather than programme. What are the attainment targets? Will level 10 be reached by those following those courses, or will it be level 7 or 3? There are many questions relevant to how much people will know on leaving school. I regret that we do not yet have the necessary information.
  My next point is a practical one. Teachers make one complaint above all to hon. Members, and that is the amount of work that they are asked to take on at a late stage. It is late in terms of next year's work for teachers now to begin to deal with the curriculum. I am not saying that they will not try or that they will not do a good job, but it is a regrettable additional imposition on people who even Ministers now concede are asked to deal with too much too quickly.
  I shall deal briefly with the two subjects under discussion. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Aylesbury, but I dissent from the view that all the matters about which he spoke—especially entry into the European Community—cannot and should not properly be taught as history even at this remove. It is difficult and arbitrary to draw a line and say that events that happened within the past 20 years are not history. I heard what the Secretary of State said, and I understand that it is not because such matters will not arise in the context of the school day, the school debate and the school timetable. However, there are historical patterns such as the development of Europe, the rise and fall of philosophies including communism and socialism and the movement towards integration after the second world war. Arbitrary cut-off points are an unfortunate division between what is history and what is actuality. There are no stopping or starting points between the two.
  Our history syllabus focuses too heavily—and I could cite specifics—on a Britain-centred perspective of the world, on Britain as an economic, successful, capitalist market economy. I am making not a partisan point but one about our place in the world. Our syllabus suffers from still not providing an opportunity for people to see Britain in its historical context as one of more than 150 sovereign states in a complex and ever-changing world.
  The Secretary of State knows what the dispute over geography is about. It is about how much balance is given to the study of facts, places, locations and geographic skills. I agree that people should know their factual geography. As the Prince of Wales said in another context, it is most important that people leave school with basic

  133
  knowledge. However, to do that to the exclusion of some of the process skills—as appears to be the case—would tilt the balance in the wrong direction.
  The orders will determine what young people learn in two key subjects for the next generation. We accept that we are not serving young people well in the education that is provided. We are not doing well in the international league table. I regret that the way that we have tampered so arbitrarily with the syllabus will not achieve the best result. For that reason, my colleagues and I support the Labour party in asking that the orders be annulled.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. George Walden: This is a pretty rum debate. Tonight we are deciding what millions of children will study for millions of hours in subjects that used to be left to the profession. How did that happen? It happened because all parties and the country as a whole felt that the professionals were not doing a good enough job of these and other subjects. Otherwise, how did the Labour and Liberal parties join a Conservative Government in setting up a national curriculum? Let us be frank and honest about it. We are discussing the details of a curriculum and I should have preferred this debate not to have occurred. There is no alternative but to do what we are doing, so we must do it as best we can. In the case of a sensitive subject such as history, that depends on objectivity.
  Leaving aside my own partisan views, I much prefer the Johnsonian sound sense of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on the subject to the views of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) if only because a few hours before the hon. Gentleman refused to take a position on an education subject because he did not have the permission of the National Union of Teachers. I suspect that his judgment on matters involving the curriculum would be similarly influenced by the NUT, and I find that disturbing. I do not accept that I am making a political accusation: it is a factual observation.
  It is also factual to say that the historical reasons why we have come tonight to the curious position of discussing the details of the curriculum go back to a philosophical failing in our education system for which the Opposition have more responsibility than we have. I do not deny that we too have responsibility historically for allowing the position to arise, but I believe that the main problem stems from methods of teaching which have gone wildly astray and which my right hon. and learned Friend is putting right tonight.
  Other hon. Members have referred to the question of historical perspective. There is a danger in our teaching and in our culture—and, again, this is not a partisan point—of a relentlessly contemporary approach. In our schools in art, in literature and in history to some extent, there has been a drift, perhaps impelled by the power of the media, towards a relentlessly contemporary attitude to the exclusion of historical perspective or of simple, factual historical knowledge. In art, there may have been an exclusion of the awareness of renaissance techniques in favour of 20th century movements such as impressionism and expressionism. In literature, we have already reached the stage at which there are A-level syllabuses that can be tackled without any knowledge of pre-20th century literature. That is an odd state of affairs.
  We have a similar problem with history. It is, of course, arbitrary to cut off the history of the past 20 years. My
  134
  right hon. and learned Friend has explained that it will be possible to teach it in other ways, so there is no ban. However, I believe that there must be a cut-off point if only because Opposition and Conservative Members have reflected teachers' concerns that the national curriculum is becoming too crowded. However, the hon. Member for Blackburn says that we should try to cram even more into the history curriculum. That time would be better used in instilling in our pupils the maximum historical knowledge so that their ability to make judgments of recent events will improve.
  In what society do children live today? It is not the society in which we were brought up. It is a society in which contemporary history oozes at children from every pore of the media. It oozes from television, which children watch for an average of three or four hours a day, from the radio and from the newspapers. Whichever way they turn, contemporary events are pumped at them. For one short time in their childhood they can be removed from these incredible pressures—leaving aside moral pressures, which are very important—so that they can have some idea and some imagination of possible alternative worlds which existed in the past, which will enable them to detach themselves for a brief moment of their childhood from the pressures of the media that will engulf them for the rest of their lives.
  For that reason and for the practical reason that I mentioned earlier—that we must not try to over-cram the curriculum—I believe that, once again, my right hon. and learned Friend has exercised in the right direction what I described earlier as his Johnsonian judgment.
  11.14 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) is right in believing that it is not as a result of oversight that the House is deciding what subjects shall be taught in schools and how they will be taught. It is a consequence of deliberate policy. Listening to the Secretary of State in his opening speech, however, one would have thought that we were not doing it at all. First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made a virtue of the fact that he is merely implementing the recommendations of the National Curriculum Council, ignoring the fact that the debate is about the points at which he has departed from those recommendations. Secondly, he said, "Of course the Government are not stopping anybody doing anything. We are simply saying what is in the curriculum. If they want to teach something else, they can." The whole philosophy of a national curriculum is to ensure that some subjects are seen as essential, with the inevitable consequence that the others are regarded as relatively inessential. It does not help to say, "There is nothing to stop teachers teaching them." The whole purpose of the policy is to upgrade some subjects and, necessarily, to reduce the primacy of the others.
  If the orders are approved, it will be possible for children to emerge from the education system with no knowledge of history after 1918, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. If it is possible for that to happen, with no incentives for teachers to concentrate on matters outside the curriculum, it is inevitable that it will happen. Children will emerge with no sense of their history. The Conservative party used to

  135
  claim to be the party of history—the party that emphasised our national identity. Winston Churchill never gave up saying that things came from a sense of history.
  The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) listed some of the advantages of history. Let me add one other. History provides a sense of pride—of self-respect. I have seen that happen. When I was a child in the industrial black country, people were ashamed to say where they lived. They thought that they were personally downgraded by the landscape in which they lived. Thanks to the efforts of those who have brought to life our local history and have regarded it as part of our identity, local people are now proud of their history, traditions and dialect and of their grorty pudding. History is self-respect.
  We are now saying, "People must learn about what happened a long time ago. They cannot learn about their immediate history." The Secretary of State faces two difficulties as a result of that approach. The first entails the purpose set out in his own document, which says:
  "Pupils should be taught to understand how the world in which they live has been shaped by developments in twentieth-century history."
  If the essential instalment is missing from the account, how are pupils to understand how the world in which they live has been shaped? If the history of the middle east stops short of the six-day war or—if the Secretary of State relents—at the time when the Shah was still ruling Iran, how will pupils understand how the middle east, as we know it today, is still in existence?
  The Secretary of State faces another difficulty. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself raised a question about the nature of history. I do not believe that there is any better way to inculcate a sense of history than by placing it in the context of people whom children have seen and heard. Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman a parable.
  I had a son who, in the fifth form, was required to do a historical project. He happend to select the history of the Labour party. He did a fair amount of research and, after he had got the project written and it was there in academic form, he asked me, "Could you introduce me to some of the people about whom I have been reading?" Some of them were Members of the House. We talked to George Strauss and John Parker. Then my son asked, "You couldn't get Manny Shinwell, could you?' In fear and trembling, I wrote to Manny Shinwell, who was then in another place—[Laughter.]—another other place. He was extremely kind. He wrote back, saying that he would be happy to see us but that he could not give us more than 20 minutes. We went to see him, and after the first hour and a half we had reached 1926. The octogenarian and the 15-year-old struck sparks off each other; they both came alive. The teaching staff were queuing up to read that project. It was not current affairs; it was history. It gave a sense of history. It did all the things that history is required to do.
  On the other hand, the Secretary of State has placed himself on the side of those people—to whom he referred—who think that history is about the dead. Does he remember Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn saying:
  "The widow told me about Moses, and for a time I was in a sweat to find out all about him. But, bye and bye, she let on that he was dead, and after that I didn't want to hear any more, because I don't take no stock in dead folks."
  136
  The bridge between "Huckleberry Finn" and contemporary history for the kids of today is precisely what the Secretary of State is destroying. He wants to turn history into an affair of ghosts. He can bury history for the moment, but after the next election my right hon. Friend may disinter it. I warn the Secretary of State that history has a habit of taking its revenge.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: We have just heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), a very interesting speech illustrating the good sense of what my right hon. and learned Friend proposes. The entire speech of the right hon. and learned Member delighted me by underlining the fact that historical matters such as that about which his son was writing can still be written about. The right hon. and learned Gentleman misses the point entirely.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison), I regret that history is not a core subject. I infinitely regret that pupils will be allowed to give it up at the age of 14. These are great misfortunes. However, on the central point that is the subject of this debate, I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that, when he was learning history, there were many gaps. The hon. Gentleman's experience is repeated all over the country. In the Palace of Westminster, I have met hundreds of children who know nothing at all about the Tudors or the Stuarts, nothing at all about those great formative centuries which saw the reformation and then the revolution that led to the ascendancy of the House of Commons. Those children were not taught about such things. Far too many history teachers concentrated on the recent past. However, we now have a disciplined framework. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I taught history. I tried to ensure that all my pupils left school with a reasonable knowledge of English history right through. That is terribly important.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the need for a sense of perspective. One cannot have a sense of perspective or of history unless one has a reasonable knowledge of history. The purpose of the national curriculum is to ensure that all our children will have a reasonable knowledge of the salient facts of their nation's history, and some knowledge of the important facts of international history. Of course, they can know very little in depth, but they need a sense of perspective. We hope that they will strike sparks, and that many of them will pursue history not just academically but throughout their lives as a burning personal interest.
  I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which he discussed with me the question of the 20-year period. I told him that the order as originally drafted was wrong. In accepting that, he made a very good decision. We now have a sensible curriculum, which does not dictate or exclude, but makes sure that the experience of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will not be repeated. I refer to the undue concentration on the recent past, and the lack of regard for the more distant past.
  Any decent history teacher will always draw comparisons and use analogies to try to excite interest. We cannot talk about the ambitions of Napoleon without talking about the ambitions of Hitler to conquer this

  137
  country. We cannot talk about the events in the middle east immediately after the first world war without talking about what has recently happened. We cannot talk about the history of Ireland in the 18th century without talking about what has happened since. We cannot talk about Catholic emancipation in 1829 without talking about the repercussions that are still being felt to this day. Any sensible history teacher will talk about these things.
  We are merely saying that the lazy history teacher—there have been far too many of them—should not get away with merely reading yesterday's newspapers and trying to provoke a trivial political discussion. Unfortunately, that is far too often what has happened.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made a sensible move. I have talked to several historians over recent weeks, and they have told me that they felt deeply disturbed by the original draft order but feel happier about the amendments. Many of them regret that history is not a core subject. All of them regret, as I do, that history can be dropped at the age of 14. We should consider both matters again. I hope that we all regard the national curriculum as to a degree experimental. We must learn from it, at least in these first years. I hope that it will be amended and that, by the turn of the century, history will be a core subject and there will be no question of dropping it before the age of 16.
  We have not made a bad beginning, and my right hon. and learned Friend is doing nothing iconoclastic. He is doing nothing stupid. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) made an excellent speech from the Opposition Back Benches. I have great respect for him. Unfortunately, his main themes were irrelevant in the context of the debate. All the matters to which he referred can still be taught and discussed in the classroom, and will be by intelligent and lively history teachers.
  Tonight, we see a beginning. What my right hon. and learned Friend has done is sensible and justifiable. The debate has not produced the last word, because I am sure that we shall return to these matters. How good it is that the House is debating the teaching of history, which is the ultimate subject, and therefore the most important of all.
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is ironic that Parliament should consider that it is worth spending only 37 minutes on history in terms of the national curriculum, and only 37 minutes on geography. If the issues are as important as some have suggested, the Government could surely have used parliamentary procedures to give us more time.
  As an ex-geography teacher, I find unpalatable the attempt to impose a national curriculum. I believe that it will do great harm to what goes on in school. I know that it is far better to teach in school what we have experience of, based on our teaching skills, rather than to teach in the absence of background knowledge. I suggest that my geography lessons were interesting and exciting to pupils because I could teach them about things with which I was familiar and understood. I could insert that material into my teaching. From that I could teach the skills that were essential rather than the things that others thought important.
  How many geography teachers throughout the country will be happy to throw away the materials that they have built up over the years and that have served them well in
  138
  their teaching? Can the Secretary of State make sufficient resources available to ensure that teachers in future can teach with the same enthusiasm when they deal with the new areas of the syllabus? Can he provide the slides, films and text books? Will there be money for fieldwork? I very much doubt whether that will be the case.
  My final complaint is that the Secretary of State has opted too much for the idea that we should put places on maps instead of an understanding about them. People enjoy "spot the ball" at my Labour club. However, trying to place Birmingham in the right spot on a map is a pretty useless exercise. I recall marking such exercises. One mark was awarded if the pupil was within a certain radius of the correct spot and half a mark if he was a little further away. What does all that really mean? It is far more important for a pupil to have an idea of where Birmingham is in relation to—
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, & c. (negative procedure)):—
  The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 289.

  Division No. 130]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Allen, Graham

  Fatchett, Derek

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Faulds, Andrew

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fearn, Ronald

  Ashton, Joe

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fisher, Mark

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Flannery, Martin

  Barron, Kevin

  Flynn, Paul

  Battle, John

  Foster, Derek

  Beckett, Margaret

  Foulkes, George

  Beith, A. J.

  Fraser, John

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

  Fyfe, Maria

  Benton, Joseph

  Galloway, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Blair, Tony

  George, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Boyes, Roland

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bradley, Keith

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gould, Bryan

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Buckley, George J.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caborn, Richard

  Hain, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Doug

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Darling, Alistair

  Ingram, Adam

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dewar, Donald

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dixon, Don

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Doran, Frank

  Leighton, Ron

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lewis, Terry

  Eadie, Alexander

  Livsey, Richard

  Eastham, Ken

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  139

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Rogers, Allan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rooker, Jeff

  McAllion, John

  Rooney, Terence

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Rowlands, Ted

  McFall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKelvey, William

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McLeish, Henry

  Sheerman, Barry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McNamara, Kevin

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Short, Clare

  Madden, Max

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marek, Dr John

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Snape, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Meale, Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Strang, Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Straw, Jack

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Nellist, Dave

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Brien, William

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wallace, James

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walley, Joan

  Parry, Robert

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Patchett, Terry

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pendry, Tom

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Prescott, John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wilson, Brian

  Ouin, Ms Joyce

  Winnick, David

  Radice, Giles

  Worthington, Tony

  Randall, Stuart

  Wray, Jimmy

  Redmond, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Reid, Dr John

  Richardson, Jo

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robertson, George

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowis, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Allason, Rupert

  Brazier, Julian

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bright, Graham

  Amess, David

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

  Amos, Alan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Burns, Simon

  Ashby, David

  Butterfill, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Atkins, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Baldry, Tony

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Batiste, Spencer

  Churchill, Mr

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Colvin, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Couchman, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cran, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Curry, David

  Boswell, Tim

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

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  140

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knowles, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knox, David

  Dover, Den

  Latham, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Evennett, David

  Lord, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Favell, Tony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Maclean, David

  Forth, Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  Madel, David

  French, Douglas

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fry, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marlow, Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mills, Iain

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moate, Roger

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Gregory, Conal

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Grist, Ian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Ground, Patrick

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Grylls, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hague, William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hannam, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

  Norris, Steve

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Harris, David

  Page, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Paice, James

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hayward, Robert

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Portillo, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hill, James

  Price, Sir David

  Hind, Kenneth

  Raffan, Keith

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Holt, Richard

  Redwood, John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Riddick, Graham

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Irvine, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jack, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jackson, Robert

  Rost, Peter

  Janman, Tim

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jessel, Toby

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kilfedder, James

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shelton, Sir William

  141

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Trippier, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Sims, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Speed, Keith

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Waller, Gary

  Squire, Robin

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Ward, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Steen, Anthony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stern, Michael

  Watts, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wells, Bowen

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Whitney, Ray

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sumberg, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wood, Timothy

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Thorne, Neil

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  National Curriculum
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 19 February, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8745/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 6th March 1991 relating to sweeteners for use in foodstuffs; and supports the Government's intention to provide the maximum safeguard for consumers by limiting the use of sweeteners in food to the minimum amount necessary to fulfil the function intended and above all in accordance with the acceptable daily intake levels approved by the independent expert safety committees.—[Mr. Wood.]
    Question agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting to-morrow, the Motions in the name of Mr. Francis Maude relating to Estimates and Supplementary Estimates 1991–92 (Class VIII, Vote 14) (Community Charge and rate rebate grants, emergency assistance to local authorities, non-domestic rates outturn payments, etc., England), (Class XV, Vote 22) (Rate rebate grants, transitional relief and community charge reduction grants, Scotland) and (Class XVI, Vote 11) (Rate rebate grants and community charge reduction grants, Wales) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and, if those proceedings have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at that hour put successively the Questions necessary to dispose of them.
    That, at the sitting on Wednesday 1st May, if proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. John MacGregor relating to Broadcasting, &c., have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at Seven o'clock put the Question or Questions necessary to dispose of them, including the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motion which he may have selected.—[Mr. Wood.]

  Power Lines (North Yorkshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  11.42 pm
  Mr. William Hague: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of considerable concern to many of my constituents. I refer to the construction of overhead power lines in my constituency and neighbouring areas. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who is present to respond, to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), who will say a few words when I have said mine, and to others from neighbouring constituencies who are here to listen to the debate, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and for York (Mr. Gregory), and, for some reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden).
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: For old time's sake.
  Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is here for old time's sake.
  The immediate cause of the public disquiet and anger in my constituency is the proposal by the National Grid Company to construct new transmission lines running from Lackenby in Cleveland to Picton in north Yorkshire, and then south to Shipton near York. The proposals have been brought forward by the National Grid Company because of its obligations to link to the national system a new gas-fired power station at the ICI Wilton complex on Teesside, which received planning permission last November and is now under construction.
  The power station project is an imaginative enterprise, undertaken privately, and I make no criticism of it. Equally, the National Grid Company is only discharging the duties that Parliament has laid upon it. The cause of our difficulty, and the reason for the debate, is that the construction of the power station and the lines to serve it have been treated for planning purposes as two separate events, with the result that the power station received planning permission without any apparent consideration being given to the environmental impact of the subsequent construction of 60 miles of pylons across a fine rural landscape.
  My argument is that such disconnected procedures are an inadequate way to make such decisions, that it would be in the interests of the nation and of the National Grid Company to adopt better procedures, and that the failure to take account of the impact on north Yorkshire means that the Secretary of State must be especially vigilant and stringent in the environmental standards that he applies to the forthcoming application to build power lines across north Yorkshire.
  Mr. John Greenway: The power lines will go through my hon. Friend's constituency and a considerable distance through mine. As well as the far-reaching consultations about this matter—that the National Grid Company, to its credit, has promised—should we not consider the need to lay power cable lines across the north of England, and why there was no public consultation about that when planning consent was granted for the power station in Cleveland?
  Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, on which I shall touch later. I thank him for his intervention and support.
  To make an analogy to what has happened on a more human scale, it is as if I were to propose to my hon. Friend the Minister that I should build a house on a plot adjacent to his home. The plot is well screened and out of site, he believes that I will be a good neighbour, he raises no objection, planning permission is duly given and I start to build my house. Then I say to him, "By the way, I need a driveway and the only place I can put it is through your front garden, because no one else will agree to have it." Surely he cannot object to my driveway. Everyone knows that a house has to have access. Well, everyone knows that a power station has to be linked to the national grid, but it was only after planning permission had been given that it became apparent in my constituency that a £2 million project would be needed and that most of it would pass down the vale of York.
  The report of the chief planning officer of North Yorkshire county council, to be considered by the council planning committee tomorrow, states the problem clearly, saying:
  "the County Council now finds itself in the position of having to react to proposals for major new environmentally intrusive transmission facilities running across a large section of the country, put forward as a direct result of an earlier decision over which it had no influence. Clearly, it is most unsatisfactory that permission for such a major expansion of power facilities can be granted without all the implications, including those for adjoining areas, being considered. Members may feel that this is a national issue of principle."
  Well might it think so.
  The European Community directive on environmental assessment of 1985, under article 3 and annexe III, requires an environmental impact assessment to identify, describe and assess the direct, indirect and secondary effects of a project on the environment. That information has to be submitted to the competent authority—in this case the Secretary of State—before a decision on consent is taken. In this case, it clearly was not.
  The Council for the Protection of Rural England has already written to the European Commission to point out the inconsistency between the EC directive, which says that a project should be considered in the round, and the evident policy in this country, which is to consider each bit piecemeal—a process which makes it difficult to object to the next relevant piece.
  My hon. Friend the Minister might think that my constituents are just having an attack of NIMBY—not in my backyard. They are, of course, as entitled to be nimbies as anyone else, especially as they go to great lengths to preserve the highly attractive appearance of the outstanding countryside in which they live. However, this case raises wider issues. What if, to take an extreme case, new power stations were built in the north of Scotland or, if we want to be really extreme, in the Orkneys or Shetlands? Would the National Grid Company have to link them to the national network? What if there had been no gap between the two Yorkshire national parks, and the proposed lines had to run through a national park, without the Secretary of State having considered that fact when giving planning permission for a new station? That is an utterly inadequate way to make decisions of such importance in a country that is so crowded and so sensitive to the need to preserve its most magnificent countryside.

  145
  We shall be doing the electricity industry no favours if we allow decisions to be made in such a way. Future power stations will encounter greater public opposition if the wider environmental consequences are not clarified, and a bad name will be given to the privatisation of the industry, which in every other respect I, for one—along with my hon. Friends who are present tonight—emphatically support.
  Clearly, in this case, the damage has now partly been done. The National Grid Company must connect the station to the grid, and provide for the distribution of the electricity that it will generate. I stress that the company's officials are discharging their own responsibilities with considerable care, and are taking pains to consult local people about the precise routes to be taken. My quarrel is not with them, but with the procedures that have put them in such a position.
  The Department of Energy now has two specific responsibilities to the residents of north Yorkshire, which it must fulfil before it gives approval to any proposed power lines—a procedure that is much more likely to require public inquiries as a result of what has happened. First, it should be absolutely sure before it gives approval that the new lines are needed—this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale—and that the intended capacity to transmit from north to south is really necessary. Secondly, it should insist that the environmental impact of the power lines is minimised by every possible means.
  Let me expand on each of these points. First, there is much suspicion that the proposed power lines will have a capacity far beyond that required to cater for the one new power station so far approved. Up to four additional power stations in the seaside area are now mooted in some quarters. The national grid might sensibly argue that we must provide for possible future transmissions, but do we really want so many additional power stations in the north of England when the excess of demand is in the south?
  Some local researchers believe that the national grid could cope with the output of the one power station so far approved by upgrading only the more northerly of two lines linking Lackenby with the rest of the grid. Of two proposed 400 kV lines, the Salt Holme to Norton line is much shorter, will run on the same route as the existing 275 kV line and will have much less environmental impact than the proposed 400 kV line from Lackenby to Picton and thence to Shipton, which will run through outstanding open countryside.
  No one should think that, however this more southerly route is drawn up, its environmental consequences will be anything other than severe. As the county planning officer puts it:
  "There would be major environmental consequences arising from all route options, due both to the intrusive nature of the transmission facilities themselves and to the sensitivity of the whole area through which they must pass. It is impossible to screen the 'supergrid' and there is limited scope for mitigating measures. Difficulties are considered to be especially acute in the section east of Northallerton and Thirsk where all options either pass very close to the boundary of the North York Moors National Park or would need to traverse the open exposed Bullamoor ridge or the relatively unspoilt Cod beck and Sigston Valley. None of the options are considered to be acceptable in this vicinity."
  That is the report that the county council will consider tomorrow morning.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister realises that all the route options for the Picton to Shipton line run
  146
  almost along the edge of the North York Moors national park. It has recently been proposed that the so-called east coast motorway should also run through that area. The people who live there are, not surprisingly, beginning to feel fed up with being regarded as a natural highway for everything that wants to move between north and south, especially as their area is only marginally less attractive, or perhaps no less attractive, than the national park area, which starts at the top of the hill. It is time that we got away from the notion that everything that is just inside a national park is sacrosanct, while everything just outside it is fair game for motorways and pylons. We are in danger of creating a severe penalty for living just outside a national park, in which case I shall soon be asking for an Adjournment debate on expanding the boundaries of the national parks.
  Mr. John Greenway: It is the same with the green belts.
  Mr. Hague: It is indeed.
  That aside, let us assume that my hon. Friend the Minister feels, as I do, that the environmental consequences of what has been agreed to will be serious. Let us also assume that, having investigated to the full the need for the additional lines on the route through north Yorkshire, he finds that they are definitely necessary. Let us assume further that he considers shorter routes across the national park itself to be unacceptable. I am sure that they would be unacceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale. I hope that at the end of all these deliberations he will do his utmost to ensure that every possible step is taken to minimise the impact on my constituents and their environment.
  The proposed pylons have a design life of 80 years. We are talking about something with which our grandchildren—even mine—will have to live. I should not like to be in the shoes of the electricity industry if it is discovered 10 years from now that electro-magnetic fields from power lines have a serious effect on human health. I should not like to be in the shoes of the Department of Energy if it is discovered five years from now that there is a cheap and efficient way to place lengthy power lines underground.
  National Grid officials are very wary—perhaps they are right to be—of suggestions that parts of the lines should go underground. They warn of the cost, the digging up of a great deal of land and of the difficulties of maintaining lines that have been buried. Other people, who also know a great deal about the industry, particularly Professor Scott who lives in our area, have advised me that this need no longer be the case, or that soon it need no longer be the case, and that recent technological developments being pioneered on the continent make substantial lengths of underground power lines a realistic possibility. I do not have the information or the expertise to evaluate such claims, but I hope that my hon. Friend's Department is aware of these developments and that, if not, it will take the trouble to find out about them.
  Failing that possibility, I am also given to understand that new and shorter pylons are being developed, designed with the same work load in mind but 11m shorter than the current standard 440kV pylon. Other ideas involve more slender steel poles that I understand could be produced in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South. Perhaps a combination of all these methods could be used in north Yorkshire to minimise the

  147
  damage to our landscape—a landscape that is enjoyed each year not only by tens of thousands of local people but by an even greater number of visitors.
  I shall send to my hon. Friend the Minister some of the deeply troubled letters that I have received from constituents—from the owner of a well-used private airfield near the village of Bagley, where the operation of aircraft may become severely restricted or impossible, to the owner of a herd of pedigree holstein-friesians, who is likely to have 400kV lines running through the middle of his farm, and to a large number of members of the public who simply appreciate the countryside around them.
  It is not good enough that the decision on these matters should have been reduced to recognising a virtual fait accompli because of inadequate and unsatisfactory planning procedures. My constituents have a legitimate grievance, and it must be addressed tonight.
  11.57 pm
  Mr. Richard Holt: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. (Mr. Hague) for allowing me a few moments of his precious Adjournment debate. As the power lines projected by National Grid go through my constituency before they reach my hon. Friend's, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak in the debate.
  A few years ago the Environment Select Committee, of which I am a member, looked into the question of the acid rain produced by power stations. When worthy, decent and nice people built them all those years ago, they felt, quite rightly, that if the chimneys were high enough they would have no detrimental effect. Modern technology has proved that that is not true. That is why a great deal of money is now being spent on providing power station filters and making them cleaner. As yet, there is no evidence one way or the other that electro-magnetic force from the power lines has any detrimental effect on human health. However, these will be bigger and stronger power lines than those that were used in the past.
  I cannot help but feel that it may not be too long before we discover that there are detrimental effects. Everybody will then throw up their hands in horror and say, "Why on earth didn't somebody look into this and think about it at the right time?"
  Most of my constituents would opt for the proposal that the power lines should be placed underground. I am told that there are technical reasons why that does not affect the electro-magnetic field. That may be. Nevertheless, it is the option that we ought to be considering for the future. As my hon. Friend said, these power lines are built not just for now but for a long way into the future. As yet it has not been proved that such powerful cables are needed.
  I am told that it may be technically difficult to put everything underground, yet we have electricity from France which travels not merely underground but under the sea. We have the technical capacity, but we do not have the will. I am told that there is no will to do that because it would prove too expensive—it would be 16 or 20 times dearer. That depends on the accountant. The accountant could spread the capital expenditure over 60 years instead of the proposed 40 years, or even longer if the life of the equipment is 80 years. Why should our part of the
  148
  north-east bear the entire burden of the national grid? Why should the rest of the country not pay for some of it? The on-costs over 80 years for every unit of current would be about 0·000001p. That would not materially affect people's bills around the country.
  I agree with my hon. Friend about planning applications. Had we known about the present problems, we might have suggested that instead of building the power station on ICI's ground—because of a quirk of this place, ICI can award itself planning permission under an obscure 1948 Act—we should run the gas in pipelines down to the midlands where the electricity was required. The power stations could have been built there instead of spoiling the beautiful north Yovkshire moors and dales in my constituency.
  Our constituents in the north-east have nuclear power stations and four or five applications for additional toxic waste burners; now we have another burden to bear. It is unnecessary. The power lines could go underground. The cost factor does not enter into the argument. If it is feasible to bring electricity from France under the sea, it must be feasible to run it under the ground. I am told that it would make some of the ground sterile. Perhaps it would, but I am sure that local people would prefer that. Why do not sewers run on the surface? We bury them because they are unsightly. They do not need to be on the surface and they can provide an adequate service underground. The same could apply to power lines if there was a will.
  There is great resistance to the proposals, and the Government would be well advised to listen to those of us who have spoken from the Conservative Back Benches tonight. We are speaking as friends. We do not want to get into a fight with the Government or National Grid. We want to work something out. We do not believe the arguments that we need the power lines to provide sufficient capacity for the future or that they could not be buried. The arguments about costs do not hold water.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to add a few comments to the debate. I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply. I can tell him that it does not represent the beginning and end of the story; it is merely the opening shots.
  12.2 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on securing the debate and on the forceful and effective way in which he has represented the concerns of his constituents. I know the part of the world that he represents. I used to live in north Yorkshire, so I am aware of the beauty of some of the scenery to which he has referred.
  The background to the debate is set by the statutory responsibilities of the National Grid Company. It has obligations under the Electricity Act 1989 through its transmission licence, first, to offer terms for connection within 90 days to prospective connections to the grid, and if such terms are accepted NGC must provide connections to its system. Secondly, it must carry out any necessary extension or reinforcement work resulting from that connection.
  My hon. Friend referred to the transmission links for the ICI-Enron Teesside plant. My right hon. Friend the

  149
  Secretary of State has not received an application from the National Grid Company for consent to construct or reconstruct overhead power lines in north Yorkshire. Consent was granted in December for two short stretches of 275 kV overhead line, linking the new Enron scheme with the Lackenby sub-station. Those are the only two lines solely related to the Enron project. The National Grid Company is planning further line reinforcements in the area, which have been the main subject of this evening's debate.
  It would be helpful if I mentioned general procedures. If and when applications for overhead line work in north Yorkshire are received, they will be fully and carefully considered by my Department. The regulations enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to call for an environmental statement to be submitted. The National Grid Company has undertaken to provide an environmental statement for all major new transmission lines. The project must be advertised and a period allowed for representations to my right hon. Friend.
  If any of the relevant planning authorities objects to the proposal and its objections cannot be met by modifying it, my right hon. Friend is obliged to arrange a public inquiry. Even if the relevant planning authorities do not object, my right hon. Friend may still arrange a public inquiry in the light of other objections received. He will decide that on the individual merits of the case.
  My right hon. Friend—my hon. Friend; I am anticipating events—the Member for Richmond and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asked whether a transmission application should be considered when consent for a new power station is granted. The Electricity and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1990, which implement the relevant EC directive, provide that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shall not grant consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 unless he has first taken environmental information into consideration. Environmental information in this context means the environmental statement submitted by the applicant and any representations made about the likely effects of the proposed development.
  Teesside Power's environmental statement referred to the need for a link with, and uprating of, the grid, but those matters were not its responsibility and it could not be expected to provide detailed information on them.
  The National Grid Company's programme of strengthening the grid in the north—this is an important point in answer to my hon. Friends—is not solely to meet the needs of Teesside power station but to meet other neeeds such as the upgrading of the Anglo-Scottish interconnector.
  It would not have been appropriate, therefore, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to have required Teesside Power to provide environmental information that only another developer—the National Grid Company—could provide. When applications for new transmission lines through north Yorkshire are made, an environmental
  150
  statement will be provided and the environmental assessment procedure, as required by the regulations, will be carried out.
  It must be borne in mind that delay in considering power station applications is contrary to the Government's expressed intention of reaching timely decisions. If all applications had to take into account all the possible considerations and consequences, no decision could be timely. It is therefore appropriate for applications to be considered on individual merit if and when they are made.
  My hon. Friends referred to the speed with which the line may have to be constructed. The grid system must adapt to meet developments. Now that the National Grid Company is in the private sector, I hope that it will respond in a businesslike way to opportunities and its statutory responsibilities. I assure my hon. Friends that adequate time remains for all proper procedures to be carried out. The National Grid Company's statutory responsibilities to the community and the environment in developing line routes is in no way diminished. There is also the safeguard that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will pick up any points of concern when considering applications.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) asked about undergrounding lines. As he is aware, undergrounding lines is generally considerably more expensive than constructing lines overhead. I disagree with his statement that this is not an important matter. Undergrounding lines can cost between 10 and 15 times as much as constructing the equivalent length of overhead line, which must be an important consideration. It also takes longer and it is more expensive to locate and rectify faults if they involve underground cable.
  It should not be thought that undergrounding lines in rural areas is necessarily without environmental impact. No development is permitted over a cable once it is laid. The necessary trench work, particularly at sensitive ecological and archaeological sites, is not without its environmental problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh also mentioned health effects. Of course the Government know about them, but at present they have not been proven. We have an open mind about any possible health risks. Further work is proceeding to find out the effects, but at present we can reach no conclusion and there is no good reason for not proceeding with strengthening the grid system.
  I take my hon. Friend's points seriously. The National Grid Company is still formulating its proposals and consulting. I shall ensure that my hon. Friends' comments are drawn to its attention. When the company applies to my Department, I shall ensure that they are immediately informed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock

>NATIONAL FINANCE

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing reconciliations for England, Scotland and Wales between local authority current expenditure as in table 5.8 of Cm. 1520 and the respective aggregate expenditure for grant purposes in successive revenue/(rate) support grant orders.

  Mr. Mellor
  Following the changes to the local authority finance system, data are no longer held in a form which makes it possible to provide the information requested, except at disproportionate cost. For most years, figures for current expenditure have changed only very slightly from those given to the hon. Member in response to the similar question he asked on 20 July 1990.

  Differences in aggregate external finance between the 1990 public expenditure White Paper and the statistical supplement to the 1990 autumn statement

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–932

  England

  Revenue Support Grant

  –70

  –27

  Non domestic payments

  31

  108

  115

  1,617

  1,990

  Magistrates courts

  27

  19

  30

  Commonwealth Immigrants

  30

  10

  Probation and aftercare

  1

  20

  19

  30

  Police

  34

  62

  138

  230

  Education Support

  54

  50

  In-service teacher training

  5

  –47

  –50

  Administration of Housing Benefit3

  5

  15

  20

  Area Protection Grant4

  2

  10

  40

  Other grants

  -40

  40

  52

  50

  Total

  31

  38

  84

  191

  1,876

  2,400

  Scotland

  Revenue Support Grant

  9

  16

  Non domestic rate payments

  268

  260

  Urban programme

  –3

  –6

  1

  Police

  4

  –12

  2

  Administration of Housing Benefit3

  1

  2

  Other grants

  1

  9

  10

  Total

  11

  –1

  282

  270

  Wales

  Revenue Support Grant

  Non domestic rate payments

  138

  80

  Police

  –3

  4

  7

  10

  Other grants

  1

  3

  4

  Total

  –3

  7

  150

  90

  Total Great Britain

  31

  38

  92

  197

  2,308

  2,770

  1The differences shown are differences after adjustments for changes of classification and switches between departments and spending sectors.

  2Figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  3Including Community Charge benefit administration.

  4Including low rateable value areas grant.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report an analysis using the
  2
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report an analysis for the years 1984–85 to 1993–94, in as far as practicable in the same format as table 5.1 of Cm. 1520 of aggregate external finance of local authorities, showing (a) changes between table 21.4.3 of Cm. 1021 and table 5.3 of Cm. 1520 and (b) changes between table 5.3 of Cm. 1520 and the "Financial Report and Budget Statement" 1991–92.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is set out in the table below. It is on the same basis as the information on differences from Cm. 1021 presented in the statistical supplement to the 1990 autumn statement—that is, it excludes differences arising from changes in the way expenditure is recorded (classification changes) or from transfers between departments or sectors (for example, switching responsibility for expenditure from central Government to local authorities). Figures for 1985–86 and 1986–87 are unchanged. Corresponding analyses of differences between the supplement and the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" are not available. Details of changes since the supplement arising from the community charge reduction scheme and the measures announced on 17 January to reduce the levels of community charges are set out in table 5.2 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  economic categories of table 5.6 of Cm. 1520 of the differences in the years 1984–85 to 1993–94 between the

  3
  levels of local authority self-financed expenditure underlying (a) table 21.4.11 of Cm 1021 and table 5.11 of Cm. 1520 and (b) table 5.11. of Cm. 1520 and the "Financial Report and Budget Statement" 1991–92.

  Mr. Mellor
  Local authority self-financed expenditure is simply the residual between the level of local authority expenditure (and projections for future years) and the level of central Government support for local authorities (plans for future years). Differences in the levels of local authority self-financed expenditure therefore simply depend on changes in local authority expenditure itself, and in central Government support. Levels of local authority expenditure are shown in table 21.4.6 of Cm. 1021, and table 5.6

  Retail Prices Index

  Average annual percentage increase

  January 1986 to March 1991

  January 1980 to January 1990

  January 1970 to January 1980

  January 1960 to January 1970

  Goods other than food and fuel and light1 2

  5·0

  5·8

  12·5

  3·5

  Food, fuel and light and services

  4·6

  5·7

  14·5

  4·0

  Housing

  12·8

  11·9

  13·5

  5·1

  1 Includes vehicle maintenance, tax and insurance prior to 1974.

  2 Including the cost of meals out since 1968.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing(a) the amount invested by United Kingdom manufacturing industry in plant and machinery in 1970, 1973, 1979, 1985 and 1989 at 1985 prices, (b) the amount invested per person employed in manufacturing industry in each of those years and (c) the nearest comparable figures for France, Germany, Italy and the United States of America in each case.

  Mr. Mellor
  The following table provides the available information for the United Kingdom, from the annual census of production. In this case, net capital expenditure means capital purchases net of sales.

  Investment figures derived from the annual census of production differ slightly from those published in the United Kingdom national accounts because of differences in definition and coverage.

  There are no directly comparable data available for other countries. OECD publishes comparisons of investment incurred by industry groups, but not for plant and machinery alone.

  Net capital expenditure in plant and machinery in manufacturing industry at 1985 prices in the United Kingdom

  Total £ million

  £ per person employed

  1970

  7,903·7

  983·9

  1973

  6,665·9

  862·0

  1979

  8,031·3

  1,159·6

  1985

  6,881·2

  1,383·0

  1988

  8,845·4

  1,793·4

  Notes:

  1. Orders III to XIX of SIC(68) up to 1979. Divisions 2–4 of SIC(80) for later years.

  2. The latest available census year is 1988.

  3. From 1988, in line with accounting practice, assets leased on a finance leasing basis are included as assets by the lessee rather than by the lessor. This is estimated to have increased total
  4
  of Cm. 1520; differences in the level of central Government support are set out in a previous answer to the hon. Member on 18 April 1991 at column 259.

  Retail Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing for the period since 1 January 1986 and for the decades 1980–90, 1970–1980 and 1960–1970, the average annual percentage increase in the retail prices of(a) goods other than food and fuel, (b) other goods and services and (c) housing.

  Mr. Mellor
  The following table gives the available information.

  United Kingdom capital expenditure in 1988 by up to 8 per cent.

  Source Annual Census of Production.

  Tobacco
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he expects imports of each tobacco product to increase as a result of the changes in tobacco taxation he announced in his Budget Statement; and if he will show the increases by percentage and by value for each manufactured product and indicate the country of origin by percentage and value.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The aims of the increases in tobacco taxation announced in the Budget statement include an overall fall in tobacco comsumption, both of United Kingdom manufactured and imported tobacco products to which the increases equally apply. It is too early yet to predict the impact of the tax changes on individual classes of tobacco products, let alone by country of origin.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he expects the sale of each home-produced tobacco product to decline as a result of the changes in taxation of tobacco products he announced in his Budget statement; and how many jobs he expects will be lost in each of the counties of the United Kingdom as a result in the present financial year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is estimated that consumption of tobacco products will be about 4 per cent. lower in 1991–92 as a result of the increase in taxation of tobacco products announced in the Budget statement. Reliable estimates are not available for individual products. I cannot predict the impact of these tax changes on jobs in the tobacco industry; this will depend on a wide range of other factors.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the balance of trade with the rest of the European Community in manufactures, including erratics, on a balance of payments at current prices for 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 24 April at column 468.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Central Office of Information to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maples
  Details of fees paid by the Central Office of Information to management consultants for years 1979–80 to 1988–89 were given in the answer at column 168 on 13 March 1990. Figures for the years 1989–90 to 1991–92 are as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  71,181

  1990–91

  1Nil

  1991–92

  2Nil

  1 Estimate.

  2 Budget.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in the Treasury; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is as follows (budgeted complement given in brackets):

  Staff in statistical divisions1

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Unified grade 52

  2(2)

  2(2)

  2(2)

  2(2)

  Unified grade 72

  8(8)

  7(8)

  8(7)

  7(6)

  SEO

  4(4)

  3(4)

  2(3)

  2(2)

  HEO

  5(5)

  4(5)

  5(6)

  6(6)

  Senior assistant statistician/ assistant statistician

  4(4)

  3(4)

  4(4)

  4(5)

  EO

  10(11)

  10(11)

  12(11)

  11(12)

  AO/AA

  13(13)

  15(13)

  14(14)

  13(13)

  Total

  46(47)

  44(47)

  47(47)

  45(46)

  Notes Consistent information, in the form required, is not available before 1988–89 and could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  1Defined as divisions headed by grade 5 chief statistician and employed mainly on statistical work. There are other statisticians posts in Her Majesty's Treasury which are not included in the above figures.

  2At the senior levels of the service, where management forms a major component of most jobs, there are service-wide common pay and grading arrangements. These unified grades 1 to 7 are known as the open structure and cover grades from permanent secretary level to grade 7 level. Within the unified grades there are no formal barriers to movement between former occupational groups, eg scientists, administrators, statisticians etc.; each post should be filled by the person best equipped in terms of skills, ability and experience.
  6
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in the Central Office of Information; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Maples
  The Central Office of Information has not had statistical divisions or staff in statistical posts for the years in question. There are no proposals for any such appointments in 1991–92.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total expenditure by the Central Office of Information on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maples
  Details of the cost of the press office of the Central Office of Information for 1979–80 to 1988–89 were given at column 166 on 13 March 1990. The costs for 1989–90 are as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  46,612

  1990–91

  157,240

  1991–92

  254,740

  1 Estimate.

  2 Budget.

ENERGY

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given on 21 July 1988, 13 March 1989 and 12 March 1990 (at columns 833–36, 19 and 4 respectively) for the information relating to 1979, 1984, 1988, 1989 and 1990. I regret that information about complements and for staff in post in the intervening years is not available; the position as at 1 April 1991 when there were no vacancies is:

  Grade

  Staff numbers

  Statistician grades

  Chief Statistician

  1

  Statistician

  5

  Assistant Statistician

  2

  Sub-total

  8

  Economist grades

  Senior Economic Advisor

  2

  Senior Principal Economic Advisor

  1

  Economic Advisor

  8·5

  Senior Economic Assistant

  2

  Economic Assistant

  1

  7

  Grade

  Staff numbers

  Sub-total

  14·5

  Senior open structure and Administrative grades

  Grade 3

  1

  Grade 7

  1

  Senior Executive Officer

  5

  Higher Executive Officer

  7

  Executive Office

  13

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  Administrative Officer

  8

  Personal Secretary

  4

  Sub-total

  40

  Total

  62·5

THE ARTS

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will list the objects and property accepted in satisfaction of inheritence tax during the financial year ended 31 March; if, in listing these, he will specify(a) the amount of tax satisfied in each case, (b) whether any offers of objects carried conditions as to destination, (c) the dates in each case of the recommendations received by him from the Museums and Galleries Commission for the acceptance of objects, (d) the total for the financial year of the tax thus satisfied and (e) how much of this total was covered in the public accounts by means of resort to the Reserve in accordance with Government policy as announced on 26 July 1985, Official Report, column 779; and whether a press notice will be issued by the Office of Arts and Libraries making available the complete list of acceptances during the financial year which is covered in his reply.

  Mr. Renton
  The information the hon. Member requests is as follows:

  Item

  Tax satisfied £

  Date MGC recommendations received

  *Beachey painting1

  360

  —

  Collections of works by and relating to John Piper

  137,918

  17 October 1989

  *Photographs by and of Cecil Beaton

  125,331

  16 June 1990

  *Old master drawings by Mirola Barocci, da Cortona and Reni

  64,490

  2 May 1990

  *Two Raeburn Portraits

  48,439

  18 June 1990

  Painting by Sickert

  84,000

  25 October 1990

  Shudi Harpsichord

  35,000

  19 June 1990

  *Collection of Post Office and Telegraph Stamps

  113,000

  16 August 1990

  *Collection of paintings and a George III cabinet

  211,522·80

  6 September 1990

  *Collection of paintings and drawings by Runciman

  196,000

  15 February 1991

  *Portrait attributed to Reynolds

  20,000

  12 April 1990

  A collection of musical instruments

  126,956

  11 January 1991

  A collection of papers relating to George Greenough

  26,600

  11 January 1991

  Watercolour by Whistler

  7,000

  11 January 1991

  *Two paintings by Nasmyth

  56,000

  19 June 1990

  1 Additional payments for offer accepted in 1989–90.

  Notes:

  Those offers marked* carried conditions as to their destinations. The total tax satisfied in the financial year 1990–91 was
  8
  £1,252,646·80. There was no recourse to the Contingency Reserve for acceptance in lieu in 1990–91.

  Press notices have already been issued announcing the acceptance of all these items except for the portrait attributed to Reynolds. An announcement on this will be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in due course.

TRANSPORT

  Motorways (Lighting)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what would be the cost of lighting all Britain's motorway network.

  Mr. Chope
  The estimated capital cost of lighting the present network in England is in excess of £250 million. The estimated running costs in energy and maintenance would be approximately £30 million per annum.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in reducing drink driving(a) generally and (b) among what were the prime target groups.

  Mr. Chope
  Considerable progress has been made in our continuing campaign against drinking and driving in changing public attitudes and so reducing the number of road accidents caused by those who drink and drive. In 1980, 32 per cent. of drivers and riders killed in road accidents, whose blood alcohol level was known, were above the legal limit. By 1989 this had fallen to 19 per cent. Among the target groups over the same period this proportion fell from 25 per cent. to 11 per cent. for the 16-to-19 age group and from 41 per cent. to 24 per cent. for the 20-to-29 age group. The reduction has been less marked for older drivers and our campaign has been broadened to address drivers in their early middle age.

  HGV Speed Limiters
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what incentives he intends giving to road hauliers to fit speed limiters to heavy goods vehicles on a retrospective basis.

  Mr. Chope
  None. Many operators have voluntarily fitted speed limiters so as to save fuel and reduce maintenance costs and have found this investment to be well worth while.

  LRT
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the authorised capital investment for London Regional Transport in each of the past 15 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  For the six years 1985–86 to 1990–91, the information is as follows:

  Authorised level of capital investment

  £ million cash

  1985–86

  184

  1986–87

  273

  1987–88

  305

  1988–89

  365

  1989–90

  486

  1990–91

  580

  9
  We have no comparable data for prior years, when London Transport was under GLC control. Actual capital investment in those years was as follows:

  LT Investment/Capital Expenditure

  £ million cash

  1976

  74

  1977

  64

  1978

  66

  1979

  100

  1980

  123

  1981

  147

  1982

  127

  1983

  168

  1984–851

  240

  1 15 month financial year

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 24 April to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, what are the technical difficulties relating to the day trains for direct services from the channel tunnel to cities north of London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand from British Rail that there are two main problems. One is the need to avoid the risk of electrical currents from the locomotives interfering with the signalling. The other is the adaptation of the inter-capital train sets, which are too long for stations north of Peterborough and Rugby, so that they have a driving cab in the middle of the train and can be split to operate as two separate trains, while preserving the other characteristics of the train sets. British Rail is investigating with the manufacturers how best to overcome these difficulties and will seek the earliest possible delivery date. As an interim measure, British Rail is examining the possibility of running a few InterCity services from Scotland and the north of England direct to Waterloo to provide a better connection with the inter-capital trains.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish an analysis showing (i) for the years 1981–82 to 1989–90 grant-related expenditure analysed by standard region; (ii) for the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 total standard spending and standard spending assessments analysed by standard region (iii) for the years 1981–82 to 1991–92 aggregate Exchequer finance analysed by standard region and (iv) for the years 1981–82 to 1991–92 central Government support analysed by standard region; indicating whether this analysis is consistent with section 5 of Cm. 1520;

  (2) if he will publish tables showing (a) an updated version of the then Secretary of State's written answer of 30 November 1987, Official Report, columns 417–18, concerning the scale of inter-regional transfers through resources equalisation for the years 1981–82 to 1991–92, but identifying separately the contribution of the domestic and non-domestic sectors; and (b) a parallel inter-regional analysis of needs equalisation measured against a benchmark of equal per capita distribution;

  (3) if he will publish an analysis, consistent with the totals for England and Wales in table 5.2 of Command
  10
  1520, showing (i) an analysis by class of local authority within standard region of the 1990–91 community charge safety net (ii) an analysis by class of authority within standard region of the low rateable value areas grant/area protection grant for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94 and (iii) an analysis by class of authority within standard region of transitional relief for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94.

  Mr. Portillo
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place the associated tables in the Library.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year from 1967–68 to 1991–92 the aggregate grant percentage for rate revenue support grant;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report an analysis for the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 for each county and district council, London borough and for England as a whole (a) the total standard spending and standard spending assessment, (b) the total standard spending and standard spending assessment expressed as pounds per capita, pounds per adult and pounds per community charge unit, (c) the community charge required to be levied to finance standard spending assessment, (d) the "long-run" community charge required to be levied to finance standard spending assessment, (e) the "long-run" community charge required to be levied to finance expenditure 1–5 and 10 per cent. below and 1–5 and 10 per cent. above standard spending assessment, (f) the proportion of total expenditure which would be financed by government grant at each of the spending levels specified in (e) above, (g) that level of expenditure as a percentage of standard spending assessment which would require a zero community charge and (h) that level of expenditure as a percentage of standard spending assessment which would require a zero "long-run" community charge;

  (3) if he will publish in the Official Report an analysis showing for each English local authority, for each class of local authority, for each standard region and for England as a whole (a) grant-related expenditure in 1989–90, expressed in pounds and pounds per capita, (b) standard spending assessment in 1990–91 and 1991–92, expressed in pounds and pounds per capita, (c) the difference between grant-related expenditure in 1989–90 and standard spending assessment in 1990–91, expressed in pounds and pounds per capita and (d) the "long-run" cost of the difference in (c) above in pounds to be met by community charge payers and the effect in pence on the community charge.

  (4) if he will publish in the Official Report an analysis for the years 1966–67 to 1990–91, as far as is practicable consistent with table 1.1 of "Welsh Local Government Financial Statistics No. 14, 1990", of rate fund services revenue account but which also distinguishes (a) non-domestic rate revenue from domestic rate revenue and (b) gross rates, net rates and rate rebate grants.

  Mr. Portillo
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place the associated tables in the Library.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was spent by local authorities on the provision of speech therapy in the last year for which figures are available.
  11
  Mr. Key
  The vast majority of spending on speech therapy is carried out by health authorities. The relatively small amount of spending by local authorities is not separately identified on their returns submitted to the Department of the Environment.

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the statements or speeches made by, or on behalf of, Ministers of the Crown (a) prior to July 1987 and (b) since covering any major review of the functional organisation of boundaries of local government.

  Mr. Key
  Over the 158 years since the setting up of the Royal Commission on Municipal Corporations of 1833, which can be regarded as the first major review of the functional organisations and boundaries of local government, many speeches and statements have been made by, and on behalf of, Ministers of the Crown. The most relevant to the current situation are the statements made by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Wales and for Scotland on 21 March and 22 April at columns 401 and 901.

  Electricity Pylons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has commissioned or published in the last 10 years in respect of the effect on health of electromagnetic radiation from electricity pylons.

  Mr. Baldry
  Matters relating to the possible health hazards from environmental radiation are the concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, my Department maintains close liaison with the Department of Health on these issues.

  Residuary Bodies
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total capital sum realised from the abolition of the metropolitan county councils and the winding up of the residuary bodies.

  Mr. Key
  One hundred and seventeen million pounds of capital receipts realised from the sale of surplus property and other assets were distributed by the metropolitan residuary bodies, excluding London, to local authorities.

  Quarries (Waste Disposal)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number and sites of quarries in County Durham used for waste disposal from industrial and domestic sources.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not have information on the number of quarries which are used for waste disposal. Durham county council, as waste disposal authority, should be able to provide the information on waste disposal sites in its area.

  Rural Development
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to promote the achievements of Rural Development Commission projects in the rural development areas, in particular those using funds provided from central Government.

  Mr. Baldry
  My colleagues and I take every opportunity to publicise the achievements of the Rural Development Commission, as does the commission itself. For example, on 19 April my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside launched a project in Rossendale, Lancashire, which is part of a new partnership between the Rural Development Commission and Help the Aged aimed at addressing the needs of elderly people in rural areas.

  Article 4 Direction
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now give a decision in response to the application by the Caradon district council for an article 4 direction in respect of land at St. Veep which the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East first referred to his office on 22 August 1990.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have written to my hon. Friend explaining that delay has been caused by awaiting additional supporting evidence which the district council has offered to provide. Officials in my Department have written to the council about this again on 15 April. I assure my hon. Friend that once this additional evidence has been received, or the council confirms that it does not intend to submit anything further, we will issue a prompt decision on the article 4 direction.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the aggregate external finance will be for each local authority under the illustrative council tax and what is the AEF in payment for 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  With the council tax, grant and business will be paid directly to each tier of local authority. It is therefore not possible to make direct comparisons with external finance in 1991–92 which is paid to the collection fund in each area.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for each local authority the average illustrative council tax bill per household; showing the average community charge bill per thousand in 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  The Government issued on 23 April full information on the illustrative effect on household bills had the council tax been fully in place in 1991–92.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his statement to the House on 23 April,Official Report, column 901–3, what is his policy towards the removal or otherwise of the safety net from those local authorities which will attract more Government grant than at present as a result of the proposals outlined by him on that occasion.

  Mr. Key
  The illustrative figures published on 23 April assume that the present area protection grant will be distributed in the same way as the remainder of AEF.
  13
  The Government propose that there will be transitional relief to ensure that no household will face an unreasonable increase in its bill from one year to another as a result of the introduction of the new system. There will therefore be no need for transitional arrangements applying to whole local authorities.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the figures and calculations which result in Grimsby's local government tax bills in each column of his illustrative tables being among the 10 highest in the country.

  Mr. Key
  The illustrative figures are calculated on the basis of a distribution of grant and non-domestic rate income which allows local authorities in all areas to set a council tax of £400 for a band D property occupied by two or more people, if they provide a standard level of service. The corresponding figures are £267 for a band A property and £668 for a band G property.

  All spending above the standard level falls upon the council tax. Humberside county council spends 4 per cent. above its standard spending assessment and Great Grimsby spends 32 per cent. above its SSA, leading to higher bills in the area than those for standard spending.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the correlation in his illustrative bills table in the new council tax between the percentage over standard spending assessment and size of charge in each band.

  Mr. Key
  All revenue in excess of standard spending assessment will fall to be raised by the council tax for the local authority concerned. Within the area of an authority, the increase in bill for a band G property will be two and a half times that for a band A property. The size of increase required for a 1 per cent. increase in spending will depend on the SSA for the authority and the proportion of properties in each band.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his statement to the House on 23 April,Official Report, columns 901–903, if his review of local government will include the metropolitan districts.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend to the House on 23 April at column 901, in which he said that the Government intend no significant changes in the structure of local government in London or the metropolitan areas. However, they are seeking views on how arrangements for some services, such as grants to the voluntary sector and the arts, might be improved in these areas.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the full cost of calculating the Government's council tax figures and the cost of publishing the documentation outlining the Government's proposed system of local government finance.

  Mr. Key
  No additional expense was incurred in calculating the illustrative council tax figures, as these were compiled from data held by the Department on existing computer systems.

  The estimated cost of publishing the documents outlining the Government's finance proposals was some £20,000.

  Drinking Water Inspectorate
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many technical employees on the drinking water inspectorate were(a) previously employed by his Department and (b) previously employed by a water company, statutory water company or water authority or otherwise in the water industry.

  Mr. Trippier
  Seven members of the professional staff of the drinking water inspectorate were previously employed by my Department, and two by other Government Departments. Four joined the inspectorate from water companies and one from a public analyst. Another was employed by a firm of consultants. Two people are on secondment from the water research centre.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the total number of days that staff of the drinking water inspectorate have spent on water company premises;

  (2) how many site inspections have been carried out by staff of the drinking water inspectorate;

  (3) what is the total number of inspections carried out by drinking water inspectorate staff and the total number carried out by others; what is the proportion of drinking water inspections which are sub-contracted out to consultants; and what is the name of each firm of consultants employed by the drinking water inspectorate and the value of the contract awarded in each case;

  (4) what is the average amount of notice given to a water company before an inspection takes place;

  (5) if he will list each water company inspection that has been carried out so far in each water company; and if he will give the date of each visit and the conclusions of the inspection.

  Mr. Trippier
  Since the drinking water inspectorate was established on 2 January 1990, inspectorate staff have spent about 120 days on water company premises. These staff have inspected 15 of the 39 water companies in England and Wales. Two firms of consultants, Watson Hawksley Ltd, and Rofe, Kennard and Lapworth were engaged by the inspectorate to make 24 inspections. For commercial reasons it would not be appropriate to give the value of the contracts.

  Inspections were made between June 1990 and February 1991 and, in general, water companies were given five weeks' notice. All inspections, except three, included site visits. The conclusions from the inspections will be summarised in the first annual report from the chief inspector of the drinking water inspectorate which is due to be published in July.

  Cryptosporidia Outbreak, Hull
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take action against Yorkshire Water for the outbreak of cryptosporidia in Hull in 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  The final report of the outbreak control team was delivered recently to the drinking water inspectorate which is investigating the incident. The inspectorate will make recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in due course upon any action to be taken.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Metropolitan police to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the deputy commissioner that payments by the Metropolitan police to management and computer consultants, in each financial year since 1984–85, estimated expenditure for 1990–91 and budget estimate for 1991–92 are as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  346,000

  1985–86

  433,000

  1986–87

  558,000

  1987–88

  702,000

  1988–89

  742,000

  1989–90

  939,000

  11990–91

  1,538,000

  21991–92

  911,000

  1 Estimated outturn.

  2 Budget estimate.

  I understand that information on spending on management consultants only, and for the years prior to 1984–85, is not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure by the Metropolitan police on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Year

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Grade

  Grade 7

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  SEO

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  1 (1)

  —(1)

  —(—)

  HEO

  2(2)

  2 (2)

  3 (3)

  3 (3)

  2 (2)

  3 (3)

  3 (3)

  3 (3)

  3 (3)

  3 (3)

  3 (3)

  3 (3)

  3 (3)

  EO

  9 (9)

  9 (9)

  9 (9)

  8 (9)

  8 (8)

  8 (8)

  8 (8)

  8 (8)

  9 (8)

  8 (8)

  7 (8)

  9 (8)

  9 (8)

  AO

  52(61)

  62(61)

  58 (61)

  57 (61)

  51(61)

  59(61)

  61(61)

  61(61)

  62(62)

  58(62)

  55(62)

  59(62)

  53(58)

  AA

  —(—)

  1(—)

  2(—)

  —(1)

  —(1)

  —(1)

  —(1)

  —(1)

  —(—)

  —(—)

  —(—)

  —(—)

  —(—)

  Supporting grades

  10 (9)

  11 (9)

  9 (10)

  12 (9)

  7(10)

  5 (7)

  5 (7)

  7 (7)

  7 (7)

  7 (7)

  7 (7)

  8 (7)

  6 (7)

  Graphics grades

  3 (3)

  2(3)

  3 (3)

  3 (3)

  3 (3)

  3 (3)

  2(2)

  2 (2)

  2(2)

  —(—)

  —(—)

  —(—)

  —(—)

  Data processing grades

  4(13)

  4(13)

  5 (13)

  5 (13)

  5 (5)

  4 (5)

  4 (5)

  —(—)

  —(—)

  —(—)

  —(—)

  —(—)

  —(—)

  Total

  82(99)

  93(99)

  91(101)

  90(101)

  78(92)

  84(90)

  85(89)

  83(84)

  85(84)

  78(82)

  74(82)

  80(82)

  72(77)

  Notes:

  1. Complement figures are shown in brackets.

  2. Only the Grade 7 post is filled by a statistician, the remaining posts being filled by executive, administrative and support grades staff, who undertake a mixture of statistical and support duties. An additional Grade 7 post is located in the Management Support Department.

  Police Forces (Restructure)
  93. Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce primary legislation to restructure the police forces of England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans for primary legislation, but we are considering what further improvements in the service delivered by the police can be achieved by developments within the present constitutional framework.
  16
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The deputy commissioner has told me that expenditure on staff and accommodation costs of the directorate of public affairs, and on recruitment and other advertising and other promotional literature, in each financial year since 1985–86, estimated expenditure for 1990–91 and budget estimate for 1991–92 are as follows:

  £

  1985–86

  3,622,861

  1986–87

  4,444,103

  1987–88

  4,555,000

  1988–89

  5,475,000

  1989–90

  5,366,000

  11990–91

  5,916,000

  21991–92

  6,390,000

  1 Estimated Out-turn.

  2 Budget Estimate.

  Information for the years prior to 1985–86 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in the Metropolitan police; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The deputy commissioner tells me that the complement and staff in post in the Metropolitan police statistics branch is shown in the table.

  Trevi Group
  94. Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish details of any representations the Government have made to the Trevi group regarding combating terrorism after 1992.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Government continue to press in Trevi for the closest possible co-operation against terrorism, which we regard as an essential objective in its own right. We have also continued to make clear to our Community partners our intention to maintain necessary checks at United Kingdom ports and airports after 1992.

  Kurdish Asylum-Seekers
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Kurdish asylum-seekers are required to report to police stations on a weekly basis; how many of them are aged(a) under 18 years and (b) under 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information available is as follows. Staff in post on 1 April in each of the relevant years in the statistical divisions of the Home Office are set out in the following table:

  Statisticians

  Other grades

  Total

  1979–80

  24

  127·5

  151·5

  1980–81

  25

  127

  152

  1981–82

  24

  125

  149

  1982–83

  23

  123·5

  146·5

  1983–84

  22

  129

  151

  1984–85

  25

  128

  153

  1985–86

  26

  139·5

  165·5

  1986–87

  24

  140·5

  164·5

  1987–88

  24·5

  144·5

  169

  1988–89

  27·5

  140

  167·5

  1989–90

  30

  143

  173

  1990–91

  28

  158·5

  186·5

  1991–92

  31·5

  168·5

  200

  The number of vacancies, if any, varies from week to week and no separate record is maintained.

  Northumbria Police
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Northumbria as to how many hours' overtime were on average worked by a police constable in his force(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of Northumbria that the average amount of overtime worked per officer in the federated ranks in Northumbria in 1990 was 185·37 hours. Figures for 1979 are no longer available and the other detailed information requested would be obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Northumbria as to how many(a) constables,(b) inspectors, (c) chief inspectors, (d) superintendents and (e) chief superintendents there were in his force (i) in 1979 and (ii) in 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  At 31 December

  1979

  1990

  Constables

  2,529

  2,680

  Inspectors

  190

  193

  Chief Inspectors

  60

  63

  18

  At 31 December

  1979

  1990

  Superintendents

  51

  50

  Chief Superintendents

  13

  13

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Northumbria as to the number of(a) police officers, (b) police cars and (c) motor cyclists who were on hand at Newcastle airport for the recent visit of the Duke and Duchess of Kent; and what was the cost of policing the Kents' visit to Northumbria.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The level of policing for particular events is a matter of operational judgment for the chief constable concerned. I understand from the chief constable of the Northumbria police that a total of 30 officers were on hand at Newcastle airport for the visit by their Royal Highnesses on 10 April. Of these, 12 were drivers, 14 were motor cyclists, and four officers were deployed from territorial divisional duties. The use of motor cyclists in particular resulted in significant reductions in the level of police resources needed during the visits subsequently made by their Royal Highnesses to seven different venues in the county of Northumberland and Tyne and Wear. The additional cost to the Northumbria police was about £2,000.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Northumbria as to the total real cost of policing in Northumbria for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. This is a matter for the police authority.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Northumbria as to the number of officers(a) stationed and (b) residing at Ponteland; and what are their duties.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to call for a report; nor is the information centrally held.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Northumbria as to the number of serving officers for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of officers on the strength of the Northumbria police at 31 December for each year since 1979 is as follows:

  Police strength

  1979

  3,339

  1980

  3,340

  1981

  3,331

  1982

  3,329

  1983

  3,337

  1984

  3,344

  1985

  3,368

  1986

  3,361

  1987

  3,478

  1988

  3,460

  1989

  3,526

  1990

  3,528

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief
  19
  constable of Northumbria as to the total cost, including manpower, of the force helicopter for each year since it was acquired.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Northumbria police air support unit became operational in November 1989. I understand from the chief constable that the cost of the first year of operation was £656,320, including police manpower costs of £165,670.

  Police Incomes
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the gross income of(a) a police constable, (b) a sergeant, (c) an inspector, (d) a chief inspector, (e) a superintendent and (f) a chief superintendent in a provincial force in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Minimum and maximum basic salaries for the years in question are as follows:

  June 1979

  September 1990

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Constable

  3,600

  5,700

  10,866

  18,132

  Sergeant

  5,450

  6,250

  17,346

  20,896

  Inspector

  6,250

  7,440

  19,896

  22,590

  Chief Inspector

  7,100

  8,235

  22,590

  25,128

  Superintendent

  9,800

  10,710

  30,729

  33,369

  Chief Superintendent

  10,800

  11,775

  34,167

  36,276

  All other entitlements depend on the individual circumstances of the officer in question and are set out in the Police Regulations 1987, copies of which are available in the Library.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Financial Assistance
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how much financial help the Church Commissioners have provided to churches, abbeys and cathedrals in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners' primary responsibility is the support of the clergy and their funds are not generally available for churches. However, they provided approximately £900,000 in 1987, £1·8 million in 1988 and £2·5 million in 1989 towards church buildings, either under specific legislative authority or to meet legal obligations to do with land ownership.

  Canterbury Cathedral
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how much was spent by the Church Commissioners in payment to the staff of Canterbury cathedral in 1990–91.

  Mr. Alison
  A total of £54,650.

  Church Residential Property
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what account the commissioners take of the housing shortage in London in respect of their policies on management of their residential property holdings.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners' prime responsibility in the management of all their assets, including residential property, is to provide support for the clergy of the Church of England. Within this overall policy, the commissioners' Octavia Hill estates help meet a social need by providing rented accommodation for over 1,500 families on lower incomes who would otherwise look to local authorities for their housing.

  Commissioners' Assets
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the value of the current assets of the Church Commissioners.

  Mr. Alison
  The latest published figure, at 31 December 1989, was £3·1 billion.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Employees
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many people are currently employed in the Palace of Westminster; how many were employed five, 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The House of Commons Commission employs 1,032 staff. A further 1,100 are employed by Members. In addition 7,976 photo identity pass holders are currently entitled to access to the House. These include police and security staff, Department of the Environment personnel, Government Department officials, and others.

  Comparative figures for five, 10 and 15 years ago in respect of House of Commons staff are 964, 879 and 550 respectively. Meaningful figures for the other categories of pass holders for those years are not readily available.

  Televising of House
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on televising the House on cable systems.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In its recent report, the Select Committee on Broadcasting reiterated its belief in the desirability of establishing a television channel dedicated to continuous coverage of parliamentary proceedings. Of the three proposals submitted to it, the Committee concluded that the scheme put forward by United Artists was "the most thoroughly worked out and immediately practicable". The United Artists service, which is expected to begin in the autumn, will be available, without any extra charge to subscribers, to any home or other building served by a local cable network. In addition, it is hoped, subject to the outcome of discussions involving the Independent Television Commission, that the service might also be transmitted via one of the spare transponders on the Marco Polo satellite, for the time being at least by BSkyB.

  Kuwait (Oil fires)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set up a Select Committee to consider Her Majesty's Government's aid to British contractors involved in trying to extinguish Kuwait oil fires.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No.

  European Community (Communications)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will make a further statement about the introduction of free telephone calls to European institutions.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes).

  Palace of Westminster (Restoration)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects that part of the Ibbs report which will bring responsibility for the restoration of the Palace of Westminster within his responsibilities to be implemented.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The report on House of Commons services, by the team led by Sir Robin Ibbs, recommended among other things that responsibility for the parliamentary works budget should pass from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the House of Commons Commission. The House of Lords has subsequently agreed to accept responsibility for its share of the cost of the services provided under this budget, which include routine maintenance and refurbishment, and the provision of new buildings, as well as the restoration of the fabric of the Palace of Westminster. The Ibbs report envisaged that the transfer of responsibility for these services might take place as early as the beginning of the 1992–93 financial year, subject to the introduction of other organisational changes in the House of Commons service. It is too early to say whether that target will be achieved. There are no proposals to transfer responsibility for these matters to the Leader of the House.

  Parliamentary Procedures
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he is now able to announce the plans for changes in procedures for the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to a similar question from the hon. Member on 25 March at column 607.

  Telephone Services
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to improve the telephone services in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It is planned to upgrade the software in the Palace of Westminster telephone exchange within the next 12 months. This will enable the automatic routing of outgoing calls by the cheapest means. During the same period it is hoped to modernise the equipment in use in the Members' Message Bureau in order to provide a more efficient message-taking service for Members and the general public.

  Resettlement Grants
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the TSRB report on resettlement grants will be published.

  Mr. MacGregor
  During Second Reading of the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Bill on 31 January I announced the Government's intention to invite the TSRB to review resettlement grants. Copies of the report have today been placed in the Library of the House and are available from the Vote Office. It will be published as an appendix to the TSRB's report on parliamentary pensions.

  Subject to the views of the House, the Government are minded to accept the TSRB's recommendation that resettlement grants should be extended to all Members aged 65 and over on a tapered basis according to length of service and age. This will require a resolution of the House, and I intend to bring this forward at an early opportunity.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Parliamentary Procedures
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans the Commission has to undertake a fundamental review to improve the way Parliament operates and to ensure that value for money is obtained.

  Mr. Beith
  The Ibbs report on House of Commons services was published on 28 November and was given a generally positive welcome by the House in the debate on 17 January. Steps to implement the report are now in train. The whole thrust of the Ibbs report was in the direction of better accountability and value for money in the delivery of services for the House. A further review was not seen to be required.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Family Conciliation Services
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the public funding of family conciliation services.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on 18 April 1991 at column 221.

  Rape
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration the DPP gives to the need for corroborative evidence when deciding whether to proceed with prosecutions for alleged rape; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Corroborative evidence is not demanded as a matter of law for a charge of rape to be capable of being proved. The CPS assesses the available evidence in accordance with the criteria contained in the code for Crown prosecutors, bearing in mind the legal
  23
  requirement that a judge shall warn a jury that it is dangerous to convict of rape without some corroboration. Only if the Crown prosecutor considers that there is a realistic prospect of a conviction, and that a prosecution is required in the public interest, will the case proceed to court.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Lord Chancellor's Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year: and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  The Attorney-General
  On the information available, the cost to the Lord Chancellor's Department of employing management consultants for each financial year from 1984–85 to date is as follows.

  £

  1984–85

  Nil

  1985–86

  221,000

  1986–87

  473,837

  1987–88

  134,255

  1988–89

  205,882

  1989–90

  178,500

  1990–91

  147,000

  1991–92

  1192,000

  1 Forecast.

  The figures exclude computer consultancy. Figures for 1979–80 and 1983–84 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give, for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in the Lord Chancellor's Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  The Attorney-General
  The information that is readily available on the number of staff and complement by grade in the statistics branch of the Lord Chancellor's Department is shown in the tables:

  Grade of staff

  In post January 1980

  Complement

  Grade 7/statistician

  1

  n/a

  Assistant/senior assistant statistician

  1

  n/a

  Senior executive officer

  1

  n/a

  Higher executive officer

  1

  n/a

  Executive officer

  3

  n/a

  Clerical officer

  6

  n/a

  Clerical assistant

  1

  n/a

  Grade of staff

  In post July 1984

  Complement

  Grade 7/statistician

  1

  n/a

  Assistant/senior assistant statistician

  1

  n/a

  Higher executive officer

  1

  n/a

  Executive officer

  3

  n/a

  Clerical officer

  6

  n/a

  Clerical assistant

  1

  n/a

  24

  Grade of staff

  In post July 1988

  Complement

  Grade 7/statistician

  1

  n/a

  Assistant/senior assistant statistician

  1

  n/a

  Higher executive officer

  1

  n/a

  Executive officer

  3

  n/a

  Administrative officer

  4

  n/a

  Administrative assistant

  2

  n/a

  Grade of Staff

  In post March 1989

  Complement 1988–89

  Grade 7/Statistician

  1

  1

  Assistant/Senior Assistant Statistician

  1

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  1

  1

  Executive Officer

  2

  3

  Administrative Officer

  4

  4

  Administrative Assistant

  2

  2

  Grade of Staff

  In post March 1990

  Complement 1989–90

  Grade 7/Statistician

  1

  1

  Assistant/Senior Assistant Statistician

  1

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  1

  1

  Executive Officer

  2

  2

  Administrative Officer

  4

  4

  Administrative Assistant

  3

  3

  Grade of Staff

  In post April 1991

  Complement 1991–92

  Grade 7/Statistician

  1

  1

  Assistant/Senior Assistant Statistician

  1

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  1

  1

  Executive Officer

  3

  1

  Administrative Officer

  4

  1

  Administrative Assistant

  2

  1

  1 No longer applicable.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  The Attorney General
  Total expenditure on press and public relations excluding staff costs is as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  5,180

  1985–86

  13,253

  1986–87

  23,282

  1987–88

  34,500

  1988–89

  34,159

  1989–90

  33,616

  1990–91

  29,113

  The amounts spent for previous years can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The budget for 1991–92 is £73,000.

  Conveyancers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Lord Chancellor intends to publish for consultation his proposals for regulations on the competence and conduct
  25
  of authorised practitioners, the new class of conveyancer, to be made under section 40 of the Courts and Legal Service Act 1990.

  The Attorney-General
  My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is issuing these today. Copies of the draft regulations and explanatory consultation document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Foreign Debts
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the estimates of outstanding debt for(a) Sudan, (b) Zimbabwe, (c) Ghana, (d) Zambia and (e) Uganda.

  Mrs. Chalker
  According to the World bank debt tables 1990–91, the total external debts outstanding for the five countries listed are as follows:

  Total external Debt (US$ millions)

  Sudan

  12,965

  Zimbabwe

  3,088

  Ghana

  3,087

  Zambia

  6,874

  Uganda

  1,808

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what concessions have been given to(a) Sudan, (b) Zimbabwe, (c) Ghana, (d) Zambia and (e) Uganda in respect of repayment of debt to bankers and the Government during the last three years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  For Ghana, Sudan and Uganda during the last three years Her Majesty's Government have cancelled old aid loans worth £10·4 million, £1·3 million and £1·3 million respectively, under their scheme for retrospective terms adjustment. Zimbabwe and Ghana have strong records of servicing their debts and have avoided the need for rescheduling. Uganda and Zambia have received concessional reschedulings of their official debts to Government creditors under Toronto terms during the last three years: Uganda in January 1989 and Zambia in July 1990. Sudan has been unable to reach agreement with her creditors and has allowed substantial debt arrears to accumulate. None of the countries listed has reached debt relief agreements with its commercial bank creditors during the last three years.

  Iraqi Refugees
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate the Government have made of(a) the aid requirements of the Iraqi refugees over the next six months and (b) the United Kingdom's contribution to this; and from which budget the United Kingdom's funds will come.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No such estimates have been made. The appeals launched by the international agencies alone total over US$620 million. So far, the United Kingdom has made available £21 million for refugee assistance, as well as the aid share of the costs of the airbridge and Operation Haven. These costs are being met from the overseas aid programme.

  Peru
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being given to Peru to contain cholera.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In response to a request from the Peruvian Government, the Overseas Development Administration made an immediate cash contribution in February of US$20,000 through the Pan American Health Organisation, which is co-ordinating the relief effort. In March we contributed a further £100,000 through PAHO in response to the rapidly increasing scale of the epidemic. In addition, we are providing some £180,000 as Britain's share of the European Community's emergency aid.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of United Kingdom flights of relief supplies for Iraqi refugees to(a) Turkey and (b) Iran to date.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave on 25 April to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). As of 26 April, the Overseas Development Administration has sent seven flights of relief supplies to Iran and 20 to Turkey. More will follow.

  Chile
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was, for each year since 1970, the amount of funds given to Chile by Her Majesty's Government under bilateral technical co-operation agreements in 1991 money.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Gross bilateral technical co-operation expenditure for Chile from 1970 to 1989, the latest year for which figures are available, was:

  Year

  Current prices

  Constant (1990) prices

  1970

  233

  1,604

  1971

  232

  1,460

  1972

  324

  1,886

  1973

  507

  2,756

  1974

  382

  1,807

  1975

  306

  1,138

  1976

  939

  3,032

  1977

  2,073

  5,876

  1978

  1,079

  2,747

  1979

  2,131

  4,742

  1980

  2,021

  3,764

  1981

  1,452

  2,427

  1982

  675

  1,049

  1983

  442

  653

  1984

  257

  363

  1985

  256

  342

  1986

  202

  260

  1987

  236

  290

  1988

  241

  277

  1989

  267

  287

  The figures in the first column include amounts, totalling over £11 million in current prices, spent since 1973 in support of various World University Service programmes for Chilean refugee students.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider increasing the level of aid and trade provision for the current 12 months.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No. Additional resources are not available within the aid programme for this purpose.

  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the actual level of aid and trade provision for each of the past five years and the official forecast for the next two years in monetary terms and as a percentage of total aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As a percentage of the overseas aid budget, expenditure on aid and trade provision over the last five financial years was:

  £ million

  Aid and trade provision expenditure

  Expenditure as a percentage of aid budget

  1986–87

  81

  6·3

  1987–88

  48

  3·7

  1988–89

  59

  4·0

  1989–90

  62

  3·9

  1990–91

  194

  15·8

  1 Provisional.

  The aid and trade provision budget for 1991–92 is £97 million out of a total overseas aid budget of £1,720 million. The budget for 1992–93 will be set following the outcome of the annual public expenditure survey.

PRIME MINISTER

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make facilities available to staff in his office to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  The Prime Minister
  Arrangements exist for officials to contribute by deduction from pay to charities of their choice. The decision by members of my office about which charitable appeals to support must be a matter for them.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he, with his colleagues responsible for transport in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, will consider consultations on ways to let the public know whether a driver killed in a road crash had consumed alcohol.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply he received from my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on 22 April 1991 at columns 350–51.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Prime Minister's office to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.
  28
  The Prime Minister
  There has been no expenditure by my office on fees to management consultants since 1979–80, and none is planned for 1991–92.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Cabinet Office to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  The Prime Minister
  The expenditure by the Cabinet Office, including from its creation on 1 October 1987, the Office of the Minister of the Civil Service, on management and computer consultancies, including certain consultancies relating to the civil service as a whole, in the financial years from 1983–84 is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1983–84

  152,000

  1984–85

  423,818

  1985–86

  329,334

  1986–87

  505,092

  1987–88

  417,778

  The figures for each year since then, which exclude the cost of computer consultants, are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1988–89

  70,608

  1989–90

  51,500

  1990–91

  1182,000

  1991–92

  2242,735

  1 Estimate.

  2 Budget.

  Note:

  The figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 reflect increases in management consultancies undertaken by the Cabinet Office for the civil service generally.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure by the Cabinet Office on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure on press and public relations by the Cabinet Office was:

  £

  1984–85

  247,495

  1985–86

  232,980

  1986–87

  224,813

  1987–88

  215,925

  1988–89

  201,837

  1989–90

  205,650

  The latest estimate for 1990–91 is £165,088 and the budget for 1991–92 is £213,323.

  Similar information is not available for the years prior to 1984–85.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure by the Prime Minister's office on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure by my office on press and public relations was not recorded separately before 1987–88. The total expenditure for each year since then and the budget for 1991–92 are as follows:
  29

  £

  1987–88

  377,987

  1988–89

  419,326

  1989–90

  427,802

  1990–91

  1553,010

  1991–92

  2554,748

  1 Estimate.

  2 Budget.

  Note: The figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 include notional superannuation costs which are excluded from the figures for earlier years.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in the Cabinet Office; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  The Prime Minister
  The number of staff, by grade, employed on 1 April in each of the years from 1982 in the statistical divisions of the Cabinet Office, differentiated between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts, were:

  Staff in post, with in brackets, where different, total complement

  Grade

  Members of Statistician Group

  Members of Administration and other groups1

  Total

  1982

  51·0

  153·0

  204·0 (209·0)

  1983

  50·0

  159·5

  209·5 (208·5)

  1984

  47·0

  146·0

  193·0(193·0)

  1985

  50·5

  136·5

  187·0 (186·0)

  1986

  52·0

  148·5

  200·5 (198·5)

  1987

  1a

  1

  —

  1

  3

  3

  —

  3

  5

  9

  1

  10(9)

  7

  24

  6

  30(31)

  Senior Executive Officer

  —

  8

  8(7)

  Higher Executive Officer

  —

  23

  23 (22·5)

  Executive Officer

  —

  34

  34 (35·5)

  Administrative Officer

  —

  24

  24

  Personal Secretary

  —

  13

  13(12·5)

  Senior Assistant and Assistant

  Statistician

  9

  —

  9(11)

  Cadet Statistician

  7

  —

  7

  Chief Draughtsman

  —

  1

  1

  Senior Draughtsman

  —

  1

  1

  Higher Draughtsman

  —

  2

  2

  Draughtsman

  —

  6

  6(7)

  Information Officer

  —

  1

  1

  53

  120

  173 (175·5)

  1988

  1A

  1

  —

  1

  3

  3

  —

  3

  5

  9

  1

  10(9)

  7

  25

  4

  29(31)

  Senior Executive Officer

  —

  8

  8

  30

  Staff in post, with in brackets, where different, total complement

  Grade

  Members of Statistician Group

  Members of Administration and other groups1

  Total

  Higher Executive Officer

  —

  20

  20(21)

  Executive Officer

  —

  31

  31 (37)

  Administrative Officer

  —

  21

  21 (24)

  Senior Personal Secretary

  —

  1

  1

  Personal Secretary

  —

  11

  11(11·5)

  Senior Assistant and Assistant

  Statistician

  9

  —

  9(10)

  Cadet Statistician

  6

  —

  6(7)

  Chief Draughtsman

  —

  1

  1

  Senior Draughtsman

  —

  1

  1

  Higher Draughtsman

  —

  2

  2

  Draughtsman

  —

  5

  5(7)

  Information Officer

  —

  1

  1

  53

  107

  160(175·5)

  1989

  1A

  1

  —

  1

  3

  3

  —

  3

  5

  9

  1

  10(9)

  7

  25

  4

  29(31·5)

  Senior Executive Officer

  —

  7

  7(5·5)

  Higher Executive Officer

  —

  18

  18(21)

  Executive Officer

  —

  35

  35(36)

  Administrative Officer

  —

  25

  25 (24·5)

  Senior Personal Secretary

  —

  2

  2

  Personal Secretary

  —

  11

  11(10·5)

  Senior Assistant and Assistant

  Statistician

  8

  —

  8(11)

  Cadet Statistician

  3

  —

  3(1·5)

  Chief Draughtsman

  —

  1

  1

  Senior Draughtsman

  —

  1

  1

  Higher Draughtsman

  —

  2

  2(1)

  Draughtsman

  —

  4

  4(7)

  Information Officer

  —

  1

  1

  49

  112

  161 (167·5)

  1 Includes all other non statistician group staff.

  Figures for the years prior to 1982 are no longer available, and information on the numbers of staff by grade is not readily available for the years 1982 to 1986 and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Since July 1989, when the Central Statistical Office became a separate department, the Cabinet Office has had no statistical divisions.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in
  31
  the statistical divisions in the Prime Minister's office; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  The Prime Minister
  During the period in question, there has been no statistical division within my office. There are no statisticians in post or on the staff complement, and there are no plans to create any such posts.

  Iraqi Refugees
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to increase the financial year 1991–92 budget of the Overseas Development Administration to cover the costs of emergency relief for Iraqi refugees.

  The Prime Minister
  Additions to the overseas aid programme totalling up to £30 million have been agreed to fund the Government's further efforts to relieve the suffering of Iraqi refugees.

  Within this total, up to £20 million will be provided to continue the airbridge operation, to provide urgently needed supplies, and to finance the immediately foreseeable costs falling to the aid budget of the United Kingdom's participation in Operation Haven inside Iraq. The balance of £10 million represents the Government's contribution to the Kurdish refugee appeal announced on Thursday 25 April.

  These additions will enable the ODA to maintain its planned development activities, and to continue to provide substantial humanitarian assistance to help relieve famine in Africa.

  North Sea
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up a high-level task force combining all the Departments of state concerned, all industries involved and all interested parties to bring forward proposals to secure continued viability of all uses and the well-being of the North sea, once gas and oil structures are decommissioned; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Departments maintain regular contact with a wide range of organisations with an interest in many aspects of the North sea. I see no advantage in establishing an additional forum.

  Consideration of an abandonment programme by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy under the provisions of the Petroleum Act 1987 will take account of consultations with organisations concerned with other uses of the sea including fishing, and with environmental interests. The abandonment of offshore installations will be performed in such a way as to cause no significant adverse effects upon navigation or the marine environment, in accordance with our international obligations.

  Opposition Parties (Access to Civil Service)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider allowing opposition parties equal access to civil servants and publicity budgets to enable them to prepare and publicise their own policies.

  The Prime Minister
  No. By long-standing convention, civil service time and Government publicity budgets are not used for party political purposes.
  32
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the civil service trade unions regarding the effectiveness of the rules set out in the Armstrong memorandum of December 1987 on the propriety of publishing party political material using civil servants' time.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Arms Trade
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has for an international register of arms sales.

  The Prime Minister
  At the special European Council in Luxembourg on 8 April, I proposed a register of arms sales at the United Nations to monitor the scale of arms build-up in any one country. We are taking every opportunity to urge others to support the idea of such a register. Our ambassador at the United Nations is also taking this forward in New York.

  First Division Association
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many of the demands of the First Division Association code of civil service ethics have been incorporated into official regulations.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's position is set out in the note by the former head of the home civil service on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to Ministers, issued in December 1987, subject to the further points contained in the Government's responses to the fifth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee for the 1989–90 Session.

  Iraqi Arms Disposal
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has put to the United Nations for a commission to monitor Iraqi arms disposal.

  The Prime Minister
  United Nations Security Council resolution 687 requires the Secretary-General to establish a special commission to oversee the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. We hope that the special commission will start work as soon as possible, and we shall co-operate with it fully.

  Members' Letters
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 April,Official Report, columns 293–94, to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), whether he will make it his aim to provide responses to Members' letters to Ministers which are as full and as helpful as possible, on a time scale similar to that for a response to a parliamentary question.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) on 12 February at column 393. I have nothing further to add.

  South Africa
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he raised with Mr. de Klerk at their meeting on 22 April the failure of the South African Government to release all political prisoners by the target date of 28 February 1991, as agreed in the Pretoria minute of 6 August 1990.
  33
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 April 1991]: No, not least because the target date of 30 April has not yet been reached.

DEFENCE

  US Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the recently published report "US Nuclear Weapons: Safety Implications for the United Kingdom," released by the British American Security Information Council.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Yes.

  The Gulf
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much and what equipment that returned from the Gulf has subsequently been sent back to the region.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following major equipments are undertaking Operation Haven tasks; three Hercules C-130 aircraft and 12 Chinook helicopters. Eight of the Chinook helicopters were transferred direct from Operation Granby tasks.

  Submarines (Z-berths)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his intention to proceed with plans to establish Z-berths for submarines at Swansea.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Grade/Year

  1 April 1989

  1 April 1990

  1 April 1991

  Complement

  Vacancies

  Complement

  Vacancies

  Complement

  Vacancies

  Grade 41

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 51

  2

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  Grade 61

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 71

  25

  4

  25

  3

  21

  1

  SEO

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  HEO—Admin

  16

  2

  14

  0

  15

  0

  HEO—ADP

  6

  0

  6

  0

  6

  0

  HSO

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  AS/SAS1

  10

  1

  8

  3

  7

  1

  EO—Admin

  35

  3

  30

  1

  26

  2

  EO—ADP

  17

  1

  17

  1

  17

  I

  AO

  56

  9

  40·5

  5

  37

  4·5

  AA

  18

  6

  9

  0·5

  7·5

  2

  PS

  3

  0

  3

  0

  3

  0

  Reprographic Op

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  193

  26

  159·5

  13·5

  144·5

  115

  1 Professional statisticians.

  Chieftain Tank
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the suitability of French-manufactured tanks as a replacement for Chieftain tanks.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department is making a full assessment of the suitability of the French Leclerc tank equipment for our future main battle tank fleet.

  Kurdish Refugees
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average cost of a flight of(a) Hercules aircraft and (b) Chinook helicopters involved in the operation to relieve Kurds on the borders of Iraq; what is the cost of other relief work undertaken by United Kingdom forces; and what proportion of costs incurred by the armed forces in the operation to relieve Iraqi Kurds will fall on the Overseas Development Administration budget.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is too early to give an estimate of the cost of MOD assistance to the Overseas Development Administration in support of its programme of humanitarian relief to the Kurds. The charges to the ODA will cover mainly the deployment of aircraft, goods supplied and in-theatre flying for the air drop, as well as the cost of building and supplying camps. Charges to the ODA for aircraft used in the relief operation will be based on an estimated average cost per flying hour of £2,020 for a Hercules and £2,445 for a Chinook.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I regret that not all the information requested is available. However, the staff complements by grade, and the associated number of vacancies, in Ministry of Defence statistical divisions for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991 are as follows:

  Armed Forces Personnel
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest figures for home ownership for married personnel in the armed forces by service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The latest survey which included information on home ownership of personnel in the armed forces was conducted in 1987–88. The following figures show the level of home ownership of personnel who were married, widowed, divorced or
  separated (figures for married personnel only are not available):
  35

  Armed forces

  Percentage

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines

  75

  Army

  26

  Royal Air Force

  49

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will supply hon. Members with the latest Army personnel research establishment reports on(a) any continuous attitude survey for both officers and soldiers, (b) any premature voluntary release survey relating to officers and soldiers and (c) the proposed report on housing attitudes when it is ready.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of the gratuity-terminal grant for(a) a sergeant with 22 years' service and (b) a major aged 50 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A sergeant with 22 years reckonable service would receive a tax-free terminal grant of £ 16,050; a major aged 50 (assuming 29 years reckonable service from age 21) would receive £37,932.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the figures for premature voluntary release from the armed forces for the last two years by quarter.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  1989

  January to March

  2,693

  April to June

  3,010

  July to September

  3,014

  October to December

  2,685

  1990

  January to March

  2,567

  April to June

  2,794

  July to September

  2,942

  October to December

  2,350

  The figures include both officers and other ranks.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Michael Ashcroft
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any form of diplomatic status has been(a) sought and (b) conferred on Michael Ashcroft, chairman of ADT, to cover his present stay in the United Kingdom in respect of his duties as roving trade ambassador for Belize.

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Complement

  Actual

  Complement

  Actual

  Complement

  Actual

  Complement

  Actual

  Complement

  Actual

  Complement

  Actual

  Complement

  Actual

  Complement

  Actual

  Statistical Posts

  Chief Statistician (G5)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Statistician (G6)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Statisticians (G7)

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  5

  4

  5

  4

  5

  4

  5

  4

  5

  3

  3

  Assistant/Senior Assistants

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Administrative Posts

  HEO

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  EO

  3

  2

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  2

  2

  36
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No.

  Sri Lanka
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any representations from Amnesty International on disappearances, deaths in custody, torture and judicial killings in Sri Lanka since 1983; and if he will review Britain's aid to Sri Lanka with regard to the promotion of peace, political settlement and human rights.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are in regular contact with Amnesty International about Sri Lanka, and have frequently raised our concerns about human rights issues with the Sri Lankan Government. Both bilaterally and with our European partners, we have make it clear that future decisions on development aid will be affected by the Government's performance on human rights.

  Albatrosses
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the actions of his Environment, Science and Energy Department in preventing mortality of albatrosses through long fishing lines.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At the general assembly of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, in Perth, Australia, last December an official from the Department discussed with his Australian counterparts the problem of the incidental mortality of albatrosses through long-line fishing, about which we share the hon. Member's concern. Since then, the Department has kept in touch with Mr. Nigel Brothers of the Tasmanian Department of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage, who is conducting excellent research into this problem. We will continue to keep the hon. Member informed of developments.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Staff in statistical and administrative posts are employed in the Overseas Development Administration but not in the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Figures are available only for the period 1984–85 to 1991–92, as follows:
  37

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Complement

  Actual

  Complement

  Actual

  Complement

  Actual

  Complement

  Actual

  Complement

  Actual

  Complement

  Actual

  Complement

  Actual

  Complement

  Actual

  AO

  7

  5

  6

  5

  4

  4

  5

  4

  4

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  PS

  1

  1

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  21

  18

  18·5

  16·5

  15·5

  16·5

  17

  16

  16

  17

  17

  18

  17

  19

  17

  17

  Peru
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice is being given to British travellers about travel to areas of Peru at risk from cholera.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We advise travellers that there is a risk from cholera in the coastal and interior regions of Peru, particularly in the poorer townships where hygiene and sanitation standards are inadequate. Travellers should avoid food vendors and cheap restaurants, observe strict personal hygiene, ensure they are vaccinated against the disease and carry a valid vaccination certificate.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives in regard to fiscal and trade incentives to assist in protecting the environment were discussed in the meeting between the EC Foreign Affairs Ministers and the Foreign Ministers from Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Mexico in Luxembourg on 25 April.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Ministers of the Community and the Rio group, meeting in Luxembourg on 26 and 27 April, discussed extending co-operation in a wide range of areas including trade, investment and the environment, in the context of the institutional framework established between the European Community and the Rio group. I will place a copy of the meeting's communiquèin the Library.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he raised the issue of Brazil and Argentina signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty during his meetings with his respective Brazilian and Argentine counterparts in Luxembourg on 25 April.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, attended the EC-Rio group meeting in Luxembourg on 26–28 April. At the meeting, Ministers noted with interest the initiative by Argentina and Brazil to set up a joint system of accounting and verification, applicable to all nuclear installations in both countries, and to negotiate an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. A copy of the communiqué will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Iraq
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose to the United Nations Security Council a resolution relating to the discussions which have taken place between the Kurdish leadership and the Iraqi Government.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Any agreement between the Kurdish groups and the Iraqi Government is an internal 38
  Iraqi matter, but, if requested to do so, the international community will wish to consider what further reassurance it can give to the Kurdish peoples. The United Nations has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Iraqi Government on the conduct of relief operations in Iraq based on the personal safety of the refugees and the normalisation of their lives in their places of origin.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government to provide substantial humanitarian aid to Shias in southern Iraq; if he will make it his policy that British and other coalition forces should remain on the southern Iraq-Kuwait border until an orderly replacement by United Nation's peace-keeping forces has taken place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 25 April to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), at column 521–22.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the Iraqi authorities offering rewards for Kurdish men and women handed over to Iraqi Ba'athist forces, including police; what estimates he has received about how many such people have been handed over as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Although we regularly receive information from a number of sources about conditions in the Kurdish areas in Iraq, we have seen no reports of the activities described by the hon. Member.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration is being given to the establishment of safe havens on the Iraq-Iran border; what assessment has been made of the numbers of Kurds and others inside Iraq and inside Iran in need of humanitarian aid; how many air strips are being built on the Iran-Iraq border; what accessibility Hariri airport offers to humanitarian aid flights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Safe havens will be established where they are needed. The most recent estimates we have of the number of refugees is almost 1 million on the Iranian side of the border and nearly half a million on the Iraqi side of the border. Our first priority has been to provide immediate humanitarian assistance using the existing infrastructure. Where necessary, helicopters are being used to fly supplies to inaccessible areas. We and non-Government agencies are considering the use of all facilities in the area for extending relief operations.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations are being made to Iraq to ensure no Iraqi forces, including all categories of Iraqi police, are permitted to occupy areas in close proximity to safe havens and other areas occupied by Kurds and Shias; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Representations have been made to local Iraqi commanders and to Iraq's permanent
  39
  representative at the United Nations. Following these representations most of the armed Iraqis have now left the area where the safe camp is being established.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually

  Complement of staff and staff in post in MAFF statistical divisions

  Complement

  staff in post

  grade 5

  grade 7

  senior assistant/assistant statistician

  support staff

  grade 5

  grade 7

  senior assistant/assistant statistician

  support staff

  1979–80

  2

  8

  8

  201

  2

  8

  8

  198·5

  1980–81

  2

  8

  7

  186

  2

  9

  7

  176

  1981–82

  2

  8

  5

  158

  2

  9

  6

  158

  1982–83

  2

  8

  5

  156

  2

  8

  5

  151

  1983–84

  2

  8

  5

  152

  2

  9

  4

  138

  1985–85

  2

  8

  4

  150

  2

  8

  4

  131

  1985–86

  2

  8

  5

  149

  2

  9

  7

  121

  1986–87

  2

  8

  5

  123

  2

  8

  8

  117

  1987–88

  2

  10

  7

  124

  2

  10

  9

  119

  1988–89

  2

  10

  9

  132

  2

  10

  9

  114·5

  1989–90

  2

  11

  10

  136–5

  2

  10

  10

  127–5

  1990–91

  2

  11

  10

  134·5

  2

  11

  8

  130·5

  1991–92

  2

  11

  10

  135·5

  2

  11

  8

  128·5

  Sugar
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation he has made of the impact of the 1991–92 agriculture price proposals concerning sugar prices on export revenues of African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

  Mr. Curry
  The Commission's 1991–92 price proposals include a 5 per cent. cut in EC sugar prices. Any cut agreed 40
  employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is as follows:

  would lead to a reduction in the value of the EC's export refunds for sugar. In turn, this should improve the world market, to the benefit of those ACP (and other) countries which sell sugar on it. The price to be offered to the ACP for sugar sent to the EC in 1991–92 under the Lome sugar protocol—currently over twice the world market price—must be linked to EC prices, but is not negotiated with the ACP until after the price fixing.

HEALTH

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to launch an information campaign about the availability of free sight tests;

  (2) what steps his Department has taken to promote eye care in Britain.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Between 35 and 40 per cent. of the population are still entitled to free NHS sight tests. This includes all children and people who are entitled on either medical or low income grounds. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and I launched a publicity campaign this February to draw attention to those groups entitled to free NHS sight tests. There are also local publicity initiatives, such as the eye care week organised by Derbyshire family health services authority which took place between 15 and 20 April.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to review the policy of charges for national health service sight tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is Government policy that those who are able to pay for sight tests should do so, provided that vulnerable groups are protected. In June 1990 we published a report by an independent market research company—NOP—of the number of adults who had had sight tests during the first quarter of 1990. The results indicated that demand for sight tests was returning to normal after an initial drop when entitlement to NHS sight tests was restricted in April 1989. We will be monitoring sight test uptake by questions in the general household survey.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current fee paid to an ophthalmic optician for carrying out a national health service sight test.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The fee paid to an ophthalmic optician for carrying out a national health service sight test is £12·15 from 1 April 1991.

  Hearing Aid Services
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) of 6 February,Official Report, column 156, on pilot projects to reduce waiting times for hearing aid services, if he will outline the different ways of reducing waiting times which are being tested by the projects, the length of time for which the projects will run and the parameters on which the projects are to be evaluated.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information about the precise arrangements within each individual project is not held centrally. Detailed information about the design of the projects and the parameters for the evaluation is set out in "Provisions of Hearing Aid Services Under the NHS", a consultation paper issued by the Department in April 1990, a copy of which is available in the Library. A copy of a recently published paper "Hearing Aid Services: Evaluation of Pilot Projects (RDD 198/0765)" about the evaluation is also available in the Library. The Department is funding the projects for 12 months.

  Evening Primrose Oil
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the occasions when the advisory committee on borderline substances has considered the efficiency of evening primrose oil over the last five years; when it next intends to consider it; and what applications he has received asking that it be permitted to be prescribed at national health service expense;

  (2) how much public money has been spent on assessing the value of evening primrose oil with a view to allowing it to be prescribed at national health service expense.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The advisory committee on borderline substances considered evening primrose oil products in November 1986, September 1987, May 1990, November 1990 and March 1991, and will do so again when it considers appropriate. Over the past year, the Department has received 16 letters on this subject. The Department has not funded research into the efficacy of evening primrose oil.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the estimated number of people with(a) mental handicap, (b) mental illness, (c) physical disability and (d) sensory impairment who would need an authorised representative under the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986;

  (2) what is the estimated number of authorised representatives necessary to implement sections 1 and 2 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986;

  (3) what figure for the number of disabled people was used to estimate the cost of £18 million to implement sections 1 and 2 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986;

  (4) what is the estimated cost for one authorised representative over one year acting under the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The local authority associations' estimates of the potential costs of sections 1 and 2 of the Act are based on detailed work undertaken independently by two contrasting local authorities. The estimates assume that authorised representatives might have been appointed for approximately 144,000 disabled people annually, on a one-to-one basis. Around a quarter of this number would be people with a mental handicap, with the remainder largely attributable to those suffering from mental illness, including dementia; a minimal proportion of the total would be people with physical disability or sensory impairment only. The estimates of the costs of an authorised representative for one year range from around £40 for administration, to about £215 if expenses and fees were also to be payable.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the costs of carrying out procedures under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to give representation to disabled people.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The involvement of disabled people and those who care for them in decisions about the services they need is central to the Government's policy for
  43
  community care. However, it is not possible to say how many procedures under the National Health Service and Community Care Act, for example in relation to complaints and assessment, will involve individual disabled people being represented, and it is therefore not possible to estimate the costs arising.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) published since 1979 on the subject of air pollution and human health; which studies were specifically concerned with (i) children and (ii) the elderly; which were undertaken on (x) a national, (y) a regional and (z) a local basis; which studies related specifically to (1) vehicle emissions and (2) tropospheric ozone; and what research is currently being undertaken into these areas.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Research on biomedical aspects of the effects of air pollution on health lies within the remit of the Medical Research Council

  The Department continues to support the social medicine and health services research unit at St. Thomas's hospital in its long-term national study of health and growth among children, in which air pollution has featured as one factor.

  Further support has been given to the St. Thomas's unit during this period for regional and local studies on indoor air pollution in relation to respiratory illnesses among children. Reports of all these studies are published in the scientific literature.

  The small area health statistics unit at the London school of hygiene and tropical medicine, which is jointly funded by this and other Government Departments, is investigating mortality and cancer rates in communities which may be exposed to air pollution from industrial installations.

  In 1990, the Department established an independent expert advisory group to assess, on the basis of national and international research data, the impact of air pollution episodes on health. The group's advice will relate to effects on the general public, although special attention will be given to sensitive groups such as the elderly and children. The group is currently completing its assessment of the effects of tropospheric ozone, and will next consider sulphur dioxide and related pollutants. Its reports will be published.

  Canada (NHS Arrangements)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will seek reciprocal national health service arrangements for patients with the Government of Canada.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Talks with the Canadian authorities in 1982 indicated that a reciprocal agreement was unlikely to

  DHSS permanent staff in statistics division on 1 April

  1987

  1988

  Administrative (vacancies)

  Statistical (vacancies)

  Administrative (vacancies)

  Statistical (vacancies)

  Grade 3

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Grade 5

  —

  7

  —

  7

  Grade 6

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Grade 7

  1

  35 (·5)

  1

  35 (·5)

  Senior assistant statistician

  —

  3·5 (·5)

  —

  5(2)

  Assistant statistician

  —

  6

  —

  7

  Senior executive officer

  13

  —

  18

  —

  44
  be concluded because of the legislative difficulties which it would cause the Canadian Government. We see no scope for reopening the matter at present.

  Medicine Imports
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis is being made in the knowledge of or by his Department into the quality and chemical composition of batches of medicines imported from(a) eastern Europe, (b) Greece and (c) Belgium; and what study is being considered of the effects of medicines imported from eastern Europe into the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Medicines Control Agency, which is part of the Department of Health, operates a medicines testing scheme which analytically monitors the quality and chemical composition of a statistically significant sample of medicinal products marketed in the United Kingdom.

  The medicines testing scheme includes imported medicines from Belgium, Greece and eastern Europe. During the period April 1990 to March 1991, 45 medicinal products imported from Belgium and 12 medicinal products sourced from Greece were examined. No products from eastern Europe were analysed in this period.

  Hairdressers
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those local authorities which have registered hairdressing establishments within their areas under section 77 of the Public Health Act 1961.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There is no requirement under section 77 of the Public Health Act 1961 or any other general legislation for the registration of hairdressing establishments.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information readily available is shown in the tables. Staff in post figures for the periods prior to 1 April 1987 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Staff complements as such are no longer used, since expenditure is controlled by financial rather than manpower limits.
  45

  1987

  1988

  Administrative (vacancies)

  Statistical (vacancies)

  Administrative (vacancies)

  Statistical (vacancies)

  Higher executive officer

  36(1)

  —

  43

  —

  Executive officer

  61(9)

  —

  69·5 (6·5)

  —

  Administrative officer

  89(1)

  —

  89(3·5)

  —

  Administrative assistant

  28·5(1)

  —

  21(2·5)

  —

  Personal secretary

  8

  —

  10

  —

  Total

  236·5(12)

  53·5(1)

  251·5(12·5)

  56(2·5)

  DH permanent staff in statistics division on 1 April

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Administrative (vacancies)

  Statistical (vacancies)

  Administrative (vacancies)

  Statistical (vacancies)

  Administrative (vacancies)1

  Statistical (vacancies)

  Grade 3

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Grade 5

  —

  6

  —

  5

  —

  5

  Grade 6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Grade 7

  1

  25(1·5)

  —

  24·5(4)

  2

  21·5(3)

  Senior assistant statistician

  —

  2(2)

  —

  6

  —

  8·5

  Assistant statistician

  —

  3

  —

  2

  —

  5

  Senior executive officer

  12(1)

  —

  8

  —

  9

  —

  Higher executive officer

  29(6)

  —

  24(3)

  —

  23·5

  —

  Executive officer

  51(3)

  —

  41(3)

  —

  49

  —

  Administrative officer

  56·5 (5)

  —

  55(6)

  —

  52

  —

  Administrative assistant

  17·5

  —

  15(2)

  —

  12

  —

  Personal secretary

  6(1)

  —

  5(1)

  —

  5(1)

  —

  Total

  173(16)

  37(3·5)

  148(15)

  38·5(4)

  153·5(1)

  42·3(3)

  1 Budget allocation vacancies equate to two executive officer posts.

  OPCS Permanent Staff in Statistical Divisions on 1 March

  1987 Administrative Statistical/Technical

  1988 Administrative Statistical/Technical

  Grade

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  3

  —

  3

  6

  1

  1

  2

  1

  7

  6

  11

  7

  13

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  —

  4

  —

  2

  Assistant Statistician

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Chief Medical Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Medical Officer

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Chief Social Survey Officer A

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Chief Social Survey Officer B

  5

  —

  3

  —

  Principal Social Survey Officer

  12

  —

  15

  —

  Senior Social Survey Officer

  12

  —

  13

  —

  Social Survey Officer

  5

  —

  6·5

  —

  Assistant Social Survey Officer

  4

  —

  4

  —

  Principal Research Officer

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Senior Research Officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  14

  —

  17

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  51·5

  —

  52·5

  —

  Executive Officer

  91·5

  —

  92·5

  —

  Administrative Officer

  209·5

  —

  197·5

  —

  Administrative Assistant

  67·5

  —

  66

  —

  Personal Secretary

  19

  —

  18·5

  —

  Total

  503

  20

  498·5

  21

  OPCS permanent staff in statistical divisions on 1 March

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Administrative/Technical

  Statistical

  Administrative/Technical

  Statistical

  Administrative/Technical

  Statistical

  Grade 3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  3

  —

  3

  —

  3

  6

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  7

  10

  14

  10

  14·5

  11

  12·5

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  5

  Assistant Statistician

  —

  3

  —

  4

  —

  3

  Chief Medical Officer

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Senior Medical Officer

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Chief Social Survey Officer A

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  46 47

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Administrative/Technical

  Statistical

  Administrative/Technical

  Statistical

  Administrative/Technical

  Statistical

  Chief Social Survey Officer B

  4

  —

  5

  —

  5

  —

  Principal Social Survey Officer

  15

  —

  13

  —

  15

  —

  Senior Social Survey Officer

  11

  —

  10

  —

  9

  —

  Social Survey Officer

  4·5

  —

  4·5

  —

  11

  —

  Assistant Social Survey Officer

  4

  —

  10

  —

  6

  —

  Principal Research Officer

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Senior Research Officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·5

  —

  Research Officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·5

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  17

  —

  23·5

  —

  25·5

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  57·5

  —

  59·5

  —

  84·5

  —

  Executive Officer

  93

  —

  111

  —

  136·5

  —

  Administrative Officer

  253

  —

  261·5

  —

  246

  —

  Administrative Assistant

  60

  —

  66

  —

  43

  —

  Personal Secretary

  18

  —

  19·5

  —

  18·5

  —

  Total

  552

  23

  598·5

  24·5

  620

  24·5

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Health Education Authority/Health Education Council to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92;

  (2) if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in the Health Education Authority/Health Education Council; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts;

  (3) what was the total expenditure by the Health Education Authority/Health Education Council on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Donald Maitland, the chairman of the Health Education Authority, for details.

  Charges
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing prescription, dental and optical charges in April 1979 and April 1991 in current and constant prices showing both the cash and real increase for each charge.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The table sets out the latest available information in relation to prescription and dental charges. No comparable figures for optical charges are available because the supply of NHS spectacles ceased in July 1986. Information relates to financial years.

  Prescription charges

  £

  1979–80

  0·20

  1990–91 (current prices)

  3·40

  1990–91 (1979–80 prices)

  1·48

  48

  Average dental charge

  £

  1979–80

  6·83

  1989–90 (current prices)

  25·02

  1989–90 (1979–80 prices)

  10·82

  Catherine Murphy
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will instigate an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the case of Catherine Murphy, whose family were wrongly informed of her death;

  (2) when he expects to be able to reply to Councillor Neil Cardwell regarding the case of Catherine Murphy, who is at present an in-patient of Rainhill hospital, Rainhill, Merseyside.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The St. Helens and Knowsley health authority has apologised unreservedly to Miss Murphy's relatives and is conducting an urgent inquiry. I have asked it to keep me informed. I am writing to Councillor Cardwell today.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what facilities he is providing to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Leigh
  "Give as you Earn" facilities are available within the Department for staff to contribute to this, as with any other appeal, and as they feel appropriate.

  Bakery Industry
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance has been given to Golden West Foods in respect of investment in a bakery and distribution centre in Rochdale.

  Mr. Leigh
  All applications for assistance by companies from my Department are treated in strictest confidence. However, a press release on 14 January 1991 announced with the consent of the company that a grant of £1·5
  49
  million under the regional selective assistance programme had been offered to Golden West Foods Ltd. for a bakery development at Heywood industrial park, Rochdale.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the criteria for assistance to the bakery industry; whether that industry is assessed to be in balance between sales and productive capacity; and what steps are being taken to monitor the creation of projected extra jobs.

  Mr. Leigh
  Neither my Department nor the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has schemes for assistance specifically tailored to the bakery industry. In common with the rest of industry, the bakery trade may be eligible for regional selective assistance where a project meets the criteria of the scheme. Projects must create or safeguard jobs and satisfy other criteria such as viability, the need for assistance and benefits to the national and regional economy. The advice of MAFF would be sought as to prevailing conditions in the market at the time of any application. My Department monitors the creation of extra jobs in the industry, arising from new capital investment which has received support under RSA, in accordance with the conditions of the grant.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reasons underlie the rejection of the application for aid by Warburton's Ltd. for their new bakery in Newburn, and for a second investment in that bakery.

  Mr. Leigh
  It is not normal practice to provide details of individual cases where these have been supplied in confidence by a business to the Department. I should be happy to look into the matter if the hon. Member would like to write to me with further details.

  Northern Development Corporation
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants are made available to the Northern development corporation; and whether he has discussed with it the case for devoting more interest and attention to Cumbria.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Northern Development Company has been offered a grant of £1·33 million in the current financial year for its inward investment promotion activities in the north-west of England. DTI funding for inward investment in the north-east, including Cumbria, is provided through INWARD, which receives a grant of £990,000. NDC also carries out general economic development activities in. Cumbria, but this does not

  Table A

  Business Statistics Office

  The following figures relate to the position as at 1 April of each year

  Grade

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Staff in post

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  G3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Chief Statistician

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G5

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  G6

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  G7

  13

  12

  12

  10

  11

  10

  10

  8

  10

  7

  7

  18

  19

  18

  19

  19

  19

  20

  20

  Statistician

  8

  11

  10

  12

  10

  11

  10

  11

  11

  11

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  2

  4

  6

  4

  6

  4

  6

  4

  7

  5

  7

  3

  9

  3

  9

  3

  9

  4

  10

  Assistant Statistician

  1

  2

  3

  3

  1

  1

  3

  3

  3

  2

  SEO

  29

  29

  28

  26

  26

  25

  25

  22

  23

  21

  20

  21

  21

  21

  21

  20

  21

  20

  21

  HEO

  91

  101

  103

  96

  101

  92

  96

  80

  84

  76

  78

  80

  79

  80

  80

  80·5

  79

  84

  80

  50
  receive DTI funding. The NDC is already increasing its activities in Cumbria. My Department has discussed this on several occasions with the company.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Leigh
  The tables show the available information. The Department's statistical services have been subject to a number of organisational and machinery of government changes which need to be taken into account when comparing the data for different years. In particular, a major part of the Department's statistical work and associated staff (including the business statistics office) were transferred to the Central Statistical Office on 31 July 1989.

  Table A shows the information for the business statistics office for each year from 1 April 1980 to 1 April 1989. Tables B and C show the information for the Department's two central statistical divisions from 1 April 1981 to 1 April 1989. On 1 April 1980, the central statistical divisions were part of the Department's economics and statistics divisions, and table D shows the staff in post for these as at 1 April 1980. Following the transfer of statistical work to the Central Statistical Office, the remaining statistical work was distributed among a number of divisions within the Department in 1989–90. A further departmental reorganisation combined the statistical work of the Department to form part of the economics, market intelligence and statistics division in 1990–91. The information from 1 April 1990 is shown in table E. Detailed allocations have not yet been finalised for April 1992.

  The following points should also be noted in reading the tables:

  1. The staff in post figures count part-time staff as half and exclude casual staff.

  2. The allocation of posts to grade is not available for April 1980.

  3. With the introduction of unified grading, the chief statistical and statistician grades were absorbed into grades 5 and 7 respectively.

  4 Following the creation of the economics, market intelligence and statistics division in 1990–91, some administrative staff work for both economists and statisticians. The figures for 1 April 1991 only include that proportion of time spent supporting statisticians.

  51

  The following figures relate to the position as at I April of each year

  Grade

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Staff in post

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  EO

  237

  238

  250

  235

  233

  203

  207

  180

  188

  180

  188

  192·5

  194

  186

  186

  176·5

  185

  169·5

  184

  AO

  371

  338

  352

  327

  325

  304

  313

  277

  283

  251

  263

  261

  259

  242

  248

  237

  247

  239

  242·5

  AA

  128

  126

  132

  119

  128

  113

  115

  97

  105

  83

  90

  79

  81

  70·5

  71

  59·5

  61

  59

  63·5

  PS

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  6

  7

  5

  5

  4

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  7

  6

  Librarian

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Assistant Librarian

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Typing Manager

  4

  4

  4

  5

  4

  4

  4

  3

  3

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Typist

  24

  22

  23

  19

  22

  19

  21

  19

  19

  16·5

  14

  14

  16

  15

  15

  14

  15

  12

  15

  Senior Messenger

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  2

  3

  2

  3

  2

  3

  2

  2

  —

  2

  2

  Messenger

  16

  17

  17

  17

  16

  16

  16

  13

  13

  9

  10

  8

  9

  8

  9

  8

  —

  8

  9

  Chief Paperkeeper

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Paperkeeper

  4

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Paper Keeper

  13

  11

  9

  10

  8

  8

  8

  8

  6

  8

  7

  6

  6

  4

  4

  3

  4

  3

  3

  Office Keeper II

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Reprographics I

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Reprographics II

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Teleprint Operator

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Telephonist

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Total

  970

  946

  977

  914

  921

  842

  862

  751

  780

  697·5

  722

  711·5

  720

  676·5

  689

  648·5

  664

  646·5

  673

  Table B

  Statistics 1 Division

  The following figures relate to the position as at 1 April of each year

  Grade

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  G3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Chief Statistician

  6

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  3

  3

  G7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  11

  11

  12

  Statistician

  17

  17

  16

  14

  14

  14

  12

  12

  12

  12

  11

  11

  12

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  2

  12

  2

  10

  3

  8

  1

  7

  3

  7

  —

  7

  2

  7

  1

  7

  2

  7

  Assistant Statistician

  4

  4

  3

  3

  1

  3

  5

  3

  —

  SEO

  3

  3

  3

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  HEO

  18

  19

  16

  15

  13

  13

  12

  12

  12

  12

  12

  11

  9

  11

  8

  8

  8

  8

  EO

  33

  32

  30

  24

  22

  21

  19

  17

  19

  17

  15

  14

  15

  14

  16

  14

  16

  14

  AO

  65·5

  65

  56·5

  46

  35·5

  37

  28

  29

  28

  28

  20

  19·5

  16

  18·5

  18·5

  16·5

  18·5

  17·5

  AA

  7·5

  8

  4·5

  4

  3

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  —

  1

  2

  1

  3

  3

  2

  3

  PS

  6

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Paper Keeper

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Principal Research

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  OFF(R)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  164

  167

  143

  126

  106·5

  109

  86

  88

  86

  87

  70

  72·5

  70

  72·5

  69·5

  68·5

  66·5

  70·5

  Table C

  Statistics 2 Division

  The following figures relate to the position as at 1 April of each year

  Grade

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  Staff in post

  Posts

  G3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Chief Statistician

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  G7

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  3

  8

  8·5

  9

  8·5

  8·5

  Statistician

  8

  8

  9

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  9

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  2

  4

  3

  6

  5

  6

  2

  6

  2

  5

  1

  6

  1

  5

  3

  6

  2

  6

  Assistant Statistician

  3

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  2

  SEO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  HEO

  12

  11

  13

  12

  13

  12

  12

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  12

  11

  10

  11

  9·5

  11

  EO

  21

  24

  22

  24

  22

  25

  24·5

  23

  22

  22

  23

  24

  18

  23

  16

  20

  19·5

  18

  AO

  55

  59

  56

  56

  47·5

  51

  42·5

  43

  38·5

  41

  46·5

  47

  42·5

  46

  435

  44·5

  39·5

  41

  AA

  3

  2

  2

  4

  3

  4

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  5·5

  3

  5·5

  7

  5

  4

  5

  SPS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  PS

  4

  4

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  2

  4

  Paper Keeper

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  115

  121

  116

  120

  109·5

  116

  104

  105

  97·5

  102

  105·5

  111·5

  96·5

  107·5

  99

  104·5

  94

  98·5

  Table E

  Grade

  SIP 1 April 1990

  Posts 1 April 1990

  SIP 1 April 1991

  Posts 1 April 1991

  Grade 5

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 7

  11

  11

  10·6

  10·5

  Senior assistant statistician

  3

  6

  2

  2

  Assistant statistician

  1

  —

  1

  2

  HEO

  5

  5

  2·5

  2·5

  EO

  13

  15

  11

  11

  AO

  14

  17

  10

  10

  AA

  3

  3

  1

  1

  PS

  1

  1

  1

  1

  52 53

  Grade

  SIP 1 April 1990

  Posts 1 April 1990

  SIP 1 April 1991

  Posts 1 April 1991

  Support grade 2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Total

  53

  60

  40·1

  42

  Table D

  Economics and statistics division

  SIP 1 April 1980

  G3

  5

  Chief Statistician

  10

  Statistician

  30

  S/Assistant Statistician

  8

  Assistant Statistician

  4

  S/Economic/Advisor

  8

  Economic/Advisor

  19·5

  S/Economic/Assistant

  10

  G7

  3

  SEO

  4

  HEO

  42

  HSO

  1

  EO

  77

  AO

  145·5

  AA

  9

  SPS

  2

  Principal Research Officer

  4

  S/Research Officer

  1

  Research Officer

  1

  PS

  19

  Paper Keeper

  1

  Total

  404

  Insolvency Cases
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets he has set the Insolvency Service executive agency for 1991–92.

  Mr. Redwood
  I expect the insolvency service to continue to bring proceedings for the disqualification of directors of failed companies, and to submit prosecution reports where there is evidence of criminal behaviour in all appropriate cases. In addition I have set it output targets of completing the administration of at least 14,500 cases in 1991–92, while examining in detail one in 20 of all bankruptcy and liquidation accounts received from independent insolvency practitioners.

  The quality of service targets for 1991–92 are: to report to creditors on assets and liabilities within nine weeks in at least 75 per cent. of cases; to hold the initial meeting of creditors within 12 weeks on at least 90 per cent. of all cases; to check and action at least 93 per cent. of payment requisitions within 10 days or by the due date; to submit reports within 10 months in at least 80 per cent. of cases identified for investigation.

  I would like to congratulate the chief executive and his staff on their success in improving quality of service last year while significantly increasing their efficiency. For 1991–92, I have asked the chief executive to secure a further 5 per cent. increase in productivity in case administration, as measured by both the initial handling of cases and their closure. I have also toughened the target for a reduction in real terms for the average unit cost of the initial stage of bankruptcies and liquidations, so that it is now a 37 per cent. reduction over the period 1990–91 to 1992–93.

  Environment Conferences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether his Department(a) received an invitation to attend and (b) had any participation in the second world industry conference on environmental management held in Rotterdam on 9 to 12 April;

  (2) when his Department received a copy of the recommendations made to Governments contained in the final declaration of the second world industry conference on environmental management dated 12 April.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: An official from the Department's environment unit attended this conference as a delegate. Like other delegates he received a copy of the final declaration, including the recommendations to Governments at the final session of the conference on 12 April.

  Cornish Tin Mining
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when the Department received an official response from Carnon Holdings to his Department's decision to withdraw funding from the Cornish tin mining industry;

  (2) what was the response of Carnon Holdings to his Department's decision to withdraw funding from the Cornish tin mining industry;

  (3) when his Department officially notified Carnon Holdings of the decision to cease funding for its tin mining operations; and what prior discussions with the company had taken place;

  (4) when his Department took the decision to withdraw funding from the tin mining industry.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: Numerous discussions and other contacts have taken place since early 1990 on the question of the viability of Carnon Holdings Ltd.'s tin mining project, a precondition for advances of DTI loan money. The decision not to advance any further money to Carnon was made and conveyed orally to the company on 22 February 1991. It was confirmed in writing on 25 February. Carnon replied to the Department on 25 February enclosing its press release of the same date announcing its response to the decision.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the reasons for his Department's non-payment of the first instalment of 1·7 million to Carnon Holdings Ltd. to finance Cornish tin mining operations.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 April 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to my speech in the Adjournment debate on 6 March at column 431–438. I explained inter alia that the Government had come to the conclusion that the tin mining project was not viable in the longer term. The rules of financial and parliamentary accountability then meant that we could not make any further payments under the loan.

  Appledore Shipbuilders
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement in the efforts of Appledore Shipbuilders Ltd. to secure an order from A. P. Moller for platform supply vessels.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 24 April 1991]: Since this is a commercial matter, I regret that I am unable to make a statement.

  Cumbria (Assisted Areas)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to designate any new assisted areas in Cumbria; which districts will be affected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 24 April 1991]: I do not anticipate further changes to the assisted areas map during this Parliament.

  Kuwait (Oil Fires)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the reply of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 18 April, if he will make bulldozers and other relevant equipment available to the Government of Kuwait to assist in fighting the oil fires; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 23 April 1991]: It is for the firefighting contractors selected by the Kuwaitis to determine and make available the necessary equipment. As yet, British companies are not directly involved in firefighting, but the Government are actively supporting proposals from British groups to provide a wide range of services which are needed to deal with the oil fires.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by his Department in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 April 1991]: Before 1 April 1988, my Department had no responsibility for funding major new buildings or extensions on the Government's civil estate. My Department has since commissioned one project covered by the question. This was for a new building at Newport in Gwent in the more than £5 million category, started in 1988–89.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give separate figures for the spending of his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 April 1991]: I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member on 13 March 1990
  56
  columns 173–74. Expenditure from the Department's central publicity budget over the past two years was as follows:

  £000s

  1989–90

  1990–912

  Television advertising

  5,084

  3,938

  Radio advertising

  540

  141

  Press advertising

  3,506

  1,801

  Other promotional materials1

  4,037

  3,867

  1 Publication, Audio-visual materials and posters.

  2 Estimated.

  Precise media allocations for the current year are not available, but expenditure is likely to be within the 1990–91 total.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 26 April 1991]: Separate figures for the years before 1987–88 are not readily available. The complement of the Department's press office on 1 April over the past five years has been as follows, with the number of staff in post shown in parenthesis:

  Year

  1987–88

  51

  (51)

  1988–89

  51

  (51)

  1989–90

  41

  (37)

  1990–91

  39

  (37)

  1991–92

  39

  (38)

  The current total includes 16 clerical and other support posts.

WALES

  Council Housing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new houses were completed by district councils in Wales during 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The number of dwellings completed by district councils in January and February 1991 was 16; in 1990 a total of 551 dwellings was completed. Some 544 dwellings were under construction by district councils at the end of February 1991.

  Foreign-owned Companies
  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many employees in Wales work for(a) EC-owned firms and (b) other foreign-owned firms.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Some 63,000 people are currently employed at overseas-owned manufacturing plants in Wales. Of these, 14,000 are employed at plants in the ownership of EC countries other than the United Kingdom and 49,000 at other overseas-owned plants.

  Special Treatment Centres
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will extend beyond April 1992 the funding by his Department of the special treatment centres for hip and knee replacements at Rhydlafar hospital, for hernias and varicose veins at Bridgend general hospital and for cataract surgery at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The existing treatment centres are already proving successful in providing speedy treatment for patients with key disabling complaints and are expected to remain an effective source of treatment under the recently introduced contracting arrangements. Decisions on future funding will be taken in the light of experience during 1991–92, but it is not intended that central funding should continue indefinitely.

  Training Organisations
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, during his discussions with the chairmen of TECs in Wales on 7 May, he will include advice on the advisability of ensuring that chief executive officers and monitoring officers are not only experienced but qualified to determine whether approved training organisation status should be awarded to training organisations.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  All TEC chairmen in Wales are aware of their responsibility to ensure that all staff are adequately qualified to perform the duties assigned to them.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what propoals he has for another tier of local government in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on local government and constitutional reform in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Several, some in favour of reform and some against.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the conclusions he has reached in relation to the reorganisation of local government in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have reached no conclusions. I propose to issue, early in the summer, a consultation paper identifying the factors which would need to be borne in mind in considering any reorganisation.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met leaders of local authorities in Wales to discuss local government finance.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On 23 April, to explain the Government's proposals for a new council tax to replace the community charge.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Wales what are the relative percentages of revenue raised for local government expenditure from charge payers, business rate payers and central Government grant.
  58
  Mr. David Hunt
  The overall effect of the local government finance settlement for 1991–92, taken together with the community charge reduction schemes that I have introduced this year, is that the average community charge payable in Wales will be around £92 before taking account of community charge benefit. This means that community charge payers are expected to contribute 8 per cent. towards budgeted spending with 21 per cent. being financed from non-domestic rates and the rest coming from a range of central Government grants.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of local government expenditure in Wales is currently raised by the poll tax.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Eight per cent.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate for(a) Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and (b) Mid Glamorgan of employment training expenditure in 1990–91 and 1991–92, respectively.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The employment training budget now administered by the Mid Glamorgan training and enterprise council for the financial year 1991–92 is £5.6 million. Comparative figures for 1990–91 are not available. Figures for the areas of Merthyr and Rhymney are not produced.

  Prince of Wales Hospital, Rhydlafar
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he proposes to make to enable in-patients at St. Nicholas ward, Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar, to remain there after its proposed closure date of 30 April to complete their in-patient treatment.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on Friday 19 April 1991 at column 276.

  As the implementation of approved service changes is a matter for health authorities, I have not discussed the timing of the transfer of the children's orthopaedic service in South Glamorgan with the chairman of the district health authority. Nor do I have plans to issue any general guidance on this particular aspect of service planning.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the growth of the information technology industry in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information technology sector in Wales has grown from a limited base in the late 1970s into a substantial sector now. For example, in the electronic sector alone employment grew by 89 per cent. between 1978 and 1990.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the initiatives he intends to take to increase the number of EC-approved abattoirs in Wales by 1992.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Responsibility for complying with the EC measures to harmonise standards for abattoirs by 1
  59
  January 1993 rests with the industry. The Government consider that the abattoir industry should plan for this urgently, and I have taken every opportunity to encourage those involved to take the necessary steps to ensure that they comply with the new standards.

  New Hospital, Neath
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to make an announcement about the building of the new hospital for Neath.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend has today announced his decision approving the proposal of West Glamorgan health authority to build a new district general hospital for Neath and Port Talbot at Baglan moors, Port Talbot.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of inward investment into Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Inward investment has made a very significant contribution to the transformation of the Welsh economy in recent years, a contribution that is being maintained at very high levels. The financial year 1990–91 was again a record year for inward investment to Wales, with 147 projects secured promising nearly 15,000 jobs.

  Further Education
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received concerning the proposed change in funding and management of the further education sector in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department has received three representations on this matter.

  Severn Estuary (Birds)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to designate as a special protection area under the 1979 EEC wild birds directive the inter-tidal mudflats on the Welsh side of the Severn estuary so far proposed for designation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him on Thursday 25 April by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Professional posts

  Senior economic adviser

  (Grade 5)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Chief statistician

  (Grade 5)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Statistician

  (Grade 6)

  6

  7

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  7

  Statistician

  (Grade 7)

  Principal research officer

  (Grade 7)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Economic adviser

  (Grade 7)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Senior assistant statistician

  3

  5

  2

  4

  2

  4

  —

  4

  Assistant statistician

  2

  1

  —

  1

  Administrative posts

  Higher executive officer

  1

  4

  5

  4

  4

  2

  1

  —

  Executive officer

  14

  18

  11·5

  14

  11

  14

  12

  15

  Administrative officer

  30

  33

  31

  30·5

  29·5

  30·5

  28

  28

  Senior data processor

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  School Nurses
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to bring schools into line with workplace law which stipulates that there must be a person on the premises with first aid qualifications for every 150 employees; and whether he will give consideration to appointing fully qualified nurses in schools with over 500 pupils.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Local authorities have duties, as employers, to provide first aid facilities for all their employees, including those in schools. These duties are set out in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and more specifically in the Health and Safety (Training for Employment) Regulations 1981 made under that Act. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has no plans for extending these duties to cover non-employees.

  However, the Health and Safety Commission's approved code of practice on first aid at work recognises that employers, such as local education authorities, whose premises are regularly attended by non-employees may wish to make some provision for them. The recommendation of both the Welsh Office and HSE is that such employers may consider, among other matters, the total number of people on a site when assessing first aid needs. In the case of schools, the responsibility for making such an assessment rests with the employer.

  All local education authorities in Wales were sent the code of practice in February and asked to review the situation at the schools and colleges for which they have a general health and safety responsibility and to determine what practical measures needed to be given priority in order to reach or maintain the recommended minimum standards for first aid.

  The appointment of qualified nurses in schools is a matter for determination locally.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:
  61

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Administrative assistant

  4·5

  5·5

  4

  4

  3

  4

  4

  6

  Data processor

  ·5

  ·5

  ·5

  ·5

  ·5

  ·5

  ·5

  —

  Personal secretary

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Professional posts

  Senior economic adviser

  (Grade 5)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Chief statistician

  (Grade 5)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Statistician

  (Grade 6)

  5

  7

  5

  10

  6

  12

  9

  12

  Statistician

  (Grade 7)

  Principal research officer

  (Grade 7)

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Economic adviser

  (Grade 7)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Senior assistant statistician

  1

  4

  5·5

  8

  16·5

  8

  16·5

  8

  Assistant statistician

  2

  23

  22

  Administrative posts

  Higher executive officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Executive officer

  14

  15

  15·5

  17

  16

  17

  19

  19

  Administrative officer

  29

  28

  23·5

  21

  23

  22

  26

  25

  Senior data processor

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Administrative assistant

  4

  4

  3

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Data processor

  2·5

  2

  2·5

  2·5

  2·5

  2·5

  2·5

  2

  Personal secretary

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Professional posts

  Senior economic adviser

  (Grade 5)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0·5

  Chief statistician

  (Grade 5)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Statistician

  (Grade 6)

  8·5

  13

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Statistician

  (Grade 7)

  10.5

  13.5

  11

  11

  12

  13·5

  10·5

  Principal research officer

  (Grade 7)

  —

  1·5

  1·5

  1·5

  Economic adviser

  (Grade 7)

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Senior assistant statistician

  17

  9·5

  8·5

  9·5

  6

  8·5

  7·5

  9·5

  6

  Assistant statistician

  23

  1

  1

  2

  —

  3

  Statistical computing officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Administrative posts

  Grade 7

  19

  19·5

  15

  16·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Higher executive officer

  25·5

  29·5

  22

  21·5

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Executive officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  16·5

  11·5

  16·5

  14·5

  Administrative officer

  6·5

  6

  5·5

  5

  19

  21·5

  19·5

  21·5

  24

  Administrative assistant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7·5

  5

  5·5

  5

  6

  Personal secretary

  2

  2

  —

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1·5

  Typist

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Senior assistant statistician and senior research officer combined.

  2 Assistant statistician and research officer combined.

  Note:

  Since the introduction of delegated budgeting arrangements, the formal complement is no longer the basis for staffing.

  Accidents in Children's Play Areas
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has about accidents in children's play areas; and what steps he intends to take to make them safer.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Department of Trade and Industry compiles statistics relating to accidents in a wide range of recreational environments including playgrounds. A copy of its 12th annual report of home accident surveillance systems, that for 1988, is in the Library of the House. Table LASS 2, page 46 presents accidents in playgrounds split by age. Information on playground 62
  accidents is also held by the Health and Safety Executive. I expect that a joint Department of Education and Science and Welsh Office advice on safety in school play areas will be issued to local authorities later this year.

  Expenditure in Schools
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the expenditure per pupil on (i) books and (ii) equipment in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in cash and real terms since 1976.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Local authority expenditure per pupil on text books, library books, educational equipment,
  63
  stationery and materials in primary and secondary schools since 1976–77 is shown in the table. Reliable information on text books and equipment is not separately available.

  Primary1

  Secondary

  cash

  constant prices2

  cash

  constant prices2

  1976–77

  9·3

  27·4

  16·9

  49·8

  1977–78

  10·2

  26·5

  18·0

  46·7

  1978–79

  11·9

  27·8

  20·9

  48·9

  1979–80

  12·7

  25·5

  22·8

  45·7

  1980–81

  14·6

  24·7

  25·2

  42·7

  1981–82

  16·2

  25·0

  28·4

  43·9

  1982–83

  18·5

  26·7

  33·5

  48·3

  1983–84

  19·8

  27·3

  37·4

  51·6

  1984–85

  17·9

  23·5

  39·9

  52·4

  1985–86

  20·0

  24·9

  41·3

  51·4

  1986–87

  22·5

  27·1

  57·4

  69·1

  1987–88

  23·9

  27·3

  58·2

  66·4

  1988–89

  25·3

  26·9

  64·4

  68·5

  1 Primary includes nursery schools.

  2 Cash prices revalued to 1989–90 prices using the GDP deflator.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Head Teachers (Appraisal)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his plans for the appraisal of head teachers.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend's plans are set out in the drafts of the regulations he proposes to make on school teacher appraisal and of the associated departmental circular. The drafts were sent out for consultation to representatives of the employers, teacher associations and others on 23 April 1991: copies have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Special Schools (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number of places in special schools in each local authority in London by category(a) as at 1 April 1990 and (b) as at 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information on the number of special school places is not available centrally. The number of pupils in maintained special schools within the London boroughs is given in the table. These figures reflect the position as at January 1990, the latest date for which information is available.

  Number of pupils in special schools by LEA for Inner and Outer London boroughs

  Maintained special schools Number of pupils

  201 City

  —

  202 Camden

  421

  203 Greenwich

  732

  204 Hackney

  663

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  481

  206 Islington

  333

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  98

  208 Lambeth

  956

  209 Lewisham

  505

  210 Southwark

  578

  211 Tower Hamlets

  484

  212 Wandsworth

  740

  213 Westminster

  219

  64

  Maintained special schools Number of pupils

  Inner London boroughs

  6,210

  301 Barking

  186

  302 Barnet

  343

  303 Bexley

  268

  304 Brent

  369

  305 Bromley

  384

  306 Croydon

  479

  307 Ealing

  439

  308 Enfleld

  416

  309 Haringey

  326

  310 Harrow

  244

  311 Havering

  257

  312 Hillingdon

  377

  313 Hounslow

  495

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  251

  315 Merton

  240

  316 Newham

  471

  317 Redbridge

  405

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  177

  319 Sutton

  285

  320 Waltham Forest

  734

  Outer London boroughs

  7,146

  Greater London

  13,356

  Youth Service (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the amount of money spent in(a) Greater London, (b) inner London and (c) Southwark on the youth service in each of the financial years from 1979 to 1991 inclusive; and what was the amount budgeted in each of the same areas for 1991–92, both absolutely and as a proportion of the total education budget.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information is shown in the table. The latest year for which information on actual spending is available is 1988–89. This information is taken from local education authorities' spending returns and is not collected for particular areas within a local education authority. The information requested on amounts budgeted is not collected.

  Net recurrent spending1 on the Youth Service

  Greater London (£000)

  ILEA (£000)

  1979–80

  18,500

  11,338

  1980–81

  22,998

  14,168

  1981–82

  27,011

  16,597

  1982–83

  30,712

  19,300

  1983–84

  34,505

  21,699

  1984–85

  35,584

  22,726

  1985–86

  3 36,568

  23,725

  1986–87

  243,054

  27,193

  1987–88

  346,545

  30,535

  1988–89

  253,559

  35,377

  1Excluding costs of financing capital expenditure, and specific grant income.

  2One Outer London authority did not submit a return.

  3Two Outer London authorities did not submit a return.

  Pupil Numbers (Southwark)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the projection of population of all residents, residents under 11 years, pupils between 11 and 18 years and pupils under 11 years on which his Department is working for each of the years 1990–91 to 2000–1 inclusive in(a) Southwark and (b) each of the parliamentary constituencies within the London borough of Southwark.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department does not engage in the planning of educational services at local education authority or constituency level. This is a matter for the individual authorities concerned.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils are awaiting assessment of their special educational needs in each London local education authority at the latest date for which figures are available; what is the average delay between requests for and issuing of statements; what additional financial and human provision is made in each case to ensure statementing as soon as possible; what proposals he has for speeding up the procedure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  This information is not collected centrally. The responsibility for carrying out assessments of special educational needs rests with the local education authorities. Advice and guidance in relation to the procedures for assessments and statements made under the Education Act 1981 is given in circular 22/ 89, which was issued jointly by the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health in September 1989.

  Southwark (Official Visits)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all official visits made by Ministers, in each case with the name of the Minister and the date, to schools or institutions of education in the London borough of Southwark in each year from 1979 to 1991 inclusive.

  Mr. Fallon
  Records of ministerial visits are not available as far back as 1979. However, in the last two years DES Ministers have visited a number of schools and colleges in inner London boroughs, including Southwark. The then Minister of State visited Sumner nursery and Surrey Square junior and infants schools in Southwark on 23 January 1990. Earlier this year, on 26 March, my hon. Friend the present Minister of State visited the London Nautical School.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list the information he has available on the names of those local authorities which have not made full payment of tuition fees to institutions of higher education for the current academic year; and if he will indicate the amounts of the sums unpaid;

  (2) what information he has on the percentage of fee payments due to institutions of higher education from local authorities for the autumn term 1990 and the spring term 1991 which remains unpaid;
  66
  (3) if he will take steps to ensure that those local authorities which have not paid in full the tuition fees owed to institutions of higher education for the first two terms of the current academic year do so.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1990 require local education authorities to pay tuition fees promptly to academic institutions on behalf of their mandatory award holders. I understand that a significant proportion of the autumn term 1990 fee instalments remained unpaid at the end of that term and that there were delays in paying the spring term 1991 instalments, but that the majority of both instalments have now been paid. I am awaiting further information from the bodies representing universities and polytechnics on the amounts still outstanding and the individual local authorities at fault. I deplore unnecessary delays in payment. The Department issued clear guidance last year on good practice deadlines for fee payment. All authorities have recently been reminded again of this guidance and the statutory requirements, and urged to settle outstanding fees. The Department is taking action with any individual authorities found to have substantial payments still overdue. Measures are being developed to improve the processing of fee payments for the coming academic year.

  Women Scientists
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what study he has made of the census, why more women are not doing scientific and technical work since August 1990; and what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to convince girls and young women that such opportunities for physicists are open to all, in the light of demographic changes.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employers concerned have the prime responsibility for making scientific and technical careers attractive to women. Nevertheless, this Government's education reforms include some relevant initiatives. The science component of the national curriculum will reinforce that aspect of the education of pupils to age 16, both boys and girls. This will help to ensure that pupils will be less likely to have career options prematurely closed to them and will be better placed to make informed choices about whether to follow a career in a scientific discipline.

  The Women into Science and Engineering campaign (WISE) fosters equal opportunity links between education and industry and stresses the importance of eliminating and stereotyping in option choice and careers advice. The WISE campaign has continued to be promoted and five WISE buses, sponsored and maintained by industry, and with support from the Government, continue to give careers advice to girls.

  For mature students, there are available some access courses which cater exclusively for women; for example, in micro-electronics, engineering, and information and industrial technology.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the initial teacher training courses upon which the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education has made recommendations to him, categorised according to whether(a) all relevant criteria are satisfied, so that he was recommended

  67
  to approve the course under schedule 5 to the Education (Teachers) Regulations Act 1982, (b) a recommendation for schedule 5 approval was made conditional upon further progress within a specific timetable, (c) no recommendation was made and (d) he was recommended to withhold or to withdraw approval; and in each case whether he has accepted the Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education recommendation.

  Mr. Fallon
  Since 1 January 1990, when the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education was reconstituted, the Secretary of State has approved on its advice the courses listed in the table. He has also withdrawn aproval on the council's advice from work and the urban environment as a main subject specialism in the BEd (Hons) primary course at the polytechnic of North London. There are no courses where approval has been given subject to conditions.

  My right hon. and learned Friend is currently considering advice from the council on 17 further courses.

  Courses accredited on the advice of CATE since 1 January 1990

  Goldsmith's College

  Art Teachers' Certificate (secondary) course.

  PGCE primary course.

  PGCE secondary course.

  BEd (Hons) (primary) course.

  BEd (Hons) (secondary) course.

  Keele University

  Biology as additional main subject method specialism in PGCE (secondary) course.

  University of Cambridge and Homerton College

  PGCE (primary, lower years) course.

  BEd (Hons) (primary) course.

  Polytechnic of North London

  BEd (Hons) primary course: main subject specialisms in Health, Physical Education and Recreation Studies; Language, Literature and Media Studies; Mathematics, Computing and Technology.

  University of Warwick

  PGCE (secondary) course.

  BA (Hons) with QTS (primary) course.

  BA (Hons) with QTS (secondary) course.

  Anglia College of Higher Education

  Two year BEd (secondary) course in Music.

  Kingston Polytechnic

  Music as a main subject method specialism without a second subject method specialism in PGCE (secondary) course.

  Manchester Polytechnic

  Two year BEd (secondary, 11–16) course in Chemistry.

  Two year PGCE (secondary, 11–16) course in Chemistry.

  Two year part-time PGCE (secondary, 11–16) course in Chemistry.

  Brunel University

  Two year part-time PGCE (secondary) in Physics.

  West London Institute of Higher Education

  BEd (Hons) (primary) course.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the reports completed since 1983 by Her Majesty's inspectorate on institutions responsible for teacher education and training and indicate the date of publication of the report and, for university departments of education, which opted not to publish their reports.

  Mr. Fallon
  The reports issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate since 1983 on institutions responsible for teacher education and training are listed in the table.

  Reports on the university of Nottingham and the university of Newcastle, available in 1985 and 1988 respectively, were not published.
  68

  Published HMI reports on institutions responsible for teacher education and training since the end of 1983

  Name

  Date published

  Kingston Polytechnic

  21 June 1984

  Chelmer Institute

  13 July 1984

  Middlesex Polytechnic

  28 August 1984

  Humberside College of Higher Education

  30 August 1984

  Rolle College

  13 September 1984

  Bretton Hall College

  29 November 1984

  University of Exeter

  10 December 1984

  University of Newcastle

  11 December 1984

  Hertfordshire College of Higher Education

  24 January 1985

  Christ Church College, Canterbury

  19 February 1985

  Birmingham Polytechnic

  27 March 1985

  University of Bristol

  27 March 1985

  Westhill College

  25 April 1985

  University of Bath

  5 April 1985

  University of Durham

  19 June 1985

  St. Mary's College, Twickenham

  3 September 1985

  West Midlands College of Higher Education

  3 September 1985

  University of Sussex

  17 September 1985

  University of Leicester

  25 September 1985

  Liverpool Institute

  8 October 1985

  Portsmouth Polytechnic

  6 December 1985

  University of Reading

  11 December 1985

  University of Loughborough

  26 December 1985

  University of Sheffield

  31 December 1985

  College of St. Paul and St. Mary

  3 January 1986

  Manchester Polytechnic

  23 January 1986

  Sheffield City Polytechnic

  24 January 1986

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  7 February 1986

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  19 March 1986

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  7 May 1986

  The Polytechnic of Wolverhampton

  27 May 1986

  Bath College of Higher Education

  3 June 1986

  West London Institute of Higher Education

  13 June 1986

  Newman College

  17 June 1986

  Bulmershe College of Higher Education

  24 June 1986

  St. Martin's College

  2 July 1986

  La Sainte Union College of Higher Education

  13 August 1986

  Worcester College of Higher Education

  18 August 1986

  University of Southampton

  28 August 1986

  University of Cambridge

  19 September 1986

  University of York

  9 December 1986

  Polytechnic of South Bank

  23 December 1986

  King Alfred's College of Higher Education

  28 January 1987

  Oxford Polytechnic

  5 February 1987

  Liverpool Polytechnic

  14 February 1987

  Trinity and All Saints College

  25 February 1987

  University of Hull

  26 February 1987

  Brighton Polytechnic

  27 February 1987

  University of Leeds

  3 March 1987

  Manchester Polytechnic

  31 March 1987

  Nene College

  27 March 1987

  Bedford College of Higher Education

  14 April 1987

  Bradford and Ilkley Community College

  14 April 1987

  North Riding College

  21 April 1987

  West Sussex Institute of Higher Education

  15 May 1987

  Crewe and Alsager College of Higher Education

  21 May 1987

  Newman College

  26 June 1987

  University of Warwick

  8 July 1987

  Bristol Polytechnic

  9 July 1987

  Brunei University

  17 July 1987

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic

  15 July 1987

  The College of Ripon and York St. John

  23 July 1987

  Trent Polytechnic

  24 July 1987

  Charlotte Mason College

  14 August 1987

  Leeds Polytechnic

  15 September 1987

  Roehampton Institute

  15 October 1987

  University of London, Institute of Education

  20 October 1987

  University of Manchester

  30 October 1987

  University of East Anglia

  20 November 1987

  Polytechnic of North London

  18 December 1987

  Goldsmith's College

  27 January 1988

  University of Keele

  9 February 1988

  69

  Name

  Date published

  University of Liverpool

  4 March 1988

  University of Birmingham

  5 March 1988

  Chester College

  25 February 1988

  University of London, King's College

  20 May 1988

  University of Oxford

  2 June 1988

  Leicester Polytechnic

  12 July 1988

  Thames Polytechnic

  25 August 1988

  Sunderland Polytechnic

  7 September 1988

  Jews College

  20 September 1988

  Derbyshire College of Higher Education

  26 October 1988

  Birmingham Polytechnic

  28 October 1988

  Christ Church College, Canterbury

  8 November 1988

  Essex Institute of Higher Education

  28 February 1989

  St. Martin's College

  22 March 1989

  Bath College of Higher Education

  4 May 1989

  Bradford and Ilkley Community College

  28 August 1989

  Liverpool Polytechnic

  18 November 1989

  West Sussex Institute of Higher Education

  22 November 1989

  Brighton Polytechnic

  1 March 1990

  Nene College

  10 July 1990

  West London Institute of Higher Education

  30 October 1990

  University of Durham

  21 November 1990

  Nottingham Polytechnic

  16 November 1990

  St. Mary's College, Twickenham

  4 December 1990

  Manchester Polytechnic

  24 April 1991

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many courses of initial teacher education and training have been considered by the central Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education; how many are pending; how many have been accepted; and how many have been rejected.

  Mr. Fallon
  Since 1 January 1990, when the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education was reconstituted, 94 courses have been submitted to it for consideration. Of these, 37 so far have been the subject of advice to the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by local education authority the number of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools taking placement of trainee teachers (i) as part of their course and (ii) for their induction year.

  Mr. Fallon
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to complete the formal approval procedure for postgraduate certificate of education and B.Ed. teacher training courses presently operating under temporary approval.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend will complete the accreditation process as soon as he is satisfied that all the courses presently operating under temporary approval fully meet the criteria.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many courses of initial teacher education and training have been scrutinised by local Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education committees; and, of these, how many have been accepted and how many rejected.

  Mr. Fallon
  Since 1 April 1990, when the new local committees came into being, they have considered a total of 80 courses. Of these, 75 have been put forward to the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, and five courses have been referred back to the institutions concerned.
  70
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the colleges of teacher education and training and university and polytechnic departments of education visited by Education Ministers in the last six months.

  Mr. Fallon
  The college of Ripon and York St. John and the Roehampton institute.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has issued during the last five years to local education authorities and schools in the induction of newly trained teachers.

  Mr. Fallon
  Advice on the induction of newly trained teachers is contained in administrative memorandum No. 1/90, "The Treatment and Assessment of Probationary Teachers".

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he plans to publish the next Her Majesty's inspectorate report on the "New Teacher in School".

  Mr. Fallon
  Her Majesty's inspectors expect to undertake an inspection in the summer of 1992 of those newly trained teachers who took up their first appointments in September 1991. A report will then go to my right hon. and learned Friend for him to consider publication.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he collects on the operation and cost of the system of teacher induction.

  Mr. Fallon
  Under the programme of grants for education support and training, we collect information from the local education authorities which are claiming support for induction training. In the current financial year, over 70 per cent. of authorities are planning to claim support specifically for provision in this area.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Eggar
  Copies of tables containing the available information have been placed in the Library.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Oxford, East of 22 April in relation to total spending on higher education student support in the form of mandatory awards, if he will provide the information on cash expenditure, real expenditure with 1978–79 = 100, and expenditure per student, disaggregated between expenditure on fees and expenditure on maintenance.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The data requested are given in the table and cover expenditure made by local education authorities in England and Wales in bestowing mandatory awards under the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations.
  71

  Expenditure (cash £m)

  Expenditure (real index)

  Expenditure per student (£)

  Academic year

  fees

  maintenance

  fees

  maintenance

  fees

  maintenance

  1978–89

  197·1

  271·9

  100

  100

  616

  850

  1979–80

  217·8

  332·2

  95

  105

  675

  1,030

  1980–81

  281·1

  398·2

  106

  108

  840

  1,190

  1981–82

  340·0

  443·3

  115

  108

  959

  1,250

  1982–83

  208·6

  472·0

  66

  108

  563

  1,274

  1983–84

  217·1

  502·1

  65

  109

  564

  1,306

  1984–85

  226·4

  480·2

  65

  99

  573

  1,215

  1985–86

  238·4

  457·7

  64

  89

  611

  1,173

  1986–87

  245·1

  479·6

  64

  91

  622

  1,216

  1987–88

  262·3

  503·1

  66

  92

  649

  1,244

  1988–89

  278·7

  547·0

  66

  94

  671

  1,317

  The real index has been calculated using the retail prices index. In 1982–83, expenditure on fees is affected by a reduction in the rate set for first degrees and diplomas from £900 to £480 with compensating increases in the direct funds paid to institutions.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had about the presence in the Antarctic of debris from British research programmes; and what action is being taken to clear up such debris.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Apart from two parliamentary questions from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 9 May 1990,Official Report, column 184, the Secretary of State has received no representations.

  The British Antarctic Survey has now formulated and is implementing its up-to-date environmental management policy covering the disposal of debris and wastes. This phased programme is intended to comply fully with recommendation XV-3 of the XVth Antarctic treaty consultative meeting held in October 1989. All waste, other than human waste and scrap food, will be removed from Antarctica.

  Abandoned bases are being surveyed prior to the development of a programme of remedial work. Clean-up activities took place at Deception island, Winter island and Halley base during the 1990–91 season.

  Colleges of Further Education
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the provisions of the Education Reform Act in respect of opting-out are to be made applicable to colleges of further education.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear in his statement to the House on 21 March 1991,Official Report, columns 432–48, the Government propose to introduce new legislation to take all further education colleges out of local authority control.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what limit he sets in the extent of delegated powers relevant to the running of such an institution that may be delegated to the governing body of a further education college by the relevant local education authority;

  (2) if he will list the powers which may be delegated to a governing body under local management of schools to colleges.
  72
  Mr. Eggar
  The local education authority, in consultation with the governing body, is responsible for determining, in accordance with the scheme of delegation drawn up by the local education authority under section 139 of the Education Reform Act 1988, the general educational character of a college and its place in the local education system. The governing body is responsible, in accordance with the scheme, for the general direction of the college.

  The powers which may be delegated to college governing bodies are listed in paragraph 4.11 of DES circular 9/88 "Education Reform Act 1988: Local Management of Further and Higher Education Colleges: Planning and Delegation Schemes and Articles of Government", a copy of which is held in the Library.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the limit of the extent of control over capital building and revenue maintenance programmes that can be assumed by a further education college.

  Mr. Fallon
  Control of the major capital building programme currently rests with local education authorities. Responsibility for minor capital works, structural repairs and maintenance can be split between local education authorities and their colleges, according to the scheme of delegation. Responsibility for minor repairs and maintenance rests with the colleges.

  Foundation for Sport and the Arts
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what calculations were involved in arriving at the estimate given by the Minister for Sport at a press conference at the Queen Elizabeth conference centre on 23 April that the total amount of money that would go to the proposed Foundation for Sport and the Arts would be £75 million.

  Mr. Atkins
  I gave illustrative figures. Under the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the reduction in pool betting levy from 40 per cent. to 37·5 per cent. would on present estimates channel about £20 million a year into the foundation. A further £40 million or so would be given by the pools promoters. If turnover increased the yield could be greater.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on how many occasions he has intervened to prevent a local education authority from delegating functions to a further education college.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which ad hoc budgets not subject
  73
  to formula funding may be delegated to a further education college for administration, with the approval of the education authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  If the local education authority wishes, all funds for administration services can be delegated to a college. In most approved schemes local education authorities were permitted to earmark funds for certain services and to require colleges to use those sums to buy the services from their local education authority. Local authorities were required, however, to ensure that over a three-year period colleges were given increased discretion, particularly over services provided to support colleges.

  School Meals
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the results from the 1990 school meal census showing the numbers and proportions of children taking (i) paid school meals, (ii) free school meals and (iii) making their own arrangements in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools, (c) special schools and (d) in all three.

  Expenditure per pupil1—England

  Books

  Equipment

  Books and Equipment

  Cash

  Real terms3

  Cash

  Real terms3

  Cash

  Real terms3

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  Nursery and Primary

  1975–76

  2·92

  9·19

  6·70

  21·11

  9·62

  30·31

  1976–77

  3·25

  9·02

  7·35

  20·39

  10·60

  29·41

  1977–78

  3·63

  8·85

  7·84

  19·14

  11·47

  28·00

  1978–79

  4·23

  9·32

  8·64

  19·02

  12·88

  28·34

  1979–80

  4·67

  8·81

  9·69

  18·28

  14·36

  27·08

  1980–81

  5·30

  8·45

  10·79

  17·19

  16·08

  25·64

  1981–82

  5·88

  8·55

  12·31

  17·90

  18·19

  26·45

  1982–83

  6·96

  9·45

  13·96

  18·95

  20·93

  28·41

  1983–84

  7·10

  9·22

  15·74

  20·42

  22·84

  29·63

  1984–85

  7·25

  8·95

  16·35

  20·19

  23·60

  29·14

  1985–86

  7·46

  8·73

  17·50

  20·49

  24·95

  29·22

  1986–87

  8·22

  9·30

  19·91

  22·54

  28·13

  31·84

  1987–88

  9·01

  9·68

  21·63

  23·24

  30·64

  32·92

  1988–89

  8·95

  8·95

  23·19

  23·19

  32·14

  32·14

  Secondary

  1975–76

  5·08

  15·99

  13·51

  42·54

  18·58

  58·53

  1976–77

  5·71

  15·84

  14·46

  40·13

  20·17

  55·97

  1977–78

  6·31

  15·39

  15·04

  36·72

  21·35

  52·11

  1978–79

  7·16

  15·77

  17·24

  37·94

  24·40

  53·71

  1979–80

  7·82

  14·75

  18·79

  35·44

  26·61

  50·19

  1980–81

  8·08

  12·83

  21·17

  33·76

  29·26

  46·64

  1981–82

  8·60

  12·50

  23·58

  34·28

  32·18

  46·78

  1982–83

  9·89

  13·42

  26·65

  36·17

  36·53

  49·59

  1983–84

  10·09

  13·09

  29·12

  37·78

  39·21

  50·87

  1984–85

  10·15

  12·53

  32·38

  39·98

  42·53

  52·51

  1985–86

  10·66

  12·49

  34·17

  40·01

  44·83

  52·50

  1986–87

  13·13

  14·86

  44·02

  49·82

  57·15

  64·69

  1987–88

  14·82

  15·92

  47·37

  50·89

  62·19

  66·82

  1988–89

  14·32

  14·32

  55·46

  55·46

  69·79

  69·79

  1 The figures are based on local education authority returns to DOE and pupil number returns to DES.

  2 The cash figures for earlier years have been repriced to 1988–89 prices using the Gross Domestic Product (Market Prices) deflator.

  3 Figures for nursery schools and for primary schools are not collected separately.

  Play Areas (Accidents)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has about accidents in children's play areas; and what steps he intends to take to make them safer.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of Trade and Industry's accident statistics cover a range of recreational environments including playgrounds. A copy of the 12th annual
  74
  Mr. Fallon
  This information is available in "Statistics of Education: Schools 1990", pages 137 to 145, which was published on 23 April 1991. Copies are being placed in the Library.

  Expenditure in Schools
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing the expenditure per pupil on (i) books and (ii) equipment in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in cash and real terms since 1976.

  Mr. Fallon
  Figures returned by local education authorities for spending on books and equipment separately need to be treated with caution because of differing local authority practices in classifying spending between the two items. The table therefore shows, for each year for which information is available, spending figures per pupil for books and equipment together as well as for books and equipment separately.

  report of the home accident surveillance system has been placed in the House of Commons Library. Certain accidents must also be reported to the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  The Government are concerned to ensure that children's playgrounds are as safe as possible. At this Department's request, the National Children's Play and Recreation Unit is preparing a booklet on playground safety for distribution to local authorities and other

  75
  operators. A complementary departmental guidance booklet on school playgrounds and related safety issues is in preparation.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a table showing for 1970, 1973, 1979, 1985 and the latest available date the

  Employees in employment in those manufacturing industries where import penetration or export proportion exceeded 20 per cent, at June 19891

  United Kingdom

  (unadjusted)

  Thousands

  Standard industrial classification 1980

  Division or class

  2 June 1971

  June 1973

  June 1979

  June 1985

  December 1990

  Other mineral and ore extraction, etc.

  2

  1,281·8

  1,238·3

  1,146·9

  778·7

  719·5

  Metal manufacturing and extraction of metal ores and minerals3

  21–23

  510·7

  479·9

  422·7

  216·8

  189·6

  Chemical industry/man-made fibres

  25/26

  449·6

  440·0

  445·2

  342·3

  329·0

  Metal goods, engineering, vehicles

  3

  3,708·8

  3,572·0

  3,374·0

  2,443·4

  2,293·1

  Mechanical engineering

  32

  1,148·5

  1,061·9

  1,044·5

  764·0

  743·7

  Office machinery and data processing equipment

  33

  91·8

  79·3

  73·9

  87·9

  80·5

  Electrical and electronic engineering

  34

  809·4

  808·9

  761·1

  595·6

  559·2

  Motor vehicles and parts

  35

  507·5

  513·5

  466·3

  274·0

  244·9

  Other transport equipment

  36

  438·3

  413·5

  390·3

  288·3

  259·2

  Instrument engineering

  37

  139·5

  134·6

  130·0

  104·6

  89·6

  Other manufacturing industries

  4

  3,074·5

  3,031·7

  2,731·8

  2,139·6

  2,087·8

  Textiles

  43

  526·9

  503·7

  390·6

  245·3

  197·7

  Manufacture of leather and leather goods

  44

  40·4

  38·7

  33·5

  21·5

  18·9

  Footwear and clothing

  45

  501·9

  486·3

  418·0

  312·1

  292·4

  Timber and wooden furniture

  46

  264·1

  284·1

  251·1

  209·8

  245·7

  Paper, printing and publishing

  47

  580·6

  560·2

  548·3

  482·6

  487·1

  Rubber and plastics

  48

  253·8

  267·8

  242·7

  195·5

  221·5

  Other manufacturing

  49

  107·6

  107·7

  110·2

  77·0

  77·6

  1 Latest date for which import penetration/export proportion ratio can be calculated.

  2 The earliest date for which figures are available on a consistent basis.

  3 The calculation of import/export proportion ratios is not appropriate for class 21 (extraction and preparation of metalliferous ores). However, it is not possible to separate estimates of employees in employment in this class from those in classes 22 and 23, both of which have import penetration or export proportion ratios of over 20 per cent.

  Training (South-east London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all those organisations and individuals who have made representations to him about cuts in training for the year 1991–92 so far announced for south-east London.

  Mr. Jackson
  I receive many representations from a variety of organisations and individuals on a wide range of issues.

  Separate records of each of these issues are not maintained.
  76
  numbers employed in each of the industries by maximum and sub-division in which import penetration or export proportion now exceeds 20 per cent.

  Mr. Jackson
  Employment statistics for these periods for the United Kingdom are not available below the two digit level of standard industrial classification. The available information is as follows:

  Sheltered Housing Staff
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to establish a mandatory system of national training qualifications for sheltered housing staff.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have no plans to introduce a mandatory system of national training qualifications for sheltered housing staff. However, under the programme to develop national vocational qualifications for all occupations the housing lead body is currently developing national vocational qualifications for those employed in housing activities. The development of NVQs for sheltered housing
  77
  staff is part of that programme, and I am confident that relevant qualifications will be available by mid-1992, in line with Government targets.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 and 17-year-olds were registered unemployed in each of the past 18 months in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Training Agency/Manpower Services Commission to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Jackson
  Expenditure by the Training Agency, and its predecessors, the Training Commission and the Manpower Services Commission, on management consultancy for the years 1984–85 to 1989–90 was as follows:

  £ thousands

  1984–85

  128

  1985–86

  191

  1986–87

  403

  1987–88

  238

  1988–89

  215

  1989–90

  28

  The estimated outturn for 1990–91 is around £150,000. Following recent reorganisation of the Employment Department, the former Training Agency is now an integral part of the Department's headquarters. The Department's management consultancy budget for 1991–92 will be reported to the House in due course.

  Information for the periods 1979–80 to 1983–84 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, (1) in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts;

  (2) in the statistical divisions in the Training Agency/MSC; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Jackson
  The numbers of staff, by grade, employed on 1 April 1991 in statistical divisions in the Department of Employment headquarters—including statistical sections previously in the Training Agency—the Employment Service Agency and the Health and Safety Executive are as in the table below. The number of permanent staff included is close to the current complement. The complement of casual administrative staff varies over time. More such staff will be employed as necessary to process the 1991 "New Earnings Survey" and the 1991 census of employment.
  78
  The information readily available for earlier years has already been given, in replies to the hon. Member on 15 March 1990, 15 March 1989 and 21 July 1988.

  Staff in post in ED group statistical divisions (as at 1 April 1991—part-time staff shown as proportion of full time)

  Grade

  Number

  Statistical grades

  Grade 3 (director of statistics)

  1

  Grade 5 (chief statistician)

  5

  Grade 6 (statistician)

  1

  Grade 7 (statistician)

  23·7

  Assistant/senior assistant statistician

  24

  Total statistical grades

  54·7

  Administrative grades

  Grade 7

  2

  Senior executive officer

  10

  Higher executive officer

  23

  Executive officer

  51·5

  Administrative officer

  124·4

  Administrative assistant

  36

  Senior/personal secretary

  7

  Total administrative grades

  253·9

  Other staff

  Grade 7 (economic adviser)

  1

  Senior/economic assistant

  3

  Senior/research officer

  2

  Total other grades

  6

  Total all grades

  314·6

  Earnings, Northumberland
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of women manual and non-manual workers in Northumberland earned less than £120 per week in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is estimated from the "New Earnings Survey" that in April 1990, 36·5 per cent. of manual and 19·1 per cent. of non-manual full-time female employees on adult rates in Northumberland, whose pay for the survey pay period was not affected by absence, had gross weekly earnings less than £120.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the figure below which the lowest paid 10 per cent. of manual and non-manual women workers earned in the county of Northumberland, in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is estimated from the "New Earnings Survey" that in April 1990, the figures below which 10 per cent. of female manual and non-manual employees earned in Northumberland were £96·70 and £105·60 respectively, for full-time female employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey pay period was not affected by absence.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the average earnings for manual
  79
  and non-manual women workers in the county of Northumberland in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is estimated from the "New Earnings Survey" that in April 1990, average gross weekly earnings in Northumberland were £140·40 for manual and £183·90 for non-manual full-time female employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey pay period was not affected by absence.

  NOW Initiative
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Government intend to take part in the National Operations for Women initiative to promote equal opportunities for employment and vocational training for women, launched by the European Community on 31 January; when he intends to appoint a co-ordinator; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  On 19 April the European Commission notified the amount of funding available to the United Kingdom for NOW. My Department is now in a position to compile the overall operational programme that has to be submitted to the Commission by the end of June. Further details will be announced as soon as possible.

  Temporary Employment Scheme
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for a temporary employment scheme for the unemployed.

  Mr. Jackson
  There are already a wide range of measures available to help unemployed people get back to work. I have no current plans to introduce a temporary employment scheme.

SCOTLAND

  Potatoes
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for ensuring that Scottish seed potatoes comply with the Seed Potato Regulations 1984; and how the scheme of certification is administered.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Producers and subsequent sellers of seed potatoes are responsible for ensuring that their product complies with the regulations.

  The seed potato classification and labelling schemes are administered and enforced by the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department under the Seed Potatoes Regulations 1984. Certificates of classification are issued by the Department provided that the growing crop is found on at least two visual inspections to meet the standards prescribed.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what legal recourse, under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland certification scheme, a potato farmer from outside Scotland has against either the merchant supplier, or the Scottish grower, of virus-infected Scottish seed potatoes supplied.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Seed Potatoes Regulations 1984, which govern the marketing of seed potatoes in 80
  Great Britain, and under which the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department, formerly DAFS, administers the seed potato classification and labelling schemes, do not provide for any form of restitution to purchasers of seed potatoes. Such matters must be pursued through the normal commercial channels. Any purchaser who is not satisfied with goods delivered to him, including seed potatoes, may initiate civil legal proceedings under the Sale of Goods Act.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland takes immediately to inform all merchants and farmers who have taken seed from a Scottish grower in cases where it has firm evidence that a batch of Scottish seed potatoes from that grower has high levels of virus infection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department, formerly DAFS, has no legal responsibility to notify industry bodies in such circumstances.

  However, in cases where the Department was in possession of facts which clearly gave rise to concern about the presence of virus it would as a matter of course conduct a full investigation. I understand that my noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for these matters is writing to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what legal penalties are available to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to prosecute growers and merchants who supply Scottish seed potatoes which are found at a subsequent date not to comply with the regulations of certification; and how many prosecutions of Scottish seed potato suppliers for faulty seed there have been in each year for the last 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964, any person who contravenes any provision contained in the seeds regulations may be prosecuted and by summary conviction would be liable to a fine not exceeding £2,000.

  There have been two successful prosecutions by the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of the marketing of seed potatoes in Great Britain under the Seed Potatoes Regulations 1984; one in 1988, the other in 1989.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further resources he has allocated to local authorities to bring standards of drinking water up to EC recommended levels; and when he expects all drinking water to comply with EC standards.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Improvements to drinking water quality form part of the water and sewerage capital expenditure programme. For 1991–92 programme provision has been set at more than £169 million, rising to £238 million for 1993–94. The figure for 1993–94 is two thirds higher than the provision for 1990–91 and more than double the level for 1988–89. Authorities may also fund additional capital expenditure from revenue.

  The EC standards for drinking water have been incorporated into the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990. Almost all drinking water put into public supply and which is not subject to

  81
  relaxation of specific standards as authorised under the regulations is expected to comply with the EC standards by 1995. Private water supplies which require improvement to comply with the standards are to be the subject of programmes on which it is planned to issue further guidance later this year.

  Local Government Review
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in his review of local government, he will give consideration to the establishment of an independent commission similar to that being proposed for local government south of the border.

  Mr. Lang
  I have, of course, given very careful consideration to this matter. I have concluded that the establishment of a commission of the kind which my right hon. Friend has in mind would not be the best or most appropriate way forward for Scotland, where we have a local government system which is less diverse and more coherent, where the scale of the task is very different, and where we already have 16 years' experience of unitary authorities in the islands.

  My right hon. Friend proposes a commission which will advise him on changes in different parts of England, on a rolling programme: I do not see a need for a commission working in that way in Scotland. The absence of a commission will not, however, mean a less thorough consultative process in Scotland. We intend to start the consultative process within the next few weeks, by consulting on the broad principles which will underpin the new system.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to his answer of 15 April,Official Report, column 118, what are the arrangements for specific pollution incidents or other significant water quality failures.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 require a water authority to notify appropriate district or islands councils and health boards of any event affecting drinking water quality which may give rise to a significant risk to public health. The "Guidance on Safeguarding the Quality of Public Water Supplies in Scotland", issued in April 1990, sets out in detail the actions that the water authority should take. These include notifying the Scottish Office Environment Department of any significant water quality failure. A procedure has been agreed whereby the water authority reports initial details of any such incident as soon as possible after its occurrence. The information is updated as the event progresses, until normal water quality is restored.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the reported cases of water pollution in Scotland in each year since 1975.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The full range of information is not available centrally. River purification boards, however, maintain records of water pollution incidents and publish details of these in their annual reports.

  Community Care
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 has been implemented in Scotland with reference to community care.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (Commencement No. 5 and Revocation) (Scotland) Order 1990—SI1990 No. 2510 c65 S212—and to Scottish Office circular SW2/1991, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current and estimated costs of providing community care in(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c)

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. Community care extends over a wide range of different services and expenditure on it is not separately classified as such. The Government have recognised the costs of the new community care arrangements to local authorities by taking £10 million into account in setting the level of aggregate external finance for 1991–92. Further costs will be considered in the course of future annual settlements of local government finance.

  Assisted Reproductive Service
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the Scottish Home and Health Department's national acute services advisory group's review on an assisted reproductive service for Scotland will be complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I expect this review to be completed by the autumn of this year and I shall make a statement then.

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many operations were cancelled or postponed by Lothian health board in each month from January 1990 to March 1991.

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

  Number of cancelled in-patient and day case admissions:

  Total in-patients and day cases

  Number

  January

  109

  February

  83

  March

  118

  April

  102

  May

  90

  June

  94

  July

  98

  August

  60

  September

  83

  October

  199

  November

  197

  December

  117

  January

  175

  MV Antares
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if a date has been set for the fatal accident inquiry into the sinking of the Antares; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Investigations are continuing into the deaths of the crew of the MFV Antares. The date and location of the fatal accident inquiry have yet to be fixed.

  Dentists
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dentists were registered with the national health service in Scotland on(a) 1 October 1988, (b) 1 October 1989, (c) 1 October 1990 and (d) 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of dentists registered with the national health service in Scotland on each of the dates in question is as follows:—

  Number of Dentists

  (a) 1st October 1988

  1,572

  (b) 1st October 1989

  1,652

  (c) 1st October 1990

  1,694

  (d) 1st April 1991

  1,719

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advertising for the Scottish electricity privatisation has been placed in the Northern Ireland press or television; and on what basis the level of advertising there was fixed.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The two Scottish electricity companies share offers are being advertised in Northern Ireland using the national press and business magazines. This is the approach which has been adopted for use in most of the United Kingdom. In Scotland, however, a broader marketing is aimed at the companies' customers.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 April 1991]: The number of staff in the information officer grades employed in the Scottish Office Information Directorate and the number of vacant posts as at 1 April each year from 1979–80 to 1991–92 is set out in the table:

  Number of staff

  Vacancies

  1979

  22

  3

  1980

  24

  —

  1981

  20

  1

  1982

  22

  —

  1983

  20

  —

  1984

  20

  —

  1985

  19

  1

  1986

  20

  2

  1987

  22

  1

  1988

  23

  1

  84

  Number of staff

  Vacancies

  1989

  28

  3

  1990

  31½

  —

  1991

  33½

  —

  Listed Buildings (Demolition)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State For Scotland how many listed buildings have been demolished in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole in the past five years; what information he has concerning the circumstances of such demolitions; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 April 1991]: Information is not readily available in the form the hon. Member has requested. The table shows the number of listed building consent applications notified to the Secretary of State in the period in question which involved demolition, either total or partial, and which were cleared for his interest.

  Year (1April-31 March

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  1986–87

  52

  142

  1987–88

  57

  154

  1988–89

  46

  124

  1989–90

  31

  107

  1990–91

  39

  95

  Information is not gathered on the action taken following the granting of consents. Such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nursery Education
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of local authority nursery school places provided by each of the education authorities, expressed as a percentage of the eligible children in each area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 April 1991]: The table gives, for each education authority, the number of three and four-year-old children attending education authority nursery schools at September 1990 as a percentage of the 1990 mid-year estimate of the total three and four-year-old population, the range which is the relevant age group for nursery education.

  Figures for numbers of pupils attending nursery schools have been used because there are no reliable figures for the number of places and because many children attend nursery school part-time.

  Number of three and four year olds in education authority nursery schools with percentages in relation to the three and four year old population, September 1990

  Education authority

  Three and four year olds in nursery schools September 1990

  Percentage of three and four year olds in nursery schools

  Borders

  470

  19·5

  Central

  2,732

  41·4

  Dumfries/Galloway

  630

  17·8

  Fife

  4,388

  47·6

  Grampian

  3,391

  26·1

  Highland

  730

  13·6

  Lothian

  8,457

  45·9

  85

  Education authority

  Three and four year olds in nursery schools September 1990

  Percentage of three and four year olds in nursery schools

  Strathclyde

  18,911

  30·9

  Tayside

  3,326

  34·27

  Orkney

  102

  20·4

  Shetland

  137

  20·5

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  Scotland

  43,274

  33·0

  Food Hygiene
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to complete consultations with interested bodies concerning proposed food hygiene regulations for Scotland; which bodies will be consulted; when draft legislation will he published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 April 1991]: Comments have been invited by 20 May on our proposals to amend the Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 1959. Following consideration of the results of the consultation, the new regulations will be laid before Parliament; it is proposed that these will come into force from 1 October 1991. The changes were outlined in my reply to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on 26 February. The following representative bodies have been consulted.

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Scottish Food Co-ordinating Committee.

  Association of Public Analysts of Scotland.

  The Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland.

  Scottish Milk Marketing Board.

  Scottish Dairy Trade Federation.

  Company of Scottish Cheesemakers.

  Handmade Cheese Association of Scotland.

  Scottish Association of Master Bakers.

  The Federation of Bakers (Scottish Area).

  Sea Fish Industry Authority.

  Scottish Fishermen's Federation.

  Aberdeen Fish Curers' and Merchants' Association.

  Herring Buyers Association.

  Glasgow Wholesale Fish Trade Association.

  Scottish Federation of Fishermen's Co-operatives Ltd.

  Scottish Federation of Fishmongers

  The Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland

  Scottish Salmon Smokers Association (Mr. H. Neil)

  Scottish Salmon Growers Association

  Highlands and Islands Fishermen's Association (SG)

  British Trout Association

  Scottish Salmon Smokers Association (Mr. Norman MacLean)

  Scottish Shellfish Growers Association

  Scottish Fish Merchants Federation

  Shellfish Growers Association

  Wholesale Grocers' Association of Scotland

  Scottish Grocers' Federation

  The Scottish Licensed Trade Association

  The Brewers' Association of Scotland

  Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Association

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  National Association of Wholesale Meat Salesmen of Scotland

  Scottish Quality Beef and Lamb Association

  Co-operative Union Ltd

  Association of Scottish Chambers of Commerce

  National Farmers' Union of Scotland

  Scottish Consumer Council

  Scottish Trades Union Congress General Council

  Institute of Food Science and Technology (Scottish Branch) Scottish Tourist Board

  The National Trust for Scotland

  86

  Association of Bed and Breakfast Operators

  Scottish Development Agency

  Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society

  Institute of Refrigeration/Refrigeration Industry Board

  British Direct Marketing Organisation

  Small Farmers Association

  Highlands and Islands Development Board

  Hamper Industry Trade Association Ltd

  British Railways Board (ScotRail Headquarters)

  The Post Office

  Road Haulage Association (Scottish Area)

  Association for Consumer Research

  Consumers Association Ltd

  Consumers in the European Community Group Co-operation Union (Parliamentary Committee)

  National Consumer Council

  National Consumer Protection Council

  National Federation of Consumer Groups

  National Federation of Womens Institutes

  The Brewers Society

  British Crayfish Marketing Association

  British Egg Products Association

  British Retailers Association

  British Sandwich Association

  British Soft Drinks Council

  British Sugar Refiners Association

  The Champagne Association

  Co-op Milk Trade Association

  Crab Processors Association

  The Crystalised Fruit Dealers Association

  The Delicatessen & Fine Food Association

  Federation of British Kippers & Herring Merchants Association

  Federation of British Port Wholesale Fish Merchants Association

  Federation of Edible Nuts Association

  Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers

  Federation of Street Traders Union

  Fleetwood Fish Merchants Association

  Great Yarmouth Mediterranean Herring Exporters Association

  Institute of Fisheries Management

  Institute of Grocery Distributors

  Institute of Market Officers

  International Meat Trade Association

  Joint Consultative Council of the Fresh Fruit, Vegetable & Flower Industries

  Joint Council of British Potato & Vegetable Merchants Association

  Livestock Traders Association

  London Fish Merchants Association

  London Meat Traders Association Inc.

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Meat Marketing Board

  Mushroom Growers Association

  National Association of British Market Authorities

  National Council of Associations of Fresh Meat Wholesalers

  National Council of Wholesale Egg Distributors

  National Dairymans Association

  National Dried Fruit Trade Association

  National Edible Oil Distribution Association

  National Egg Marketing Association

  National Egg Producers & Retailers Association

  National Federation of Fish Friers

  National Federation of Fishmongers Ltd.

  National Federation of Fruit & Potato Trades

  National Federation of Inland Wholesale Merchants

  National Federation of Licensed Victuallers

  National Federation of Meat Traders

  National Federation of Poultry Meat Merchants

  National Federation of Wholesale Grocers & Provision Merchants

  National Federation of Wholesale Poultry Merchants National Game Dealers Association

  National Joint Council of British Potato & Vegetable Merchants Association

  National Market Traders Federation

  National Union of Licensed Victuallers

  National Union of Retail Confectioners

  North of England Wholesale Grocers Association

  87

  Port Wine Trade Association

  Potato Marketing Board

  Pre-Packed Flour Association

  Produce Packaging & Marketing Association

  The Retail Consortium

  Retail Distributors Association Ltd.

  Sherry Shippers Association

  Smithfield Market Tenants Association

  South Western Fish Buyers & Processors Association

  Association of British Meat Processors

  Association of British Preserved Milk Manufacturers Association of British Salters and Curers

  Association of Batter, Blender and Butters and Cheese Packers

  Association of Butter and Cheese Manufacturers Association of Cereal Food Manufacturers

  Association of Malt Products Manufacturers

  Association of Non-Brewed Condiment Manufacturers

  Association of Salmon Smokers and Processors

  Association of Unpasteurised Milk Producers and Consumers

  Automatic Vending Association of Britain

  Bacon and Meat Manufacturers Association

  The Bakers Union

  Bakery Allied Traders Association

  The Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate & Confectionery Alliance

  The Bristol & District Grocers and Provision Dealers Association

  British Broiler Growers Association Ltd.

  British Chemical Distribution and Traders Association British Commercial Rabbit Association

  British Compounders Association

  British Deer Farmers

  British Deer Society

  British Essences Manufacturers Association

  British Food Manufacturers Industries Research Association

  British Glucose Manufacturers Association

  British Meat Manufacturers Association

  British Oat and Barley Millers Association

  British Pearl Barley Millers Association

  British Potato Trades Consortium

  British Poultry Federation Ltd.

  British Poultry Meat Association Ltd.

  British Salt Federation

  British Sheep Dairying Association

  British Snail Farmers Association

  British Soluble Coffee Manufacturers Association

  British Sugar Corporation

  British Turkey Federation Ltd.

  Cake and Biscuit Alliance

  Civic Catering Association

  Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance

  Coffee Trade Federation

  Combined Edible Nut Trade

  Commercial Queen Rearer Association

  Council of National Bee Keeping Association of UK

  Creamery Proprietors Association

  Dairy Trade Federation

  Danish Bacon Board

  Ducks Producers Association

  Eggs Authority

  The English Herring Catchers Association

  Federation of Bakers

  Federation of Gelatine and Glue Manufacturers

  Food and Drink Federation

  Fruit and Vegetable Canners Association

  Gin Rectifiers and Distillers Association

  Hamper Industry Trade Association

  Hops Marketing Board

  Ice Cream Alliance Ltd.

  Ice Cream Federation Ltd.

  Incorporate National Association of British & Irish Millers Limited

  Isle of Man Fisherman's Association

  Isle of Man Fish Processors Association

  Licensed Animal Slaughterers and Salvage

  Licensed Horse Slaughterers and Salvage Association

  Margarine and Shortening Manufacturers Association

  National Association of British and Irish Millers Ltd.

  National Association of British Wine Producers

  88

  National Association of Cider Makers

  National Association of Creamery Proprietors and Wholesale Dairies

  National Association of Master Bakers, Confectioners and Caterers

  National Association of Perry Makers

  National Association of Soft Drink Manufacturers Ltd.

  National Cheese Council

  National Dairy Council

  National Egg Packers Association Ltd.

  National Federation of Cold Storage and Ice Trades

  National Food and Drink Federation

  National Sausage Casing Association

  Pet Food Association

  Pet Food Manufacturers Association

  Poultry Association of Great Britain

  Retail Confectioners and Tobacconists Association

  Rusk Manufacturers Federation

  Salmon and Trout Association

  Salt Manufacturers Association

  Scotch Whisky Association

  Sea Fishing Industry Authority

  Sea Products International

  Seed Crushers and Oil Processors Association

  Self Raising Flour Association

  Shellfish Association of Great Britain

  Shellfish Industry Authority (Hull)

  Snack, Nut and Crisp Manufacturers Association Ltd.

  Specialist Cheesemakers Association

  Tonic Wine Producers Association

  Traditional Farm Fresh Turkey Association

  United Kingdom Association of Manufacturers of Bakers Yeast

  United Kingdom Cheese Guild

  United Kingdom Dairy Association

  United Kingdom Egg Producers Association Ltd.

  United Kingdom Provisions

  United Kingdom Renderers Association

  United Kingdom Sugar Industry Association

  Vinegar Brewers Federation

  Vodka Trade Association

  Watercress Growers Association

  Wild Boar Association

  Association of Casing Importers Ltd.

  Brandy Shippers Association

  British Association of Canned and Preserved Food Importers and Distributors

  Fruit Importers Association

  Fruit Juice Importers Association

  Imported Meat Trade Association Ltd.

  Liquer Importers Association

  Advertising Association

  Association of British Abattoir Owners Ltd.

  Association of British Chamber of Commerce

  Association of Railway Preservation Societies

  Association of Sea Fishers Committees of England and Wales Bee Farmers Association

  British Association of Ships Suppliers

  British Baking Industry Research Association

  British Beekeepers Association

  British Brush Manufacturers Association

  British Ceramic Research and Traders Association Ltd.

  British Diatetic Association

  British Field Sport Society

  British Fishermans Association

  British Goat Society

  British Independent Grocers Association

  British Industries Biological Research Association

  British Medical Association

  British Ports Federation

  British Railways Board

  British Standards Institution

  British Vetinary Association

  British Tourist Authority

  Brixham Trawlers Owners Association

  Bus and Coach Council

  Butter Information Council

  Campden Food Preservation and Research Organisation

  Chemical Industries Association

  Co-operative Union

  89

  Flour Milling and Baking Research Association

  The Food Hygiene Bureau

  Food Manufacturers Industrial Group

  Food Policy Research Unit, University of Bradford

  The Food Research Institute

  Freight Transport Association

  GMB Union

  International Natural Gums Association for Research

  Isinglass Manufacturers Association

  Leatherhead Food Research Association

  Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  London Egg Exchange

  London Food Commerce

  National Association of Health Stores

  National Chamber of Trade

  National Farmers Union

  National Freight Federation

  National Institute for Research in Dairying

  Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry

  National Pharmaceutical Association

  National Physical Laboratory

  Natural Food Colours Association

  North East Coast Fishing Vessel Owners Association

  Pea Pickers and Pea Packers Association

  The Post Office

  Proprietary Association of Great Britain

  Research Institute for Consumer Affairs

  Tea Buyers Association

  UK Provision Trade Federation

  British Hotel Federation

  British Hotel, Restaurants and Caterers Association

  Confederation of Fried Fish Caterers Association

  Confederation of Fried Fish Cateries

  Hospital Caterers Association

  National Association of Catering Butchers

  National Catering Federation

  Restauranteurs Association of Great Britain

  Scarborough Hotels Association

  British Frozen Food Federation

  British Refrigeration Association

  National Cold Storage Federation

  In addition, approximately 240 other individuals and organisations have been consulted.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the grant element used for each local authority in Scotland in calculating the tax liability for a house with two or more adults in that authority area in 1991–92 for the purposes of tables 1 and 2 in the annex to the consultation paper, "A New Tax for Local Government".

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 April 1991]: The illustrative figures were calculated at district level, and for this purpose regional community charge income was apportioned to districts in proportion to the community charge tax base. With grant similarly apportioned to districts, the grant amounts assumed for the purposes of the calculation are set out in the table. The figures allow for revenue support grant, community charge grant and grant under the personal community charge reduction scheme.

  Grant total £

  Berwickshire

  14,414,578

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  25,380,818

  Roxburgh

  27,491,083

  Tweeddale

  11,368,346

  Clackmannan

  27,539,962

  Falkirk

  81,274,179

  Stirling

  44,617,462

  Annandale and Eskdale

  27,454,017

  Nithsdale

  41,675,769

  Stewartry

  17,721,405

  90

  Grant total £

  Wigtown

  22,758,395

  Dunfermline

  71,591,125

  Kirkcaldy

  83,761,661

  North East Fife

  40,976,839

  Aberdeen City

  130,510,392

  Banff and Buchan

  51,047,129

  Gordon

  45,115,129

  Kincardine and Deeside

  29,962,875

  Moray

  51,446,270

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  9,183,496

  Caithness

  21,781,863

  Inverness

  48,782,813

  Lochaber

  15,157,189

  Nairn

  8,579,407

  Ross and Cromarty

  39,539,931

  Skye and Lochalsh

  10,189,375

  Sutherland

  11,813,807

  East Lothian

  39,133,089

  Edinburgh City

  213,518,570

  Midlothian

  38,349,029

  West Lothian

  68,401,040

  Argyll and Bute

  44,409,721

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  24,121,307

  Clydesbank

  31,596,178

  Clydesdale

  36,677,761

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  38,196,487

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  29,106,142

  Cunninghame

  83,783,569

  Dumbarton

  47,621,138

  East Kilbride

  49,765,499

  Eastwood

  35,653,554

  Glasgow City

  465,399,616

  Hamilton

  66,255,835

  Inverclyde

  61,644,107

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  52,566,746

  Kyle and Carrick

  72,650,459

  Monklands

  69,487,982

  Motherwell

  93,897,412

  Renfrew

  128,132,921

  Strathkelvin

  53,883,882

  Angus

  62,577,035

  Dundee City

  114,451,379

  Perth and Kinross

  80,998,493

  Total

  3,113,414,165

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fraud
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of alleged fraud were detected in relation to(a) income support and (b) social fraud, which were considered for civil legal proceedings in England, Scotland and Wales in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department does not collect information on the number of cases considered for civil legal proceedings which relate to alleged fraud involving social security payments. A case is accepted for proceedings on the basis that a debt exists, with no distinction being made between fraudulent and non-fraudulent cases. Proceedings will be considered in all cases where the overpayment is £300 or more after other attempts to recover the debt have been exhausted.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including
  91
  vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department of Social Security holds no records to show the numbers of statisticians in

  Numbers of Staff in statistical divisions on 1 April 1989, 90, 91

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Admin.

  Prof.

  Total

  Admin.

  Prof.

  Total

  Admin.

  Prof.

  Total

  Grade

  1

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  2

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  3

  —

  0·33

  0·33

  —

  0·33

  0·33

  —

  0·33

  ·33

  4

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  5

  —

  2

  2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  2

  2

  6

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  7

  1

  9

  10

  —

  8

  8

  —

  8

  8

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  —

  2

  2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  7

  7

  Assistant Statistician

  —

  2

  2

  —

  4

  4

  —

  2

  2

  SEO

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  HEO

  11

  —

  11

  9

  —

  9

  7·5

  —

  7·5

  EO

  19·5

  —

  19·5

  12·5

  —

  12·5

  10·5

  —

  10·5

  AO

  33

  —

  33

  34·5

  —

  34·5

  33

  —

  33

  AA

  7

  —

  7

  6

  —

  6

  5

  —

  5

  S/PES

  2

  —

  2

  2·33

  —

  2·33

  2

  —

  2

  Total

  75·5

  15·33

  90·83

  64·33

  16·33

  80·66

  58

  19·33

  77·33

  Vacancies in statistical divisions on 1 April 1989, 90, 91

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Admin.

  Prof.

  Total

  Admin.

  Prof.

  Total

  Admin.

  Prof.

  Total

  Grade

  1

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Assistant Statistician

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  1

  1

  SEO

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  HEO

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  EO

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  AO

  —

  —

  0

  2·5

  —

  2·5

  —

  —

  —

  AA

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  S/PES

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  5

  1

  6

  2·5

  0

  2·5

  —

  1

  1

  Mortgage Interest Payments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward proposals to regulate the amount which can be claimed to pay mortgage interest payments on homes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Regulations exist to limit the amount which can be paid for mortgage interest through income support where payments are excessive. This is where:

  The accommodation is too large; or

  The accommodation is situated in an unnecessarily expensive area; or

  The outgoings are higher than those on suitable alternative accommodation in the same area.

  The restriction—to the amount that the claimant would need to obtain suitable alternative accommodation—applies from the outset of the claim if the claimant could not afford the financial commitment when it was entered into, provided it is reasonable to expect the claimant and family to move. Its application my be deferred for
  92
  DHSS before the split of the Department in 1989. Figures for the years since 1989 are shown in the table and give the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the analytical services division of DSS. The figures are not strictly comparable between years because of reorganisation of the Department's analytical services.

  26 weeks where the commitment was affordable and for up to a further 26 weeks if the claimant is using his best endeavours to obtain cheaper accommodation.

  This regulation is, like all social security legislation, kept under careful review.

  Benefits
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of people in the constituency of Argyll and Bute receiving(a) retirement pension, (b) widow's benefit, including death benefit, (c) invalidity benefit, (d) invalid care allowance, (e) severe disablement allowance, (f) unemployability supplement and (g) child benefit; how many of those in (a) to (f) also receive child benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Information relating to these benefits is not available for individual constituencies.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of people in
  93
  Scotland receiving (a) retirement pension, (b) widow's benefit, including death benefit, (c) invalidity benefit, (d) invalid care allowance, (e) severe disablement allowance, (f) unemployability supplement and (g) child benefit; how many of those in (a) to (f) also receive child benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The table shows the latest available figures:

  Benefit

  Number receiving in Scotland

  Date to which information relates

  Retirement Pension

  809,490

  30 September 1990

  Widows Benefit

  38,510

  31 March 1990

  Invalidity Benefit

  169,300

  31 March 1990

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  33,600

  31 March 1990

  Child Benefit

  609,000

  21 February 1991

  Widow's payment, which is a lump sum payment of £1,000, may be payable for those women who were widowed after April 1988. Information relating to the number of widows receiving a widow's payment is not available for Scotland.

  Information relating to the number of people receiving invalid care allowance and unemployability supplement is not available for Scotland.

  Information relating to the number of benefit recipients also receiving child benefit is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  94
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount paid out in state benefits, including mortgage interest relief, to people earning more than(a) the national average wage and (b) two thirds of national average wage at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jack
  The latest available information on benefit payments is for 1987; the closest corresponding period for which information on mortgage tax relief is available is the financial year 1987–88. On this basis, the estimated benefit payments to family units with total gross earnings of more than the specified levels, based on average male earnings, were:

  (a) about £6.7 billion;

  (b) about £9.7 billion.

  Child benefit represents around two thirds of those benefit payments.

  Resettlement Unit
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the business plan of the Resettlement Unit executive agency for 1991–92 will be published.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The 1991–92 business plan has today been placed in the Library.

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

Whaling: Moratorium
Lord Gridley Lord Gridley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to withdraw from the international agreement on the ban on whaling.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the United Kingdom was among the leading coutries in achieving the moratorium on commercial whaling. We are not prepared even to contemplate lifting the moratorium unless and until certain conditions are met. This is not yet the case.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for than. Answer. Is he aware that only at the beginning of last week there was confusion about the Government's intended position on whaling at the early meeting of the International Whaling Commission? As a consultant on wildlife care, I was pursued about the matter.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government have long been in the lead in pressing for the conservation of whales. The moratorium achieved under the International Whaling Commission is still in place after its review last year. The number of whales taken for scientific whaling purposes during the moratorium has been greatly reduced as a result of the pressures of the International Whaling Commission. Furthermore, the EC has prohibited trade in whale products. The Government will continue to work for the conservation of whales through all appropriate means.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher My Lords, will the Minister accept an assurance that Members on this side of the House fully support the line that the Government are taking in respect of the moratorium on the international whaling, agreement? Countries such as Norway and Iceland like to be thought of in world terms as being environmentally conscious and sensitive. Why are they in favour of ending the moratorium or, if that is not achieved, in favour of a breakaway agreement which will permit them to resume limited whaling? In the light of the position taken by Norway and Iceland, will the Government remind themselves that those countries are affluent in terms of fish? Indeed, in 1990 one-third of all fish imported into this country came from Iceland.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his opening remarks. Iceland has observed the moratorium since it was introduced. However, it continued scientific; whaling up to and including 1989. Norway has not withdrawn its formal objection to the moratorium but it ceased coastal whaling after the
472
1987 season. Since then it has conducted some research whaling. During the past year it has taken only five whales in order to examine the digestive biology of the minke whale. The moratorium on whaling has no connection with negotiations on fishing opportunities. However, during the mid 1970s most countries in the world moved to a 200 mile fishery limit, including the United Kingdom. Our limits were laid down in the 1976 Act. Fishing within the limits of other countries must be a matter for negotiation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I acknowledge that my noble friend's Answer will be received with satisfaction by whales throughout the world. However, will he confirm that the point is not merely one of conservation but of the inherent cruelty in the methods of killing whales in any form?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend. My right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made clear that we cannot contemplate lifting the moratorium on commercial whaling until certain conditions are met, including the condition that killing must be as humane as possible. Those conditions have not yet been met.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, what scientific purpose is served by scientific whaling? Is it not used by some countries engaged in whaling, in particular the Japanese, as a cover for killing whales for commercial use and food?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government have taken the lead in pressing for scientific research projects which involve taking whales to be modified or withdrawn when they have not been accepted by the scientific committee as being essential for the comprehensive assessment of whale stocks or the development of a revised management procedure. That pressure has resulted in some projects being withdrawn and the number of whales taken to be reduced in others. The international convention for the regulation of whaling provides for whaling under research permits. Therefore, Japan and Norway have been acting within the terms of the convention but have modified programmes in the light of the view of the International Whaling Commission.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in his initial reply, the noble Earl referred to certain conditions being met and he has just named one; namely, the humane killing of whales. Are there any other conditions? If so, can he specify them?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, indeed I can. There are three conditions: first, stocks must be at healthy and sustainable levels; secondly, a satisfactory management procedure must be in place; and thirdly, the methods used to take the whales must be as humane as possible.

Houses: Starts and Completions
2.43 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the figures for new starts and completions of housing in the first quarter of this year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, house building figures for March 1991 are not yet available. However, in the three months up to February 1991, 31,400 new dwellings were started in Great Britain and 43,900 were completed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does she not agree that the figures are somewhat disappointing although there are signs that the building industry is bottoming out? Is she not aware that at a meeting in one of your Lordships' Committee Rooms last week representatives of the Building Employers Confederation told Members of your Lordships' House that tender prices in the building industry are at present the most advantageous in living memory? Therefore, would it not make sense for the Government to allow local authorities to make available increased sums of money from their capital receipts so enabling those authorities and the housing associations to take advantage of the very good terms which can now be negotiated and thereby improve the disappointing figures?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in 1988 private enterprise house building was at its highest since 1973. From that peak and because of the need to raise interest rates to keep down inflation, the fall during 1989–90 was not surprising. However, the Government's clear and prime task remains the overwhelming defeat of inflation.
The noble Lord assumes that local authorities are the only providers of houses. He asks whether credit approvals can be given to local authorities to enable them to spend their receipts. The point has been made a number of times that the authorities with the highest receipts are not those with the highest need. Government compensate for that by making sure that allocations for credit approval go to the authorities with the greatest need.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I reinforce what has been said: the building industry is crying out for a lead. It is up to the Government to give that lead, particularly at this time. Will the Minister not say to those sensible councils—and there are quite a few—which are not allowed to use money from the sale of council houses, that they can now use that money to instruct the building industry to start building houses for them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the same argument applies as regards credit approvals. The areas of highest need would not have the money to spend. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, makes a very important point and I hope that nothing I say detracts from a recognition of the difficulties experienced by the
474
building industry. However, the best thing that the Government can do for the building industry is to continue the downward trend of inflation. That will increase work for the building industry.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, with further reference to the meeting mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, which was presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, are the Government not concerned about the massive ebbs and flows in house building requirements and their impact on training and the retention of skilled personnel? Is the noble Baroness aware that one result is to open up the sector more and more to foreign competition?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand entirely the point raised by the noble Lord about the difficulties experienced by the building industry. When interest rates were lower the industry was in good heart and reached a peak. As I said, in 1988 the peak was greater than that reached in 1973. The best course that we can take for the building industry is to continue our war against inflation and to bring down interest rates as is beginning to
happen.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a serious situation when 121,900 completions represent half the number required to meet the needs arising from new family formation, slum clearance and houses going out of occupation? Does that not mean that in the years ahead there will be a severe shortage of housing which in turn will push up the price of housing and make it less available to those in need at the bottom end of the income scale?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I return to the central point. Economic buoyancy will help the building of houses. I must throw a question back to the noble Lord in view of what the leader of his party said yesterday. If there is no more money to come from the Labour Party for housing, where will it come from? I believe that the noble Lord is suggesting that money from government is the answer to the problem.
I am not apologetic about the Government's record. Since 1979, housing stock has risen by 2 million, which is far in excess of the increase in population. Owner occupation has risen from 57 per cent. to 69 per cent. The Housing Corporation's expenditure is set to rise to £2 billion from f I billion only a year ago. Housing benefit has increased to 100 per cent. of eligible rent and has doubled since 1979. I could continue: I have no need to apologise for the record of the Government. At present there is a problem as regards house building. However, the best thing that we can do for house builders is to make sure that the economic climate is right so that more houses can be built to satisfy the need for them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister chose to accuse my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick of being selective when he spoke of the need for more council house starts. Is it not the case that her answers refer purely to private sector starts and completions? Does the Minister not agree that it

475
would be better if we thought about both the private and public sectors contributing to the solution of housing need?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the figures I gave in my reply related to all housing.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister made a mistake in saying that I spoke only of councils building houses. I did not. I specifically referred also to the Housing Corporation and housing associations. The Minister makes the point that she is defending the Government's record. She must be aware that over the past 13 years since the Government have been in office, 1 he house building record in this country has been the worst of any 10 years since the war. If the end product is that more people are sleeping in boxes every winter, despite the valiant efforts of Sir George Young last winter, does the Minister believe that we as a society should accept that as a cure for inflation? I do not.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it depends to which statistic the noble Lord is referring. If he is referring to the building done between the First World War and the Second World War, that is understandable. It started from an extremely low base.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am speaking of the last world war.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in that case the figures are not the worst if one takes house building as a whole. The noble Lord referred to housing associations. I was saying that their budget is set to rise to £2 billion. The noble Lord's figures may be right if he is referring exclusively to local authority housing It has been a deliberate policy of the Government to switch responsibility for providing houses from local authorities to the private sector and to housing associations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me a question: she is entitled to an answer: she wanted to know what Labour Party policy was on the matter. The noble Baroness will be aware that I do not speak for the Labour Front Bench in an official capacity.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that during any period of Labour government the housing starts figure never fell to the low level that we see today?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot answer that question specifically. However, the record of this Government throughout the past decade in addressing the specific problems of housing, whether new house build, housing the homeless or helping people to buy their own homes, is unequalled.

Factory Inspectors
2.53 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to restore the number of factory inspectors to the figure in post in 1980.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, on 1st April 1991, 650 factory inspectors were in post in the Health and Safety Executive, an increase of 10 per cent. since 1988. Details of further planned increases in the number of inspectors will be set out in the Health and Safety Commission's plan of work for 1991–92 and beyond, to be published at the end of May.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that that is not an Answer to my Question? My Question related to when the Government intend to return to the figures of 1980. It has not been answered. It is the third time I have asked the Question. Does the Minister realise that at the rate he suggests it will take 25 years to get back to the 1980 figure? When are the Government going to improve on their record?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I understand that the HSE has a provisional planned figure of 702 factory inspectors in post on 1st April 1992. Following the approval by the Secretary of State for Employment of the Health and Safety Commission's plan of work for 1991–92 and beyond, I confirm the HSE's target of 702 factory inspectors in post by 1st April 1992. I understand the point made by the noble Lord that the figure of 702 does not reach the figure of 759. However, it goes a long way towards it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to the report of the HSE, there has been an increase in the number of fatalities in manufacturing industry and that that trend appears to be continuing? Does it not seem wrong in such circumstances that the number of planned visits which factory inspectors have been making to manufacturing establishments has declined between 1987 and the present day?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, may be thinking that the number of inspections per staff unit has decreased. While that is so, the total number of inspections by factory inspectors is planned to rise to 177,100 this year. That is a rise of over 50,000 in two years. That is due to the overall rise in the number of inspectors.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that it is wholly unreasonable for the Labour Party to ask these questions considering that manufacturing industry has declined so much under the present Government?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord should remember that in recent years the Government have met the HSC's PES bids in full. Gross provision was increased to £184 million in 1991–92; that is an increase of £24 million over 1991.

477
In the 1990 PES round gross provision was increased to £196 million in 1992–93, and £213 million in 1993–94.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is it not a fact that what matters is not the number of factory inspectors but the number of inspections that they undertake, and the adequacy of those inspections? Does my noble friend have any figures comparing now with 1980?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not have those figures. However, there was a slight drop in the number of factory inspections in 1988–89; they are now on the increase. HSC's last published plan of work for 1991 and beyond provided for increased numbers of preventive inspections last year, this year and next.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the main point of my question related to the number of fatalities in manufacturing industry, which are on the increase. Therefore is it not necessary for there to be more planned factory inspections rather than fewer? According to the information in the HSE report, there has been a decline since 1987–88. In 1987–88 it was 631; in the following year it was down to 593, and last year it was 570. Is not that entirely the wrong tendency?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, over the past 20 years the number of reported fatal injuries to employees has decreased from around 776 in 1971 to a provisional figure of 339 in 1989–90. The injury rate of 1989–90 is well below the 1988–89 level. I remind the House that the 1988–89 figures include the 167 fatalities that occurred on Piper Alpha.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, apart from statistics, which are so difficult to remember, can my noble friend say whether it is or is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to take this matter seriously not only on humanitarian grounds, but also because it affects productivity? Can he confirm that it is the policy of the Government to increase the inspectorate and ensure that inspections are properly conducted?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I come back to the figures of gross provision which I gave to the House earlier.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, should be that under the present figures we get one inspection per day per inspector? In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is it not correct that if the Government took the matter seriously we would not have a situation such as existed in the middle of the 1980s, since when the accident rate has not decreased but has stagnated?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, since April 1988 the number of inspectors, including 25 railway inspectors, has increased by 136. That is an increase of 11.7 per cent. That is a total of 1,165 in April 1988 increasing to 1,301 in April 1990–91. As I
478
said, further increases are planned in 1991–92. The number of inspectors employed by HSE on 1st April 1991 was the highest since December 1982.

The Badminton Cabinet
3 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to ensure that the Badminton cabinet remains in the United Kingdom.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has deferred the decision on the export licence application for the Badminton cabinet until after 17th May 1991. This is to give an opportunity for an offer to purchase to be made at or above the recommended price of £8,697,000. The National Art Collections Fund, on behalf of the Fitzwilliam Museum, has launched a national appeal to raise the necessary funds. I wish the fund every success in its endeavour.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Do the Government accept that the Badminton cabinet is the finest, the largest and the last of the baroque cabinets made by the famous Medici workshop in Florence? Are the Government further aware that it was commissioned in 1719 by a former Member of your Lordships' House, and that it bears the Plantagenet arms, which came to the Beauforts through John of Gaunt? Does my noble friend agree that, if this masterpiece were to go to the United States, it would be a loss to the heritage not only of this country but of Europe? Does he further agree that if the cabinet remains here, it will be in one of our great museums? At present it is at the Tate Gallery.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the cabinet is a very fine example. There is an appeal in progress. The sum of £2.65 million has been raised to date, of which £1.5 million has come from the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Incidentally, the grant aid for 1991–92 has been quadrupled to £12 million by the Government.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Badminton cabinet was offered by the trustees to a museum for £4 million, which is half the amount it fetched later at auction? Is the noble Viscount further aware that the same thing happened with the Chatsworth drawings? They were offered for half the price which was eventually reached. Will the Government consider changing their policy so that items of this importance can be accepted before they go to auction and reach inflated prices? Is the Minister aware that, if that had happened in France with a similar historic treasure, it would have been bought immediately by the French state?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. About seven months prior to the sale at Christie's the cabinet was offered by the trustees of the Beaufort family to the Victoria and Albert

479
Museum for £4 million, with three years in which to pay that sum. The trustees of the V&A felt unable to take up the offer.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the whole system of export stops has been rendered farcical by the lack of adequate government finance? Will the Government now consider a system by which, if an export ban is imposed on a work of art, they will find the money so that a national collection can acquire it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government are doing a great deal in this area. They accept heritage items, buildings and land in lieu of inheritance tax dues. Since 1985 over £42 million-worth of tax has been satisfied by such items. The Government offer a significant tax concession to individuals who own items on which inheritance tax is due if the items are sold to an approved institution. Since 1985 items valued in excess of £55 million have been acquired by UK national museums and galleries through the mechanisms of the private treaty sale at a cost to those institut ons of only £25 million.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister spoke about tax allowances. However, does he agree that in this country they apply only after death? There are no tax allowances during a person's lifetime, and that is what is needed. Does the Minister agree that all the facts shout out that not enough money is put into the system?
Last year, out of 15 export stops, only five of the objects were saved and they were at the lower end of the financial scale. Does the Minister agree that if this situatiop continues without the Government intervening and putting more money into these funds, we shall gradually have a draining away of our most valuable pieces of heritage, wherever they originally came from, and that that will be a great loss to the country as a whole?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there are tax concessions for people to give articles in lieu of tax which need not only be on death. They can be gifts made before death. Over the past five years, of the items found to be of national importance in which decisions on licence applications were referred, 51 per cent. have stayed in this country.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, do the Government agree that it is only worth spending this very large sum of money on the cabinet if it is to remain at Badminton? Judging from photographs, to my mind the cabinet is not an outstandingly beautiful object. If it is a very remarkable piece of carpentry which is to be put in to a museum, then it might just as well go to Italy or America. The money saved could be used for things which are essential to this country such as the preservation of buildings which once taken down cannot be put up again. I include also the integral fittings of such buildings.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, makes an interesting point. My noble friend the
480
Minister for the Arts is concerned only with export licences. He is not concerned whether the Badminton cabinet stays at Badminton.
Lord Renton: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, will my noble friend accept that the photographs have not done justice to the magnificence of this cabinet? The noble Lord can see the cabinet for himself at the Tate Gallery. In view of the strong representations made this afternoon by noble Lords, will my noble friend tell his colleagues in the Government who are concerned with this matter that the time has come to revise our system of saving works of art and therefore our export licence system?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is a very fine cabinet. It is currently at the Tate Gallery. I am sure that if any noble Lord wishes to make a donation, it will be gratefully received.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Hooper will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the business plans for National Health Service Trusts.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Child Support Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Committee Work of the House: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee appointed to consider the committee work of the House:

L. Bancroft,

L. Beaverbrook,

L. Boston of Faversham,

L. Dormand of Easington,

E. Jellicoe (Chairman),

L. Kearton,

L. Pym,

L. Thurlow,

L. Tordoff.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place; That the Committee have leave to report from time to time; That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out; That the Committee do meet on Tuesday, 7 May, at 4.30 p.m. in Committee Room 4.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question of the Chairman of Committees. When was the report of the Select Committee of Selection available to Members of the House? My understanding is that it was available on Thursday evening. If that is so, and the House wanted to consider amendments to the list, bearing in mind that it does not contain the name of a Member of the other sex in your Lordships' House, there is no way in which an amendment could be made by placing the Motion on the Order Paper today. If I am right in saying that the report was laid on Thursday, then Members of the House would have seen the proposal only today unless they came in on Friday morning. I may be wrong in suggesting Thursday, but perhaps the noble Lord can confirm whether I am right or wrong.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am of the opinion that it was available on Wednesday. That is my advice.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Road Traffic Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 21,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 22 to 25,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 26 to 42,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 43 to 46,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 47 to 60,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 61 to 71,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 72 to 77,

Schedule 7.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tay Road Bridge Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time.
Clause 81 [For protection of Scottish Hydro-Electric plc]:
The Earl of Strathmore and
Kinghorn The Earl of Strathmore and
Kinghorn moved the following amendment:
Page 25, line 47, leave out ("19") and insert ("64")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that this amendment in no way affects the content of the clause. It is purely a drafting amendment which corrects the reference in the clause to other sections within the order confirmation Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendment.

Water Industry Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the first of five Bills on the Order Paper in my name. If I may, I shall speak to all five together, and then move the outstanding four formally, together with the consequential Motion in connection with the fifth. I should like to express my appreciation, and I trust also that of the House, to the Law Commission and the draftsman, who have made such an outstanding job of this enormous consolidation exercise.
The Water Act 1989 substantially restructured the law of England and Wales relating to water. The functions which were previously combined as functions of the water authorities became divided between a new national body known as the National Rivers Authority and the companies appointed to be the new water and sewerage undertakers.
The 1989 Act made extensive amendments to the enactments relating to the functions previously vested in the water authorities and this alone made an early consolidation essential. In addition, the financing of land drainage and flood defence has been significantly modified by powers conferred for the purposes of the new system of local government finance introduced by the Local Government Finance Act 1988. This makes it desirable to consolidate the enactments relating to land drainage, even those which were only incidentally affected by the 1989 Act.
The two main Bills of the consolidation, the Water Industry Bill and the Water Resources Bill, bring together the principal legislation from the 1989 Act and elsewhere dealing with the National Rivers Authority and with the new undertakers respectively.
The 1989 Act also made provision, in connection with its other provisions, for the corporate structure and powers of the statutory water companies. These provisions, together with all the surviving legislation on the same subject from public Acts, are consolidated in the Statutory Water Companies Bill.
Until the 1989 Act, land drainage functions were vested in the water authorities, internal drainage boards and local authorities. The 1989 Act substantially amended the law relating to these functions, and the Land Drainage Bill reproduces the functions of the internal drainage boards and local authorities and the new provisions about drainage rates resulting from the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
Finally, there is the Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill which is ancillary to

483
the four main Bills. It deals with consequential amendments and repeals and transitional and saving provisions relating to the four Bills.
The Law Commission has, in accordance with usual practice, issued a report on the consolidation in which it makes a number of recommendations for minor technical amendments to remove anomalies and inconsistencies which came to light during the consolidation exercise.
There is a special Motion on the Order Paper relating to this consolidation. The Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill is an essential part of the consolidation but it is not strictly a consolidation Bill. It is most conveniently dealt with, along with the other four Bills, by the Joint Committee, but the rules of the House require that the House refer it to the Joint Committee specifically. The other Bills will go through to the Joint Committee in the ordinary course. I beg to move that the first of the five Bills be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.15 p. m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am keenly aware of the restrictive nature of our consideration of consoli cation Bills and I certainly do not wish to trespass on the time of the House or indeed on its rules of procedure. However, there are two matters of drafting which I would wish to draw to the attention of the Joint Committee. There are also some other matters to which I should like briefly to refer. They concern issues where in our view, in regard to the possibility of a choice by the Joint Committee between the provisions which come from the later legislation—the 1989 Act in particular—and earlier legislation, perhaps the wrong decision may have been made.
The first of my two technical points refers to Clause 3 of and Schedule 1 to the Land Drainage Bill. In Clause 3(2) (g) the opportunity has not been taken in the drafting of the Bill to see that all of the electoral arrangements of internal drainage boards are regulated by Schedule 1. I propose to write to the Clerk of the Joint Committee suggesting that this possibility would not be outwith the powers of a Joint Committee for a consolidation Bill. The second issue is in Clause 12 of the Land Drainage Bill where environmental duties which apply to the Minister, to the National Rivers Authority and to internal drainage boards ought, we suggest, also to apply to local authorities which act as drainage authorities. That again is a matter where there is a choice. It would be more logical and rational for these environmental duties to apply to all drainage authorities.
It is a matter for regret that the opportunity has not been taken to resolve the issue of the special status of flood defence committees within the National Rivers Authority. They are the only committees which are not advisory committees. It is regrettable that the opportunity has not been taken to abolish the internal drainage boards, which are no longer required. It is a pity that there is no consideration of the national priorities for the funds from the Government for land drainage. It is a pity that there is no indication that the
484
priorities for works should be areas of high conservation value. Finally, it is a pity that responsibility for land drainage is not transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of the Environment where so many other related obligations lie. These are points which I well understand are beyond the capacity of the Joint Committee. I shall, however, if I may, write to the Clerk to the Joint Committee to make the points which I have outlined briefly.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills will be glad to receive the letter and to consider the matters that lie properly within the competence of that committee.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Water Resources Bill [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Statutory Water Companies Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Land Drainage Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, for the reason which I sought to explain in opening, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.—( The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message was sent to the Commons desiring their agreement thereto.

Gaming (Bingo) [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—( The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule I [Maintenance Assessments]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 31, line 39, leave out ("zero") and insert ("0.24").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was moved in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It has been retabled to discover whether we can receive a clearer explanation from the Government of how they propose to deal with the problem which is the subject of the amendment.
The amendment aims to ensure that, where an absent parent enjoys a degree of affluence, an equitable share of that income is directed to the children who remain with the caring parent. The amendment seeks to secure an increase in the additional income to a level which is higher than is currently proposed.
There is a wealth of evidence—much of which has been quoted during the passage of the Bill—to show the hardship which many lone parents and their children endure. Even with appropriate benefits and maintenance paid, many lone parents and their children exist on lower income levels than those of comparable two-parent families.
The amendment seeks to ensure that, where the absent parent has sufficient income, the caring parent and the children should have the chance to share in that affluence and to experience a lifestyle which approximates more nearly to the one they might have led had the marriage not broken down. The White Paper proposed that once the maintenance bill was met, the absent parent should pay only 15 per cent. of his or her assessable income as maintenance. As the maintenance bill is set at income support levels, that low percentage ties the maintenance much too closely, in our view, to income support levels.
When the matter was discussed in Committee, the argument seemed to be that the low paid spend a higher proportion of family income on children than do the affluent. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
"But we wish to maintain a proper balance between recognising that children should share in parents' prosperity
486
and the practical fact that this share does not necessarily remain constant as income grows".—[Official Report, 19/3/91; col. 564.]
We believe that that is incorrect. It is common sense that children generally benefit from their parents' higher standard of living through their shared consumption of many items such as home, holidays, cars and so on, and also through the direct expenditure which is made upon them. Indeed, the whole idea of child maintenance in family law contains relationships to the standard of living that the child would have enjoyed if the marriage had not broken down.
By reducing the maintenance calculation so dramatically once the maintenance bill is met, the Government are tying the maintenance bill much too closely, in our view, to income support levels. We know that these are set at subsistence levels. The effect of living at such levels over many years has been the subject of much research which has shown that it becomes increasingly hard to meet the children's needs when there is a long-term reliance on income support.
As regards what would happen to families if they went to the child support agency, once again we detect a difference in treatment between the children of the poorer lone parent, who has to go through the agency, and the children of the richer lone parent, who can afford to go to court to obtain a settlement.
The issue here is most important. We would appreciate a more detailed assurance from the Minister than that which we received in Committee. At that stage the Minister, at col. 564, said:
"I shall certainly consider the points he made as to what the rates should be for those on higher incomes. We propose to consult on the regulations".
The Government may not be too happy with our suggestion of 0.24 per cent. in the calculation. Therefore, may we please be told what figure the Government have in mind? I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I am not sure whether I can take the noble Lord any further than I did in Committee. However, I should stress that the figure of 15 per cent. quoted in the White Paper was given purely for illustrative purposes. I accept that the noble Lord, and indeed many other commentators, may feel that the deduction rate of 15 per cent. is not high enough.
The amendment would ensure that the rate had to be at least 25 per cent. I should emphasise again that this is the rate which applies to assessable income in excess of the amount needed to meet the maintenance requirement. Until the maintenance requirement is met, we propose that the deduction rate should be 15 per cent.
In passing, perhaps I may correct something that I said in Committee. I referred to a "reduction rate". I believe that that was a slip of the tongue and one which I should have corrected in Hansard. I am sure that I meant to refer to the deduction rate.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, myself and many others, would agree that maintenance should not stop with the basic provision, because there will be some expenses which it does not always cover. We agree that children should have a share in parents

487
prosperity. However, the issue is how best to maintain a proper balance between recognising that children should share in parents' prosperity and the fact that this share will not necessarily remain the same as income grows. Parents should meet their basic maintenance responsibility as quickly as possible, but obviously once they have done so the lower rate is appropriate.
I have taken note of what the noble Lord said, what has been said outside the House and all the representations which have been made. We propose to set out the rate for these deductions in regulations and we shall consult upon those regulations. I hope that I can, again, persuade the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. I should stress that I am not completely dismissing the figure of 25 per cent., nor am I saying that it will be 15 per cent. which, as I said, was set out in the White Paper for purely illustrative purposes. However, I believe that the matter requires further thought. With that assurance, I trust the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not sure whether, when the Minister referred to the "reduction rate" instead of the "deduction rate", that was not a Freudian slip. I believe that we are beginning to get the idea that the 15 per cent. figure was purely illustrative and that the figure of 25 per cent. is perhaps on the high side. It would seem that the rate may be between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. However, it would be unfair to ask the Minister to comment on that speculation. I believe that we have got a little further on the matter—although not as far as we would have wished—and we hope that, by the time the Bill completes its passage through this and the other place, we may perhaps have a better idea. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 103 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 34, line 10, at end insert:
("References to qualifying children
. References in this Part of this Schedule to "qualifying children" are to those qualifying children with respect to whom the maintenance assessment falls to be made.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment clarifies the meaning of a "qualifying child" in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1. There may be circumstances where there are qualifying children in the household of the parent with care who are not the children of the absent parent whose ability to pay maintenance is being calculated. They are not "qualifying children" in relation to the assessment of his or her resources, but will be qualifying children in relation to any maintenance assessment of their own absent parent. The amendment merely seeks to put that position beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this is purely a technical amendment. In the circumstances, we have no opposition to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 34, line 10, at end insert:
488
(". Where receipt of maintenance or the reduction in hours for family credit entitlement entail a loss of entitlement to free school meals or social fund payments, the person concerned shall be eligible for such benefits on the basis of low income or family credit entitlement.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also was moved by the noble Earl. Lord Russell, in Committee. We were not at all happy with the answer we received from the Government. Therefore, we have retabled the amendment so as to have a last try at changing the Government's mind. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that, where lone parents are floated off income support through an increase in their maintenance payments, the so-called "passported benefits"—that is, free school meals and social fund payments—are available to those on low incomes.
Under the current DSS rules, health benefits are available to people who are not on income support on the basis of their low income. The DSS compares the "requirements" of the person with his or her "income resources". For example, if the income resources are less or the same as the requirements, such a person will be eligible for full help and even if the income resources are greater they may qualify for partial help.
The amendment seeks to extend to the other benefits in question the principle of the low income provisions relating to health benefits. Such benefits are only available to people on income support. I refer to free school meals, community care grants and the budgeting of loans. The latter two benefits come within the social fund. It is obvious that the loss of those passported benefits will cause a large reduction in the standard of living of many one-parent families. Where there are two children in a family, the loss of free school meals will mean an effective drop in income of 11 per cent. or £8 per week. We all agree that the loss of £8 from a subsistence income will inevitably have a considerable effect and could lead to deficiencies in diet and subsequent health problems for the children concerned.
We are also aware that lone parents are some of the main recipients of social fund payments. In 1989, they received £21 million in the form of community care grants; £16 million in the form of budgeting loans; and £4.8 million as crisis loans. Maintenance payments could help float people off benefits and thus deny them the passported benefits.
One criticism of the Bill is that it is designed much more to reduce expenditure on social security benefits than to help lone parents. The Government's attitude to the amendment in Committee confirmed that view. With all the problems that lone parents face, the loss of free school meals and social fund payments could be a crippling blow. As always, it is the children who will suffer. If the Minister is minded to reject the amendment, will he explain how his rejection will help the children who are the victims? I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Bill sets out a new maintenance system for children. However, the amendment seeks to change the rules of the schemes under which social fund payments are made and local authorities provide free school meals. Neither of those

489
are the subject of the Bill. The amendment therefore has implications which go much wider than child maintenance.
Social fund payments, including budgeting loans, and community care grants, are intended to focus help on those people in the greatest need. A line has however to be drawn between those who can get help and those who cannot, and we believe that the most appropriate place to draw that line is at the income support level. That applies as a general principle and it would be wrong to make an exception in this case.
However, I remind noble Lords that some social fund payments are available to people not on income support or family credit. In particular there are crisis loans which can be paid to anyone who is without resources.
As noble Lords will be aware, local authorities have a duty placed upon them to provide free school meals only to those children whose families are in receipt of income support or to pupils who receive it themselves. The amendment would create new arrangements and responsibilities for education authorities, but again only for this type of case. It would also mean that an amendment to the Education Act would have to be made before it could be implemented.
On the detail of the amendment, a person ceasing to receive income support would be compensated automatically without proper regard to the new level of his or her income. The amendment provides that family credit has to be in payment, but the amount of family credit could be small. I stress that family credit rates also incorporate cash assistance for free school meals, so people protected by the amendment could well be at a significant advantage compared to other family credit claimants.
I note the noble Lord's anxiety about the issue. I remind him of the Government's commitment contained in the White Paper Children Come First, to take action where appropriate to protect those working between 16 and 24 hours and receiving income support at the time of the change. We therefore do not accept that the issues raised in the amendment are for this Bill. We do not believe that it is right to seek to amend the rules of those other schemes just for the peculiar circumstance that has been highlighted by the noble Lord. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he explain the Government's resistance to the amendment, which I understand is on the basis of having to introduce new legislation and of administrative difficulties? As I understood it, the implication was that comparatively few children would be affected. However, it is clear that children will be affected where the mother, or the caring parent, receives maintenance instead of income support when the passport to free meals is automatically removed. Those children will be disadvantaged compared with others. I should have thought that if the rejection of the principle is for administrative reasons only and the need to table an amendment to the Education Act, it is unacceptable. I may have misunderstood what my noble friend said. I should be grateful for clarification.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the rejection is not purely because other legislation would have to be changed. I was trying to show that the amendment goes beyond the Bill and would be treating the children of those parents in receipt of maintenance differently from the children of other parents who are on income support but who then cease to be on income support. In other words, the children of parents receiving income support, and not in receipt of maintenance, if they cease to receive income support would lose their passport to free school meals. If they lost their passport to free school meals purely because of an increase in maintenance but were still guaranteed free school meals, they would be treated differently from other families. I hope that my noble friend will accept that explanation.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I shall read carefully what my noble friend said, but since the Bill has been drawn up so that caring parents should receive maintenance and not income support, that caring parent is putting his or herself in a position where, as I understand it, he or she will be deprived of free school meals for the children. I shall read carefully what my noble friend said and perhaps return on Third Reading if I find that I misunderstood what he said.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is the answer that I expected from the Minister. With respect, it is a bureaucratic answer. I asked the Minister to explain what would be the effect on children, but we seem to be lost because of "this Bill" and "that Bill" and have been told that the proposal could not be implemented. The Bill is about the problems of lone parents and their children. Those problems are highlighted in the amendment. As the noble Baroness said, lone children and their parents will lose. The only way to put that right is within the Bill. We obviously shall not be able to change the Government's mind by argument. The only thing to do is ask for the opinion of the House.
3.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 105) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents. 97.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Grimond, L.

Birk, B.

Halsbury, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hampton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Craigavon, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hughes, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jay, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ennals, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ezra, L.

Leatherland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Fitt, L.

Longford, E.

Gallacher, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Galpern, L.

McCarthy, L.

Gladwyn, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

491

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Serota, B.

Mayhew, L.

Stallard, L.

Meston, L.

Stedman, B.

Mishcon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Molloy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Northfield, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ogmore, L.

Underhill, L.

Porritt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Walston, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

White, B.

Scanlon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill L.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

Lurgan, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B

Malmesbury, E.

Blyth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Borthwick, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brigstockie, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cawley, L.

Nelson, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Newall, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Norrie, L.

Cockneld, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

De Freyne, L.

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Effingham, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Selborne, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Shannon, E.

Flather, B.

Sharpies, B.

Foley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Gainford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gridley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Terrington, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Holderness L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Vinson, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Waddington, L.

Ironside, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Westbury, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

NHS Trusts: Business Plans
3.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the
492
form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question which is being asked in another place on the business plans for National Health Service trusts:
"The prospectuses of the trusts were published last year. There were no secret business plans. The business plans, which are required to be returned to the National Health Service management executive in the early part of this year, are part of the arrangements for monitoring both National Health Service trusts and directly managed units by the National Health Service management executive. As management documents, they were never intended under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to be public documents. The annual report of each trust will of course be published.
"This leads me to a wider point about accountability. For the first time we now have a system in place where, through the contractual arrangements, hospitals will be fully accountable to the district health authorities for the quality and quantity of the services they provide for patients.
"Within this reformed system, my job is to ensure that patients have the access they need to comprehensive, free health care. I exercise this responsibility through a strengthened chain of accountability from districts through regions to the National Health Service management executive.
"With this degree of accountability for the provision of health care goes more delegated management freedom for the hospitals themselves, including directly managed units. It is not for governments to tell hospitals how to organise their services and how many staff to employ. That must be a matter for the hospitals themselves. In a service that employs over 1 million people, it would be ludicrous if Ministers or civil servants attempted to run the service from Whitehall.
"What I sought last year and will seek this year when examining trust applications, is a management team which will match in professionalism the professional standards of the doctors and nurses. For far too long we have had outstanding clinical professionalism allied to second-rate management systems. One cause of that over the years has been the political intervention in what are properly management decisions of which this pre-local elections row, stirred up by the Opposition parties, is a classic example.
"Turning to the situation in London, I have noted the comprehensive review of the hospital proposed by the new management at Guy's. I am pleased to note that it has given a number of undertakings: that patient care will not suffer; that compulsory redundancies will only be used as a last resort; that services in the local community will be protected; that quality of service is an over-riding objective. I am also pleased to be able to reassure the House that Lewisham and North Southwark Health Authority, in whose district Guy's Hospital is situated, believes that the contracts which it has let to Guy's, and to other hospitals, provide satisfactorily for the health needs of its resident population.
"I am also pleased to record that, in Bradford, no reduction in services or activity is planned by the trust. A reduction of 80 jobs has already been achieved mostly by natural wastage and early retirement. It is the judgment of the public health authorities in the city that some increase in emphasis in primary and community services is right for local people. It is likely that, in terms of staff numbers, any reductions in hospital staff would be offset by further increases in community nursing and in the resources available to GPs.
"The proposals put forward by these two trusts illustrate a fundamental point. Neither district health authorities nor hospital managers are any longer prepared to accept that, simply because a hospital has always provided a certain service in a certain way, it should necessarily continue to do so.
"The needs of the patients they serve are constantly changing. Leading hospitals like Guy's and Bradford need to respond to these changes. Hospitals that can adapt successfully to change will flourish and expand. That is what I believe we are beginning to see happen in Bradford and South-East London. And, as any savings made will go straight back into the health service, it will be the patient now and in the future who benefits.
"Labour has nothing to say on health. The Labour leader yesterday finally let the cat out of the bag: under Labour, there would be no more money for health. Labour has no proposals for dealing with the obvious managerial problems of the service: its sole interest is in playing party politics with it. Labour's behaviour over the past few days is the final proof, if any was needed, of that".
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend in another place. I am amazed by the final sentence that the noble Baroness was obliged to repeat. She knows it is not true to say that Labour has no policy on the health service. She also knows that on the previous occasion when we debated the health service in this House, we on these Benches went to considerable trouble to impress upon the Minister the proposals that the party I represent had made on how we should look after the nation's health, not just next year but in the next 10 and 20 years. Those proposals were made after careful consideration and consultation. Therefore, I do not thank the noble Baroness for the kind of party political rubbish that she has repeated. However, I realise that she is not responsible for it: she is only repeating what her noble friend said.
Noble Lords: Right honourable friend!
Lord Ennals: I referred to the Minister's right honourable friend as her noble friend as he may be ennobled one day. It might have been better if the Secretary of State had come to the House of Commons on 1st April—that would, of course, have been April Fool's Day—because that was the day
494
when the new arrangements came into operation. The Secretary of State should have come to the House to explain the implications of the new arrangements for the 58 hospitals and health services which, with his approval, had opted out. He should have come to the House rather than wait for a PNQ to be tabled by the Opposition to force him to make a Statement to the House. He has been forced to make a Statement to defend the loss of 600 jobs. That was done to cut costs in Guy's by 5 per cent. in the first year of operation. I hope we shall be informed how many other thousands of jobs are at stake in the next few months as the other 56 NHS trusts announce their plans for becoming profit-making hospitals.
The Secretary of State seems to be suggesting that the responsibility for this action is not really his. He claims that it is the responsibility solely of the health authorities. I wish to remind the Secretary of State and the Minister in this House that the responsibility for the provision of health services lies upon the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government. The Minister and the Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. The Secretary of State cannot say, "This is nothing to do with me, but I take credit for all the great things we are doing to improve the health of the nation".
It is not obvious that the best way to improve services is to cut costs and reduce staff. I note that Mrs. Virginia Bottomley stated in the press that,
"cuts to nurses, doctors and support staff demonstrated the Government's determination to ensure patients got the best deal".
It is not self-evident that one has to reduce the numbers of doctors and nurses to achieve a better quality of health service. The Statement suggests that there has been some slack administration at Guy's and elsewhere which presents a challenge to the managers of the opted-out trusts. What has Guy's been up to in the past months and years to get itself into so serious a financial mess? We are entitled to ask what that distinguished surgeon at Guy's Hospital, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has been up to in a hospital where so many jobs have to be cut in such a short period of time. I hope that the noble Lord's job is safe as he is a very distinguished surgeon.
I draw the attention of the Minister and the House to what is now happening and what was clearly prophesied when the legislation passed through the House of Commons and this House. We spent many hours debating and deliberating upon that legislation. Each one of the first line of 58 opted-out hospitals and health services was personally approved by the Secretary of State. The decision was forced through in the face of opposition from the medical profession, doctors, nurses, the public—expressed through opinion polls—the community and patients. I have a number of questions for the Minister which arise from the Statement she has been obliged to repeat.
Is it really the view of the Secretary of State that these major job cuts will lead to better services? What service changes will occur at Guy's? What specialist services will be cut and what effect will that have on the treatment of the mentally ill, the handicapped, the elderly and the chronically sick? Did the Secretary of State know that the announcement was to be made by Mr. Griffiths at the time it was made? Will the

495
Minister now say what the prospects are for the remaining 56 NHS trusts and for the services they provide? Are we to expect the same proportions of job cuts as regards the other 56 self-governing NHS trusts? What kind of consultation has been carried out with the professions as regards services and job cuts? I know there was no consultation on the establishment of the NHS trusts but now that they have been established and jobs have been cut and services have been affected, will the Minister say what consultation has been carried out with the leaders of the medical, nursing and other professions?
Will the Minister confirm that the Coopers & Lybrand report stated that three-quarters of the applicants for trust status were already in debt due to underfunding? What notice did the Secretary of State take of that report? What about the massive number of bed closures imposed upon health authorities in 1990 arid 1991 to ensure that, regardless of the effect upon waiting lists, health authorities and trusts would enter the new age without debt? Will the Secretary of State now publish the Coopers & Lybrand report and the 58 business plans so that we may know the basis upon which he took his decisions? The Minister says that the documents were private. But surely we now want a more open service, not a more secret service.
I am puzzled by one thing. Is it not rather sinister that the new trust manager, Mr. Peter Griffiths—he is an able man who is paid a salary of £90,000 a year with two cars, which is more than Mr. Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the NHS, receives—revealed what the position was at Guy's on the eve of the Prime Minster's special summit? Was that a deliberate attempt to show the new-found independence of the trusts by cocking a snook at the Secretary of State? It must have been deeply embarrassing for the Secretary of State. Was the noble Lord, Lord McColl, consulted about the announcement when it was made? Does it not make a mockery of the flagship if the captain is not kept fully informed? I believe that damage to the National Health Service is being done and will continue to be done, and that the Government will live long enough to regret the decision they took to impose this measure not only upon Parliament but also upon the nation against its will.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. However, it is asking a bit much to expect us to believe that this problem has arisen as a result of a desire to improve services. In my view it is purely a financial exercise to balance the books at Guy's.
These are the largest cuts ever to have been made in one year in any authority in the NHS. It is unbelievable that a unit such as Guy's Hospital should need to save £6.8 million in one year. I have been given the reasons. There was an overspend of £1.7 million; there was a higher than expected out-turn in obstetrics; there was the cost of Project 2000; and there was higher than expected inflation. On top of that another £6 million will have to be saved for reinvestment.
Heads, of department were recently given until 17th May to produce cuts of £6.8 million. What jobs of all grades will go at Guy's? I am told that it is hoped to
496
save £3 million on agency staff. How will that affect junior hospital doctors and the hours they have to work? Recently, we were finally able to reduce the hours of hospital doctors. I believe that that is in danger. Equally, the Government agreed that we needed an increase of 2 per cent. overall in the number of consultants. How does that fit in with the possible loss of consultants at Guy's?
My honourable friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, in whose constituency Guy's is situated, visited the hospital this morning. He was informed that 60 to 65 per cent. of activity comes from the local health authority. It is therefore surprising that no local consultation on this matter took place, considering that it is an area of considerable deprivation which will have to bear the brunt of the savings. The inevitable conclusion is that all the unglamorous areas will suffer, such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
Professor Stewart Cameron, professor of renal medicine, quoted in the Financial Times, states that when consultants voted in favour of a self-governing trust they were given to understand that the trust would begin life with a £1.5 million surplus, and not a £6.8 million overspend. He says:
"We must all of us feel, if not cheated, at least that we have been misled … How can we have any confidence in people who have made such a devastating mistake?"
In other words, the vote was taken on the basis of a false prospectus.
Yet Guy's is the hospital which has had a shadow board for a year and which had been assessing the impact of changes.
What worries me even more is that the Secretary of State, Mr. Waldegrave, in an interview on television, appeared unaware of the situation until this bombshell suddenly dropped in his lap. Was it not made clear in Guy's application for hospital trust status that it had this financial problem? It cannot have happened overnight.
We were told that reforms would lead to better care and increased choice for patients. Does the noble Baroness not agree that these large cuts cannot be made purely from increased efficiency? Services are bound to suffer. Under the new National Health Service and Community Care Act the Secretary of State has the right to dissolve a trust. Perhaps he should consider it carefully.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, for their comments on the Statement. As a preliminary perhaps I should say that the reason my right honourable friend did not go to the other place on 1st April to talk about the reforms was because he would have been on his own on that day since the House was in recess.
This is a subject on which we had considerable discussion during the progress of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill through this House last year. There was one aspect of our National Health Service upon which everybody agreed; namely, that some reform was necessary after 40 years of

497
development. The reason for the reforms was to improve efficiency and to provide an even more effective service for the people of this country.
The National Health Service trusts have been created in order to give the service greater flexibility in dealing with problems, particularly some of the inherited financial problems. The various trusts up and down the country are enthusiastically tackling the challenges that face them. When I say that, I am not talking only about the management team. I have now had the opportunity to visit a number of trusts, both at the time when and since the reforms were introduced. There can be no doubt that throughout the service in the individual units there is considerable enthusiasm for the new approach.
Furthermore, when we talk about the job losses announced recently and the example quoted by both the noble Lord, Lord Ennals and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, of some 600 jobs across the board at Guy's and Lewisham, it must be remembered that that is out of a total of some 8,000 employees. In that context I do not believe that the job of my noble friend Lord McColl is in any way at risk.
It has been said, but clearly needs to be said again, that the responsibility for providing for the needs of the local population lies with the district health authority. It is for the district health authority to contract with National Health Service trusts, its own directly managed hospital units, the private sector, or with hospitals in other districts which may provide certain specialist services so that all the needs of the local population are met. The decisions that have been taken at both Guy's and Bradford have been reached after the trusts have assessed the contracts into which they entered with their district health authorities. In line with the whole object of the exercise in introducing the contracting principle, they have assessed their obligation to meet the districts' needs over the period of the coming year and are taking the necessary action to meet that obligation.
I turn now to some of the specific questions raised in the course of the contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked whether it is the view of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that major job cuts will lead to better services. I can do no better than to quote Robin Stott, the medical director of the trust, and Cyril Chantler, dean of the medical school, who said:
"If the trust is to succeed in garnering resources to pay for a large backlog in the maintenance of our premises, accrue funds for new capital developments, meet the increased costs of an ambitious nurse training programme"—
which are the facts which the noble Baroness quoted—
"and redeploy resources into new areas we must first rein back on inappropriate current expenditure. Any review of current clinical and administrative services must therefore consider their quality, relevance and especially their appropriateness to the future needs of the community we serve, the mental health services we provide and the needs of our medical and dental school".
I was asked why we did not publish the auditors' report of the trust applications. The reports received from Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte were not audit reports but management consultant reports on
498
financial viability and information systems. They draw heavily on financial projections and business plans prepared by the trusts which are themselves confidential. Confidentiality is required as the trusts are now in a competitive market and would not always wish their detailed plans to be made available to competitors, just as the Opposition do not wish to make us aware of their detailed financial plans for the health service. Like all such reports, the financial appraisals must also be confidential so that the consultants are free to express frank opinions.
It was suggested that we had allowed hospitals with financial problems to become trusts. As I said, in many cases the financial challenges facing units applying to be trusts would be the same whether they became trusts or remained directly managed. In those circumstances, it was important to look not only at the financial aspects of the matter but at the quality of the management team and its ability to meet the challenges. Where management was strong, it was perfectly reasonable to establish the unit as a trust. In some cases, trust status improved the ability to deal with financial problems which, as I said, was the very reason why trusts were established.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked which services would be cut and what would be the effect on the mentally ill, the chronically sick and so on. I understand that the trust management in the two trusts that have been specifically quoted are still working on the detail of the financial measures that they will take but they are committed to maintaining services in line with the contracts that purchasers have placed with them. That goes for all the other trusts throughout the country.
I was asked whether the Secretary of State knew that the statement would be made on Friday, on the eve of the Chequers summit. The answer to that is, no. It was a management decision. Guy's and Lewisham have not been secretive in this matter. They have chosen to be explicit about their strategy and to manage themselves efficiently and effectively, living within their means and providing the highest quality of service. That is not only what we all want but what the patients and people in need of treatment throughout the country also want.
I was also asked about bed closures imposed on health authorities and future National Health Service trusts in the current year. We have established on previous occasions that beds can be closed for all kinds of reasons; for example, as a planned rationalisation or to improve services in other parts of a district. What really matters is the level of patient care. Activity levels have increased steadily in recent years. I understand that it was suggested in the Financial Times by my noble friend Lord McColl—I have not had an opportunity to corroborate the statement, but perhaps my noble friend will take the opportunity to do so this afternoon—that, in making considerable financial savings in his unit at Guy's, he was at the same time able to increase the service provided by up to or over 5 per cent.
I was asked about the prospects for the remaining 56 trusts and their services. I have already dealt with the question of whether there will be cuts or decisions

499
made in other trusts. I should reiterate that all trusts and directly managed units will need to review their services to ensure that they meet the requirements of their purchasers. That may mean increases in some areas and decreases in others, but overall the reforms will ensure more appropriate patient care of high quality in the long term.
As to the question of consultation with the professions about services and the recent announcements, it is for the trust management itself to decide what consultation among staff is required. As all senior staff are involved in management at Guy's, they have no doubt been able to contribute to the budget-setting process. National Health Service staff are covered in terms of redundancies by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act which requires employers to undertake consultation on redundancies at least 90 days before the first redundancy if over 100 redundancies are planned and at least 30 days before the first redundancy if fewer than 100 redundancies are planned.
The noble Baroness said that that situation could not have arisen overnight. It did not, and neither will the cuts and job losses occur overnight. Bradford has already stated that it is talking about phasing those job losses over three years. I understand that at Guy's and Lewisham the period planned is the full financial year and that it is not thought necessary to create redundancies in those circumstances.
I hope that I have responded to the many questions that were raised.
4.18 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the £6.8 million that we have to find at Guy's, is made up of a number of items? First, there is the £2 million overspend last year because we treated more patients. Under the old regime, the more patients you treat, the more you are penalised. That is the basis, of the Government reforms which have been supported by the Labour Party; namely, that money should follow patients so that the more patients you treat, the more money will come into the hospital. That lesion will therefore be corrected soon.
Secondly, we have unavoidable commitments because of the increase in the birth rate. Presumably even the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will not hold the trust at Guy's responsible for that. Thirdly, we have important changes in nurse training arrangements which will be very expensive in the short term. Finally, we had to set aside some 1 per cent. for inflation assumptions.
What has happened at Guy's is unique in the annals of the National Health Service. Within a week or two of the new trust board taking office it quickly assessed the situation and decided to make and implement a decision. We have never previously had decisions like that. Usually, dilly-dallying went on for most of the year and the management was finally forced into making a decision and had to make a crisis announcement. The only option open then was to close large numbers of beds. The trust has said, "Let us make the decision and take action now because
500
then we shall be able to reduce staff gradually and make the necessary savings so that patients will not suffer at the end of the year".
Does my noble friend agree that the costs of London hospitals are far in excess of those outside London and that the costs within London also vary enormously? If we reduce our cost per patient more money will be available to treat more patients, which is what we are trying to do.
Does my noble friend further agree that if one were to ask hospitals outside London whether their hearts are bleeding for Guy's because it has to live within its financial constraints, the answer would be, "not at all?" Hospitals outside London have said for years that London has had too much spent on its hospitals. So there is no support there.
Finally, although people ask for yet more money to be spent on the National Health Service—I understand that the BMA is asking for 17 per cent. More—the question remains for anywhere in the United Kingdom which already has 17 per cent. more: has it done any good? Scotland has 24 per cent. more per head of population spent on the health service and has health authorities which are more overspent than any in England. As a Scot I regret to say that the health of the Scots is no better than that of the English as a result of that additional expenditure.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend
makes important points from his personal and detailed knowledge of the situation. I should like to emphasise that not only at Guy's but throughout the National Health Service more patients have been treated. That is a trend that we want to ensure continues. We want more patients to be treated and the quality of the treatment to be improved.
There can be no doubt that money following the patient and planning over the year to avoid the crisis management to which my noble friend referred form an important element of the future improvement of the service. As for the statement made by Guy's, criticised as it may be at this moment, no one can deny that it is a clear statement. We all know where we are and can plan accordingly. The planning carried out by the district health authority is vital to ensure that the health needs of the district are met. The reforms have been in place for less than a month. We certainly need to see how they progress before any judgments are made. We are not in the business of making instant, overnight judgments.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I for one agree very much that the National Health Service should not be a service about which there is a great deal of party politicking? I am well aware of that. Indeed, I have always believed that it is a great national service and that party politics should not feature greatly in it. But the present Government introduced party politics into the whole business when they decided to alter the basis of the National Health Service without proper consultation either with other political parties or with the wide range of staff which works in the National Health Service. That is why we as an Opposition are entitled

501
—as are parties other than those on the Opposition Benches—to be highly critical of the way in which the Government have handled the whole business of introducing self-governing hospital trusts.
There were inefficiencies in the National Health Service. Nobody doubts that for one moment. However, the best way to have dealt with them was on the basis of consultation and co-operation and not imposition. That is why the Government have got themselves into the present state.
The noble Baroness said that London had too much money spent on its health service. Can she produce the evidence? Were Londoners told that in no uncertain terms before the Government set up the self-governing trusts? I feel quite sure that had they been told there would have been a great outcry. Can she tell us how many more redundancies in how many more hospitals up and down the country—in various parts of the land, such as Reading, Swindon, Exeter and in Scotland and Wales—there will be?
Finally, what does she think will be the future for self-governing hospitals' status if the people working in those hospitals realise that by voting for self-governing status they are voting themselves out of a job?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, from the publication of the White Papers through the passage of the Bill to the acceptance of the National Health Service and Community Care Act, I should have thought that there was ample opportunity for everybody concerned to make their views clearly known. They certainly did so, as I am all too well aware. Furthermore, we are moving on from that position to consider a health strategy which will further benefit the health needs of this country. It was in that spirit that on Saturday at the seminar at Chequers the Prime Minister and leading lights in the medical and health fields discussed that serious subject in the context of the implementation of the reforms.
I do not believe that I said that London had too much money spent on it. The population of central London has fallen substantially, particularly relative to surrounding areas, since many of its hospitals were originally built. It is right and proper that London's share of National Health Service funding should reflect the fact that there has been a movement of population and that new units and services have been built out of central London. Health spending per head in London is still significantly higher than in other parts of the country. I believe that that is the gist of what I said—if not the exact words—and that it was misconstrued.
As to the adequacy or otherwise of consultation, all applications for trust status were subject to a statutory consultation period of three months. Everyone was given the opportunity to comment and all such comments were taken into consideration when the Secretary of State made his decisions. As I said, the decisions were not made on one set of factors—not just on the financial resources of a potential trust—but on factors including the strength of the management team and indeed the reactions to the consultation.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not fair to recognise that Her Majesty's Government have increased the numbers of doctors and nurses quite substantially since 1979? Is it not also true that when my right honourable friend the Member for Finchley was Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury she used to say that the National Health Service was the greatest employer other than the Indian railways or the Chinese army? Therefore, is it not also true to say that there must be in such bodies some fat that can be got rid of to make the service more efficient? It is efficiency to patients which is necessary rather than the number of jobs created or lost. It is fascinating to hear Members on the other side of your Lordships' House saying, "Isn't it disgraceful about job losses?" The National Health Service is not there as an employment agency. It is there to cure you and me of bunions or let us die in peace of cancer. It is not a jobs agency. The sooner that that is realised the better.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding the House that there are more nurses and more doctors than ever before. More people are being treated than ever before. The workforce of the National Health Service is some one million. As I attempted to set in context, the 600 job losses which may take place—not necessarily take place but currently estimated may take place—over the coming year at Guy's, should be seen in the context of the very large total workforce of some 8,000.
Furthermore, partly as a result of amendments—even those made in your Lordships' House—there is no doubt that we are taking very seriously the whole question of evaluation and monitoring of the reforms. As we have always said, these are evolutionary, and if and when it is necessary to improve upon the framework that we have already set in place we shall have no hesitation in doing so.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I am perhaps one of the few people left who fought and worked in the House of Commons for the inauguration of the health service? I regret that we have now reached the stage when the health service is in a very bad state, being treated mainly as a supermarket.
There is a personal matter that worries me very much. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, may know something about this. I am a keen supporter of Queen Mary's, Sidcup, which is heavily overspent as a result of having dealt with so many patients. Unfortunately, that hospital does not have an ENT department, and never has had. Those services are provided by Lewisham. The consultant there—an excellent man—comes to Sidcup, and then his patients who have to be operated on go to Lewisham. It so happens that I was one of those on 26th March when the noble Lord was operating there.
What will happen? Will that service be cut? Will it continue? Will the Lewisham area authority charge Queen Mary's for the service? If Queen Mary's does not have the money, what will happen? This is but one

503
of many problems, and no doubt noble Lords know of others. Something must be done about such a serious matter.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, allow me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on his success in getting the National Health Service up and running in spite of the widespread opposition which, as he must remember, it had to meet from the medical profession in particular at the time.
I should like to take the opportunity of emphasising that the attempts we are making with these reforms are nut to turn the National Health Service into a business but simply to make it more businesslike. I cannot imagine that the noble Lord would wish to dispute the propriety of doing that.
As For the specific example of Queen Mary's Hospital which he quoted, obviously I shall take the opportunity to look into the matter, but it is clear from the arrangements that we have set in place that what should happen is that a district assesses the needs of its particular population and enters into the appropriate contracts with the appropriate hospitals. That is what we are doing, serving the needs of the local population, not keeping people in jobs unnecessarily.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I propose to call Amendment No. 36.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I was assured by the Leader of the House last week that we were allowed. 20 minutes for questions after the main speaker.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I hope I am in order in moving the amendment, which I think has been called.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord opposite is right about the 20 minutes.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us whether the department received any representations from the management of Guy's before the public announcement about the dire straits of their finances, which led the management later to decide to get rid of 600 jobs? Can we have an assurance from the Minister that, unlike in other privatised industries, savings made by the dismissal of those 600 people will not result in higher salaries for those in the top grade?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are talking about a service which is still a public National Health Service. There is no question of privatisation as the noble Lord wishes to imply.
We have said on many occasions that the object of setting up National Health Service trusts, with the additional freedoms which they have as compared with the directly managed units in being responsible for running their own affairs, is to improve services. We want to see that working. We shall not interfere in the way that the noble Lord has suggested. In making a decision to set up all the trusts we took into account both the financial circumstances of which we were aware and the strength of the management team which we believed could put those financial difficulties right.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
4.36 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 10 [Interim maintenance assessments]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 7, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 29
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is yet another attempt to shorten the Bill and therefore to shorten the statute book, which has been growing so alarmingly and so quickly. New volumes are extremely expensive. This is an attempt to cut out a few of what seem to me at first sight to be unnecessary words.
This clause is concerned with interim maintenance assessments, and it is in a totally familiar form. The Minister takes powers in a permissive form to make regulations very generally. In this case he takes a power to make regulations as to interim maintenance. The clause continues in a familiar way, that in particular he may make regulations; in other words, the particularity being within the generality. There is a saying that "The opera ain't over until the fat lady sings", so I do not think the Report stage is over until the Minister has had an opportunity of saying how desirable, even if not necessary—my noble and learned friend always said "strictly necessary"—the form of drafting is. But in the Children Bill, in the Courts and Legal Services Bill, and again here my noble and learned friend has explained that although the particular provision is not strictly necessary it is nevertheless desirable to apprise Parliament of what sort of regulations are intended.
Your Lordships will see from subsection (3) that:
"The regulations may, in particular, make provision as to—(a) the procedure to be followed in making an interim maintenance assessment; and
(b) the basis on which the amount of child support maintenance … is to be calculated".
How much does that really convey to Parliament? Why should we continue to countenance this absurd and lengthy method of drafting? There is another particular curiosity about the clause. The general regulations in subsection (2) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. However, subsection (3) containing the particularities of subsection (2) is subject only to the negative procedure. I shall be grateful if the Minister will deal with that discrepancy.
I suggest that the clause should read:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to"
the particulars in subsection (3) (a) and (b). In other words, I suggest deleting the words "interim maintenance assessment". It is difficult to see at first sight what that provision could contain that is not contained in subsection (3).
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has been kind enough to write to me about the matter. I have been on the move and unfortunately have not been able to see the letter. However, I am grateful to him for writing. The fact that the letter has not been scrutinised by me is entirely my fault.
It is in the interest of doing something, even only a little, to squeeze out of the statute book excessive and unnecessary verbiage that I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I support the amendment. I recall that the noble and learned Lord made a similar point in Committee. It was a good point then and it is a good point now. The best that can be said for the words that he wishes to delete is that they appear as a result of an abundance of unnecessary caution in case the Secretary of State can think of anything else about which he wishes to regulate.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has returned to a subject that he raised in Committee. I undertook to write to him and I did so on 27th March. I understand that the letter was posted and that it is not necessarily the fault of the noble and learned Lord that he has not received it. I sent a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which I hope he has received. The noble Lord also looks blank. To lose one letter might be a mistake, but to lose two might be carelessness. I shall try to discover what has happened to the letters—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the fact that I look blank ought not to occasion any reaction in the noble Lord.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's word for that. I shall look into the matter as the letter might assist in our deliberations.
As ever, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is anxious about the clarity of our legislation and the efficiency of its drafting. He seeks to confine regulations under the clause to matters detailed in subsection (3) (a) and (b) which give examples of the issues which the regulations might cover. In Committee I gave a full description of the purposes to which interim maintenance assessments would be put. It is not necessary for me unduly to delay our proceedings on Report by repeating that..
The main purpose of the regulations is to provide for circumstances where the procedures required for interim maintenance assessments will differ from those for assessments made with complete information. Clause 39, the interpretation clause, provides that interim maintenance assessments will be regarded in the same way as maintenance assessments at every point where they appear in the Bill except where prescribed differently in regulations.
Clause 10(3) (a) and (b) give two clear examples where interim maintenance assessments will be different from maintenance assessments made with complete information. However, it may be necessary to prescribe for other matters such as appeals where the procedure system will need to be different in order to prevent that system being used merely as a delaying tactic. We also believe that there will be differences in the procedures for collection and enforcement. All those issues are still being worked through.
I undertake to keep the noble and learned Lord informed of our deliberations on the matter. I shall ensure that my letter of 27th March reaches him and that copies are sent to the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Meston. If we find that circumstances in
506
which interim maintenance assessments will differ from maintenance assessments can be expressly detailed in this subsection of the Bill, we shall be prepared to think seriously about doing so. However, we do not wish unnecessarily to clutter the Bill, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will not wish us to do so.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, asked why subsection (2) is subject to the affirmative procedure while subsection (3) is subject to the negative procedure. Subsection (2) contains the power to make the regulations but subsection (3) does not. It merely stresses what in particular the regulations may cover. If after reading my letter of 27th March the noble and learned Lord has further comments to make, he might wish to return to the matter at a later stage.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his support. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his reply. There is some residuum in the words which I seek to delete; namely, that enforcement may be different. Surely, if enforcement of an interim maintenance assessment is so important, your Lordships should be told in what respect it differs from the enforcement provisions of maintenance assessments.
The Minister mentioned a further issue. Rather than clog up the statute book in this way, surely it would be better to inform Parliament when it is asked to pass what is, in effect, a skeleton and enabling Bill what the regulations will contain. If they are sufficiently important to merit the affirmative resolution procedure, they are sufficiently important for Parliament to be advised of their contents.
In Committee I suggested that Parliament might see the amendments in draft. My noble and learned friend said that that would not be possible until the power to make the regulations had been enacted. However, that runs quite contrary to the assurance which your Lordships were given that the regulations under what was then Clause 23, which was subsequently removed from the Bill by your Lordships' decision, would be shown before the Bill left your Lordships' House. Therefore, I reiterate that when we have a Bill like this which depends on its regulation making power—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, counted 92 powers and there will be more before we have finished because my noble and learned friend has tabled amendments to add more powers—the least that can be given constitutionally is to let Parliament see what those regulations will be.
There is no reason why they should not be published in draft well ahead of the power being given by the statute coming into force.
Finally, many years ago I was interested in a Bill of Mr. Duncan Sandys when he was president of the Board of Trade. It was an iron and steel Bill. I went to him with an amendment to add a provision making a friendly gesture towards competition which was entirely consonant with government policy. However, he had pared down that Bill until every word had been carefully weighed. He was not prepared to see it

507
diluted. With very great respect, I urge Ministers to go through Bills in that way to see what can be expunged and to see whether a particular vague provision like this cannot be more adequately dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.
As I ventured to say on the very first amendment which I moved, words which are plainly unnecessary—and I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would say this is not such a case—should be expunged. Where it is arguable, a judgment must be made. However, that judgment should not be on each occasion to leave the words in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, to make assurance doubly but quite unnecessarily sure.
With those observations, which I make with all humility, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Information required by Secretary of State]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 35, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the last occasion in Committee, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies moved an amendment in precisely the same terms. The object of the exercise is to expunge from the Bill the following power which is to be given to the Secretary of State under it:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision authorising the disclosure by him or by child support officers, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, of such information held by them for purposes of this Act as may be prescribed".
Your Lordships will be very jealous of the fact that confidential information is given to a government department and then the power is given to the government department and to its employees to disclose information without saying to whom and with what limitation.
On this amendment which was before your Lordships in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave a very frank response. As I understood him, he assented to the idea that there must be confidentiality. He then used the words which caused us to have second thoughts about obtaining your Lordships' views on the omission of this clause. He said that there must be confidentiality and said:
"Proper safeguards of confidentiality will be maintained".—[Official Report, 19/3/91; col. 576.]
On that occasion he did not tell us the limits or bounds within which proper safeguards of confidentiality will be maintained. So that it is on the record, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will prescribe the limits which regulations will spell out so that we all know that confidentiality as we should want it will be observed in regard to this power to disclose. If that is done, I shall ask the usual leave of your Lordships. However, that should be on the record, and I invite the noble and learned Lord to tell us in broad outline how those regulations will be framed in order to see that confidentiality is secured in the way that I have mentioned. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no question but that confidentiality of information of a personal nature is a matter of considerable anxiety.
508
Officers of the child support agency will be subject to Section 19 of the Social Security Act 1989 which makes it a criminal offence to disclose information without lawful authority. Regulations concerning the disclosure of information will include safeguards to ensure inappropriate disclosure is not made. For example, there will be strict controls on disclosure of information that would help to identify an individual's whereabouts, such as his address or the name of his employer. Such information will not normally be disclosed without the written authority of the individual concerned.
However, it will be necessary to allow some disclosure of information so that appeals may be properly made, to minimise the bureaucratic procedures that clients of the agency will need to follow and to ensure that there is sufficient liaison between the agency and the courts.
An individual can only effectively exercise a right of appeal when he or she is fully aware of the facts on which an assessment has been made. It is intended that all of the information necessary for an individual to understand the assessment will be disclosed. Such disclosure will be the minimum possible information. Names, addresses and employers will not be disclosed. It will be, for example, the number of children, the amount of housing costs or the net earnings. That will be the general situation.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, so far the noble and learned Lord has uttered precisely the same words as are contained at col. 576 of Hansard. I took it for granted that he would not repeat the words which he uttered in Committee but that, as I asked, we should have, as he can give them, particulars of the regulations as he can give them which will protect confidentiality.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I find it difficult to set the scene for this without discussing the subject matter as I dealt with it in Committee. If the noble Lord is prepared to take that for granted, perhaps I may tell him that we are not yet in a position to propose draft regulations. He may take it that we shall do our level best to make sure that the amount of information disclosed will be only the necessary amount required for the purpose of making effective appeals or, for example, for allowing the courts properly to—
5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. This being an area of great sensitivity, is it not a case where Parliament should see exactly where regulations draw the limits? My noble and learned friend is being extremely vague in indicating where those limits should be. I gather that the Ministry has not yet made up its mind on the matter. It is highly desirable that its mind should be made up in an area of such importance, and that Parliament should see the regulations.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, undoubtedly the regulations will be made by statutory instrument and

509
Parliament will see them. The question is what should be disclosed at this stage or what should be said about disclosure.
I am seeking to say that the subject matter is obviously sensitive; it also involves considerable detail. For example, precisely what will be disclosed to the court is a matter of considerable importance and requires to be specified in detail. At this moment I am not in a position to produce the draft regulations. Even if I were, what is sought here is regulation-making power and it is not possible to restrict that by reference to a specific draft. All I could do with even the more detailed draft is indicate the heads under which the regulations may be made.
I do not believe it is possible for me at this stage to say more than that confidentiality will be set aside only where it is necessary for the purpose of the proper functioning of the system and the giving of the necessary information to the individuals concerned to enable them for example to prosecute their appeal or for the court to consider the situation relative to related applications with which it may have to deal.
I cannot do more than indicate the subject matter of the regulations at this stage. Even were I in a position to produce draft regulations, they would do no more than indicate a possible way in which the power could be used. The idea of having powers is to use them properly in the light of the circumstances at the time the power is exercised. That is the best I can offer at this stage.
Disclosure will be allowed only where it is necessary for the court considering the matter of, for example, spousal or child maintenance outside the scope of the formula or some other matter related to the application, and for the proper understanding by the parties to a determination by the agency of the basis upon which that determination was reached.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed by the reply of the noble and learned Lord. I respect what he says; however, I ask your Lordships to consider precisely what we are doing. By legislation we are saying in Clause 12 that the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring any information or evidence needed for the determination of any application under the Act. We do not have a copy of the regulations; we do not know what information will be sought. If Parliament endows a department and its employees with power to ask for information, at least we must see that the information is kept completely confidential unless there are overpowering reasons for departing from that confidentiality.
Only recently we witnessed the nervousness with which people looked at the powers of government to insist upon the completion of a census form, the assurances that they sought in regard to confidentiality and the answer that was frankly given by the Government in that connection. That is all too recent for us now glibly to accept a clause which demands that information shall be given. The Government even sought to include a sanction in case the information was not forthcoming.
510
When one asks the Government to spell out the confidentiality with which they intend to safeguard the information they force an applicant to give, one is told that, although regulations must be made and that they must be specific if they are to satisfy Parliament, they cannot be produced now, at the Report stage of the Bill.
It is a matter which could regrettably form an undesirable precedent. I do not believe your Lordships will be very happy if we accept the clause without assurances and subsequently Parliament, governed by whatever party it may be—including my own—was able to cite this as a power given to a government department. A person is forced to give information; regulations are produced which say that the Government can pass on that information to third parties. But there is nothing on the face of the Bill to describe the confidentiality with which that information will be treated and the limits of that confidentiality. When Parliament, before proceeding with the Bill, asks what will be in the draft regulations, it is said we can be told in general terms but that the Government cannot be specific.
That is a danger sign. Before the caution of yellow turns to red I shall ask your Lordships' opinion of the amendment. If satisfactory assurances had been given I intended to ask leave to withdraw it. No such assurances have been given and I ask for the decision of the House.
5.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 93.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hughes, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Bancroft, L.

Jay, L.

Birk, B.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kennet, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carter, L.

Leatherland, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Craigavon, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Meston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ennals, L.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B.

Foot, L.

Northfield, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Grantchester, L.

Seear, B.

Halsbury, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hampton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

511

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Walston, L.

Tonypandy, V.

White, B.

Underhill, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Lurgan, L.

Astor, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Auckland, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Margadale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Blyth, L.

Milverton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cawley, L.

Orkney, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cons tan line of Stanmore, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rees, L.

Elibank, L.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodney, L.

Erroll, E.

Saint Albans, D.

Ferrers, E.

Selkirk, E.

Foley, L.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Greenway, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gridley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Swinton, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Thurlow, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Waddington, L.

Hooper, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Westbury, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Wise, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wynford, L.

Knollys, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Schedule 2 [Provision of Information to Secretary of State]:
5.15 p.m.
Lords Houghton of Sowerby Lords Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 35, line 36, leave out ("an") and insert ("a named").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my comments follow pretty closely those which the House has just heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and from my noble friend Lord Mishcon. This Bill should have gone to a Select Committee. It needs far closer examination than can be given it by the normal Committee proceedings in your Lordships' House. What astonishes me is that a Bill of this kind, put down for Second Reading on 25th February, attracted fewer than a dozen noble Lords to speak and only two Back-Benchers among my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon and myself were the only two Labour Back-Benchers
512
to speak on a Bill which has far-reaching consequences for a great many people whom we represent.
This is a Bill for the pursuit of individuals employing all measures that can possibly be given by Parliament. The Bill is to pursue persons who are wanted in connection with the determination of maintenance support which they are required to make in cases where people are applying for social benefits to live on. The more I go into this Bill the deeper my anxieties grow about it. I have spoken to a number of noble Lords who have said, "The more work we do on this Bill the more questions are raised and the more answers are not available because many of them are going into regulations."
The extension of bureaucracy into this field is a very important social measure. When political leaders talk about freedom, yet liberties can be lost casually under conditions of apathy in Parliament, then surely constant vigilance becomes the only safeguard of liberty. We are badly in need of a Bill of Rights. We should know where the limits of the law go and where the limits of bureaucracy can be extended. This time I have left out my main assault on Schedule 2 which I opposed so strongly, and probably at undue length, in Committee because I have discovered things that even I, with my vigilance in these matters, had not fully appreciated.
There are two problems. One is the disclosure of information which is provided for up to a point and which is the subject of this amendment to Schedule 2. The other is the practical use of the machinery of the Inland Revenue to implement the purposes of the Bill. I am not going to deal with that aspect. I want to speak about confidentiality because the use of the Inland Revenue so far does not arise under the Bill. In passing I warn the House of the kind of thing in the background to the Bill.
A briefing was sent to noble Lords by the Family Policy Studies Centre. On enforcement, it states:
"There may be surprise that the tax system is not being used as a way of making automatic maintenance deductions. It is not known why the Government has decided against following Australia's example where the Child Support Agency is based within the Australian Tax Office and has achieved a high level of compliance".
A memorandum sent to noble Lords by the National Council for One Parent Families urged an amendment on the following lines:
"(2) The Secretary of State may order that maintenance will be collected in like manner as Income Tax in order to secure the payment of any amount due from a liable person under the maintenance assessment in question
(3) Maintenance may be collected in like manner as Income Tax so as to secure the payment of—

(a) arrears of child support maintenance payable under the assessment;

(b) amounts of child support maintenance which will become due under the assessment; or

(c) both such arrears and such future amounts".

That is a proposal for the tax system to come fully into play to recover maintenance support payments.
There is a danger here which has to be watched. I shall add another fear. I predict that an attempt will be made to transfer to the Inland Revenue the responsibility for the collection of poll tax arrears. The

513
Inland Revenue machinery, both as regards information and its spread of collecting resources, is obviously vulnerable to those elements in public administration for which governments are seeking more effective answers in taxation at source. I shall not pursue that; it does not arise under the Bill, but one cannot help but have anxieties about what may happen.
I turn now to the very small amendment that I propose. I was unaware that Section 59 of the Social Security Act 1986 had already conceded to the Department of Social Security the right to seek from the Inland Revenue information in connection with the assessment or collection of income tax. It provides:
"No obligation as to secrecy imposed by statute or otherwise on a person employed in relation to the Inland Revenue shall prevent information obtained in connection with the assessment or collection of income tax from being disclosed to the Secretary of State".
Those are the words employed in Schedule 2. However, the power has already been granted to the Minister in the exercise of his existing powers.
On 9th May 1990 the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in another place in answer to a Written Question said:
"Section 59 of the Social Security Act 1986 permits the Inland Revenue to provide information to the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, in connection with the operation of the benefit Acts, without breaching their confidentiality obligations. At present the information provided is confined to the details required to account for class 1 national insurance contributions, which the Inland Revenue collects on behalf of the DSS, and details of those known to be self-employed to assist DSS in collecting class 2 national insurance contributions".
He went on to state, and here we come to the relevant aspect:
"I have now asked the Inland Revenue to extend the disclosures made under their authority to include the addresses of absent parents and, where appropriate, the names and addresses of their employers, in cases where the absent parent is liable under the Social Security Act 1986 to maintain lone-parent families receiving income support".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/90; col. 123.]
That has already been done. It has been done by request of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the Board of Inland Revenue under the blanket authority of Section 59 of the Social Security Act 1986. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the law as it stands at present to prevent the Secretary of State for Social Security asking the Inland Revenue for particulars of the income, wages and other matters relating to persons about whom the social benefit people may wish to have more information.
The complication here is that for some reason not clear to me—it may be because a child support agency is to be created—we are putting in the Bill provisions already available to the Secretary of State under Section 59 powers of recovery. Therefore it is not very clear whether Schedule 2 to the Bill refers solely to the child support agency or whether it refers generally. We have two separate authorities here; the Social Security Act which gives authority to the officers of the Department of Social Security and now a Bill to give similar authority to the child support agency.
These two provisions have to come together somehow: otherwise, the Secretary of State will
514
operate under Section 59 and the child support agency will operate under Schedule 2 to the Bill. All I can do at the moment is to try, as the main issue has been dealt with in Section 59 of the Social Security Act 1986, to tie down the conditions under which the child support officers may seek information from the Inland Revenue—conditions similar in kind at the present time to those given to the Secretary of State by the Social Security Act 1986.
Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 108, which go together, require that there should be a named person. Disclosure should be given only in regard to a named person. A child support officer, under some kind of authority given by the Inland Revenue, should not be allowed to wander over all the pay-as-you-earn deduction cards to see whether he can find somebody else he is looking for. If we are to have the right of inspection it should be through a named person and a named person only. That is as far as I can take it. If I seek to remove Schedule 2 altogether and the powers that it confers upon the child support officers with the consent of the Board of the Inland Revenue, I still leave the problem that the Secretary of State already has those powers. If he is going to transfer some of his responsibilities for recovery to the child support agency, then quite obviously he will want to transfer his powers of inspection of information in the books of the Inland Revenue. Therefore, so far as concerns the agency, I want to ensure that it is restricted in its rights of inspection to a "named person" and consent is given in writing.
Noble Lords may feel that the passion I have about confidentiality of Inland Revenue records is unnecessary. But I must emphasise the fact that it is most important. Indeed, it goes far wider than the issue which we are now considering. The nibbles already exist. For example, in the Social Security Act 1986, the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982, the Charities Act 1960, the Finance Act 1986 and the Finance Act of 1972.
Most of the inroads into the confidentiality of Inland Revenue records have been in relation to the collection of taxation. That applies mostly to the freedom of exchange of information between Customs and Excise on VAT and the Inland Revenue on the taxation of companies which may be liable to pay VAT. However, as I have indicated, the danger of the spread already exists. Bit by bit, justified on the grounds of some particular need, we find that the erosion spreads as regards the use of information which is put in the hands of government departments.
I have not had sufficient time to explore the law on databanks and disclosure in that connection. However, there is no doubting the fact that the names of citizens are becoming more readily available to a wider range of people. The names are coming from somewhere. Indeed, names and addresses are being sold in blocks, classified as to social status and likely capacity for levels of consumer expenditure. All these things have their dangers from the point of view of the freedom of the citizen in relation to certain confidential matters which he has had to disclose for other statutory purposes.
I hope that I shall receive some sympathy from the noble and learned Lord on Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 108. I am not dealing at present with Amendment No. 109 because it raises another issue. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on the background that he put to the amendment. It has two bases: one was the wider constitutional basis, and the other was the basis upon which we run our system of Inland Revenue. The liberty of our fellow countrymen depends upon a balanced constitution in which powers are separated.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, mentioned the massive increase of bureaucracy which is the keynote of this Bill. It means that executive power is being aggrandised at the expense of Parliament, especially in the regulation-making power which takes the place of normal parliamentary legislation, and at the expense of the judiciary. We have not seen the last of that because my noble and learned friend has tabled a most deplorable amendment. It adds to the ouster of the courts which is consummated by Clause 7. It adds to that by making an appeal system not to the courts, which was one of the ways suggested in the Bill, but to an administrative tribunal. All those things, as well as the amassing of information in breach of confidentiality, as we now know, represent an erosion of personal liberty. Even taking one further but massive step, we proceed along that path with very great temerity.
The other aspect concerning the background of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was the nature of our Inland Revenue system. As one who was once responsible in that sphere, I wholeheartedly second what the noble Lord said from his vastly greater experience. Our system of Inland Revenue is, I think, unique. We largely depend on the self-assessment of the taxpayer. That has been so from the beginning. That can exist only if the taxpayer is sure that his confidences to the Inland Revenue will not be betrayed. However, it is precisely betrayal which one finds in the Bill.
Similarly, the Inland Revenue cannot rely upon a frank disclosure by way of self-assessment unless it can assure the taxpayer that it will respect his confidentiality and his confidences. Therefore, although we are from time to time and from step to step concerned in this Bill with small erosions of liberty—more aggrandisements of the executive at the expense of Parliament and of the courts—the issue is, cumulatively, of vast importance, and we take that path at our peril. We would do well to consider carefully the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It goes very much beyond any detail of this Bill; it goes to the very basis of our constitution and to the very basis upon which we collect tax by way of self-assessment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I feel sure that any matters connected with the Inland Revenue referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, would
516
be matters to which your Lordships would attend very carefully, especially so when they are reinforced by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, I have to say that on this occasion I doubt whether the fears expressed by the noble Lord are justified by the terms of the Bill. I say that because the Bill does not permit the use of financial information disclosed to the Inland Revenue. The purpose of the clause which the noble Lord seeks to amend is precisely to delimit what it is that the Secretary of State may use revenue information for and what the revenue may lawfully disclose to the Secretary of State.
As the noble Lord pointed out, under the Social Security Acts there is the possibility of a certain amount of disclosure. What we have done here is not just to push that along, but to use primary legislation to define the position regarding the Inland Revenue. That recognises that we appreciate fully the general matters of principle to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred and which were touched on by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I utterly reject the idea that the Bill, in any improper way, trenches upon the Inland Revenue system of which those two Members of the House have such intimate knowledge. On the contrary, the clause merely permits Inland Revenue information about the current address or the current employer of the absent parent to be disclosed. It has nothing to do with self-assessment, financial information or anything of that kind. It is a measure of the regard that we have had to the principles to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred that that point has been the subject of detailed legislation.
Perhaps I may at long last come to the amendment. The noble Lord is seeking to add the words "a named" in front of "absent parent". In other words, it is "a named absent parent". It is impossible to understand how one could obtain the current address of an absent parent without specifying the name of the absent parent. It is clear that the way in which the clause works would require that the absent parent in question would have to be specified so that his current address could be ascertained. Therefore I do not believe that the addition of the words "a named" or anything of that kind would add to or restrict the meaning or affect the practice. As presently drafted, the information could not be obtained unless a name has been supplied.
The powers of the Secretary of State under the social security legislation, to which the noble Lord referred, are given to him only for the purposes of that legislation. We are seeking to give him power for the purposes of this legislation and restrict it, as I have said, to the current address or current employer of the absent parent—not financial information. That is a restricted type of recourse. The noble Lord referred to memoranda that have been submitted which suggested that the revenue could have been more fully used in the exercise. I need not go into that point in detail because we have not gone down that road. There is no basis for the noble Lord's fears about that matter.

517
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will feel reassured by the fact that the type of information in question is information which, to make it effective, would require that it be related to a named person, because the information is restricted as I have said. I hope that in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Houghton of SowerbyMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his full explanation. However, perhaps I may draw his attention again to Section 59 (2) of the Social Security Act 1986 which provides that for those who are carrying on a trade, profession or vocation, which is assessable to tax under Case I or II of Schedule D,
"disclosure under subsection (1) above relating to that trade, profession or vocation shall be limited to information about the commencement or cessation of the trade, profession or vocation, but sufficient information may also be given to identify the persons concerned".
That means that if a person is assessed under Cases I or II of Schedule D (trading or professional matters upon which one is assessed on profits orgains) such a person is safeguarded against any request by an officer of the DSS to inquire about his income and personal circumstances in relation to that income. But Section 59(1) does not provide any such safeguard in the case of people who are dealt with under PAYE. They are the workers. Those are the people whose affairs are, or can be, laid bare to the DSS in connection, as the noble and learned Lord said, with the operation of any of the benefit Acts. Means-tested benefits are involved. Everything within the DSS which may require information relating to individuals, can be obtained from that given by the worker to the Inland Revenue in connection with his coding or other matters relating to his tax liability.
A distinction is drawn between one section of taxpayers (the better-off on the whole) who have professional advice all the time and the workers who are at the mercy not just of the system of the Inland Revenue itself, which is widespread and complete, but for the purpose of the operation of any of the benefit Acts. What disturbs me is that under omnibus provisions of Clause 59 of the 1986 Act, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can go to the Inland Revenue and say, "Under powers granted under Section 59 of the Social Security Act 1976, please make available to officers of my department information about people dealt with under PAYE". He does not have to come to Parliament for any further authority. He does not have to go to any statutory instrument. He goes merely to the Inland Revenue, to which he has no powers to give directions in this matter, and says, "Will you do it?", and apparently it is done.
Under Schedule 2 of the Bill what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can ask the Inland Revenue to do shall be extended to child support officers. At present, there are two powers side by side: those given to the child support agency, which are limited as I have described, and those given to the Secretary of
518
State and department officials, which are presumably provided for through the action of the Treasury with the Inland Revenue. It means an extension of the area of disclosure under Section 59 of the Social Security Act 1986.
Our safeguards in respect of our personal affairs and our confidentiality are being eroded all the time. Surely one of the conditions of individual liberty is that there are some things that we are not prepared to have disclosed to others. If we are forced to disclose matters relating to our affairs to government departments for statutory purposes, at least some regard should be paid to the extent to which those powers will be granted.
I shall not press Amendments Nos. 106 to 108. Quite honestly, it is futile, unless there is a combined effort on a proposal, to press any amendment in the House on this Bill. However, some day soon there will have to be a major exercise to deal with the position of the Inland Revenue vis-à-vis other elements in our public administration. The erosion of personal liberty within the system of income tax is likely to extend as time goes on.
I do not know how the Inland Revenue will give its authority. If it is left to come under regulations, will it be in writing or by telephone? How this will be carried out is left to a bureaucracy to decide. The question of how it should be dealt with may not even get into regulations nor come to the notice of the House at all. I shall withdraw Amendment No. 106 and not move Amendments Nos. 107 and 108. However, I shall move Amendment No. 109. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 106.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 35, line 48, at end insert ("whose regulations may provide that no person employed by them who has an objection to being relieved of his declaration of secrecy for this particular purpose shall be required to take part in any disclosure").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is directed towards a problem which could arise for Inland Revenue staff. At present, information given by the Inland Revenue relates purely to income tax affairs. Now, the Inland Revenue will supply information for other purposes, for the purpose of the social welfare organisations. In certain circumstances, an officer of the Inland Revenue may find that the child support officer seeks a relative, or even a member of the family. He comes into the office asking for information. I wish to safeguard any Inland Revenue officer from being under an obligation to disclose information which may be to the disadvantage of, or may incriminate, anyone where he feels honourably unable to disclose it. This cannot arise unless disclosure outside the department is involved. Inside the department, everyone is concerned with the administration of income tax. No information given inside the office goes further than the other side of the office for income tax purposes.
However, now someone may come into the office and ask for information regarding the name and

519
address of a certain person. That person may have a relative or close personal friend in the office. I see no reason why an Inland Revenue officer should be forced to give information, at any rate personally. The responsibility should be shifted elsewhere. He should not be required personally to give information which he feels it undesirable to give, having regard to his oath of secrecy. He may not wish that oath of secrecy to be lifted in this connection. It is an important safeguard to give to people engaged in this task. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I venture to support the amendment for the reasons I advanced on the previous one on which voices were raised. It seems to me to be the minimum that can be expected that the commissioners of Inland Revenue should exonerate from the duty of disclosure those who have been reared in the service conscientiously to respect confidentiality.
I believe that in the first line of the amendment the word "may" ought to be "shall". In other words, it should be mandatory on the commissioners to make a regulation respecting the conscience of their subordinate officers. I hope that, if such an amendment is moved at Third Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will regard it favourably. For the reasons that I have advanced previously, as well as those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I hope that the Government will accept this amendment as merely conceding something to perfectly understandable conscientious objections.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has explained that in putting.down this amendment he seeks to allow Inland Revenue employees to refuse to disclose information where the board of the Inland Revenue has authorised disclosure. This would be a marked departure from existing legislation involving disclosure of Inland Revenue information. It appears to qualify the board's right to determine whether the public interest overrides the long-held principle of confidentiality in a particular case. Apart from this objection, it would be out of place for such a provision to be put in legislation which does not originate from the Inland Revenue itself.
The board of the Inland Revenue chooses to authorise disclosure only in cases where the balance of public interest is clearly in favour of disclosure and under statutory powers. To have a provision where individual officers decide whether to disclose would undermine the board's power to decide on the circumstances when disclosure may be permitted and on the principle of public interest. It could also lead to inconsistent decisions. There would be nothing in the legislation to prevent requests for information being passed on to another officer who was willing to disclose the information.
In case it has not been completely understood, I wish to emphasise again that the provision only permits disclosure of limited information: the address of the absent parent and the name and address of the absent parent's employer. This information may be needed to trace the absent parent when other means of
520
tracking him down have failed. As I said in answer to a previous amendment, it is merely an extension of an existing provision to permit the Inland Revenue to disclose information to the Department of Social Security to help trace the absent parent where the person with care receives income support. We are not attempting to conceal the proposed use of Inland Revenue information. It will be public knowledge that this information may be obtained by the child support agency.
In my submission, it would be quite inappropriate to lay down in this Bill provisions for the regulation of the Inland Revenue which are not appropriate to the situation. In view of the limited information in question here and the fact that the Inland Revenue's position and authority are preserved by paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 2, I invite the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, once again I thank the noble and learned Lord. I have taken up enough of the time of the House on this matter. All I can say is that there are always abundant reasons for not taking the actions we wish, simple and elementary though they may be. I shall ask leave to withdraw my amendment and strongly recommend the Inland Revenue departmental Whitley Council to take the matter up itself if it wishes to pursue it. That is obviously a remote possibility; it is not worth flogging it indefinitely. The situation may arise in connection with the new duty which may rest upon Inland Revenue officials. It is surely one of the matters that the Inland Revenue departmental Whitley Council may look at and on which it could reach an accommodation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Powers of inspectors]:
6 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 38:
Leave out Clause 13.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at col. 593 of the Official Report of proceedings in your Lordships' House I stated, at Committee stage on 19th March 1991:
"At Report stage I shall certainly be moving that this clause does not stand part of the Bill unless an amendment comes forward which the Government are prepared to accept".
The amendment I was referring to related to Clause 13 of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I remind the House of the powers contained in the clause. It gives the power to the Secretary of State to,
"appoint inspectors for the purposes of this Act.
(2) For the purpose of acquiring information which the Secretary of State or any child support officer requires for the purposes of this Act, an inspector appointed under this section shall have power—

(a) to enter at all reasonable times any premises which may be inspected under this section; and

(b) to make such examination and enquiry there as he considers appropriate".

Your Lordships may wonder what premises may be inspected under the terms of this provision. That is

521
referred to in Clause 13(3) which states that the premises which may be inspected are any premises at or from which,

"(a) any person is employed;

(b) there is being carried on any agency or other business for the introduction or supply to persons requiring them of persons available to do work or provide services; or

(c) any person carries on any trade, profession, vocation or a business of any kind".

At one stage it was suggested that this measure was merely a repetition of a measure contained in another Bill which related to national insurance contributions, maternity claims and other such provisions. Your Lordships may feel that whatever Parliament was minded to do as regards claims made in connection with national insurance contributions or maternity grants it involved at least an examination by the state of what should be investigated in order to ascertain whether a claim was genuine. However, in this Bill Parliament is being asked to sanction (in most cases it is the father of a child or children against whom maintenance is being sought) that at any stage, without obtaining any leave—certainly not from a magistrate and not even from the Secretary of State—an inspector appointed by the department can go to premises where the father is employed and seek such information as he may require for the purposes of the legislation.
In Committee I said that this measure was a gross infringement of the liberty of a subject who has committed no crime and has made no claim against the state for any contribution on the basis of which such a contribution may be made. The individual concerned is a father and an inspector wants to find out information about him for the purposes of the legislation. Presumably the purpose of the legislation is to determine what the father concerned is earning and what he can pay by way of maintenance. In Committee I said I could well believe that such a matter could cause grave embarrassment to an employee and may cause him to run the risk of losing his job. I maintained that an inspector will be asked by an employer what right he has to ask for such information. The inspector will also be asked where he comes from. Presumably the inspector will reply that he is an officer of a child support agency. I should have thought that was good enough. However, the inspector is most likely to say that he is making inquiries on the matter of child support as he believes that the father he is inquiring about is the father of the child.
Such inquiries may presume that the man concerned is a father and there is a marriage, or that he is a father and there is no marriage. Such inquiries may also presume that he is a father who is married and who has a child of which he has admitted parentage but of which his family, including his wife, have no knowledge. Such a situation could be disastrous. In Committee I asked the Government to table an amendment that would afford some protection to the father. I should have thought a little differently about the matter if the Government had subsequently proposed that the inspector had to ask for leave to make such inquiries from someone high up
522
in the department. I had hoped that the Minister in charge of the department would have to sanction such inquiries before the nosey parker—I hope I may be forgiven for using such an expression—went to a man's place of work. However, the Government will not budge on this issue. They have not tabled any amendment despite the fact that I humbly said I would have to retable the amendment unless some protection is to be afforded to the father.
I hope that no party politics are involved in this matter. I should like to believe that if a Labour government had introduced such a provision in a Bill I could have prevented it. I say to Members on the Benches opposite that no party politics should be involved in this matter, and that Parliament must not be allowed to ride roughshod over people in this way, careless of the harm it may cause. A child support officer must not be allowed to enter an employer's premises without seeking leave to do so. I hope that the House will support me on this matter. I hope noble Lords will consider that my noble friends and I were reasonable when we asked the Government at a previous stage of the Bill to offer some measure that would protect fathers. However, the Government have not done so. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I entirely support every word that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. I am reinforced in that view—I do not know whether the noble Lord was similarly reinforced—by the views of the Law Society of Scotland. The powers in this clause appear to be excessive and inappropriate. We must always look critically at any proposal to give powers of entry to public officials. The powers in Clause 13 require particular scrutiny as they give an inspector the power to enter any premises which are covered by the clause—the premises are widely drawn—and,
"to make such examination and enquiry there as he considers appropriate".
The inspector may question people he finds on the premises and he can require any person to furnish,
"all such information and documents as the inspector may reasonably require".
Those powers appear to be additional to the powers granted under Section 58 of the Social Security Act 1986. The inspector can carry out all those provisions without any warrant. All that he has to do is to produce a certificate. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, the clause is not directed at the premises of the person alleged to be the father but rather at a third party—an employer or possibly a past employer or an employment agency. Therefore we are talking about a third party's interests and a third party's premises.
As if that was not bad enough, the provision is subject to a criminal sanction, which we find in subsection (12). Any person who obstructs or delays the exercise of those powers or without reasonable excuse refuses or neglects to answer any question, furnish information or produce a document is guilty of an offence. In the absence of a warrant I suggest that it ought to be a good defence for the person whose premises are entered to say, "Mind your own business. Go away. Come back if you want to with a warrant". We should support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend upon bringing forward the amendment and on his speech in support of it. There is no doubt that this clause of the Bill is oppressive. Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, properly made the point that no warrant is required to enter the premises.
My wife is a magistrate, as are many Members of this House. I know that, when the police come to them for a warrant to pursue thieves, murderers, muggers and what not, they want to be satisfied that the police have good cause to enter premises either to search or to interview a miscreant. However, in the case of an ordinary father, whether he is married or not, he may, as my noble friend pointed out, be pursued even to his place of work, causing embarrassment and possible risk to his job.
When I was a young man I went to see the play "An Inspector Calls". I did not believe that that sort of thing could ever happen in this country. But here I find many years later that I am discussing the very same matter in the House of Lords. It can happen here. It is happening here and now. Moreover, the new inspectors are under no constraint as regards obtaining warrants. As we have heard, they may enter premises without anyone's leave at any time of night or day and interview any employer or employee, or any other person, without his or her consent and without notice. He or she may be interviewed alone or in company with somebody else.
Those are almost the powers of the Gestapo, not of a proper investigative agency in a democratic society. It is yet another instance of massive state power being used against ordinary folk where failure to co-operate with the bully boys of the agency can lead to the criminal courts and perhaps, if a person refuses on principle to pay a fine, to prison for contempt of court.
That sounds far-fetched, but it could occur under this clause of the Bill. Thus, even friends and relatives are to criminalised if they refuse to give information to a bullying state agency. Employers will be placed in an impossible situation vis-à-vis their employees. The position of an employee vis-à-vis his employer could be even worse where the agency was pursuing the employer or one of his relatives or friends. Such an employee is damned either way. If he refuses to give information to the inspector he risks being hauled before the courts. On the other hand, if he gives the information demanded by the inspector and such information hurts his employer, he could find his future prospects diminished.
This growing concentration of administrative power puts the individual at a disadvantage and his individual freedom at risk. Time and time again throughout this Bill we have heard of individual freedom being put at risk. I am afraid that this view is not far-retched; these things are happening here and now. The courts, which exist to protect the individual, are being bypassed in the name of administrative convenience. Unfortunately, Parliament, which is supposed to be the protector of individual liberty, seems sometimes to connive with the state to undermine it. Indeed, it seems to me that Parliament,
524
which represents ordinary people and their democratic rights, is becoming an agent of the state in suppressing those rights in Bills of this sort.
A new, softer image is being projected by the Prime Minister, but, though the image may be softer, the reality remains unchanged. This Bill, and this clause in particular, shows that the Government are seemingly careless of individual rights and freedoms, especially when those affected are likely to be ordinary working-class folk without the financial resources to fight the Big Brother state. I feel that, unfortunately, George Orwell was after all right and we are now all animals on the farm.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships have heard powerful speeches in support of the amendment. It would be supererogatory if I tried to cover the same ground. The deepest constitutional, social and personal arguments are being put forward against the extraordinary powers conferred by the clause. I wish to make only two points.
The first is that there is great danger in our concentrating on a provision immediately in question. If I may say so, my noble and learned friend, with his incomparable dialectic and parliamentary gifts, weaves a web of argument which obscures the enormity of one provision after another. It is very important that at each stage we look back and look forward as well as looking on the provisions themselves. If we look back we see the jurisdiction of the courts ousted in Clause 7. We see traditional confidentiality stripped away. If we look forward we see liability orders and the desperate remedy of distress made available, and not only made available but stripped of all the safeguards which the common law has erected round that drastic remedy.
The other point that I wish to make is this. One of the many valuable aspects of the arguments of the noble Lord Stoddart of Swindon has been to remind us—as we should be reminded constantly—that we are dealing with a human being. He is not, in the old phrase, a wolf's head to be hunted. He is not only a human being but he may be a deeply wronged human being. His wife may have got tired of him, preferred some more romantic figure and gone off with him, taking the children. Then, after what is distastefully called a "quickie" divorce, she may have married her lover. She will naturally wish to build him up as a father figure in the eyes of her children.
I cannot think how many times I have been told when trying to keep contact between a child and his father, "There is nothing I can do. The child has an invincible repugnance to seeing his or her father". One knows that that is not a natural reaction of a child. One suspects the psychological pressures and influences, often unconscious, that are brought to bear.
Let us look back to the father, deprived of his family, cut off from his children, seeing another man being built up in his place. That is the man with whom we are concerned in all these extraordinary measures of enforcement. Of course, he should support his

525
children, but there should be reciprocal rights for him. He should support his children, but not every measure can properly be taken to compel him to do so.
I am glad that the noble Lord has moved the amendment and I am profoundly grateful for the three notable speeches that have been made in support of it.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, we have heard some extraordinarily forceful and powerful speeches, not only on this amendment but on previous amendments, from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on the question of confidentiality. Without speaking to the generality of Clause 13, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend, with all his great distinction, has analysed some of the subsections in the clause. I should like to ask him whether the Government will look at the detail of the points that I wish to raise.
Subsection (2), for instance, includes the phrase:
"For the purpose of acquiring information which the Secretary of State or any child support officer requires".
That presumably means that any child support officer can ask for any information that he or she considers should be required in order to obtain a maintenance assessment. Any child support officer throughout the country can therefore pass on any information that he deems necessary and can directly require an inspector, without any superior officer to control the act, to do the things that have already been adumbrated by other noble Lords. If you are to ask an inspector to go into premises and perform the acts and duties stated in the clause there must be some superior control over the child support officer with regard to that decision. It is a major decision interfering in the privacy of people who, as we have said throughout the debate, are in a vulnerable position whether they are the caring parent, the absent parent or the children who suffer as a result of those breakdowns. I should have thought that a child support officer must at least have the agreement of a superior officer before asking an inspector to undertake that kind of action.
Similarly, subsection (4)—I shall not go through all the subsections but only deal with three points that struck me as I read through the clause—states:
"An inspector exercising the powers conferred on him by this section may question, either alone or in the presence of any other person, any person whom he finds on the premises".
Does that provision include children? Does it mean that an inspector can go into any office, agency or business and demand of a child of 13, 14 or 15 information of the kind that is required by the child support officer? There should at least be a definition of the word "person" and some other person to whom application can be made if this is an infringement of liberty. The wording should be revised.
My third point relates to subsection (8) which states:
"the Secretary of State may make arrangements for any of the powers given by this section to be exercised by that inspector".
The phrase "that inspector" relates to an inspector from another department. That provision implies the circulation of confidential information from one department to another; yet, as I understand it, there is apparently no control over child support officers asking for that information. I appreciate that they need certain information if they are to make correct
526
maintenance assessments, and we have been through all that before, but surely a child support officer in a support agency should not have the unmitigated and uncontrolled right to ask an inspector to undertake those acts and to require the information in the way outlined in the clause.
I am sure that, if my noble and learned friend looks at the clause in the light of the comments that have been made—I am sure that he has already read it carefully—he will find many points which need much tighter control and drafting. I should be grateful if he would address the problem in the light of the points that I have raised.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like briefly to ask my noble and learned friend whether he is worried that the clause is out of line with other legislation. Under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and the Children Act 1948 any child coming into the care of a local authority must be assessed for payment. The parents are seen, but an appeal is never made to the place of work or anywhere else without the parents' written permission. If the parents will not give written permission and will not pay the amount we must ask a court to say that we may enter a place of work. That can be done only with court agreement.
Under the Children Act 1989, without a court order no one may enter the home of any parent who is said to be abusing or is thought to be abusing. However, as I understand it, no court order is required under this clause. Likewise, under the health Acts, no health visitor may enter a house, if refused entry, without a court order. It therefore seems strange that no court order is required under this Bill whereas it is required under other legislation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that this section of the Bill confers extraordinary powers on the Executive. One of the problems is that when governments of any political persuasion have been in office for a long time clauses of this kind creep into Bills. I suspect that in the first or second years of office Ministers would have been apprehensive about giving a state agency the kind of powers that are conferred in this clause. It is excessive to say that officials will be given powers of that kind, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and others, that no warrant will be needed and that there will be a criminal sanction for non-compliance. Where are we going? We all recognise that the noble and learned lord has a decent regard for civil liberties, but this is a wholly inappropriately drafted clause.
I hope that even at this late hour the noble and learned Lord will agree to consider the points that have been raised—the House has been wholly unanimous on this point—and to look at the matter before Third Reading. It would be a great pity if the clause were to be left in the statute and operated by an agency. I do not suggest that the agency concerned would necessarily behave with gross impropriety, but I simply do not like officials of the state being given powers of that kind.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, when the clause states that the inspector may question "any person", does that mean that he can go to any colleague—indeed, the tea lady or any gossip in the company and there are always a great many—to request that information?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of the provision that we are now considering in Clause 13 is to provide information which is required for the purpose of a proper assessment of maintenance support for a person's children and the necessary information that may be required to enforce it. That is the purpose of this measure. If one sets up a system for maintenance, surely it is necessary to have effective powers of enforcement.
The purpose of the powers is only that of acquiring information. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I believe that when he compared the powers with those of the Gestapo he was guilty of a degree of exaggeration. I suspect that the Gestapo thought that it had considerably greater powers than those of simply obtaining information. With great respect I do not believe that argument on a clause of this kind is assisted materially by what I might refer to as a degree of exaggeration.
The purpose of the clause is quite clear. It is:
"For the purpose of acquiring information which the Secretary of State or any child support officer requires for the purposes of this Act".
In other words, it is information which it is necessary to obtain in order that the purposes of the Act shall be fulfilled. It is not a question of any child support officer thinking of information that he might like to ask of a gossipy tea lady. I should not wish to associate myself with the view that tea ladies are particularly gossipy. I am sure that male messengers are at least as gossipy as tea ladies.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord. I spoke of a tea lady or any gossipy person.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not know whether the just and generous rule is applied in reverse to that. I do not think that I referred to the noble Baroness's remarks in particular but your Lordships may well think that I had them in mind.
The situation is that the information is information which i3 required. That matter is at the root of the warrant, so to speak. Unless the person requires information for the purposes of the Act, there is no power to do anything of the kind that is required in this provision. So it is not a question of any information that anyone may think of; it is information required for the purposes of this Act. Under the Bill a child support officer is an officer of the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for him and accountable to Parliament for the way in which the powers are exercised.
The next point is that the inspector is to have power "to enter at all reasonable times". The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested that it could be at any time of the day or night. I question whether that is a reasonable interpretation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I said that advisedly. I referred advisedly to night or day. It may very well be that when a factory is working nights the only time that the inspector could obtain such information would be during the night.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if it is reasonable to go at night, I can understand. But it is not a question of any hour of the day or night unqualified. I can understand if it concerns people who work at night and it is reasonable to go at night—and there is at least a suggestion that sometimes what goes on at night may require investigation. The point is that the qualification is "at all reasonable times" and not just at any hour of the day or night unless the hour of day or night is reasonable.
Subsection (3) states:
"The premises which may be inspected under this section are any which the inspector concerned has reasonable grounds for supposing to be premises at or from which—

(a) any person is employed;

(b) there is being carried on any agency or other business for the introduction or supply to persons requiring them of persons available to do work or provide services"
what one might call an employment or work agency—

"or"
(c) any person carries on any trade, profession, vocation or a business of any kind".
That is a restriction in the premises to which this provision applies and it is important.
With regard to the information asked for—and this applies to subsection (4) also—the person is to,
"furnish to the inspector all such information and documents as the inspector may reasonably require for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)"—
that is to say, for the purposes of this Act—for the purpose of ascertaining the whereabouts of a parent and the amount of maintenance which he or she should pay under the Act.
In considering whether a warrant is necessary—and a great deal has been said about that—it is very important to look at subsection (6) which states:
"No person shall be required under this section to answer any question or to give any evidence tending to incriminate himself or, in the case of a person who is married, his or her spouse".
That differentiates this kind of clause very substantially from anything to do with criminal investigation or applications for a search warrant for the purpose of finding evidence of crime.
The purpose of using another inspector—a matter to which my noble friend Lady Elles referred—is to minimise the amount of inspection that requires to be done in relation to a particular set of premises. For example, if an inspector is going for the purpose of a benefit inspection, it is very reasonable that instead of sending somebody else from the child support agency someone should be sent who is already going there. That is the point of allowing another government department inspector to obtain the necessary information. It is wholly intended to help and to restrict the number of visits that would be required.
The visitor requires to have a certificate of appointment before he enters. That, if one likes, is his warrant. His warrant is the warrant that he is an inspector appointed under this clause for the very limited purposes of the clause. The criminal sanction

529
is only directed against intentionally delaying or obstructing a person. It is intentional delay or obstruction. Subsection (12) (b) requires that it be "without reasonable excuse" in other words, that the person refusing or neglecting to answer the question has a reason for doing so.
I have attempted to answer the detailed points on this provision put by my noble friend Lady Elles.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble and learned friend. I also asked for the definition of "person" in subsection (4). I should mention that before the noble and learned Lord goes on to another argument.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that "person" has been restricted; in other words, it would include a child. I intended to return to that point. A number of matters have been raised which I should have thought were perhaps worthy of special consideration and that is one of them. I have sought to deal in some detail with the general matters raised on the clause by my noble friend to set the clause in context. As I said, the purpose is to ensure that effective means of enforcement are available against absent parents if there is a problem ascertaining their whereabouts or assessing their responsibility. Surely it is vitally important, at least as important as checking on benefits and the payment of national insurance contributions, that parents should be responsible for proper payments in respect of their children. As I have emphasised, the only purpose of this clause is to make that good and nothing more.
I submit to your Lordships that if such a clause is justified (as was implicit in the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with good reason) and such powers exist in relation to social security inspectors for the purposes of benefit, then proper responsibility for one's children is at least as important and effective means of implementation are necessary.
It is vital that the agency has the necessary powers to prevent children being defrauded or I should say deprived of money to which they are entitled. I must not exaggerate when I have been finding fault with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. It could amount to defrauding the children if one were deliberately hiding away or giving wrong information about one's income. I do not wish to exaggerate the matter, but that is certainly a possible case. Proper powers are required to deal with children being deprived of money to which they are entitled.
It is important that the agency has the means quickly and effectively to obtain the information so that maintenance is put into payment as quickly as possible. I am sure all of your Lordships, or certainly those who have had responsibilities in connection with matters of children and single parent families, know of the agonised cries of single parents who, notwithstanding having a court order, have been unable to get the money to which the court finds they are entitled. To follow up a court order in those circumstances is an executive act in pursuance of that order.
In most cases the information will be obtained by
530
post or by telephone calls, but there will be occasions when a visit is necessary. At the Committee stage my noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether any approach had been made to employers. I understand that officials in the Department of Social Security have been consulting representatives of self-employed and employers' organisations and that they meet regularly to discuss the proposals in the Bill to ensure that the measures are implemented with the minimum disruption to business. Obviously, that is a matter which we very much wish to have in mind, and it is the reason why, instead of having a series of inspectors for the purposes of this Bill we are seeking to use those who might be involved in any case. The meetings have been constructive and helpful and I understand that there has been no opposition to the idea of using inspectors. Apart from anything else, inspectors may be able to help businesses by visiting employers who do not have the resources to provide the information by letter or telephone at the speed the agency needs it.
At Second Reading, in Committee and today, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, expressed concern that the absent parent might be embarrassed by the arrival of inspectors at his workplace. The noble Lord took his concern to the length of declaring that the relationship between the employer and the employee might be jeopardised, and that aspect figured in what he said today.
In most cases the inspector would need to visit the pay section only, and no one outside that section need be aware of the visit, let alone the reason for it. I can assure your Lordships that inspectors operating the powers under this clause would be trained to a high standard, and detailed guidance would be given to them. Your Lordships will appreciate that any question of paternity is one not for the agency but for the court. The agency's powers and duties arise in relation only to someone in respect of whom paternity has been established. The inspectors will use discretion and will not divulge the specific purpose of the visit. In that respect they have techniques available to them which would not be available in the service of an ordinary court writ. If an application is made for an attachment of earnings order, some details of the case are given in the order that is granted.
In Committee the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the problems that could be caused by the visit of an inspector to see the husband where the wife and husband jointly run a business. In such cases the agency will already have attempted to contact the husband by post and he will have had ample opportunity to contact the agency to supply the requested information or to arrange for the interview to take place at a convenient time and place.
I recognise that this is an important clause. It is a difficult one, but it has a very important purpose. It is limited to conferring the powers for that purpose alone. That is perfectly plain from subsection (2).
I ask your Lordships not to give effect to the amendment. Obviously, I shall look closely at all that has been said and consider whether anything in particular should be done by way of amendment. I should especially wish to look at the question of

531
whether subsection (4) requires to be limited in some way, having regard to the point that was made by my noble friend Lady Elles.
In the light of those explanations, and of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he agree that the speech just given to us is a classic example of the maxim that the end justifies the means?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would not agree with that at all. I do not know how classical I should like to claim the speech I have just given to be, but it showed that the end is first of all of importance and if the means are properly restricted in relation to the end that justifies the means. I say that these means are extremely reasonable in relation to the end; they are justified. Parliament accepted them some time ago in relation to social security legislation, and I consider that if they are justified for that they are certainly justified for working out effectively the responsibility of a parent to maintain his or her child.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the Lord Chancellor sits down, I wonder if he can help me. I hesitate to enter into a debate in which so many noble and learned Lords have taken part, but I am very concerned that I have not yet heard the Lord Chancellor reply to the fundamental principles involved in the arguments. Nobody in this Chamber was quarrelling about the need to obtain information. Nobody was quarrelling about the need to make a father accept his responsibilities for the upkeep of his children. The argument concerns who should carry out the necessary procedures to obtain the information and ultimately to ensure that the parent is accepting his responsibilities. I have not yet heard the Lord Chancellor reply to that argument.
If, in my perhaps uneducated and naive way, I assume that the courts of this land are an extension of Parliament, surely they should decide on behalf of Parliament what decisions should be taken in regard to the individual. I stand to be corrected, but I understood the Lord Chancellor to say that the Secretary of State would appoint the inspectors and therefore ultimately the Secretary of State would be responsible. That may be true, but the damage to the individual concerned, which was outlined, about somebody penetrating his place of work and asking all kinds of questions which might ultimately lead to his dismissal, would already have been done before the Secretary of State got to know about it.
I am very concerned, like everybody else in the country, about the recent abuse trials. There were junior officers concerned, some of whom certainly would not have had the wisdom or experience of the people in our courts. The outcome was tragic not only for those concerned and their children but for the whole of the service. In some cases, the faith in the service 'Alas damaged almost beyond repair.
This is not a matter that should be settled by noble Lords walking through the Lobby, although I would
532
certainly do so in support of the amendment. If the matter is so settled, the result will be an accident of faith. Peers who are not listening to the debate will walk through the Lobby because they are told to do so. This is not a party issue.
I appeal to the noble and learned Lord to say that he will look at the matter again, and will come back on Third Reading in order to reach an agreement. Failure to agree will continue for years to come. The people appointed as inspectors will in some cases show the opprobrium mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stoddart.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my remarks about the responsibility of the Secretary of State related to the point made by my noble friend about the level at which decisions are taken. The responsibility for that will lie with the Secretary of State in respect of which he is answerable to Parliament. However, the powers conferred are strictly limited by subsection (2) of the clause. The inspectors will be officers of the state. The state will be charging them with the important duty of ensuring that absent parents properly discharge their financial responsibilities to their children.
That is a perfectly legitimate objective. The means being used for obtaining it are perfectly reasonable. If they are reasonable, as I submit, in respect of the amount of benefit and so forth they are at least as responsible in respect of the important issue of a parent's responsibility for the maintenance of his or her child.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, having heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor slightly chastise my noble friend Lord Stoddart, I must not use exaggerated language and I hope that I shall not do so. I did not believe that in this House, which is the nation's safeguard of its liberties, I should hear the noble and learned Lord, whose reputation in the field is unqualified, say what he has said.
The noble and learned Lord said that it was perfectly all right, surely, to give an inspector the right to go to a place of employment without any warrant or approval of a superior officer, let alone the Secretary of State. Having arrived at those premises, he could make anyone whom he met responsible for giving him information for any of the purposes of the Bill. That includes finding out where the person concerned lives, his earnings and whether he has voluntarily accepted overtime. At the end there is a penal clause providing that anyone who fails to give that information might be guilty of an offence.
The issue goes further than that. In seeking to say that the liberty of the subject was very much in his mind and that of those who support the Bill, the noble and learned Lord said, as though it were a great relief, that the person would not be committing a criminal offence and need not give the information if he were incriminating himself. A basic principle of our law, even when giving evidence in a court of law under subpoena, is that one can be relieved of doing so if the giving of that evidence incriminates. Without doubt that is not a defence to this provision.
The noble and learned Lord went on to say that the inspectors have such powers under the Social Security

533
Act 1986. That Act deals with people who are claiming benefits and who, in support of that claim, have given information which the authorities wish to check. As regards this Bill, we are dealing not with someone who has been found to be in arrears perhaps for six months or more, but with someone who may not be in arrears but whose address the authorities cannot discover. An officer acting within his rights for any of the purposes under the Bill can go to the man's place of employment. The man may be living with a lady who is not his wife at an address unknown to the wife. The inspector can say to the employer, "I am an inspector appointed under the Act and I require you to give me information. Where is the man living whom you employ?". The inspector can also ask about the man's earnings, overtime and so forth.
When dealing with the matter in Committee, I tried to adopt a moderate course. I know that the matter is not a political point and no one is trying to make such a point. Noble Lords opposite have supported the amendment. I do not seek to gain a political victory but a victory for the freedom of the subject. That is a completely different matter. If at this late stage the noble and learned Lord said, "I see the force of the argument. I am a protector of the liberty of the subject and of the employee. I do not wish to see the purpose of the Act defeated by somebody losing his job and therefore unable to support his child. I do not wish to run that risk. I am prepared to consider that some authority must be given if only by the Secretary of State", then I would not have achieved everything I had wished for, but at least there would be a break on the issue.
The noble and learned Lord treated the House to a description of inspectors whom he has not met, whom he does not know and whom he will never know. He described them as being people who are discreet and who will behave with the utmost gentility and courtesy. If the noble and learned Lord were giving evidence in a court of law, he might be cross-examined about the basis of his belief.
This is not a party point of view and no one will claim a victory politically or otherwise. If I call a Division, the issue will not be answered, as my noble friend said. Peers will come into the Chamber from various recesses of your Lordships' House, some provided with refreshment and some not, and they will vote without knowing what the amendment is about. I do not want to leave the matter there. I plead with the noble and learned Lord to say that between now and Third Reading he will consider the matter sympathetically and impose some consent before the inspector can use the powers. If it were the Secretary of State, although I should prefer an authority outside the department, I should say that that is a concession and liberty has been safeguarded to some degree. I plead with the noble and learned Lord.
7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in the course of my remarks I said that I would consider carefully all that has been said. Your Lordships know that if I consider anything, I try to do
534
so with as much sympathy as the case appears to require. However, I am not in a position to go further than saying that I shall consider carefully all that has been said. I appreciate the importance of this in considering the way forward.
I am not sure to what extent some of the suggestions may be practical. I am under the impression that these matters are important but I am not prepared to commit myself, and I do not believe it would be right for me to commit myself, to a view that this clause could be substantially modified. I have indicated that I shall consider matters which have been raised. Your Lordships must then decide what action to take in the light of that. I regard those matters as important; but I also regard as vitally important the need for children to receive the appropriate maintenance.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord has forgotten what he said before. That was the reason I pleaded in the way I did. He said specifically that he would reconsider subsection (4), which is limited to an inspector exercising the powers conferred on him either alone or in the presence of any other person. That was the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I believe that he is now saying that he is prepared to consider the whole clause and the submissions which I have made. In that case, I thank the noble and learned Lord. If there is to be a concession, I hope that that will be made clear between now and Third Reading. If the noble and learned Lord is unable to make the concession, we shall then have the opportunity to raise the matter on Third Reading.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that I said that I would consider all that had been said and in particular the point made by my noble friend Lady Elles. I always seek to consider what your Lordships have said because I regard that as part of my responsibility and because what your Lordships say is well worthy of consideration. However, I wish to make it plain that I am not undertaking that we shall be able to come forward with any concession whatever on Third Reading. I hope that that will be understood and that your Lordships will take such a course as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, advises.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I understand that and would not expect the noble and learned Lord to say more at this stage. I ask only one favour of him; namely, so that all those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and who feel deeply about this know where they stand, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be able to inform us before Third Reading as to what is his reaction. We shall then know what course to pursue. I know that the noble and learned Lord will not regard that in any way as a threat or an inducement to him to make a concession. If it was an inducement, I should be glad about that.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if it were an inducement, it would not be improper. I shall certainly try to inform the noble Lord and those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate of the position so that it can be considered before Third Reading.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cavendish of Furness; My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration be now adjourned and suggest that Report stage begin again at 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill
7.6 p.m,.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill was originally presented in another place by my honourable friend the late Donald Coleman, then Member for Neath. His tragic death led to the Bill passing into the hands of my honourable friend the Member for Caerphilly who, with the support of the other sponsors and with the willing support of the Government, has seen it through all its stages in another place.
The Bill was conceived by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to strengthen the prohibition against certain methods of killing or taking wild birds and other animals. At present the Act makes it an offence to employ certain methods. The amendment would also make it an offence to cause or permit others ro employ such methods. That will enable enforcement officers to question employers or landowners who may have instructed or allowed their staff to behave illegally and will bring wildlife legislation into line with legislation protecting domestic and farm animals which contains "cause or permit" provisions.
The need for greater protection is clear. The RSPB produced figures which show that last year alone birds of prey were involved in over 530 incidents of poisoning, shooting and trapping. Many of those incident; were illegal; and, given the size and nature of the terrain over which that takes place, it is safe to assume that the real figure is greater.
Many of our rarest and most beautiful species are at risk. I can give more statistics if noble Lords require them, but I shall not do that at this stage. There is on record at least one case of a gamekeeper who claimed that he had been instructed by his employer to lay poison, and that he was afraid of loosing his job if he did not obey. The gamekeeper was convicted but the employer had committed no offence against the law as it stanch and could not be prosecuted. Closing that loophole would make employers responsible for the acts of their employees and would undoubtedly improve wildlife protection. New Clause 1(4) provides a defence: in cases of accident or mistake.
The majority of farmers and landowners act responsibly. That makes it even more important that those who do not so act are prosecuted. The RSPB is to be congratulated on its dedication to the protection
536
of wildlife, and I commend those members of staff who take considerable personal risks to collect information to illustrate their case.
I am grateful to the Government for their support so far, and I hope that that support is still available to see this Bill safely onto the statute book.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Nicol.)
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, on these Benches we agree wholeheartedly with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said. I do not believe that there is anything contentious in the Bill. Most reasonable people would agree with the simple statement that it makes. It strengthens the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. For the first time it allows the police and others investigating offences where protected species have been "persecuted"—that is the word used by the RSPB—and killed unlawfully to question the real culprits who are the landowners and those who authorise their staff to trap, shoot and poison illegally the kind of wildlife covered by the Bill.
The Bill is in no sense an attack on legitimate field sports, nor will it reduce legal methods of controlling pest species. It is directed to deterring people from using illegal methods of killing wildlife. The background to the Bill is that, in the case of birds, in which I am personally interested, certain species are seriously threatened. As I was discussing outside your Lordships' Chamber with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, there are people—not only young people—who do not appreciate that if these species are allowed to disappear because they are not adequately protected, those who follow will not be able to appreciate the beauty of many species which have enriched our wildlife in this country.
I refer specifically to the red kite. That is a bird which was, certainly during the 16th and 17th centuries, common over London. It was common throughout these islands and particularly in areas of habitation. Now there are only around 60 pairs known to be breeding in central Wales. I am told that the golden eagle is less threatened than it was. The buzzard, which has thankfully recovered in the south-western counties—Devon and Cornwall—is still threatened in southern and eastern England. The Bill will allow those species and others a reasonable chance to increase so that generations who follow will be able to enjoy them in the way that people have enjoyed them in the past.
We thoroughly support the Bill. However, I ask the Minister whether the Government would consider granting an amnesty arrangement, without fear of prosecution, for those who have stocks of unwanted pesticides so as to allow those pesticides to be withdrawn. That would be an additional help.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in the debate. However, I should like to say a few words to indicate how strongly I support what the

537
noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, and how much I hope the Bill will receive the support of your Lordships.
I live on the edge of red kite country in Wales. It is a small and fragile population which has suffered greatly from persecution. There have been deplorable cases recently of red kites being poisoned. It is extremely important that everything possible should be done to stop that.
I feel very strongly also that gamekeepers who take action illegally against birds by putting out poisoned eggs and so forth, are liable to prosecution while their employers apparently are not liable at all. Any landowner whose gamekeeper or other employees behave in such a way should certainly bear a measure of responsibility. That is extremely important.
I hope your Lordships will support the Bill, which is an admirable and very necessary one.
7.14 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Nicol not only on the substance of the Bill, which I support officially from this Dispatch Box, but also on the way in which she introduced it. I congratulate her also on her sense of timing. No doubt my noble friend will have seen today's copy of The Times containing a splendid picture of Gurkhas protecting the last 52 nesting pairs of red kites in Wales. It makes one think that possibly this House is a habitat for endangered species. I cannot imagine many other places in the country where there are as many employers of gamekeepers as there are in your Lordships' House. The Bill brings those employers of gamekeepers to heel.
I see the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, present, who is undoubtedly an employer of gamekeepers. I hope that the Minister, who herself must be an employer of gamekeepers, will ensure that gamekeepers obey the provisions in the Bill.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I had not intended to speak but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned my name. Like everything else, there are gamekeepers and gamekeepers. I am sure that my gamekeepers do not destroy anything which they are not allowed to destroy. The other day one took great pleasure in taking me out to show me a merlin's nest on my moor, which I was delighted to see.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I never doubted for a moment that that would be the case. However, the noble Earl has given me great encouragement in my belief that the nesting habits of employers of gamekeepers are as I suspected and as I hoped. This is a good Bill and deserves both the unanimous support it received in another place and the support of your Lordships.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in view of the last comments I should perhaps say at the outset that my name is Lady Blatch and not Lady Chatterley!
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in carrying forward this Bill, which the Government
538
support wholeheartedly. We share her concern about the illegal killing of wild birds or animals, particularly where cruel or indiscriminate methods are used.
The noble Baroness explained that the Bill would make it an offence for a person to cause or permit another to contravene the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which prohibit the use of certain means of killing or taking wild birds or protected species. The Act already provides very strict controls in that area and offenders face heavy penalties. But the Bill would help to strengthen those controls by making people who manage or oversee land responsible for ensuring that they or their employees do not use unlawful means to kill wildlife. We are thankful that most farmers and landowners act responsibly, as the noble Baroness said, and within the law. But, regrettably, there are those who pay little regard to the consequences of using substances or methods which cause unnecessary suffering to birds and animals and put at risk many of our endangered wild species.
The Bill would bring the Wildlife and Countryside Act into line with the equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland. It would also parallel provisions in the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, which controls, among other things, the sale, storage and use of pesticides.
The Bill was amended in another place to reflect the Government's policy on the creation of "causes or permits" offences. It has always been implicit that the successful prosecution of such offences depends on evidence that the accused person had some sort of knowledge of the offence with which he was charged with causing or permitting. It is normal practice to make that clear on the face of the legislation and it helps to clarify the court's understanding of the nature of such offences. As amended, the Bill would make it an offence if a person knowingly caused or permitted another to contravene the Act's provisions for the protection of wildlife.
The House should also be aware that we propose to introduce, in Committee, two further minor amendments to bring the Bill into line with other legislation on the creation of new offences. The first would ensure that the Bill did not come into force on Royal Assent. As is usual, a period of two months would be allowed to give the public an opportunity to become aware of the changes in the law before they started to operate.
At this point perhaps I could answer the specific question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. The two-month period would enable people who possess stocks of unwanted pesticide to get rid of them. We shall of course discuss with MAFF whether further action is required to ensure that unnecessary poisons are not held.
The second minor amendment would prevent the Bill, when enacted, from operating retrospectively. Anything done prior to the Act would not become an offence; only those actions taking place after the Act comes into force would be caught by the new provisions.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that we owe it to ourselves and to future generations to take great care of our wildlife in order to preserve its abundance

539
and diversity. The 1981 Act has been the vital key to establishing comprehensive and effective procedures for protecting species and their habitats. But unfortunately there are those who, by their thoughtlessness or ill-considered actions, undermine these procedures by acting outside the law and ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of people in their concern to preserve our natural heritage.
This Bill would help to bring home to people who use or permit the use of illegal methods to kill wildlife that we are determined to do everything possible to meet our objectives for the protection of our national heritage and especially our endangered species. We must stamp out illegal practices that cause so much unnecessary suffering to our wildlife and the death of species that do no harm. We wish the Bill well in its remaining stages.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in support of the Bill. I understand the amendment that the Government are bringing forward. I feel a little uneasy at the use by the noble Baroness of the phrase "to give them an extra two months in which to get rid of the pesticides". I hope that the result will not be that the pesticides are got rid of by a quick, all-over poisoning of the remaining terrain. However, we shall discuss that during the Committee stage.
The suggestion put forward by the noble Viscount for an amnesty on pesticides is a good idea. It will enable people to return them and perhaps remove the temptation to get rid of them by use. It is greatly to the credit of Members of your Lordships' House, among whom there are so many who employ gamekeepers, that none of them has turned out today to question the passage of the Bill. I take that as very encouraging and as a sign that they are all responsible employers of gamekeepers. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committx1 to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House d o now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.22 to 8.5 p.m.]

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed. Clause 14 [Periodical assessments]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 10, line 19, leave out ("a maintenance assessment") and insert ("maintenance assessments").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a very short point. It arises from my having I believe, misconstrued subsection (1) of Clause 14 which deals with periodical assessments. It opens with the phrase:
"The Secretary of State shall make such arrangements as he considers necessary to secure that where a maintenance assessment has been in force for a prescribed period".
540
I read "a maintenance assessment" literally. I thought at first it meant a particular maintenance assessment, but having reread it and the rest of the clause several times, I think it means—the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong that the Secretary of State may make an order bringing all maintenance assessments to an end after a prescribed period. I therefore propose that instead of "a maintenance assessment" the subsection should read "maintenance assessments". However, that involves a grammatical solecism at the end of the line and it may be that the right phrase is "any maintenance assessment" or "all maintenance assessments". All I can do now is to move the amendment, see the reaction of my noble and learned friend and, if there is any doubt—as I think there may be—ask whether the Government will reconsider the drafting. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of this subsection is to allow the Secretary of State to make an arrangement for regular review of maintenance assessments. The draftsman has sought to deal with that by taking the singular and providing that where a maintenance assessment has been in force for, let us say, a year the amount of maintenance fixed by that assessment is reviewed by a child support officer. Therefore, if a maintenance assessment has been made on 1st December this year it would be reviewed on 1st December next year; and an assessment made on 1st November would be reviewed on the following 1st November, and so on. The idea is that what is fixed is a period from the making of the particular assessment before that assessment has to be reviewed.
I believe that the clause as drafted has that effect. That is certainly the way I read it. I appreciate, of course, that when one knows what is supposed to be said it often is easier to understand language in that way than if one is reading it without having had anything to do with putting the policy together. I believe that it is reasonably clear. But I shall, of course, be happy to mention the fact to the draftsman.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has made it clear that what it means is assessments. In fact, he used that word. This is one of those cases where one cannot rely upon the Interpretation Act to say that the singular includes the plural. There is a doubt in the matter. It does not seem to me to be a suitable term in this connection. However, my noble and learned friend has said that he will reconsider the matter with the aid of the draftsman. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 10, line 28, leave out from ("made") to end of line 29.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 43, which raises the same point, and Amendment No. 49, which raises a slightly different, though cognate, point. I shall move the latter separately. Clause 14(3) states:
"A review shall be conducted under this section as if a fresh application for a maintenance assessment had been made".

541
That seems to me to be all that one needs to say. The following words,
"by the person in whose favour the original assessment was made",
do not, so far as I can see, add anything to the meaning. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for raising the matter. It seems to me that the words to which he referred may be surplus. I should like to make certain with parliamentary counsel whether there is any particular reason for the use of that expression, but, unless he gives me some explanation which has not so far occurred to me, I propose to put forward a government amendment to the effect suggested by my noble and learned friend.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 15 [Reviews on change of circumstances]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 11, line 2, after ("6") insert ("either of them or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this technical amendment will make it clear in cases where the application for maintenance is made by a child in Scotland that not only the child but also the absent parent or the person with care may apply for a review on the grounds of a change of circumstances. That brings the provision into line with that in Clause 17(2) (b) and subsection (2) (b) of the proposed new clause about the review of decisions of child support officers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 11, line 9, leave out from ("different") to end of line 11.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises a point similar to the one I have just made. It arises in subsection (2), which states:
"An application under this section may be made only on the ground that, by reason of a change of circumstances since the original assessment was made, the amount of child support maintenance payable by the absent parent would be significantly different".
Again, that group of words seems to say everything that one wants. So far as I can tell, the words which follow,
"if it were to be fixed by a maintenance assessment made by reference to the circumstances of the case as at the date of the application",
do not add anything to those which preceded them. Therefore, unless those words have a significance which has escaped me, I suggest that they be omitted. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in my view there is a difference. I say that because one wants to know what are the circumstances at a fixed date to ascertain
542
whether or not they have differed from those which existed at the date of application. Line 2 of subsection (2) reads,
"since the original assessment was made".
If the noble and learned Lord's amendment was accepted, the subsection would read as though the application had to date from the original assessment. The final words, which the noble and learned Lord seeks to delete, make it clear that the circumstances which are relevant are those which obtain,
"at the date of the application".
Obviously, the date of application is different from the date of the original assessment. I do not know if that is the intention, but that is what it means.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The idea is to explain the basis upon which the significant difference in an assessment is to be judged. The initial explanation in the provision is thought to be needed to help prevent frequent, perhaps weekly, reassessments being requested by either the absent parent or the person with care.
The clause seeks to strike a balance between not taking account of small changes immediately and the need for a review of circumstances before the next periodic review where, for example, an absent parent loses his job or obtains much better paid employment. The idea is that we must have a change which will reflect itself in a significant difference in the actual amount of child support maintenance payable. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I understand the point which has been made. However, in my submission, that is completely covered by the words "significantly different". That defines the two points which have to be compared. However, it is not the sort of issue upon which to divide or even argue about at this time of night. I intend to withdraw the amendment. I hope that my noble and learned friend will consider the matter, together with the previous amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 11, line 16, leave out from ("made") to end of line 17.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have just been handed a note which states that this amendment raises exactly the same point as that dealt with in Amendment No. 40. If that is the case, I can rely on my noble and learned friend who said that he would consider it with the draftsman. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I intended to cover this point when my noble and learned friend spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 40. He may therefore feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 11, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I tabled the amendment because I could not see why there should be any date other than the date of the application. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in the amendment, my noble and learned friend seeks to remove that part of subsection (6) which allows the Secretary of State for Social Security to determine in regulations an effective date other than the date of the application for review. That provision is clearly needed as the notification of the change of circumstances can come considerably before or after the change itself. If one knows that at some future date one will lose one's job, that may be notified before it takes place. The paragraph that my noble and learned friend seeks to remove provides that, as will be appropriate in some situations, the assessment may take effect from a date other than the date of the application. For example, as in the illustration I have given, when a change in the person's employment at a future date is known some time in advance. There is a great deal to be said for dealing with the matter in good time. I hope with that explanation my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, that is a completely satisfactory explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Review of decisions of child support officers
—(1) Where

(a) an application for a maintenance assessment is refused; or

(b) an application, under section 15, for the review of a maintenance assessment which is in force is refused, the person who made that application may apply to the Secretary of State for the refusal to be reviewed.

(2) Where a maintenance assessment is in force—

(a) the absent parent or person with care with respect to whom it was made; or

(b) where the application for the assessment was made under section 6, either of them or the child concerned,

may apply to the Secretary of State for the assessment to be reviewed.
(3) Where a maintenance assessment is cancelled under paragraph 15 of Schedule 1, the appropriate person may apply to the Secretary of State for the cancellation to be reviewed.
(4) Where an application for the cancellation of a maintenance assessment under paragraph 15 of Schedule I is refused, the appropriate person may apply to the Secretary of State for the refusal to be reviewed.
(5) An application under this section which is made after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which notice of the refusal, assessment, or cancellation in question was given to the applicant shall not be entertained by the Secretary of State unless it is expressed to be made on one or more of the following grounds.
(6) The grounds are that the refusal, assessment or cancellation in question—

(a) was made in ignorance of a material fact;

(b) was based on a mistake as to a material fact;

544

(c) was wrong in law.

(7) The Secretary of State shall arrange for a review under this section to be conducted by a child support officer who played no part in taking the decision which is to be reviewed.
(8) Before conducting any review under this section, the child support officer concerned shall give to such persons as may be prescribed, such notice of the proposed review as may be prescribed.
(9) If a child support officer conducting a review under this section is satisfied that a maintenance assessment or (as the case may be) a fresh maintenance assessment should be made, he shall proceed accordingly.
(10) In making a maintenance assessment by virtue of subsection (9) a child support officer shall, if he is aware of any material change of circumstance since the decision being reviewed was taken, take account of that change of circumstance in making the assessment.
(11) A maintenance assessment which is made by virtue of subsection (9) shall take effect on such date (which may be before the date of the assessment) as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(12) The Secretary of State may make regulations—

(a) as to the manner in which applications under this section are to be made;

(b) as to the procedure to be followed with respect to such applications; and

(c) with respect to reviews conducted under this section.

(13) In this section "appropriate person" means—

(a) the absent parent or person with care with respect to whom the maintenance assessment in question was, or remains, in force; or

(b) where the application for that assessment was made under section 6, either of those persons or the child concerned.").

The noble and learned said: My Lords, with this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 50, 51, 58, 57, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56, 46 and 44. The numerical order of those amendments is a little special. I hope that it is in accordance with what was arranged. With Amendment No. 45 are grouped also Government Amendments Nos. 48, 50, 51 and 58. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has tabled Amendment No. 57. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon has tabled Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has tabled Amendments Nos. 46 and 47, as amendments to Amendment No. 45.
Your Lordships will recall that our White Paper Children Come First set out our intention that the first stage of an appeal against a CSO decision should be an internal review conducted within the child support agency itself but by a child support officer who had not been involved in the original decision. Our intention was to provide that mistakes could be remedied in a quick and straightforward way, without the need for any more formal procedure.
We believe that that method has much to be said for it. A number of noble Lords, however, pointed out in Committee that Clause 17, as printed, might offer scope for misunderstanding: in particular, that it gave the appearance of setting out a much more formal procedure than we have in mind. After reflection, we have concluded that it would be sensible to replace the old clause with a newly drafted clause which is before your Lordships as Amendment No. 45.
This clause would allow any party to a maintenance assessment, or an application for an assessment, to apply for a review of that assessment or of the refusal to make an assessment at all. The right to apply for

545
review is unrestricted so long as the application is made within 28 days of notification of the original decision; if the application is made after that, then it must be made on specific grounds—that the original decision was wrong in law, or that it was based on ignorance or mistake about points of fact. In other words, if one wants to have the decision reviewed generally, it must be done within 28 days.
Although the point of that procedure is that it allows errors to be put right quickly and simply, we need to provide that the parties involved know that the application for review has been made. We also believe that it is an important safeguard that the officer reviewing the decision must be a different person from the one who made the original decision.
In the light of the new amendments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon will feel able to withdraw their amendments. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has put down amendments to Amendment No. 45. They seek to provide that after the 28-day period an application for a review should not only be allowed on the grounds that the original decision was based on error or ignorance about a material fact or that it was wrong in law, but also on the grounds that the applicant was prevented from appealing by physical or mental ill health, or absence from the country for professional reasons.
I cannot think of an instance where the assessment would be revised where one of the three grounds had not been satisfied. However, I shall look again at the amendment to see whether a further amendment is required to ensure the right of appeal against the refusal to review where the existence of grounds is in dispute. In other cases, providing they satisfy the grounds, their appeal rights are preserved. In view of that assurance, I hope the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47, as amendments to Amendment No. 45, not moved.]
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am not sure whether this is the appropriate stage for me to deal with Amendment No. 57. I say that because the noble and learned Lord mentioned it in the course of his remarks, and grouped it, so far as I could understand, with the amendment that he moved.
My point is a short one. I tried to make it in Committee. I believe that the hour was as late as this or possibly even later when I did so. The only point I made—and I believe that it still applies, despite his amended clause—is that the procedure provides for an appeal in respect of which, without the consent of the parties necessarily, an order can be made that the appeal shall be dealt with in writing. That is all right provided that the parties consent, but I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will have in mind that the parties in proceedings under the Bill will be most likely to be people who are working class. Some of them may have had the benefit of a good education; many of them will not. So far as I can see, unless an amendment I shall move later is accepted, they will not have the benefit of legal aid.
546
It occurs to me that whereas a parent, or a child if that be the case, can usually express a view vocally, and can possibly be helped to clarify the reasons for the appeal if it is done by word of mouth, the idea of having to put the appeal in writing, maybe unassisted by any expert, will be a severe handicap. The noble and learned Lord may, so far as I am concerned, have his way about an appeal being considered with the grounds in writing. However, in this amendment I ask that that provision be subject to the parties consenting to the grounds being in writing.
8.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, strictly speaking, the amendment to Clause 17 of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would be superseded. I expect to leave out Clause 17 of the Bill and replace it with this less formal review procedure. As was pointed out in Committee, the clause looked rather formal. We have tried to make good that difficulty by removing the formality.
Your Lordships will see that in subsection (12) we have produced the possibility of procedural regulations. Perhaps it will suffice for me to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I shall draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the point made in relation to how he may make regulations under subsection (12). It may well be that one would be able to initiate a review under this less formal procedure without much writing at all. One may simply say, "You must have another look at it". The review procedure is intended to be rather informal, particularly within the 28 days.
The noble Lord may be prepared to leave it on the basis that we shall draw this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for consideration in relation to any regulations he may make under subsection (12) of my new clause. Perhaps that will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord passes on the point to the Secretary of State, I am sure that he will definitely give it favourable consideration. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and in those circumstances I shall ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am completely lost and I know it is my fault. My noble and learned friend is obviously right in that he will move his amendment to leave out Clause 17. I am not sure whether he has spoken to the important amendment substituting an administrative tribunal for the phrase to which exception was taken in Committee; namely, "court or tribunal". The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, clearly made the point that it should be a court. My amendment was directed to that point. I should be grateful if I could be told what amendment I should speak to now and whether I am in order by intervening at Report stage after my noble and learned friend has replied. Therefore, perhaps I should ask for the indulgence of your Lordships.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the effect of what I have just proposed is to insert after Clause 15 a clause that refers to "review" instead of "appeal" as under the present Clause 17. Therefore, in due course

547
I shall move Amendment No. 58—to which I spoke when I sought to explain what I am trying to do—to leave out Clause 17. On Amendment No. 59 I shall deal with questions about the appeal. That may be the point at which my noble and learned friend could introduce the matter he wishes to raise.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble and learned friend. I shall speak briefly to his Amendment No. 45. I wish to make two points, both of which are important in relation to the later amendment dealing with the administrative tribunal. Subsection (6) of the new clause concerns the grounds for refusal, assessment or cancellation. The three grounds are: ignorance of a material fact; mistake as to a material fact; and error of law.
Exactly what is a material fact is a question of law, but we need not debate that because subsection (6) (c) plainly raises a question of law. I wish to ask my noble and learned friend how it is suitable that a question of law should be referred to an official; moreover, an official of co-ordinate jurisdiction and authority to the one who made the assessment which is to be reviewed. The same point will emerge more strikingly when one comes to the attempt to substitute administrative tribunal:; for courts of law.
It has been pointed out on a number of occasions that this is an enabling Bill—a skeleton Bill—and that the real thrust of the measure will appear in regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, told us on Second Reading that there were 92 provisions enabling regulations to be made. The new clause of my noble and learned friend adds three provisions, and his later amendment will produce the century.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to have a review. It is possible that an official may make a mistake in relation to the law. If it can be done, there is no reason why it should not be corrected without going too far.
As regards counting, as I intend to remove Clause 17 one would have to subtract the regulation-making power in that clause if one is totalling the provisions. All I am doing is substituting the power in the new clause for the regulation-making power in the existing Clause 17.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as may be expected, my noble and learned friend is mathematically quite correct. Perhaps the matter could be reduced to a formula in Schedule 1!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lord, I am greatly obliged to my noble and learned friend. I have no doubt that a suitable formula would be almost as simple as those in Schedule 1.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe that I do not have to ask the leave of the House to speak. I spoke to an amendment and I am now discussing my own amendment and those moved by the noble and learned Lord. However, in case I am wrong, I hope that I have your Lordships' leave.
I wish to make our position on these Benches quite clear. I do not wish to weary the House by moving
548
hopeless amendments, but in Committee we made clear that we thought that the court ought to have jurisdiction in regard to appeals and that the tribunal was the wrong body for that. We shall have an opportunity to state that quite briefly when the noble and learned Lord 0moves a subsequent amendment.
We realised that the review procedure was a matter for the internal arrangements of the department and we have no quarrel with that, except that we again made it clear that we did not like the idea of a review being carried out by an officer of equal rank to the person who made the original assessment. One had the picture I hope inaccurately—of a colleague walking over to another colleague in the same room or possibly the next room, and saying, "You have been asked to review this matter. I shall explain to you briefly why I made my decision. Do you mind initialling this paper to say that you approve of what I did and said"? That is not a pleasant picture to have in mind when one is considering an appropriate review procedure.
I repeat that I do not wish to weary the House with further amendments, certainly on Report. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he has considered the matter of a superior rank being required of the reviewing officer. Does he wish to give further consideration to that matter, and is it a suggestion that he could accede to? That information would help me considerably when considering what amendments I wish to table on Third Reading.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is a matter of internal review with the opportunity of having the original assessment checked by a different child support officer. It will be for the Secretary of State to make the necessary arrangements. I am not sure that the particular difficulty to which the noble Lord referred would necessarily be conclusively avoided by the provision that he has in mind. I have no doubt that the arrangements that the Secretary of State would make would endeavour to secure that the matter was independently looked at by a different child support officer. That is the aim of subsection (7). It might well be conducive to harmony within the department that such an assessment should be conducted by an officer of a superior rank. However, I should not have thought that that was a necessary arrangement to impose on the Secretary of State. After all speed is also important and such further assessment might depend on the way child support officers were deployed, who was available and other such matters. The idea is that another officer will independently check the work already carried out to see whether the assessment should be amended. I have no doubt that sense will prevail as regards the basic arrangements which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as I understand the noble and learned Lord, he feels that this is not a provision that should appear in primary legislation. However, in the procedure that the Secretary of State lays down, the desirability of having a further check carried out by an officer of superior rank would doubtless be borne in mind. On

549
the basis that that is on the record, I do not ask leave to withdraw the amendment as I did not move it. However, I ask leave to sit down.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I doubt whether that is a matter that I need to put to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Reviews at instigation of child support officers]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 11, line 32, leave out ("or 15 or considering an appeal under section 17") and insert (", 15 or (Review of decisions of child support officers)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 45. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 49 I remind the House that this amendment has, I believe, already been spoken to with Amendment No. 40. I now call Amendment No. 49 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 11, line 38, leave out from ("assessment") to end of line 40.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I adverted to this amendment without dealing with it in detail. Although it was grouped with some previous amendments I believe that it involves slightly different points.
Clause 16(1) states that a child support officer,
"may make a fresh maintenance assessment on the assumption that the person in whose favour the original assessment was made has made a fresh application for a maintenance assessment".
I do not understand what those words add to what precedes them. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when we discussed Amendment No. 40 I undertook to explain these points. I believe they have considerable force with respect to parliamentary counsel. I intended to cover this amendment and another amendment that has been referred to when I spoke to Amendment No. 40. With that assurance I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, have been slightly puzzled, as the noble and learned Lord has, by the words "on the assumption that". I fail to understand how the assumption can be made. It is possible that a person may have made a fresh maintenance assessment on another assumption. There is no question of the assumption having had to be declared. It is certainly unusual for such words to be put in a statute. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor really feels that these words are enforceable, leaving aside the question of whether they are really necessary, which I doubt.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like—I hope, not foolishly—to make a fresh point. I am not worried that the words may be otiose; rather that they are defective. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will tell me whether I am right or wrong. Clause 16(1) deals with the case of a child support officer not conducting a review under previous clauses of the Bill. The subsection states that the officer is not,
"considering an appeal under section 17 but is nevertheless satisfied that a maintenance assessment which is in force is defective"
for one of three reasons stated in the Bill. I should have thought that if a child support officer found the assessment to be defective and he was making a fresh maintenance assessment, the clause would provide that the effective date from which the fresh maintenance assessment ran would be the date of the original maintenance assessment which he is now reviewing as one of the three matters referred to in subsection (1). Instead of that, he is called upon to make the assumption that,
"the person in whose favour the original assessment was made has made a fresh application for a maintenance assessment".
That might well mean that the child support officer has found the original assessment to be defective and wishes to make an order that it is defective. The date from which the order has to run is not the date one would have thought; namely, the date of the original assessment. The words in the Bill appear to suggest he has to undertake this provision on the basis that a fresh application has been made for a maintenance assessment. I wonder what happens to the effectiveness of the maintenance assessment made meanwhile.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have agreed to look at the matter with parliamentary counsel. I shall put to him all the additional points that have been made. In relation to the last point, the intention is that under the clause the effect of the change will apply as from the date of the new assessment. Normally the new assessment will be effective from the date on which it is made and it will not be backdated. I do not believe that it is the intention that this should be backdated.
Admittedly, the maintenance assessment has been proved to be defective in some way, but the circumstances have come to light later. There has been no review or appeal under the sections that deal with review and appeal and therefore the parties have accepted it; but this matter has come to the notice of the child support officer and he can amend the matter. That is how I understand the situation. However, I shall certainly put the whole matter to parliamentary counsel. I suspect that it is for some such reason that he has, made that assumption.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall make only a brief comment. Since an assessment is in effect, even though it has been found that there has been a mistake of some kind and there is a new assessment, I still wonder whether under the wording of the clause the old assessment is still in being for the interim period. I have made the point, good bad or indifferent, and the noble and learned Lord has been kind enough to say that some consideration will be given to it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we do not need to dwell too long on the matter. That is the point: for the interim period the old assessment will have remained in force. The idea is not to cancel its effect for that interim period. However, we shall certainly look into the matter further.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may presume to say that I concur with the way in which my noble and learned friend proposes that the procedure should work. The matter has to be looked at again, and the only proper course is to thank noble Lords who have raised various points and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
Page 11, line 41, leave out ("or considering such an appear,.
Page 11, line 43, after ("15") insert ("or (Review of decisions of child support officers)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to the amendments with Amendment No. 45. With your Lordships' leave I beg to move Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17 [Appeals against maintenance assessments and other decisions]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52:
Page 12, line 6, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("such court as the Lord Chancellor may specify").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am in your Lordships' hands. I am not sure whether this is a convenient moment to move this particular amendment. It is very much bound up with the question of a court or administrative tribunal. Perhaps your Lordships may think that it would be better dealt with under my noble and learned friend's new clause.
I am very anxious to know how he would like the matter dealt with.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that it would 131, right to deal with the matter under the new proposals because, your Lordships having accepted my proposed clause on review, Clause 17 will be deleted by Amendment No. 58 in my name. Therefore it would be more convenient if my noble and learned friend felt able to deal with the questions that he wishes to raise in relation to my proposals regarding appeals.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not know what it would be appropriate for me to say—I imagine, "not moved", and then I can return to the matter if necessary at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 53:
Page 12, line 18, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("aggrieved").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I put down the amendment only because on two or more subsequent occasions the draftsman has used the word "aggrieved" in these circumstances.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as a result of what has gone before, Clause 17 will disappear altogether in a moment. It may therefore be convenient to leave the matter.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, is not my noble and learned friend being rather optimistic?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure about that. The fact that your Lordships have already agreed Amendment No. 45 rather assumes that. Therefore my optimism is probably well founded. I am inclined to try to make progress if possible, and 1 had assumed that my noble and learned friend might feel able not to move Amendments Nos. 52 to 56 inclusive. There is a point in relation to Amendment No. 53 but that will disappear on my moving—as I hope to do very shortly—Amendment No. 58.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I respectfully agree with my noble and learned friend. Perhaps it would be most convenient at this stage if I say that I shall not move Amendments Nos. 53 to 56 inclusive.
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 56 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 57:
Page 13, line 11, after first ("of") insert ("with the consent of the parties to the appeal").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I ask leave to withdraw it at this stage—indeed, I ask for it not to be moved.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 58:
Leave out Clause 17.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is the amendment that I have sought to anticipate more than once. I hope that with a degree of confidence I can now move it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Further appeals]:
9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 13, line 22, leave out from ("on") to end of line 23 and insert ("a review under section (Review of decisions of child support officers) may appeal to a child support appeal tribunal against that decision on one or more of the following grounds.
(1A) The grounds are that the decision in question—

(a) was made in ignorance of a material fact;

(b) was based on a mistake as to a material fact;

(c) was wrong in law.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 59, I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 60, 61, 62, 66, 71, 80, 84, 92, 110, 111 and refer also to Amendments Nos. 75, 115, 65, 67, 64, 68 and 69.
I am conscious that I am seeking to deal with a very important subject with a number of government amendments. They all have the same end, and I

553
thought that it would be convenient for the House to consider them together with the amendments to the clause which we are seeking to replace.
We have found the decision about the venue for appeals against decisions made by child support officers a difficult one. The arguments have been finely balanced. In the end we have concluded that the best answer is to set up child support appeal tribunals. These will be specialised, dedicated tribunals. They will be under the aegis of the president of the social security appeals tribunal and medical appeal tribunals. The provisions for that are contained in Amendments Nos. 71 and 110.
Perhaps I may highlight the main arguments that moved us in the direction of specialist tribunals. In many ways the formula reflects the approach which has traditionally been taken to assessing the needs of income-related benefit claimants to cover the living costs of children, and a good deal of expertise in such matters has built up in the tribunals for which the president of the social security appeal tribunals is responsible. In providing that appeals from a child support officer should lie to a tribunal under the president's aegis, we intend to draw on and exploit that expertise for the benefit of children who are looking to an absent parent for support. The tribunals are largely modelled on the existing social security appeal tribunals which are widely regarded as providing a relatively speedy and informal forum in which the parties themselves, either alone or with the help of a friend or adviser, can present an appeal. Equally important, many of the appeals will be of a detailed and technical kind with which tribunals like social security appeal tribunals have become expert at dealing, and we would expect the child support appeal tribunals quickly to develop the same expertise. The tribunal itself will be made up of a legally qualified chairman and two lay persons drawn from local panels and will thus combine legal and technical expertise with local knowledge.
Many would like to see those appeals heard by the courts which hear other family matters. I have to say, however, that in England and Wales at least those courts, for the present, have their hands full in implementing the Children Act and, as I said the other evening, at this stage in the development of the family jurisdiction, I do not think that it would be practical to expect the courts to take on that wholly new type of case, even were it desirable in practice.
Those are the reasons why the Government consider that appeals should go to the new tribunals that I have described. However, the Government realise that it may in the future become desirable to involve the courts. Circumstances change and the pros and cons of allocating appeals to the courts may weigh differently as a result and may weigh very differently when the system has settled down. As many of your Lordships are aware, the Government have embarked upon a rolling programme to review the family justice system, of which the Children Act of 1989 was the first fruit. As part of that programme, the Government intend to review the organisation of family business. It is not possible for me to foresee at this stage what the
554
result of that process will be; but new arrangements may well make it desirable in the future to concentrate appeals in specialist courts together with other family business. Further, experience of how the child support scheme under the Bill operates, especially in relation to connected court proceedings, may lead us to wish to reconsider the position.
To cater for all those possibilities, the new Clause 80 will enable the Lord Chancellor and, in relation to Scotland, the Lord Advocate, to provide, by order, for appeals to go to a court instead of to a tribunal. The detailed provisions of the clause confer the flexibility to do that in relation to certain classes of appeal or circumstances. In relation to England and Wales, the new clause also attracts the flexible powers of allocation and transfer within the court system that were created for children's proceedings by the Children Act 1989 which will apply only to England and Wales when it comes into force in October. The new clause contains power for an order under it to amend primary legislation consequentially. That is necessary because, were a wholly new category of proceedings sent to the courts, a great deal of ancillary provision would need to be made to whatever related primary legislation was in force at the time. At present for example we might wish to amend the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 to put English county court proceedings "family business" within the meaning of the family proceedings rules and/or, if appeals were sent to magistrates' courts, we might want to amend the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to make them family proceedings in magistrates' courts. These are essentially ancillary and subordinate provisions under the new main provision. The nature of the amendments required will depend to some extent on the substantive effect of the order, and of course the order may not be made, if at all, until some years in the future, by which time the primary legislation may itself have been amended, added to or replaced. Our new provisions would render Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 irrelevant.
In the social security appeal system, there is provision for further appeals to be made, on a point of law, against decisions of appeal tribunals. Those appeals go to social security commissioners. It seems right that a similar arrangement should be followed here and that there should be specialist commissioners to deal with appeals against child support appeal tribunal decisions. There will continue to be a right of appeal, to the Court of Appeal, against a commissioner's decision. We hope to bring forward a further amendment at Third Reading which will give effect to that proposal. The subsection of Clause 18 referring to further appeals will be replaced and there will be no requirement for the Lord Chancellor to consult the Lord Advocate. That will mean that Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 69 will not be necessary.
Before I sit down, I should also mention court proceedings for declarations of paternity under Clause 20. The new Clause 80 attracts the Children Act's allocational powers in the same way as I described earlier in relation to appeals. Amendments Nos. 75 and 115 follow from that and I commend them to the House. They refer to the allocation system of the

555
Children Act applying to paternity proceedings under this Act, which will go before a court. The remaining amendments are minor technical provisions. Amendment No. 84 provides for a definition of child support appeal tribunal in Clause 39 which deals with definitions. Amendment No. 92 extends the provisions of the new schedule about the child support appeal tribunals to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 111 inserts a reference to child support appeal tribunals at the appropriate place in the Tribunals and Enquiries Act 1971 to put them in the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals.
The amendments are closely connected. We have modelled the tribunal on the social security appeal tribunals. In Amendment No. 110, we have made provision which makes it plain that, under the Act:
"A child support appeal tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two other persons... The chairman and the other member of the tribunal must not all be of the same sex."
In other words there must be at least one of each sex in the set of three. I believe that that is an important feature in a tribunal of this kind. As I said earlier in another connection, one hears a lot of complaint particularly from men, that the courts are unfair to men. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, responded to that by 3aying that I would not hear from the people who were satisfied. That is generally the experience of people who respond to letters. The point that I was making was not met by that argument. My point was about complaints from men that they felt that the courts were unfair to them. If the sexes are balanced in the tribunal, it may help to eliminate the feeling that there is any kind of bias, depending upon the sex of those who make up the tribunal. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it would be an abuse of the time allocated to us for this stage of the Bill if I were to go into any detail in regard to the amendment so clearly moved by the noble and learned Lord. With respect, we should deal with the issues of principle and do it as shortly as possible.
As I see it, these are the issues of principle. First, it ought to be the right of anyone who is deeply affected by an order made against him to be able at some stage by way of appeal to go to our courts of law. Secondly, there should never be any discrimination between citizens to the effect that one section of our community in regard to similar matters has a right to go to a court of law and others do not. Thirdly, there is the principle, with which the noble and learned Lord by implication agreed; namely, that it is desirable that the same court that deals with general matrimonial affairs which may relate to parties should certainly deal with all of them where possible.
I preface my last principle with this plea: please do not set up a tribunal or any organisation under an Act of Parliament in the pious hope that one day it may be divested of its authority. Organisations and tribunals have a habit of holding on to jurisdiction however illogical it may be. I hope that I shall offend nobody if I give as a quick example to your Lordships the jurisdiction that was given to the Home Office in regard to magistrates' courts—alone of all courts—a jurisdiction which still remains despite many arguments that come from other departments (I shall
556
not mention which one may be arguing). It would be so much tidier if all our courts were under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
So I adumbrate the last principle. With respect I say, "Don't think that one can airily say that if it doesn't work out well or our courts have more time, then consideration will be given to ending the tribunal's jurisdiction and it will go over to the courts".
In support of those principles, I make the following short points. First, we are depriving a certain section of our citizens from being able to go to the courts on appeal. Some of our citizens have maintenance orders made against them in the courts either by consent or after a tussle in the courts. If things are unreasonable and matters which should have been considered have not been considered by the courts, they have certain rights of appeal. It can be from a registrar to a judge, and it can go even further if matters of law are involved. How odd it is that in this Bill, and not only in this part of the Bill, one sees that one section of the community will only be able to have its appeals heard by a tribunal, respectable though that tribunal may be.
Your Lordships may ask whether they suffer from any additional handicap. Yes, they do. When one is appealing in a court one may have legal aid and will have a legal representative allocated—indeed one may choose one's own—who will argue the case. I think that the noble and learned Lord will reply to me—I hope I am wrong—that that legal aid will not be available to those who appear before the tribunal. I know that he will interrupt me if my forecast, pessimistic though it is, is inaccurate.
The next point that one looks at is the following. As the noble and learned Lord said, it may be desirable that the courts should deal with this matter, but I hope I am not unfairly paraphrasing him if I suggest that he said that the real reason why they are not being given this jurisdiction is because they are full up with cases, especially the duties that they have under the Children Act. Is that a sufficient reason for creating these tribunals and depriving our citizens of certain rights which are available to others, as I have repeatedly said? Would it not be sensible to ensure that the courts are given sufficient judges and registrars to deal with these matters? Would it not be a sensible allocation of money to see that that is done?
I am not aware that the noble and learned Lord has talked about the expense of the tribunals. I assume that they will not be placed in London alone, and that those people who are in the provinces or the rural areas will have the ability to go before a tribunal which is somewhere near them. They would certainly have that facility if they were to go to their local county court or magistrates' court. I should very much like to know the total cost of this, because it may well be that the expenditure of a similar amount of money could give the desirable result which, as I understood it, the noble and learned Lord thought might be the answer to the question.
This is a matter of fundamental constitutional importance. In regard to constitutional matters the citizen relies fundamentally upon your Lordships' House. We have that special duty. I ask noble Lords,

557
even at this late hour, to consider the importance, not of the way in which I have made my submissions—I would not be so arrogant as that—but of the principles behind the submissions that I am making before we just—dare I use the word?—flippantly, and having regard to the time of the evening, agree with these proposals. I repeat that fundamental issues are at stake. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate that.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wonder whether I may clarify one point with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Is he saying that the applicant should go through the appeal tribunal and then, if he disagrees with the final appeal tribunal, go to court; or is he saying that he should go to court from the beginning?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on the basis that I have not sat down, perhaps I may reply to the noble Baroness by explaining that I meant that it should not be the appeal tribunal at all which deals with these appeals, and that we should not create the appeal tribunals. There ought to be the right to go to a court.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is quite right. This is a constitutional matter. The exclusion of a group of our citizens from the courts is a matter about which we should think long and hard. On these Benches we are in agreement with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord. In particular, we think that his point about legal aid is vital.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when the Committee stage of the Bill ended we asked when the Report stage would be. We were told that it had been provisionally fixed for the 25th and 29th of this month, but when in due course we looked at the Order Paper there was no sign of it. Day after day and week after week it did not appear. It did not take much knowledge of Whitehall to know what was happening: two government departments were in disagreement about what should be done at the next stage. Those two government departments were obviously those of my noble and learned friend and the Ministry fostering this Bill. Nor was it in the least difficult to ascertain the point of difference. It had been identified in Committee; it was the words "court or tribunal". My noble and learned friend skilfully kept that issue open. Obviously it had to be decided and was no doubt decided in Cabinet committee. I am sad to say that it was decided adversely to the department of my noble and learned friend. That was doubly unfortunate; first because of the merits and secondly because it meant that, due to the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility, my noble and learned friend would be bound to defend what had been decided with all the considerable skill and force at his command.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in his admirable speech has dealt succinctly but effectively with the points at issue. They are points of considerable constitutional significance. The first is the right of an individual to have his rights determined in a court of
558
law. An adjunct to that, as the noble Earl has pointed out, are the rights to representation which can be had before a court of law but not before an administrative tribunal.
We must not minimise the tension that exists between administration and the law; between the bureaucracy and the courts. The courts are traditionally concerned with individual rights. However, the Executive is traditionally concerned with public social order and often the two will be in conflict. They must be held in balance. The courts, with their traditional insistence on considering the individual and his rights, are apt to disrupt the orderly administration—at least as the administrator sees it.
Your Lordships may remember the speeches made, unfortunately, late at night during the Courts and Legal Services Bill by my noble and learned friends the Master of the Rolls and Lord Ackner, dealing with the remedy of judicial review. They spoke of the intense caution that the courts had felt was incumbent upon them in developing that remedy, although it had been widely, indeed universally outside Whitehall, welcomed. The courts were assiduous in not usurping the administrative decision of the Executive. All they did was to ensure that those decisions were made according to law and in the way that Parliament had stipulated. However, in so far as courts have regard to individual rights, and as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has reminded us on many occasions during the passage of this Bill, an infinite variety of circumstance must be taken into account.
A court of law can do that. A formula cannot do that. For example, a formula has no means of weighing what I ventured to labour before your Lordships earlier this evening; namely, the case where the father is an ill-used man. That does not appear in any formula and yet that is a matter, even putting the primacy of childrens' maintenance first, which calls for consideration.
Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is absolutely right to say that the individual is entitled to have his rights determined in a court of law. There is a big difference. The law, with all its faults, is concerned with people. Bureaucracy, with all its virtues, is concerned with personnel. That is a big divide.
On this Bill it has been remarked consistently by all its critics from all parts of your Lordships' House that it is a monstrous accession of bureaucracy—an aggrandisement. Almost everything was secured up to this moment: legislation by regulation-92 regulating powers; the sacrifice of traditional confidentiality and secrecy even in the role of the Inland Revenue; and the intrusion of inspectors into places of employment, which we are satisfied will be very much to the detriment of the employee. Later we shall see the Executive, the Secretary of State, arming himself with liability orders, deduction orders and the right to enforce them by the remedy of distress. Moreover, that violent remedy has been stripped of all the safeguards which the common law erected in respect of it. Only one aspect is missing in that triumph of

559
bureaucracy; that is, an administrative tribunal. That has now been secured. The success has been completed. Let us regret that.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that I am no less zealous than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble And learned Lord, Lord Simon, in having respect for our constitution and the important part which the courts can play in that. However, here we have to find a means of deciding matters affecting children and their parents. We must consider whether, in practice, those courts which may possibly have had such jurisdiction will be the right people to have it in the first instance in the circumstances envisaged by the amendments moved by my noble and learned friend.
Certainly the Family Division would not be appropriate. It would not have the composition and the machinery for the purpose. There is then the possibility of the county court judges exercising such a jurisdiction. However, as is clear from a paragraph in the new schedule set out in Amendment No. 110, the chairman and other members of the tribunal—and we see from the previous paragraph that there are to be two other members of the tribunal—
"must not all be of the same sex".
Here we are striving to find the sort of tribunal which would be appropriate for deciding these particular cases. Ir the circumstances, and having due regard to constitutional principle, it is right to have tribunals of that kind for this specific work. We must not lose sight of the fact that the courts of record, as lawyers know them to be, retain under the Bill a great deal of jurisdiction of a supervisory kind. That appears to be so from various parts of the Bill which are not under immediate discussion.
I raise one doubt in regard to the amendments spoken to by my noble and learned friend. I agree with what he said on Amendment No. 110 and the new schedule regarding the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor with regard to the appointment of the chairmen. Indeed, the Lord President of the Court of Session comes into the matter also. However, whereas I can go along with the provisions set out for appointment of the chairmen and members of the tribunals, I find it strange that Amendment No. 71 provides for various important legal matters to be decided by the Secretary of State by regulation rather than by the Lord Chancellor.
If we look at Amendment No. 71(3), we find that the Secretary of State is to make provision for the procedure of the tribunals; that is essentially a legal matter on which the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor is expected and respected. Further down we find that the regulations are to make provision in regard to evidence. Evidence is essentially a legal matter for the Lord Chancellor rather than a matter for the Secretary of State.
I do not understand why the responsibility for these new tribunals has been divided in this way. I should have thought, if we are to have them, it would build greater public confidence if the whole matter was placed under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor rather than being divided between the Lord
560
Chancellor and the Secretary of State. For those reasons I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon on this occasion, although on such legal matters he and I often agree. The Lord Chancellor should be supported, save that he must be asked to consider again whether the Secretary of State should make the regulations.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will permit me to intervene. He saw me looking somewhat critical when he said that under the amendments the courts were given certain supervisory powers. I believe he was referring to Amendment No. 80. Those are not supervisory powers. The amendment merely provides that the Lord Chancellor can in fact make an order in regard to England and Wales, as can the Lord Advocate in regard to Scotland, to transfer from the tribunals to the courts if the tribunals are found to be unsatisfactory. There is no supervisory power granted under the amendment. It is purely providing for the alternative. I believe that is right.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I take the point as regards Amendment No. 80, but that is not the whole of the story. The courts will have the power of the judicial review and of orders made in lieu of prerogative writs.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to make a few remarks basically in support of my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I certainly cannot be so eloquent as they were. I want to emphasise the point that here we seem to have a group of people who are going to be denied access to the courts. All through this Bill it seems that these people—the so-called "absent parents" in particular—are to be treated as social outcasts or social lepers without the access to the courts which other people may very well have. I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord will listen very closely to what my noble friend has said.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon also raised the question of the costs of the tribunals. I shall go a little further and ask whether those costs are covered by the estimated £35 million per year which appears in the estimate of the financial effects of the Bill. Does that include the capital costs of £30 million, or will it be additional? Will there be costs in addition to the £30 million for capital? In relation to the effects of the Bill on public sector manpower, will the numbers be increased as a result these amendments?
I turn now to Amendment No. 71. The noble and learned Lord did not respond to my noble friend's challenge about legal aid. It is quite clear that the people appearing before the tribunals are to be denied not only access to the courts but access to proper legal aid as well. Subsection (2) of the new clause states:
"The Secretary of State may make such regulations with respect to child support appeal tribunals as he considers appropriate",
and subsection (3) (c) states:
"as to the persons entitled to appear and be heard on behalf of any of the parties".
I am not a lawyer. Does that mean that provision will be made for people to be legally represented? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell me that.

561
I now turn to page 11 of the Marshalled List. Under the heading Membership of child support appeal tribunals, paragraph 2(1) of the new schedule states:
"A child support appeal tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two other persons".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to that and we thought that that would be fair. The tribunal consists of three people, but here we have a clear case where there is a man and a woman. I can see difficulties arising where you may have two women and one man on a tribunal or two men and one woman. The appellants might feel aggrieved because their sex is not properly represented. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give that matter some consideration because in such circumstances problems may very well arise.
On page 13 of the Marshalled List, paragraphs 5(3) and (4) of the proposed new schedule, state:
"(3) The panel for an area shall be composed of persons appearing to the President to have knowledge or experience of conditions in the area and to be representative of persons living or working in the area.
(4) Before appointing members of a panel, the President shall take into consideration any recommendations from such organisations or persons as he considers appropriate".
Can the noble and learned Lord tell me what kind of people are going to be appointed to these panels? Can he give me some idea of the range and qualifications of those who are to be called upon to sit on these tribunals, or given the opportunity to do so? For example, will they be residential qualifications? From which organisations will he take recommendations? As a layman in these matters I should very much welcome replies to these questions from the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think it is important to recollect that we are, at this stage, working on the assumption that the maintenance assessment will be decided on the basis of a formula. Noble Lords who were present towards the concluding stages last Thursday will recall that we had a short discussion about the application of the formula. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will remember what he put on record as a consequence of that consideration.
The situation is that we are deciding, or looking at, a mechanism for deciding the application of a formula for a given set of facts. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has been engaging in speculation as to what happened between the Committee and Report stages. I have to say that it is a pure speculation. I have personally considered this very carefully and reached the conclusion that, at least at the beginning of this matter, the considerations are very strongly in favour of a tribunal which will be very like the tribunal which presently decides social security appeals. The application of the formula, the methods by which it will be applied and the nature of the concepts that are involved in the formula, are all strongly allied to the social security system. I believe that in the circumstances such a tribunal, closely allied to the social security appeal tribunal, is suitable.
That brings me immediately to some of the questions that have been raised. Amendment No. 71 is
562
based on the provisions relating to social security appeal tribunals. The Secretary of State makes the appropriate regulations for these. I have not heard any criticism of that. As regards the provision for—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, surely my noble and learned friend must have heard complaints that there is no legal aid before those tribunals?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am talking about Amendment No. 71 which is dealing with the procedural regulations which apply before these tribunals. I have heard no complaint about these regulations. They are formulated after consultation with the Council on Tribunals.
Amendment No. 71 includes a provision as to the persons entitled to appear and be heard on behalf of any of the parties. I should regard that as an appropriate matter to be dealt with. The situation membership of the tribunals and their cost (covered by the Explanatory Memorandum) is that when the Bill was prepared it was done on the basis that the matter be left open as to whether it should be a tribunal or the court. Obviously, the work has to be done somewhere. The estimated costs are appropriate to cover the tribunal and its membership.
As regards the composition of two women and one man—or the other way about—that is an inevitable consequence of having three members. If one is to get a decision, generally speaking one has to have—although some years ago the Court of Session was a good example to the contrary, generally speaking if one is to get a decision it is necessary to have an odd number of people not odd people, of course, but an
odd number of people. Accordingly, the phenomenon about which the noble speaks is unavoidable. However, I regard it as an important attribute of this tribunal that it should have in it the point of view of both sexes in connection with the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, pointed out, especially having regard to the organisation which had at least some part in helping him or advising him on the matter namely Families Need Fathers—that aspect must be taken into account.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not realise that there is a little contradiction—I say this with the greatest respect—in his argument? He said first that it was only a formula and therefore a matter of administration which had nothing to do with the courts. However, he went on to say that it was advisable to have a lady and a gentleman on the tribunal because both male and female points of view can be put forward. But is the reaction of a female to a formula any different from that of a male?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have witnessed different reactions to formulae from different people. I do not say that they are always determined by gender. However, the point is that the formula must be applied. The noble Lord has perhaps slightly altered the emphasis of what I have been saying. A formula requires to be applied to a given state of facts. I believe

563
that it may help to have a tribunal which is constituted in a way that at least shows a degree of affiliation with both sexes that may appear before it. The idea of fairness in applying the formula is important. There is nothing inconsistent with having fairness and a formula, and a formula fairly applied. However, I regard the subject matter as being the application of a formula. I believe that that is analogous to the social security appeal tribunals.
I believe that I have dealt with the main points which were raised as regards the regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, asked about the source from which the president of the tribunal would choose the members. First, I assume that the president would proceed very much in the same way as one would expect in relation to other tribunals. He will take representations recommending local people from a variety of local bodies; for example, from the citizens' advice bureaux, trade unions, employers' organisations, chambers of commerce, local MPs and the like. The aim will be to ensure that members are widely representative of local communities. I believe that such a process of consultation will produce the kind of membership which we expect from the social security appeal tribunals which, as I said, is satisfactory.
I turn to the court question raised by my noble friend Lord Renton. I am most grateful to him for his support. I believe that he has correctly analysed the nature f the problem and the way forward. First, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale clearly pointed out, one of the important developments in our law in recent times has been the development of the doctrine of judicial review under which the courts have a supervisory jurisdiction over all lower tribunals. Of course, this sort of tribunal will be no exception to that process.
Secondly, there is no question of some classes of people wing in the courts on this matter and others not. If the application of the formula is in dispute, anyone will be obliged to go—that is, if he or she wants to appeal—to the tribunal. There is nothing new about setting up specialist tribunals for particular subject matters. An industrial tribunal is a good example.. The reason is that a specialist tribunal deals with specialist subject matter, and that is the basis of the present proposals. It is appropriate that the matter should, the first instance, be committed to a tribunal similar to the present social security appeal tribunals. But I have thought it wise—this is reflected in the amendments—to retain the power, for England and Wales in the Lord Chancellor and for Scotland, the Lord Advocate, to direct some or all of the matters to courts rather than to tribunals, if that appears to be right.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that once we set up a tribunal we never take it away. He illustrated that point by reference to the Home Office which is responsible for magistrates' courts. I leave aside the relevancy of the illustration to this issue, but the Government are deliberately making it clear in the Bill that that power is retained to the Lord Chancellor. Your Lordships are aware of what I have said about the nature and number of the applications and the
564
nature of the burden that they would impose. Once things settle down, the burden may become less. At the moment it seems to me to be highly suitable that the appeal should be determined by a tribunal along the lines of the present social security appeal tribunals, modified in the way the amendments suggest, and that the power be reserved in the future as things develop to make new arrangements under which the courts would receive some or all of that jurisdiction.
As I have said, the social security appeal tribunal presently has an appeal to the social security commissioners. I intend to provide a similar right of appeal to commissioners. There is an appeal from them to the Court of Appeal under the present law. So the ultimate jurisdiction of the courts is not ousted. I therefore commend the amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 60 to 62:
Page 13, line 24, leave out ("the court") and insert ("a child support appeal tribunal").
Page 13, line 27, leave out ("court") and insert ("tribunal").
Page 13, line 30, leave out ("court") and insert ("tribunal").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 13, line 31, at end insert:
("(4A) Alternatively, if it appears to the court that the application of the formula has caused undue hardship or discrimination, the court may make its own assessment.
(4B) In cases where the court makes its own assessment it shall have regard to all the circumstances.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment deals with a party who, like Odysseus to Ithaca, finally wound his way through the preliminary procedures to a court. When he arrives, he will at present merely find Procrustean lines of a formula. The purpose of the amendment is to give the court a little more power, specifically the power, if it appears to the court that the application of the formula has caused undue hardship or discrimination, to make its own assessment. It is to get away from the mathematical, platonic adherence to a formula.
Throughout the Bill, we have been returning to the question of the formula. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has recently used the formula as a reason for justifying the exclusion of the courts. I cannot say that that helps to endear the formula to me: I was already worried enough about it. The application of discretion, particularly in any matter relating to disposable income, is vital, because two people on the same paper income are not equally well off. However many circumstances we take into account in the formula, we shall never be able to foresee all material facts. Foreseeing all material facts and feeding them into the formula is something of which I believe only divine omnipotence would be capable.
In Committee I quoted one example of a formula leaving out what transpired to be a material fact. It

565
was a formula for assessing parental liability to contribute to student grants. It took no account of the fact that the family were living with five in two rooms and thought perfectly reasonably that the priority call on the income was to raise money for a house. That is not the only case of that kind when, so far as I can see, the formula takes no account of the health of the parties. That may cause considerable variations in costs.
The case for some discretion in the administration of the formula seems to me to have become a great deal stronger since we have not succeeded in persuading the Government to allow any variation or discretion in dealing with work-related expenses, access costs or any of the other variables. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in what I found an extremely impressive speech, seems to me to have put a great deal of the case in favour of this amendment. He said—and the phrase is memorable—that the courts, with all their defects, deal with people; bureaucracy, with all its virtues, deals with personnel. That is at the heart of why I want scope for the courts and scope for discretion. It seems to me that without it we cannot do justice on the basis of all the material facts. Without all the material facts, what we are doing will not be justice.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has argued the case against this on grounds of consistency. I understand that case. Where it can be truly achieved, consistency is a great virtue and one should aim for it. However, if we achieve an appearance of consistency by treating two cases which are unlike as if they were the same, the appearance of consistency that we get is entirely spurious. I cannot see how justice can be done unless we may have a discretion which allows it to be possible to take into account a material fact which was not foreseen when the formula was drafted. However well the noble and learned Lord and his advisers have carried out their job—and I am sure that they have done their best—they cannot do it all. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the principles of the formula are set out, and there are regulation-making powers in relation to it. The object is to provide a formula which will apply properly to all the circumstances that may be required. That is surely the correct aim of the formula and is one of the reasons why it has an appearance of complexity. The object is to cover all the circumstances as best one can.
The subject is simply to be the maintenance of the children to whom the formula is to apply. It is fairly narrow. In many ways, it is analogous to the provisions that apply in relation to various types of benefit. In my submission, the formula must attempt to provide an answer that will be consistent.
The noble Earl said—and it has been mentioned before—that there are many circumstances. However, a huge number of maintenance obligations arise. If the court is to be asked to exercise a discretion in respect of all these, it must be a question in every case whether there is undue hardship or discrimination, whatever that phrase may mean. Instead of having a formula being applied, without further ado, to sets of
566
circumstances, the possibility of a court assessment in every case would arise. The latter provision has proved to be utterly ineffective in the present law. Accordingly, I submit that the correct way forward is to allow the formula to apply and not to saddle it with court applications in the way this amendment proposes. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
l0 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply, which was very much what I might have expected. In passing, I wish to take up a brief defence of the words "undue hardship or discrimination". I hope that the words "undue hardship" are self-explanatory. By those words I meant to suggest situations where the application of the formula might leave people somewhere near or even below subsistence level. By "discrimination" I intended to refer to situations where the application of the formula did not treat like with like because a material circumstance arose which caused a variation in the formula's effect. That is what I was aiming at. I understand what the noble and learned Lord is trying to do. It is a thoroughly platonic aim and is in its way quite admirable. However, I still think that it is utopian. I do not at present intend to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 13, line 34, leave out ("after consultation with the Lord Advocate").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, after the momentous debates that your Lordships have had on fundamental constitutional principles—that includes the previous amendment of the noble Earl—I am afraid we now come to a small drafting nonsense—a kind of draftsman's tic. The Bill provides that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor shall make regulations; but as those regulations will extend to Scotland, it is considered that a reference must be made in the Bill to consultation with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. That may seem a short phrase and so it is. However, that kind of phrase turns up constantly in the statute book with the result that more and more extremely expensive volumes have to be printed. Those words are completely unnecessary.
The machinery of government takes perfect care of consultation between government departments. I do not suppose that my noble and learned friend would deal with this matter initially, at any rate personally. However, he is the last person to forget that Scotland may be involved in the provision, and therefore that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate ought to be consulted. Whoever draws up these regulations in draft for the approbation of my noble and learned friend, knows perfectly well that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has to be consulted. If he does not, he can and should be made aware of that fact. If my noble and learned friend thinks his

567
department is so incompetent that the staff may forget that fact, he can arrange for instructions to be posted on the walls of the office.
I have had the benefit and pleasure of working with my noble and learned friend's department in a number of capacities and I still receive great help from his staff. I am confident that they are capable of knowing that they must consult another department where another department is involved. Yet I suppose that the phrase comes up on a computer, like, the phrase "with the consent of the Treasury", line after line, page after page, bursting the volumes. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on this occasion, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I merely remind my noble and learned friend he Lord Chancellor that he is Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, which includes Scotland.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, what my noble friend has just said is true. The minute of Queen Anne concluded that that was the correct title to attribute to the office which I presently have the great honour to hold. However, therein lies a trap in that one might think that the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain could proceed to make rules about the courts without thinking of anyone else. This formula acknowledges the jurisdiction of the Lord Advocate in this particular matter. It is important to recognise the position of the Scottish law officer, with his responsibility for courts in Scotland, in connection with these regulations.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale is correct. The Lord Chancellor's department is extremely efficiently conducted, and would like to take the Lord Advocate along with it. However, there is more to it than that. There is a recognition on the face of the legislation that the Lord Advocate has a proper part in this matter and that the regulations would be sound regulations in the eye of the law only if made after consultation with the Lord Advocate. As your Lordships know, I have been Lord Advocate, and I certainly regard that as important from his point of view.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, every amendment that is put down is the subject of a departmental brief from the Department of Social Security to my noble and learned friend who has charge of the Bill in this House. Each of those briefs ends with the word "accept", "consider" or "reject". Practically every one in this Report stage has unfortunately obviously ended with the word "reject". This is no exception.
My noble and learned friend knows perfectly well that his department will consult any other department which is concerned. It may be the Lord Advocate; it may be the Home Office; it may be the Department of Social Security or whatever. Those words are totally unnecessary. I described them as a drafting tic, and so they are. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 65:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert ("and other interested bodies").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it is taken for granted that the noble and learned Lord will consult with the Lord Advocate, I suppose that it can also be taken for granted that he will consult other interested bodies. In connection with my previous amendment in Committee, he undertook so to do. On that basis, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 13, line 36, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved].
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 have already been spoken to in connection with Amendment No. 59 and are superseded by the amendments already passed.
[Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 13, line 40, at end insert:
("(8) Any person who is a party to any appeal pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be eligible for legal advice and assistance in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988 irrespective of the body which the Lord Chancellor shall direct shall hear any appeal pursuant to subsection (7) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this will be an appeal to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As your Lordships will see, the amendment provides that any person who is a party to any appeal—we now know that the matter will go to the tribunal about which we have heard a great deal—should be eligible for legal advice and assistance under the Legal Aid Act. It may well be argued that the person who appears before a tribunal, as he will have to do under the provisions of the Bill, will be denied the privilege given to those who appear before our courts on maintenance matters of being eligible for legal aid. Under the present provisions, those people who appear before tribunals set up under the Bill will not be eligible.
It may be said that if we admit the eligibility for legal aid of those who appear before the tribunal, there is an equal argument that they should have legal aid entitlement before the social security tribunals. I shall continue to press that they should have that right, but there is a difference which I hope that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate. We had the edifying experience on the last occasion of discussing the formula which appears in a schedule to the Bill. The House was somewhat amused when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, proceeded to read out the formula. The noble and learned Lord will remember that we were looking forward to entertainment on this occasion. He, as an eminent mathematician, had promised that he would give an explanation of the formula. We were looking forward to that treat. We have not had it because it has not arisen under the amendments with which we have dealt. The mind of the noble and learned Lord is

569
always clear. But we still wondered whether, even with his explanation, we would walk out of the House feeling that we knew and understood the formula.
What is the position of an applicant here? He will have to argue, as he would not have to do under the social security legislation, about a formula which is literally unintelligible even to those of us who managed to obtain a few passes at O level, whatever the position may be of other people who presumably are such wonderful mathematicians that they cannot even count the number of O levels that they have.
The appellant walks before the tribunal. He is not allowed to go to court; he does not have legal aid; and he cannot afford legal representation. He does not understand the formula in the schedule to the Bill and he cannot obtain any expert advice unless out of sheer charity some organisation helps him. Is that the way that we want to leave even the amendments of the noble and learned Lord in regard to setting up this tribunal in place of the courts where, as I said, legal aid would be available in normal circumstances.
When I first raised this matter I said that I was somewhat pessimistic. Maybe I should not be pessimistic. Perhaps at this hour the noble and learned Lord's heart, which is very much in the right place, will be touched and he will see the justice of the amendment and the injustice of resisting it. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, your Lordships will recall agreeing to my Amendment No. 66 which deletes subsections (6) and (7). The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, refers to that subsection (7), so strictly speaking at this stage of the debate it does not have very much content. However, I doubt whether it is superseded since it is directed to come at the very end of the present provision.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I almost need legal aid myself to deal with the difficulty which the noble and learned Lord raises. He knows perfectly well that the amendment could not have been worded in any other way. If his amendment had been defeated so that the courts and not the tribunal were the bodies which would hear the appeals, I should have been faulted in my amendment because it would not apply. So all that I could possibly do was to say that legal aid should be granted irrespective of the body which the Lord Chancellor shall direct.
Under the amendments that were passed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given himself the power to direct that the courts in certain circumstances should take over from the tribunals. He would have the power of direction. Although the words "pursuant to subsection (7) above" may not now be quite regular, as he says, there was no other way of wording the amendment. He knows the spirit of the amendment. I merely hope that he will speak to the spirit of it and if subsequently I have to withdraw it because of the words "pursuant to subsection (7)", I shall then know whether or not to return with an amendment at Third Reading.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is a very important amendment. Whether or not it is technically fully correct, it involves points which must be spoken to. Therefore on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches I should like to offer it support.
It is the nature of the Bill that many of the people with which it will deal are people who are on benefit. Those people are not always the ablest advocates of their own cause. What is more, they are not always people who are in the strongest position to undertake a capital debt. At this time of night I do not intend to open up issues arising from the social fund. However, capital debt falling on people who are on social security benefit can be a very grave hardship and not incurring that capital debt may involve submitting to a very grave injustice. It is a dilemma in which I do not want to see people placed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. The grounds for appeal are that the decision in question was made in ignorance of a material fact, was based on a mistake as to a material fact, or was wrong in law.
How is the ordinary little layman like myself to decide without legal advice what is wrong in law? It is necessary for him to have some assistance; otherwise he will be in great difficulty. Or are we saying once again that if you are poor you cannot have proper advice but if you are rich you can? The noble and learned Lord is a fair-minded man, so on that basis alone he should seriously consider agreeing to my noble friend's amendment, and that it be put in order at the third stage of our debate.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I wished to explain the technical position before I read out the amendment so that there was no misunderstanding about it. There may be some question as to precisely whether we are in order.
If I may address myself to the spirit of the matter in the same way as the noble Lord has done, I have to say that if, as I have argued, the appropriate place for ultimate decisions about this matter is a tribunal, then it is right also to say that the appropriate arrangements are those that apply to a tribunal. In tribunals there is provision for appropriate legal advice to be given. I believe that that is the right situation so far as this tribunal is concerned. The general rules of legal aid affecting tribunals would apply to this also. I would regard that as fair in the circumstances of this case, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel that that is so.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I endeavoured to the best of my ability to show the unfairness of the position where the noble and learned Lord agreed that courts might be more suitable tribunals to hear these appeals but, because the courts had so much other work to do, we were going to try out this tribunal idea. It may very well be that in future decisions will be transferred from the tribunals to the courts. To put the applicant in a position where, as a result of the administrative necessity to use tribunals rather than the courts because the courts are overcrowded with work, he

571
would not get the benefit of eligibility for legal aid which he would have got in the court, seems to me a transparent injustice.
Furthermore, the noble and learned Lord referred to the fact that those who appear before other tribunals likewise do not have the benefit of having legal aid made available to them. I endeavoured to distinguish this tribunal from other tribunals by virtue of the complexity of various matters. I am most indebted to my noble friend because I missed the point, which I should have taken, that one of the reasons for the appeal may be on a point of law. How the apllicant is supposed to be able to argue a point of law without legal aid I do not know.
572
Perhaps I may also remind the noble and learned Lord that in 1989 his department issued a report by a lady called Hazel Genn entitled The Effectiveness of Representation at Tribunals. I would invite him—and I do so most respectfully—to read that publication between now and Third Reading and, as a result of reading it and listening to the submissions that I venture to make today, to agree with the amendment at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Child support appeal tribunals
.—(1) There shall be tribunals to be known as child support appeal tribunals which shall, subject to any order made under section (Jurisdiction of courts in certain proceedings under this Act), hear and determine appeals under section 18.
(2) The Secretary of State may make such regulations with respect to child support appeal tribunals as he considers appropriate.
(3) The regulations may in particular make provision—

(a)as to procedure;

(b) for the striking out of appeals for want of prosecution;

(c) as to the persons entitled to appear and be heard on behalf of any of the parties;

(d) requiring persons to attend and give evidence or to produce documents;

(e) about evidence;

(f) for authorising the administration of oaths;

(g) as to confidentiality;

(h) for notification of the result of an appeal to be given to such persons as may be prescribed.

(4) Schedule (Child support appeal tribunals) shall have effect with respect to child support appeals tribunals.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Disputes about parentage]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No.
72:
Page 13, line 45, leave out from ("assessment") to ("unless") in line 46.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the words sought to be deleted appear at the bottom of the page. The amendment raises a point similar to that discussed in respect of an earlier amendment which my noble and learned friend gave an undertaking to consider. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are distinctions between the amendments. However, I should be happy to undertake to consider with parliamentary counsel all amendments such as this relating to drafting and let the noble and learned Lord know of our views. If he is content with that undertaking it might be of help in respect of time. My noble and learned friend is always willing to talk the matter over with me if necessary and I shall be happy to arrange that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. My only demur is that I shall be more than 100 miles away. However, I am content to leave the matter entirely in his hands and those of parliamentary counsel. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No.
73:
Page 14, line 28, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to a Scottish provision. I did not understand why the applicant had to be in Scotland. It may be the mother of the child, the father or the child who is in Scotland. Not being conversant with
574
Scottish family law, I may have got the wrong end of the stick. I tabled the amendment to leave out the requirement that the applicant should be in Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in English law the word "habitually" would merely cause confusion. In English law the word "resident" is well understood as a term of art. The inclusion of the word "habitually" would give rise to the need for fresh interpretation of the meaning of the term "resident" in the context of this Bill. I am not a Scottish lawyer as is my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It may be that in Scotland the term "resident" is always preceded by the word "habitually". If that is right the phrase should be allowed to stand provided that the paragraph stands.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is important to consider all the relevant legislation including Section 5(1) of the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986. I could go into the matter in detail. However, it may be better to deal with these drafting matters in the way that I have suggested. I shall be happy to send a copy of my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I imagine that not all noble Lords will wish me to enter into a detailed explanation of the matter at this juncture. If noble Lords insist, I am prepared to do so but it may be convenient to proceed in the way that I have suggested. I should like to take the same course in respect of Amendments Nos. 74, 79 and the various amendments to Clause 28. I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon will be prepared to agree to that.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, not only am I prepared to agree to that, but I am most grateful for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Reference to court for declaration of parentage]:
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 15, line 28, leave out from ("means") to end of line 29 and insert ("subject to any provision made under Schedule 11 to the Children Act 1989 (jurisdiction of courts with respect to certain proceedings relating to children) as amended by section (Jurisdiction of courts in certain proceedings under this Act), the High Court, a county court or a magistrates' court.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Regulations about deduction from earnings orders]:
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Enforcement of liability orders by distress]:
[Amendments Nos. 76ZA to 76AB not moved.] Clause 31 [Commitment to prison]:
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 77:
Leave out Clause 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, generously suggested that I should speak first on this amendment.
When the Bill was in Committee I rehearsed at undue length the reasons stated by a majority of the members of the Payne Committee and unanimously by the members of the Finer Committee for the abolition of imprisonment for default on maintenance payments. I do not intend to go over that ground again although I was not persuaded by any of the noble and learned Lord's arguments in favour of committal as a method of enforcement. I shall endeavour to be as brief as the importance of the subject permits.
I begin by drawing attention to one curious feature of the Bill. This has been presented as benefiting children. Nevertheless, it seems to me in origin and purpose to have been framed primarily in order to reduce Treasury expenditure on the casualties of broken homes. None of the Bill's critics, inside or outside this House, wishes to make life easier for rogues who have money but who refuse to support their children. However, such people constitute a fringe of the real problem which arises as a result of the conflict between the duty to support one's children and everyone's right to choose and change marital and sexual partners. Accordingly, many fathers contract duties which, with the best will in the world, they cannot discharge fully out of their small or average earnings. There will always be a limit on the amount which a court or administrative agency can squeeze out of men with dual or multiple commitments.
Most one-parent families will always have to paddle in the mire of poverty and debt. However, I have no doubt that the formula which the agency will apply will squeeze too hard with the many disastrous consequences, repeatedly described throughout the passage of the Bill, upon relationships within the families whose incomes and expenditures will be regulated by it.
Against that background, I wonder why the Treasury failed to note the obvious fact that imprisoning maintenance defaulters is an essay in social and financial fatuity. The taxpayer must find £321 per week to cover the costs of keeping the defaulter in prison and must provide additional income support for, probably, the two families to which the prisoner may have been contributing. Further. when he emerges he will have lost his job; his earnings will have diminished, and his accumulating arrears will have become a millstone round his neck and a source of despair.
That is the father who was described by the noble and learned Lord on the third day of Committee as "the typical case"; sent to prison because he was contumacious; having the money but refusing to pay the order for his children. The noble and learned Lord concluded,
"The only obstacle is obstinacy".—[Official Report, 21/3/91; col. 812.]
I doubt whether such a man is typical of anyone outside a law book.
On that view of the utility of the so-called ultimate sanction of committal, the Payne Committee commented,
"what is required is an effective machinery for recovering money from a debtor who has some earnings, income or assets. If a debtor has money, goods or property, it must not
576
be conceded that it is beyond the power of the court … to attach his wages or assets and realise the sum required to satisfy the debt. If he has no means or assets the threat of imprisonment is futile … We do not understand on what ground the imprisonment of recalcitrant husbands who have the money but refuse to pay their maintenance is to be preferred to action designed to get at their property, assets or earnings".
In 1989 the county courts, in the course of handling more than 2.5 million plaints, dealt with contumacy without any ultimate sanction save the power to commit for wilful disobedience to a court order, which they exercised in that year in 29 instances. Those courts, exercising that jurisdiction, act to get the money, not the person of the debtor.
I shall not weary the House at this hour by listing the objections to the procedure proposed in the Bill, though I must refer to two of them. The agency will apply to a magistrates' court for a committal warrant, which the court will grant just as is done under the present law if satisfied that,
"there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect",
to pay.
Both the Payne and the Finer Committees concluded that the delicate domestic arithmetic required under that procedure when dealing almost invariably with very poor men, was not compatible with the proper administration of justice when the liberty of the subject was involved. They observed from the statistics, and I do not believe that the position has changed in any respect, that lay magistrates in England are far more likely to commit than are professional judges in England and Scotland in circumstances in which the enforcement of an order is involved, when that order has been contracted under circumstances of emotional stress connected with an intimate personal relationship. Very often it is payment by a man who may in any case be hard put to make ends meet, and that may give rise to further stress in the form of divided loyalties and sense of responsibility in respect of his family arrangements. The man's mind may be affected by anger or unreason. Those are precisely the circumstances in which the law should avoid punitive remedies. But, in combination with the normal civil processes for extracting money where it is available to be extracted, the law should be providing as a service of the court access to the advice, guidance and persuasion of an officer of the court who can help such a man to resolve his problems.
My second reason for rejecting this clause is that the agency will be under great pressure to demonstrate that it is succeeding in collecting more maintenance than the courts ever secured. Its servants will believe that threats or the reality of imprisonment will serve them well for this purpose on the Admiral Byng principle. So I expect that the establishment of the agency will be followed by the herding of men into the summary courts in large numbers for committal proceedings. I cannot discover from the Bill what evidence the agency will give to the court for the purpose or how the details of the review system set out in the Bill will work in practice.
I expect that many of the men affected, whom we know to be multiple debtors and many of whom are illiterate, innumerate and so feckless that they cannot

577
order their lives, will end up in prison under this procedure. Many will be of that character. They need the assistance of the kind of enforcement office recommended by the Payne Committee, but rejected by the then government and rejected again more recently by the Lord Chancellor's review of civil procedure. In practice I fear that we shall return to a situation similar to that operating in the county courts before 1970, when the judgment summons system enabled creditors to decide whether their debtors went to prison. Under the agency I fear that it will be civil servants who decide in practice and reality which and how many maintenance defaulters will go to prison.
I do not understand why we cannot adopt for these people the procedure of the county courts as regards civil debt designed to secure the money and not the person of the debtor. Neither must we forget the discrimination that will arise between the people who live at near subsistence level, who may be taken to court for evading or seeming to evade, its orders, and those who may well succeed in avoiding the payment on their orders by turning to the advice of solicitors and accountants who will help them to turn their income into capital and to set up trusts and the like, if they are so minded. We shall no doubt have a system of licensed contumacy.
At Committee stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, suggested a non-custodial penalty. I believe that she may speak along those lines on this amendment. I shall certainly go along with such a proposal, albeit rather unwillingly, provided that there is no suggestion of devising a criminal penalty for what is a civil offence. It is high time that we got rid of this unnecessary relic of the 19th century bastardy laws. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there must be an ultimate sanction for the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. It is just a question of how it is done. In ordinary civil proceedings no committal order is made unless the debtor has the means to pay, and it is proved that he has the means to pay, but wilfully refuses to do so. The question of means to pay is not specifically mentioned in subsection (3), which is the point at which one might have expected to find it. A simple amendment would put that beyond doubt. It may be that, technically, the expression "wilful refusal" covers the point, but I do not know.
I should have thought that the attachment of earnings legislation would cover many of the cases that we have in mind. It is not mentioned here—perhaps it does not need to be mentioned—but I remind your Lordships that it applied to maintenance. I have reason for remembering because I piloted the first attachment of earnings provisions through another place. This is very close indeed to maintenance. I should have thought that attachment of earnings would in perhaps two-thirds of the cases that arise be the right solution.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I have my name to this amendment. I am sorry to see that the
578
noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is not in his place. I was expecting him to speak before me. I very much wish to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, who spoke so impressively and not at all at too great a length in Committee. His unique experience of the Payne and Finer Committees amply justified his discourse on that occasion. I should have thought that the interventions in Committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, would have resulted in some movement by the Government. I am deeply disappointed not to find any concessions from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at this stage. But as things have been, they remain.
I should like to bring in at this stage the most impressive but quite short paragraphs of the Woolf Report in its section on fine defaulters. Lord Justice Woolf and his collaborator, His Honour Judge Tumim, said that the number of people in prison at any one time for fine default is now fortunately small. The number at any one time is 520. However, a substantial number in any given year is surely such a great burden on the prison system in terms of admission, processing and releasing the number is around 17,000—that the Bill ought not to add to that burden.
Apart from the burden on the prison system and its great cost, those 17,000 should not be in prison at all. I thought that it was government policy to take those people out of the prison system. One was looking forward to seeing the Bill help the other legislation currently going through Parliament in its aim to reduce the number of people sent to prison. However, that is apparently not the case. Moreover, Woolf cites the findings of the Gloucester probation service in 1983, which stated that,
"Up to half of all people going to prison in this area got into prison by the back door being committed for fine default".
Surely this Bill should be reducing that half to nil, or nearly nil. But that is not so.
Woolf clearly thinks that it is beneficial to introduce the unit fine system, which was very much welcomed by Members of this House in the Criminal Justice Bill. There is also the attachment of earnings order—that is, where a defaulter has earnings; and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned that point—and even an attachment so far as concerns income support. That is a very drastic measure but, where appropriate, it should be enforced.
I should have thought that the only residual need for a sanction is where a defaulter has deliberately placed his resources beyond the reach of the courts. In that situation, it seems to me that the onus should be on the Government to seek, and legislate for, a non-custodial sanction, such as that called for by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, or sanctions if need be. If the Government are really keen on keeping people out of prison, I believe that that is what they should seek to do.
I found it curious in Committee that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"We are now dealing with a person who has money and is in a position to pay the required maintenance but deliberately refuses to do so".—[Official Report, 21/3/91; col. 813.]

579
He went on at col. 814 to say:
"It is clear … that you can only have culpable neglect or wilful refusal if the liable person's means are adequate to discharge his obligation of maintenance".
The suggestion seemed to be that it was only in those circumstances that fine defaulters were sent to gaol. I simply cannot adjust to that view. With the huge battery of powers bestowed by this Bill on child support officers, it seems to me that they will be the ones who will be guilty of culpable neglect or wilful refusal if, with those huge powers, in a situation where the person is in a position to pay, they fail to extract the money.
As I said, with all the latest legislation which has been going through Parliament in this Session the only residual need is for a sanction which would apply when a defendant has deliberately placed his resources beyond the reach of the courts. It is only in that remote case—I emphasise those words—that a sanction would be needed. Then, if only there was a willingness on the part of the Government, the ultimate sanction should be a non-custodial sanction or sanctions.
With the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, I believe that the excision of this clause should have the effect of concentrating the mind of the Government to that end; namely, to secure the money and not the person. In other words, the final resort should be non-custodial. Surely that is all we need and want.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, no good and nothing positive have ever come out of sending a debtor to prison. I t is expensive. It brings in no money. It never helps the child or the wife. There are two kinds of debtor. There is the one who can pay and ultimately pays. If he does not, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, there are attachment of earnings orders and various other methods of obtaining the money. In my experience, if the man has money he ultimately pays, although he may go to the last ditch.
The real difficulty arises with the people who cannot and do not manage their money. They find themselves in great difficulty. Money aid centres have been set up. I know of one in Birmingham which has been enormously successful in helping men and women who have been unable to manage their money and who have run into terrible debt. Through weekly interviews the centres have helped them put themselves straight. I should have thought that it would be possible through officers of the DSS to use money aid centres as has been done successfully in the past.
In Committee, I put forward another recommendation. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I do not go into that matter which also concerns debtors under the Criminal Justice Bill. I must apologise to my noble and learned friend for not having been to see him. I have an appointment with the Home Office and the Secretary of State for Social Security to discuss the proposal that I made in Committee to set up places where men could work and earn under supervision. I shall bring that subject up at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in addition to all the points that have been so validly made in the debate, what worries me is the effect on the family. It will not
580
be the wife who will apply for the father to be sent to prison because of a wilful refusal; it will be, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, at the instance of the state, regardless of the mother's wishes. I wonder what effect it will have on a family if a father tells his child, "Your mother is responsible for sending me to prison". It is a ghastly thing with which to face a family.
The noble and learned Lord said on the last occasion, or has since said in a useful memorandum that he issued, that in the ultimate there are few cases which will end in someone being sent to prison. The very fact that again father on seeing child can say, "Mother is threatening to send me to prison" is bad enough. All aspects of the power the question of our prisons being filled and the fact that we are returning to imprisonment for debt—are important; but if we make the welfare of the child and the family the important part of the Bill, the power should not exist.
11 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall not speak for long on this subject. I said most of what I wished to say at Committee stage, and do not wish to repeat it. There is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, put an irresistible case for his amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept it.
I do not know where we are going. At present we are discussing the Criminal Justice Bill which seeks to keep people out of prison, yet here we are, putting a provision in a Bill which could result in more imprisonment at a cost of £260 for every prisoner every week. That seems to me an enormous cost for the state to bear.
My noble friend mentioned the effect on the family of a father telling his children that the mother had sent him to prison. However, there is an even worse effect. What is the effect on the child when his playmates and schoolmates get to know that his father has been in prison? He will be taunted and teased in the cruel way that only children can taunt and tease. Again, that will have a detrimental effect on the children. We are supposed to be discussing a Bill not to injure but to help children, the Child Support Bill. Far from helping children, sending the fathers to prison will hinder their development and lead to great difficulties for them.
I repeat this point: how on earth will a father maintain his children when he is in prison? How will he be able, when he comes out of prison, to pay the arrears that have accrued and accumulated while he was in prison? Is it not likely that if the state sends a person to prison, when he comes out he will have no job to return to? Thus he is in an even worse position than before he went in and even more unable to meet the maintenance payments, particularly if he is poor.
It seems to me that in the circumstances we should take seriously the alternatives that have been put forward, particularly that of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. That is a real possibility. We must consider these alternatives. They will meet the case if only the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would accept what we say, that there are alternatives to

581
imprisoning people, fathers in particular, who cannot, or even in some cases will not, meet their maintenance payments.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, for the reasons given by noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who supported the amendment, I too support it. It should not be beyond the wit of Parliament to devise an alternative to imprisonment. That is our case. We all agree that there is a need for an effective solution, an effective threat, but there ought also to be an alternative to prison. I have not seen the latest statistics about the number of maintenance defaulters who are in prison. I have not seen any recent study into their background. It may well be that there has been none since those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor.
I assume from what I have been told by the clerk to the magistrates and the registrar of a county court that the defaulters who are in prison probably fall into one of three broad categories: the self-employed, the employed and the unemployed. In the light of the principles explained by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in Committee (at cols. 812 and 813 of Hansard for 21st March 1991), I would be surprised and deeply concerned if many of the prisoners were in the third category of those who are unemployed. I would be surprised if the defaulters in prison were employed persons, as the magistrates' courts have readily available to them the remedy of attachment of wages. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that the problem is presented by the self-employed, some of whom have assets, others of whom do not. To the extent that that is correct, the issue would appear to concern whether there is a realistic prospect of dealing with self-employed defaulters without sending them to prison. I believe that there are a number of alternatives which should at least be explored. We should be in no hurry to include this provision in this Bill.
If the self-employed defaulters have assets, is there any good reason why the magistrates' court should not be empowered to make a charging order or a garnishee order? We might well be told that the magistrates' court does not have that power, but the Bill creates a number of new rights and a number of powers. I should be interested to know whether there are any insurmountable difficulties to giving magistrates the power to make a garnishee or a charging order. If there is an insurmountable difficulty, should not this matter be referred to the county court so that a charging or a garnishee order could be made?
I accept that the situation presented by the self-employed defaulters without assets could be more difficult to handle. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, advocated that the courts should be empowered to make a community service order in lieu of imprisonment. We were told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that a community service order must always be made with consent. Hitherto that has been the position, but is there any reason why at least the principle of service to the community should not be subject to different criteria called by a different name? Is there any reason why
582
that principle should not also be available to the magistrates' court when dealing with a self-employed person without assets?
I believe that there is one other possibility. I speak subject to being corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—if he were present—or by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. There is the possibility that the arrears could be treated as if they were an income tax charge to be collected by the Inland Revenue.
One is anxious to be as constructive as one can in dealing with this issue. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether we should not pause for a while to study whether there are other possible alternatives, because imprisonment can turn a person sour towards his family and towards his commitment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we examined this matter in some detail in Committee and it has been raised again today. Noble Lords have been kind enough to refer to my remarks from time to time. I hope that those references have been found to be illuminating. As he usually does, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, put the matter briefly and succinctly in referring to rogues who have money and do not want to support their children. That paraphrase of my comments perhaps illustrates the position rather more dramatically. Those are the people we have in mind as requiring the ultimate sanction of imprisonment.
The Bill as drafted makes clear that imprisonment is a last resort. To take up the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I have in mind to propose amendments to the Bill to give power to make garnishee or charging orders. It is right that that should be done in the county court and therefore a case would have to be remitted to the county court for that purpose.
As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, said, the Payne Committee was keen on a good enforcement agency to extract the money from the debtor. We have adopted that principle in the Bill although the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, does not recognise it as that. The agency is intended to provide effective enforcement of maintenance debts. We have already given powers in the Bill in respect of deductions from earnings orders, distraint, and so on. It is plain that the purpose of the clause we are now considering is a last resort power, as we say in Clause 31
To answer the question of my noble friend, Lord Renton, subsection (2) has to be borne in mind. It reads:
"On any such application the court shall (in the presence of the liable person) inquire as to—

(a) the liable person's means; and

(b) whether there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect on his part".

It is clear, therefore, that the court has to be satisfied that the liable person has means and that it is deliberate or culpable neglect on his part which prevents those means being made available to discharge his responsibilities to his children.
The situation, therefore, is that the Secretary of State applies for the order under this provision. He

583
does so only if he has failed to obtain the money by, for example, distraint. It is only if all other powers have failed that the power of imprisonment is contemplated.
The intention is to replicate the existing law on this matter, though the way in which the clause has been drafted does not do so effectively. At Third Reading, therefore, I shall propose an amendment to make clear that the maximum period of imprisonment is the six weeks which is the present law. That ought to be made plain in any event and I undertake to do that.
Regarding the main point, I believe that it is absolutely clear that imprisonment of people who, for any reason, do not have the money is not at issue. The issue is imprisonment of those who have the money but who do not make it over, either because they do not bother or because they deliberately and wilfully refuse to do so.
Many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, have said that there should be an ultimate sanction. I know of no ultimate sanction in such a situation other than the sanction of imprisonment. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, talked.of community service. It is my understanding that community service requires the consent of the person being placed on community service because it is not lawful for the state to create enforced labour. In other words, one cannot force someone to do such work. The only ultimate enforcement which is available in that situation is some form of custody.
A great deal has been said about the effect of imprisonment on the person placed in custody. The purpose is not to put people in custody but to obtain payment. I hope that the really effective powers that the agency will have will create a situation in which the money is paid, according to the assessment. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, spoke of the person who did not have the money, but the purpose of applying the formula is to ensure that the person will have the money required. The purpose of the formula and the protected level of income is designed to secure that money is available. So the formula contains that kind of structure.
Reports on civil debt in recent years have generally agreed that imprisonment for default should be abolished, but there has been a significant exception with regard to maintenance arrears. For example, the McKenzie Report of 1958 in Scotland found overwhelming support for the retention of imprisonment where maintenance was concerned while the Payne Committee, unanimous in its recommendation that imprisonment for civil debt should be abolished, could riot agree on maintenance. The Finer Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, was a distinguished member, recommended abolition—
Lord McGregor of Durris: Unanimously.
11.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord says "unanimously". I was about to say that I find it a little difficult to see precisely what were the grounds for its conclusion.
584
I should emphasise that in the vast majority of cases, the threat of imprisonment is enough. The most recent figures suggest that the number of people imprisoned in that respect has fallen. In 1989, 480 people were committed immediately by magistrates to prison as compared with 850 in 1985. In 1989 there were approximately 85,000 enforcement proceedings in magistrates' courts in total. That shows just how effective the system was. Again, reverting to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, in 1989 there were 183 people committed by the county courts, according to my information, under the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 in respect of maintenance debts.
We are not concerned here with fine defaults. I can understand the desirability of reducing the number of people who default. One proposal is the unit fine, a rather rudimentary kind of formula applied to fines which should help to tailor the fine to the person's ability to pay. Our formula is a good deal more refined and detailed, but it is tailored to the person's ability to pay.
The powers that will be given to the Secretary of State and the agency to obtain money from people will be strong and effective. The more effective they are, the less likely it will be that one will encounter a rogue of the quality to which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, referred, who was able to avoid payment.
Accordingly, I regard it as important that the sanction of imprisonment be retained in order that the maintenance cheat will not be allowed to scoff at his responsibilities and to know that he is safe beyond the reach of the courts or his family. I do not believe that it is fair to allow a person of that kind to scoff at the courts while ordinary, law-abiding people are obliged to pay maintenance for their families. The aim is to protect the family and to ensure that such people pay maintenance for their children.
I am certainly not insensible to the concerns of those who wish to prevent imprisonment for maintenance debts being imposed on feckless inadequates. That is a problem which, to the extent that it exists, is addressed in the formulation of the clause. I am certainly willing to consider whether the formulation of the clause requires to be strengthened in that connection. However, that kind of problem cannot be addressed adequately in the context of the Bill and it certainly cannot be addressed, in the Government's view, at the expense of children and the taxpayer by removing what is often the only effective weapon against those selfish and uncaring parents who see no obstacle to dishonourably playing the system and leaving their children to be brought up on other people's money.
I do not believe that it was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, or of any of your Lordships who supported the amendment to accommodate such people—rogues who are unwilling to pay although they have the money. However, if carried, the amendment would protect those very people. That would be unfair to their children and would risk undermining the morale and resolve of caring and responsible parents. It is an important

585
point. I hope that with the amendments that I have undertaken will be moved, your Lordships will feel that they should decline to agree with this one.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who supported the amendment. Naturally, I am disappointed that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has moved only a very small distance in respect of offering to strengthen the modes of attachment by giving to magistrates powers to make garnishee and charging orders. I hope very much that he will consider transferring the whole of this enforcement procedure from the magistrates' courts to the county courts. Many of the defects which bother me most lie in the procedures of the magistrates' courts. However, this is not the place to discuss these matters.
On the third day of Committee the noble and learned Lord said that he would consider whether there was anything further that he could do. He has considered. As I said, the result is disappointing. But perhaps it suggests the possibility of further consideration before we reach the next stage in the Bill's passage. I believe that every noble Lord who spoke suggested further consideration. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will be willing in the next phase, in consultation with those of his colleagues who are affected, to make a further consideration as to how we can deal with this very disturbing problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Arrears of child support maintenance]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 24, line 20, at end insert:
("() In cases where the Secretary of State has assessed the maintenance requirement and determined the amount to be paid by the absent parent and the absent parent has failed to pay, the Secretary of State shall pay to the parent with care that amount of the requisite sum necessary to guarantee the income of the caring parent at least to the level of income support. The Secretary of State shall use his powers under section 3 to recover the whole of the liable sum due from the absent parent and pay on collection any outstanding sums due to the caring parent.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if accepted, this amendment would enable the child support agency to provide minimum maintenance payments for a limited period when the absent parent fails to pay. This will result in more security for lone parents and will help to minimise disincentives to work.
Noble Lords will remember that earlier we had a debate on Amendment No. 38 on the powers of inspection. A phrase was used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which I noted. He referred to the agonising problems of lone parents attempting to get maintenance. That would apply equally to lone parents in cases where there was a delay in the payment of maintenance or if the payments lapsed.
No doubt we can all agree that it is of the utmost importance that the payment of maintenance should be enforced both speedily and effectively. Lone parents need certainty in their financial planning. That is especially true of lone parents who receive either
586
family credit, housing benefit or community charge benefit. Those are benefits which are not immediately adjusted to reflect an interruption in maintenance payments.
This amendment provides for a guarantee of receipt of maintenance payments from the agency which are up to at least the level of income support. We can all understand the consequences of a lone parent who receives benefits or a low wage when there are such problems with maintenance payments. For a lone parent who is wondering whether to take a low paid job and claim family credit and housing benefit, the fear that maintenance payments may be interrupted with no ensuing replacements from a guarantee scheme may well be a decisive factor against taking up paid employment. As such there would be here a major disincentive to work.
The aim of the amendment is quite clear. It is to ensure that the lone parent's income is not disrupted where the absent parent fails to pay the agreed maintenance award. Without this amendment, some lone parents would have to live on incomes which are below income support level, and others would be forced to give up their jobs and return to benefit.
It is clear that some form of guarantee of maintenance payments is essential because the effect of the Bill will be to make many lone parents either wholly or partially reliant on maintenance. At the same time, the measures for ensuring enforcement put forward in the Bill contain some weaknesses which we have discussed as we have gone through the Bill. A deduction from an earnings order can be evaded by changing employment, and the proposals contain no effective method of ensuring payment from the self-employed, for own deduction of earnings is not an appropriate measure.
We believe that it would be better to help to keep the lone parent in work and the guarantee of maintenance payments while the problems with maintenance are sorted out. In addition, if the child support agency had to pay the guaranteed maintenance in case of default, it would provide a great incentive to the agency to ensure that the enforcement of maintenance was effective.
I understand that at present in Sweden they operate a guaranteed maintenance system, and the United States has passed some federal legislation to enable the state legislatures to operate such systems. This is a very real problem for the lone parents who will be affected. The amendment attempts to deal with the problem in what we feel is a sensible way. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if this amendment is not accepted, many children will be much worse off as a result of the operation of this Bill. That would be contrary to the object of the exercise. We support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, many of the child support agency's clients will be in receipt of income support. We are anxious to ensure that their income is disrupted as little as possible by any fluctuations in the amount of maintenance paid. This will be an important factor in deciding on the most appropriate

587
method of collection and payment of maintenance to be used in any particular case. There will be a number of methods of collection of maintenance available, with the most appropriate to a particular case being adopted.
First, we shall be continuing the arrangements for income support claimants where, in some circumstances, benefit is paid gross of any maintenance received, while the Secretary of State collects the maintenance on behalf of the claimant. This ensures that the person with care receives her full income support entitlement.
There will be other methods of collection available which will involve the agency in some form of monitoring role. In the event of a person with care in receipt of benefit not receiving full payment of maintenance, it is intended that the agency will be able to inform the benefit authorities directly, so that the benefit can be adjusted quickly.
Again, I should like to stress the word "quickly". We have quite a good record for the speed with which we deal with claims for income support. The agency will be able to do this through its powers to disclose information in Clause 12(3), which we agreed to retain in the Bill after a Division earlier this afternoon.
This amendment is framed in terms that apply to all parents with care, whatever their circumstances. But if a person with care is not in receipt of benefit, the use of the agency's services is entirely voluntary and it would not be right for the state to intervene if its services were not required. In the same way, it is not right for the taxpayer automatically to take over financial responsibility when an absent parent fails to meet hip liabilities. However, it is right that the state should provide a means by which an assessed maintenance liability can be quickly and effectively enforces should the person with care require that service. This is what the Bill provides.
If such a person with care does not receive sufficient income to support the household while enforcement is being sought, he or she will in the usual way be able to apply for extra support in the form of income support, or family credit, if he or she is working for 16 hours a week or more. Again, I should like to stress the speed with which we hope we can process most income support claims. Our record in this matter is quite good. I hope therefore that in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it appears that the principle of the guarantee is accepted because of income support being paid gross and the maintenance payment being deducted. I do not think we have had an answer to the question of what happens to the children in the cases where there is a gap, where maintenance has lapsed. I agree that if the department can move quickly enough in these circumstances, the problem need not last for too long. I shall have to read with care what the noble Lord has said. I do not think he has given a complete answer, but at this stage of the debate I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Clause 33 [Special cases]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 24, line 41, at end insert:
("and for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that subsection (1) shall be construed ejusdem generis").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I apologise that at half-past eleven at night I am moving an amendment which ostensibly concerns a technical canon of statutory construction. I should not do so if in this case it were not of constitutional importance. It is expressed always in the highly elliptical Latin that appears in the amendment. To say that the term means "of the same sort" conveys little of its operation in statutory construction. Based on experience and common sense and the courts' scrutiny of the way in which Parliament proceeds the term is entirely reasonable.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. If in an agricultural statute appear the words "cattle, sheep and other animals" the courts will conclude that although "other animals" is all embracing what was intended was something similar to cattle and sheep—say, domesticated goats—and would not extend, for example, to a tiger. I said that the matter was entirely consonant with common sense and common experience. If the wife of one of your Lordships were to say that she was going shopping and when asked what she was going to buy said, "A blouse, a skirt and other things", you would be surprised and perhaps pained if she returned home in a pantechnicon with a suite of furniture, though that undoubtedly would be covered by "other things".
The courts therefore proceed with common sense. They ask themselves why the draftsman stated "other animals". The answer is that he may have missed one of the domestic agricultural animals that he meant to cover; for example, goats. The courts will also ask why he mentioned cattle and sheep. The only reason for mentioning them rather than allowing them to be covered by "other animals" was to delimit the scope of the provision.
In applying that to the present clause and special cases it proceeds quite valuably to say that the Secretary of State may make regulations covering special cases and it then gives examples. When I raised the matter in Committee I asked whether my noble and learned friend considered whether it led to a situation in which the ejusdem generis rule would apply. Unfortunately, I had not given him notice of the question. Off the cuff he replied—I shall not say characteristically—no. He believed that it would not extend to examples. However, the fact that it is exemplary in form directly suggests that there is a common factor, a genus, embracing all these examples, and that they are intended to limit the generality of the general regulation-making power. For example, a court which would have to consider this on judicial review would conclude that, although the general power to denominate special cases is all embracing, it would not be proper to designate as a

589
special case, for example, where one of the parents was a member of an ethnic minority because it would not be of the same sort as the example.
Since my noble and learned friend's reaction was negative, I thought it would be better to deal with the matter expressly although my view was that the ejusdem generis rule applied. However, I have made it in declaratory form because it is highly undesirable and often very damaging to express in statutory form what the law would otherwise prescribe.
I conceive that only one possible argument can be advanced against this amendment. It is sometimes said, although on no very good authority and the main authority is against it, that the ejusdem generis rule does not operate in reverse; in other words, if one has the very wide term first rather than last, it is sometimes said that the rule does not apply. I have the authorities here but I shall not trouble your Lordships with them at this hour. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend asked me about this in Committee. I hope that, characteristically, I gave him what I believed to be the correct answer. I hope that that is the characteristic he had in mind rather than suggesting that I always wished to answer him with a no.
The point is that, if my noble and learned friend is right in his construction, the amendment is not necessary. The Bill is not intended to be restricted in that way. These are examples which we have found. They are intended to be useful examples of the type of case which we believe may need to be covered by Clause 33. There may be other cases which we wish to include although they may not be of the same kind.
It may be quite difficult—and I do not believe that my noble and learned friend has addressed this—to say what is the genus of which all these examples form part. The fact that one may be surprised by what happens in the case of one's wife going to the shop will not be a particularly good test. If my wife said that she was going to buy blouses and other things and returned with a pantechnicon full of blouses, I should be fairly surprised about that. It may well be ejusdem generis but the amount may well be considerable. Therefore, I do not believe that that is a very satisfactory test.
These are intended to be useful examples of the type of case which needs to be covered by Clause 33. However, unless it is absolutely essential, I do not wish to be restricted to that type of example. Therefore, unless there is an overwhelming reason for it, I do not feel that this amendment makes a useful contribution to the Bill. I hope that my noble and learned friend, in the light of that explanation—perhaps a little fuller than the one I gave on the first occasion—will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is with no surprise at all that I find my noble and learned friend's brief ends with the word, "Resist". My noble and learned friend says that I have not defined the genus. That is quite true; courts very rarely do. What they say is that something falls clearly outside the genus. The
590
tiger falls clearly outside any genus that might be constituted by cattle and sheep. I gave an example of something that would fall clearly outside; namely, the nomination of a special case where one of the parents is a member of an ethnic minority. My noble and learned friend does not want the generality limited in any way. That is entirely consistent with the whole spirit of the Bill—the gathering of vague powers into the hands of the administration.
My noble and learned friend finally says that if my construction is right the amendment is unnecessary. That is absolutely true. However, it is because he took the other view that I tabled it in a declaratory form. It is because he expressed a doubt that it must be put in. It is, of course, useless at this hour, in the face of the implacable resistance to any modification of any power taken by the Secretary of State under the Bill, to try to call a Division on the amendment. However, the argument stands. I am by no means satisfied with the answer given. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 80:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("Jurisdiction of courts in certain proceedings under this Act
.—(1) The Lord Chancellor or, in relation to Scotland, the Lord Advocate may by order make such provision as he considers necessary to secure that appeals, or such class of appeals as may be specified in the order—

(a) shall be made to a court instead of being made to a child support appeal tribunal; or

(b) shall be so made in such circumstances as may be so specified.

(2) In subsection (1), "court" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales and subject to any provision made under Schedule 11 to the Children Act 1989 (jurisdiction of courts with respect to certain proceedings relating to children) the High Court, a county court or a magistrates' court; and

(b) in relation to Scotland, the Court of Session or the sheriff.

(3) Schedule 11 to the Act of 1989 shall be amended in accordance with subsections (4) and (5).
(4) The following sub-paragraph shall be inserted in paragraph 1, after sub-paragraph (2)—
"(2A) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) shall also apply in relation to proceedings—

(a) under section 20 of the Child Support Act 1991 (reference to court for declaration of parentage); or

(b) which are to be dealt with in accordance with an order made under section (Jurisdiction of courts in certain proceedings under this Act) of that Act (jurisdiction of courts in certain proceedings under that Act)".

(5) In paragraphs 1(3) and 2(3), the following shall be inserted after "Act 1976"—
"(bb) section 18 (appeals) or 20 (reference to court for declaration of parentage) of the Child Support Act 1991;".
(6) Where the effect of any order under subsection (1) is that there are no longer any appeals which fall to be dealt with by child support appeal tribunals, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate may by order provide for the abolition of those tribunals.
(7) Any order under subsection (1) or (6) may make—

(a) such modifications of any provision of this Act or of any other enactment; and

(b) such transitional provision,

591
as the Minister making the order considers appropriate in consequence of any provision made by the order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 80 when moving Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Fees]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 25, line 25, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Where an absent parent is on income support they will be zero rated for maintenance purposes.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have tried to be mindful of the time of the House this evening. Before getting up, I said to myself, "Is your journey really necessary?" But it is of the nature of that question that occasionally one must admit the possibility that the answer may be yes. I think we have a case here where it is.
Amendment No. 81 deals with the case of an absent parent on income support who at present is to be assessed to pay 5 per cent. of his income support towards maintenance. The amendment would provide for the absent parent on income support not to be exempt from liability to pay maintenance—there is a principle involved in the liability which we accept—but to be zero-rated. There is a big difference.
The key point is how adequate a benefit income support is. That is something which goes right to the heart of the social security system. The Government's position can only be consistent and workable if they are right in believing, as my noble kinsman frankly stated was his view in Committee, that income support is above subsistence levels. Unless that is the case people who suffer a deduction from their income support are being brought to a level which is too low to be acceptable.
I shall not develop the argument which I have already had with my noble kinsman regarding whether or not income support levels are too low. That is an argument to which we shall doubtless have to return. It is not essential to the amendment. What is essential to the amendment is the argument that income support is a subsistence benefit. That is the assumption clearly made by all those who have been briefing us for the Bill—the National Council for One Parent Families and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, among others.
I cannot believe that the Government disagree with that. If they thought that income support was above subsistence levels, they would lower it and they have not done so. In practice, I believe that they accept that income support is a subsistence benefit. If being brought below income support is serious for people receiving the full adult rate, it is more serious for those receiving the much lower rate under 25 years of age. That is the lower rate and, as far as I can see, there are no lower costs.
People in that age group may be disproportionately represented among the category of absent parents. If it is serious for the under-25s, it is even more serious for the younger category of 16 and 17 year-olds who are old enough to be capable of coming into the category of absent fathers, and who sometimes do. In that context, we look forward to an announcement when
592
the Government have digested the MORI research on the subject. Failing that, we cannot see any justification for charging maintenance on those who are already on income support. I cannot see that any serious thought has gone into whether they can afford it.
Professors Bradshaw and Millar, whose research underlies a great deal of the Government's thinking on this Bill, have concluded that,
"there is no reliable information on the capacity of (absent) parents to pay, or to pay more, maintenance".
Let us take one example of the kind of case that I have in mind reported by a South Yorkshire citizens advice bureau. A client aged 21 receives benefit of £28.80 a week from which there are deductions for gas of £11.20; rent arrears and water rates, £5.71 per week; and a social fund loan of £1.31 per week. That leaves £10.58 per week out of which £5 per week must be found for an electricity token meter which is recovering a debt. Are we seriously suggesting that it is practical to deduct a further 5 per cent. from that person for paying maintenance? I do not think that it is. If the Government think otherwise, I shall be extremely surprised.
I hope that they have already considered what seems to me to be the very wise observations of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the subject of this amendment. It says:
"We are concerned that this would add yet another item to the growing list of deductions. The proliferation of these deductions is likely to lead to a large number of items competing for a finite amount or the possibility that creditors' bills are met at the expense of food and other essential items of day-to-day living. We urge the Government to reconsider this proposal which appears punitive and counterproductive".
The point about the proliferation of deductions is one which needs taking. A citizens advice bureau in Devon reports a case of a client who is losing 65 per cent. of income support on deductions for rent, water rates, social fund loans and repayment of past over-payments. It is illogical to have a level of protected income for other parents which is above income support level, and at the same time to say that those on income support can afford to have another £2 deducted from a benefit which is small enough in the first place.
I hope that the Government will consider the recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee at paragraph 17, that those already on a reduced benefit should not be made subject to any further deduction. That is a matter that we shall have to discuss further. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I moved this amendment in Committee and was supported on that occasion by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am pleased to return the compliment this evening. I shall be brief. We made it clear in Committee that the Government's proposal is extremely harsh on those who are on income support. We feel that those who are on income support have by definition only a subsistence income on which to support themselves and to maintain contact with their children. The Government have turned down amendments to increase allowances for the absent parent in regard to work-related expenses and so on.

593
In Committee I drew an analogy with zero-rating in the VAT system. The principle of maintenance is an important one. Where the absent parent is on income support the liability for the maintenance should be recognised but the payment should be zero-rated. The child support agency would hold information on the absent parent. When he found work he could then be brought into the system. If payments by absent parents on income support are introduced they should be used only as a method of ensuring that all absent parents are covered by the new system. The useful analogy is with the VAT system. One is in the system but one is zero-rated so that no payment is required. We feel that the Government's proposal in this respect is harsh. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government have changed their view since Committee stage.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I very much regret that I shall not be able to move today. I have listened with great care to what my noble kinsman and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, have had to say. However, I feel that there is an important point of principle here. The legal and moral obligations on parents who are in receipt of income support are exactly the same as those on other parents. They are responsible for maintaining their children. It is important that the responsibility for maintenance should be established straight away, not least so that liability can be clearly established in readiness for if and when circumstances change. In principle all parents should make some contribution to their child's maintenance.
Perhaps I may put the picture straight and remind the House of exactly who on income support will be liable to have some small deduction made. We are talking about a small deduction of about £2 a week at 1991 rates. Parents who are sick or disabled and are unable to work will be zero-rated. Those who have dependent children for whom they are also claiming income support will have their liability established but their contributions to maintenance will again be zero-rated so that no deduction from income support will be made in their case. In other words, we are dealing with those who are able and fit to work but have no dependent children.
My noble kinsman said that he did not wish to pursue his argument as to the adequacy of income support levels. I do not think that we can get much further on that. He considered, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that income support is a subsistence benefit. I do not accept that. We do not believe it to be right for all absent parents on income support to be zero-rated. We think it right that an absent parent who is fit and able to work and who does not have responsibility for bringing up children should make a small contribution to the maintenance of his children. Other deductions can be made from income support; for example, to meet arrears of fuel bills and in future towards the payment of fines. The current ceiling on deductions, which is intended to protect claimants from excessive deductions, will continue to apply.
I should like to say a few words about the case cited by my noble kinsman. It concerned someone in the West Country who had faced deductions of some 65
594
per cent. of income support. I find that somewhat difficult to believe. My noble kinsman made no mention of housing benefit when he mentioned the cost of housing. It would be wrong of me at this stage to comment any further. If my noble kinsman would like me to look at the case I shall certainly do so.
The current ceiling on deductions will continue to apply. The overall maximum deduction for the repayment of debts—to third parties, for the recovery of overpayments, for fines and what we are proposing here—is three times 5 per cent. of the income support applicable amount for a single person aged 25 or over. That is a maximum figure at current benefit rates, as my noble kinsman will quickly work out, of about £6 per week. Deductions for maintenance and fines will also be subject to that ceiling. There will also be a strict order of precedence which ensures that the most essential expenditures have priority.
A deduction for benefit will take its place in that list. I cannot say exactly where it will be in the list because we are still considering the precise details. However, in principle, the deduction from income support as a contribution to maintenance will not take precedence over those expenses which would form part of exempt income for someone who is working and for which deductions from benefit can also be made. It will certainly come after housing and fuel bills.
We do not accept the suggestion that this provision is harsh. It is right that an absent parent's liability should be established. This proposal will ensure that a parent who is fit and able to work while receiving income support is honouring his responsibility for the maintenance of his children in the same way as anyone else. I hope, therefore, that my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for that reply. However, I cannot say that I am satisfied with it. I accept that he has a principle to offer; but most of us have more than one principle. The trouble with principles is that they tend to conflict with each other. What is interesting is what you do when they conflict. We entirely accept the principle that fathers should be responsible for their offspring. That is why we spelt out in our amendment that they should be "zero rated" and not that they should be exempt.
The trouble is that we think there is another principle involved. We believe that people in this country—which, after all, is not yet one of the poorest countries in the world—should not be allowed to fall below subsistence level. Therefore, if the principle that fathers should maintain their offspring brings them below that level, we are of the view that it is unduly single-minded to go ahead and pursue the matter.
I am simply not convinced by my noble kinsman's argument that income support is not a subsistence benefit. This is an issue to which we shall return frequently. It is necessary to point out that we on these Benches, others on this side of the House in general and, I believe, Members in some other quarters of this place, simply do not find that argument acceptable or persuasive.

595
I listened carefully to what my noble kinsman said about deductions. I thank him warmly for his offer to look into the 65 per cent. case. I shall undertake to see that he receives details of it. We are not convinced that a limitation of deductions to 15 per cent. is effective in all cases, or that the figure of 15 per cent. is acceptable. We believe that this is undercutting the social security system as a whole and bringing it into danger.
I have thought long and hard about what I want to do with the amendment. I have taken advice as to whether I should bring the matter back on Third Reading. I have received the advice that too much is brought back on Third Readings and that I would be unwise to do so. I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment and give way on the matter. I believe that the issue involved is too important. Similarly, I am not prepared to accept the principle that, if it is proper for the He use to be in Session, it is totally improper for the House to divide. In the circumstances, I believe that I nave no option but to seek the opinion of the House.
11.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 81) shill be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 27.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Faithfull B.

Russell, E.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Astor, V.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brabazor of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gray, L.

Vinson, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Waddington, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Wynford, L.

Henley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.5 a.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Maintenance disregard for calculation of benefit entitlement
. Where the person with care is in receipt of income support, family credit or housing benefit or such other benefit as the secretary of State may prescribe, such a sum of maintenance as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State shall be disregarded in calculating that person's entitlement to any of these benefits.").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of the dozen voters for the Opposition, I wish to move Amendment No. 82. It deals with the disregard of maintenance for family credits. It was one of the sensible observations
596
of the White Paper that no useful purpose is to be served by taking one family off income support if one puts another family on to it.
If a father who has remarried does not receive a deduction for the maintenance that he pays in the calculation of family credits, then the second family will lose what the first family gains. It will become dependent on income support. There will be a disincentive to work and a good deal of hardship will be created. We think that the present system works reasonably well. As so often, I say to the Government, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not feel that there is much to add to what I said in Committee. As the noble Earl knows, we said that there would be maintenance disregard in housing benefit, community charge benefit, disability working allowance and family credit. In passing, I note that the movers have altered their amendment so as to include any other prescribed benefit, just as the Government did when drafting the Bill at some earlier stage. No doubt that was in order to include the disability working allowance. Presumably it would not have been included under the other amendment.
As I explained previously, we considered very carefully whether we should also introduce a maintenance disregard into the income support scheme; but we have concluded that we should not. If there were a maintenance disregard in income support, it would make it harder for the parent to be better off in work. She would need to earn a higher salary to be better off working than on income support. It could discourage her from taking the first steps into work and the achievement of greater independence which we know that parents want.
I wish to make two further points. First, as the House will know, the rules of these social security benefits are set out not in primary legislation but in regulations. The £15 maintenance disregard which the Government have announced will be introduced by amending those regulations, and not by amending primary legislation.
Secondly, it is right for the House to be aware of the not insignificant matter of cost. The extension of the £15 disregard to income support would cost an additional £180 million per year. Resources can only be finite and we believe that the best way to use available resources is to focus them on providing help to parents seeking to continue caring for their children with paid work. We feel that the £15 disregard in family credit, housing benefit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance will achieve this. I hope therefore my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate my noble kinsman on spotting the words concerning any benefit of a prescribed kind. I thank him for pointing that out and I shall try to be more careful in future. I cannot say that I am entirely convinced by the rest of his argument. On the point about costs, I wonder a little whether my noble kinsman has not thrown a boomerang because if those costs are not falling on the Government, they are falling on families who are not

597
going to be able to sustain them. That may carry a great many concealed costs which may be rather greater than those they would incur under the system we are proposing. I am well aware of the cost to the social security budget as I have spoken on that many times. My noble kinsman knows my proposed remedies for that so I shall not go into them at this time of night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Regulations and orders]:
12.15 a.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 26, line 20, after ("section") insert ("3(8)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and the next two amendments are concerned with parliamentary control of legislation in the form of regulations. It is deplorable that the business should be so arranged that we should be discussing something of this constitutional importance after midnight.
On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, informed us that there were 92 regulation-making powers in the Bill. That is far more than the number of clauses in the Bill. Of those only eight were subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. On examination one finds that no regard at all has been paid to what was laid down by the Joint Select Committee on delegated legislation of 1972 to 1973. The committee's recommendation had been accepted by both Houses. That is entirely consonant with the general bureaucratic spirit of this Bill. Your Lordships have today witnessed examples of the ouster of the courts. Here we come back again to the encroachment on parliamentary activity by the Executive.
At Committee stage I ventured to propose a number of amendments under this clause in order to extend the affirmative resolution procedure beyond the eight instances originally fixed. The Bill was already very odd, not merely numerically as I have just pointed out, but in addition the Scottish draftsman had obviously taken a much more proper constitutional view than the English draftsman instructed by the department. One found that in exact counterparts in the Scottish provision the affirmative resolution procedure applied whereas in the English provisions there was the usual downgrading.
I proposed a number of amendments to bring some of the provisions into line with the criteria that the Joint Select Committee had laid down. My noble and learned friend accepted one and was good enough to say that he would consider all the others. Unfortunately the result of that consideration has been almost entirely negative, apart from the case of the amendment that I am now moving. One is bound to point out that that is the minimum that could be conceded because the amendment refers to Clause 3(8), which, unless it was made affirmative, would be an absurd anomaly in relation to Clause 5(7) and Clause 6(7).
Turning to the other amendments, I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I merely go through
598
them quickly indicating the character of some of them and leaving it to my noble and learned friend, who is apparently not ready to accept them. to say how he can possibly reconcile that attitude with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee which I brought to your Lordships' attention at Committee stage.
The first item is Clause 23(2) relating to the collection and enforcement of various orders for periodical payment, together with maintenance assessment collection. It is a Henry VIII clause, although not particularly objectionable. Being a Henry VIII clause it falls within the first of the criteria as being a matter of importance, which the Joint Select Committee defined negatively as something that was not trivial or transitional. In addition, it also falls within the second head, in that it involves a charge on the citizen.
Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 25 concern deductions from earnings orders. That again is not only a matter of intrinsic importance but also falls within the second financial head and ought to be in affirmative form.
The next item is is Clause 27(1), relating to liability orders, which again is a matter involving a charge on the citizen, to adopt the criterion of the Joint Select Committee.
The last but one is Clause 28(7). That again is a Henry VIII clause, so it should clearly be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It also concerns the stark remedy of distress, which is a mode of execution by self-help which the common law made subject to many safeguards, many of which have been swept away in the Bill for the convenience of bureaucratic order.
The last is Clause 31(3). I do not have a note of that one, but I ask my noble and learned friend to go through them. If he is not disposed to accept any of them, perhaps he will say why, applying the criteria of the Joint Select Committee, he can justify any such refusal. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I entirely accept the amendment. I have looked carefully at the other amendments to which my noble and learned friend has spoken and have concluded that, where they affect provisions of the Acts of Parliament, they do not substantially affect those provisions. I do not believe that they contain power to impose or increase taxation or other financial burdens on the subject; rather, they produce procedures under which already determined burdens are enforced. I do not think that any of them require that the affirmative resolution procedure should be applied to them. I am mindful that the Select Committee report commented that, if parent Acts require the affirmative procedure instead of the negative for instruments which are likely to be neither sufficiently important nor sufficiently controversial to justify such procedure, there may be needless consumption of parliamentary time.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my noble and learned friend said that he did not consider those provisions to be substantial without going on to apply the negative test that the Joint Select Committee

599
proposed. It said that anything was substantial which was not trivial or transitional. Obviously, a Henry VIII clause falls into that category. Obviously, the provisions about distress, deduction of earnings and liability orders affect the charge on the individual citizen
I confess that I am not surprised at the attitude of my noble and learned friend because it is entirely consistent with the general attitude that the department has displayed not only in presenting the Bill but in the brief given to Ministers on the various amendments.
In the meantime, I think that I am right to move the first amendment and to ask leave in due course, in view of the late hour and the figures at the recent Division, not to move the remaining amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 83A and 83AA not moved.]
Clause 39 [Interpretation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 27, line 7, at end insert:
(" "child support appeal tribunal" means a tribunal appointed under section (Child support appeal tribunals);").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Meaning of "child"]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 28, line 3, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to the definition of a child. I raised this mattter in Committee. The Bill defines a child and then goes on to say that:
"a person is not a child … if he—
"(a) is or has been married;
"(b) has celebrated a marriage which is void; or
"has celebrated a marriage in respect of which a decree of nullity has been granted".
I question in particular paragraph (a). My noble and learned friend justified it by saying that the subject, the person—who would be someone anywhere between the ages of 12, in Scotland, and 19, in England; anybody within that age who had married—had entered into a new family relationship. That is true. It is self-evident. What is not self-evident is that in acquiring a new family one discards the old one. In this country we do not practise a form of exogamy. We do not say, "Leave thy father and thy mother and the black tents of thy people". On the contrary, when a girl marries she normally remains in contact with her parents.
I suppose it could be said that when she marries she is playing her own part in the partnership, that she looks to her husband for support and that that should be taken to exonerate her father. I do not think that that is always true. But in any case it does not apply to the young husband. I do not know how that is justified.
However, I am not so much concerned with paragraph (a) as with paragraphs (b) and (c).
600
Paragraph (b) states that one is no longer a child if one has gone through a void marriage. I suppose that the one most likely in this context is a marriage that is void for non-age. Perhaps the two young people (the girl under the age of 16 being pregnant) go through a ceremony of marriage. One ought to note that such a marriage can take place validly so far as celebration is concerned. There is a law of celebration abroad, though it is probable but not certain that if one of the parties is domiciled in England the marriage is void.
If the marriage is void—and there are many reasons other than non-age why the marriage might be void—why does the person cease to be a child by statutory definition? The situation is even odder in the case of paragraph (c). So far as I can see the only case that can be covered by paragraph (c) which is not covered by paragraph (b) is a voidable marriage. The only argument that I can possibly think of is that in some cases a void marriage and voidable marriage give a claim to support from the other party to the void or voidable marriage. That will probably be exiguous in many circumstances. It seems to me that it would be sensible to expunge those two limitations and leave the marriage of the child as being sufficient to take the child out of the benefit of the Bill. I beg to move.
12.30 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor: As my noble and learned friend said, this matter was raised at Committee stage, and I endeavoured to persuade him then that this amendment was not needed. The point is that for the purposes of the Bill anyone who had married, whether or not that marriage was void or had subsequently been annulled, would not be regarded as an eligible child, even though they would otherwise qualify by virtue of their age. The thinking behind this is quite simple. If a person has undergone a ceremony of marriage, he or she may, irrespective of whether the legal status of the marriage had later been called into question, be regarded as having left the ambit of parental support and formed with her supposed spouse a new family unit in which it is primarily the other partner who should give any financial support that may be necessary. The fact that a supposed marriage is in law void or is subsequently declared to be null or void does not, as my noble and learned friend has appreciated, prevent the court from having jurisdiction to order inter-spousal maintenance under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Of course—this is an important point—this does not mean that such children are precluded from seeking maintenance against their parents from the courts. It will then be a matter for the courts, exercising their judicial power, to decide whether in such rare and very unusual circumstances the person should be maintained by the parents or alternatively by the supposed spouse. This is a case which is so exceptional that it would be quite unreasonable for the formula to deal with it. Therefore, it is right that in this case the formula should not apply.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will appreciate that we are not restricting the category of children about which he is concerned from being able to obtain maintenance. What we are doing is

601
excluding them from the provisions of this Bill because the Bill is intended to deal with what, by comparison with these, are reasonably straightforward cases. The circumstances we are now discussing are not straightforward and these seem to us to be appropriate cases for judicial determination.
I hope that in the light of this explanation my noble and learned friend will be prepared to withdraw Amendment No.86 and will not move Amendment No.87.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. He said that in the unusual circumstances the child would be able to claim maintenance against his father. I should be most grateful if my noble and learned friend could explain how that could be done. As I read Clause 7, the court was precluded from considering any such claim, and if it could not be made in a magistrates' court the jurisdiction of which has been excluded expressly by Clause 7, I cannot see how it could be made.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it can be done because the child in question is not a child for the purposes of this Bill. Therefore, the provision of Clause 7 to which my noble and learned friend refers does not apply to him or her.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I can conceive that a child in that position, if he is a child in Scotland, could claim against his father; but nobody has a right to claim maintenance against his father under the Matrimonial Causes Act merely because he is a child in the non-statutory sense and not defined by this Bill. It is true that the mother could claim on behalf of the child, but that is an entirely different case. However, at this hour I think it would be better if I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Short title, commencement and extent, etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 29, line 17, at end insert:
("() No provision of this Act conferring a power to make regulations shall be brought into force until the relevant statutory instrument has been laid before Parliament").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to postpone the bringing into force of the various powers to make regulations until Parliament has seen those regulations. As your Lordships know, there is a vast regulation-making power. There were 92 occasions on Second Reading and now there are more owing to the government amendment. Some powers are wide and some are vague.
When debating Clause 33 my noble and learned friend refused an amendment which would have limited the all-embracing width of the general regulation-making power. Under those circumstances Parliament is being asked to surrender an extraordinary part of its traditional legislative power and
602
function. It is entirely reasonable that Parliament should be able to see what is intended—what the department has up its sleeve—by way of regulations. In Committee my noble and learned friend was inclined to say that that could not be done unless the power had been enacted. Earlier this evening I ventured to point out that that was inconsistent with the Government's concession on Clause 23 providing not only that Parliament should see the regulations but that your Lordships should see them before the Bill passes through this House. I venture to believe that my proposal is entirely consistent with the traditional parliamentary control and management of legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I support the amendment. I shall reserve any speech that I may make until the occasion of the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I pay a sincere tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who at twenty minutes to one o'clock is still addressing this House. He has done so on many occasions without the aid of notes. He has poured out a vast amount of industry in examining the provisions of the Bill and has been a great defender of the liberty of the subject and the privileges of Parliament. I pay that tribute from these Benches and believe that it will be shared by Members in all parts of this House. We should be so much the poorer without him.
Noble Lords: Hear, Hear.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I join the tribute paid to the noble and learned Lord. His contributions tonight have been magnificent. I too support his amendment. On many occasions I have attempted to pray against regulations only to find that although the praying days had not expired they had already come into force. That is like jumping the gun. The problem arises in particular when a Recess coincides with the days concerned. Those days count towards the days for the coming into force but not towards the praying days. When debating regulations we should like to find that they are not already in force. I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend suggested that something I said at one stage was in contradiction to something said on behalf of the Government by, I believe, my noble friend Lord Henley at another stage.
As I recollect the matter, as regards Clause 22 my noble friend indicated that by Third Reading we should be in a position to give more detail of what is proposed under that clause. However, that undertaking has been superseded by events as your Lordships put that clause from the Bill. Therefore, that relieved him of further work in that direction before Third Reading.
What I have said is rather different. I have said that until the statutory power has been finally defined as it is when Parliament passes the Act, it is impossible to say with certainty precisely what will be the terms of the statutory power. While we can sometimes give an indication of what we shall do, depending on what Parliament will do, we cannot always do that.

603
Strictly speaking, it is true that there cannot be a relevant statutory instrument under a power until the power exists. Accordingly, the amendment as proposed is not capable of being fulfilled strictly according to its terms.
One reason for wishing statutory power is often to take account of circumstances as they develop. Where possible we like to consult. The consultation should often proceed in the light of what Parliament has sought to confer. Therefore, I believe that a general provision of this kind is not suitable.
I join with those who have paid tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for the part that he has played in this Bill. He has been with us and has spoken of matters in considerable detail with great knowledge and expertise and it is now 20 minutes before one in the morning. I appreciate that greatly. I have shown already that some of the points he has raised we have been able to incorporate in the Bill, thereby improving it. That we cannot accept all his amendments may be more of a reflection on us than it.s on my noble and learned friend. However, I always consider carefully what he says.
I should add that my noble and learned friend has referred repeatedly to my briefings. I do not know how he knows what is in them. It must be a matter of speculation. I regard myself as responsible for decisions taken about a response to amendments proposed by your Lordships. I do not pass that responsibility to anybody else. I decide whether I am prepared to consider the amendment or what advice I give to your Lordships in the light of the arguments. It is not possible to know the strength of an amendment in this House until one has heard what is said in support of it. Therefore the advice which I am privileged to receive in advance of your Lordships' discussions does not always fully reflect the detailed argument presented by your Lordships in the course of proposing amendments although it is remarkable how often it does reflect it.
On that note, I warmly join with other noble Lords in commending my noble and learned friend Lord Simon although I cannot commend his amendment for acceptance by your Lordships.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Earl for supporting the amendment. I am also extremely grateful for the most generous words pronounced by my noble and learned friend. I hope that I am not ungracious when I say that I only wish that his enthusiasm had manifested itself in acceptance of a greater number of my amendments.
With regard to the subject matter of the amendment, my recollection is that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was quite specific that it would be the regulations under Clause 22 that your Lordships would see in draft before your Lordships gave a Third Reading to the Bill. Of course the regulations cannot be legally in final form until the power to make them has been passed. But what is important in a bureaucratic Bill such as this, unless it is going to drive a coach and horses through the constitution, is that
604
parliamentary control should at least be conceded in the form of showing Parliament what is proposed at the moment to be done by way of regulations.
I can only say—and again I fear it must appear to be ungracious after the generosity of my noble and learned friend—that the refusal of this amendment as well as of the last under Clause 37, is really the final bureaucratic nail being driven into our ancient constitution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 29, line 21, after (" 2") insert ("and (in so far as it amends any enactment extending to Northern Ireland) Schedule 3").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this and Amendment No. 110 when moving Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 110:
Before Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE
Child Support Appeal Tribunals
The President
1.—(1) The person appointed under Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act 1975 as President of the social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals shall, by virtue of that appointment, also be President of the child support appeal tribunals.
(2) It shall be the duty of the President to arrange such meetings of the chairmen and members of child support appeal tribunals, and such training for them, as he considers appropriate.
(3) The President may, with the consent of the Secretary of State as to numbers, remuneration and other terms and conditions of service, appoint such officers and staff as he thinks fit for the child support appeal tribunals and their full-time chairmen.
Membership of child support appeal tribunals
2.—(1) A child support appeal tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two other persons.
(2) The chairman and the other members of the tribunal must not all be of the same sex.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) shall not apply to any proceedings before a child support appeal tribunal if the chairman of the tribunal rules that it is not reasonably practicable to comply with that sub-paragraph in those proceedings.
The chairmen
3.—(1) The chairman of a child support appeal tribunal shall be nominated by the President.
(2) The President may nominate himself or a person drawn—

(a) from the appropriate panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor, or (as the case may be) the Lord President of the Court of Session, under section 7 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971;

(b) from among those appointed under paragraph 4 to act as full-time chairmen; or

(c) from among those appointed under paragraph lA of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act 1975 to act as full-time chairmen of social security appeal tribunals.

4.—(l) The Lord Chancellor may, after consultation with the Lord Advocate, appoint full-time chairmen for child support appeal tribunals.
(2) A person is qualified to be appointed as a full-time chairman if he has a 7 year general qualification (within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990) or is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of 7 year's standing.
(3) A person appointed to act as a full-time chairman shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment, except that he must vacate his office at the end of the completed year of service in which he reaches the age of 72 unless his appointment is continued under subparagraph (4).
(4) Where the Lord Chancellor, after consulting the Lord Advocate, considers it desirable in the public interest to retain a full-time chairman in office after the end of the completed year of service in which he reaches the age of 72, he may from time to time authorise the continuance of that person in office until any date not later than that on which that person reaches the age of 75.
(5) A person appointed as a full-time chairman may be removed from office by the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord Advocate, on the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity.
(6) Section 75 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (judges etc. barred from legal practice) shall apply to any person appointed as a full-time chairman under this Schedule as it applies to any person holding as a full-time appointment any of the offices listed in Schedule 11 to that Act.
(7) The Secretary of State may pay, or make such payments towards the provision of, remuneration, pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of persons appointed as full-time chairmen under this paragraph as, with the consent of the Treasury, he may determine.
Other members of child support appeal tribunals
5.—(1) The members of a child support appeal tribunal other than the chairman shall be drawn from the appropriate panel constituted under this paragraph.
(2) The panels shall be constituted by the President for the whole of Great Britain, and shall

(a) act for such areas; and

(b) be composed of such persons, as the President thinks fit.

(3) The panel for an area shall be composed of persons appearing to the President to have knowledge or experience of conditions in the area and to be representative of persons living or working in the area.
(4) Before appointing members of a panel, the President shall take into consideration any recommendations from such organisations or persons as he considers appropriate.
(5) The members of the panels shall hold office for such period as the President may direct.
(6) The President may at any time terminate the appointment of any member of a panel.
Clerks of tribunals
—(1) Each child support appeal tribunal shall be serviced by a clerk appointed by the President.
(2) The duty of summoning members of a panel to serve on a child support appeal tribunal shall be performed by the clerk to the tribunal.
Expenses of tribunal members and others
7 —(1) The Secretary of State may pay—

(a) to any member of a child support appeal tribunal, such remuneration and travelling and other allowances as the Secretary of State may determine with the consent of the Treasury;

(b) to any person required to attend at any proceedings before a child support appeal tribunal, such travelling and other allowances as may be so determined; and

606

(c) such other expenses in connection with the work of any child support appeal tribunal as may be so determined.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), references to travelling and other allowances include references to compensation for loss of remunerative time.
(3) No compensation for loss of remunerative time shall be paid to any person under this paragraph in respect of any time during which he is in receipt of other remuneration so paid.").
On Question, amendment agreed to
Schedule 3 [Consequential Amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 36, line 39, at end insert:
("The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 (c.62)
.—(1) In section 7(3) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 (chairmen of certain tribunals to be drawn from panels) after "paragraph" there shall be inserted "4A".
(2) In Schedule 1 to that Act (tribunals under the general supervision of the Council on Tribunals) the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place—

"Child support maintenance

4A. The child support appeal tribunals established under section (Child support appeal tribunals) of the Child Support Act 1991."")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 36, line 46, leave out from ("expenses") to end of line 1 on page 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, I shall move Amendment No. 112. It is a drafting amendment. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Bill inserts two new subsections to Section 4 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. By removing some superfluous wording the desired effect can be achieved within one new subsection. I believe that is an improvement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 113 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 37, line 5, leave out ("In section 73(1) of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987") and insert:
("—(1) The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 1(5) (time to pay directions not competent in certain cases) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
"(cc) in connection with a liability order within the meaning of the Child Support Act 1991;".
(3) In section 15(3) (interpretation of Part I), in the definition of "decree or other document", after "maintenance order" there shall be inserted ", a liability order within the meaning of the Child Support Act 1991".
(4) In section 54(1) (maintenance arrestment to be preceded by default) in paragraph (c) for "the aggregate of 3 instalments" there shall be substituted "one instalment".
(5) In section 73(1)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, again on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser

607
of Carmyllie, I shall move Amendment No. 114. I should perhaps briefly deal with the effects of the different parts of the amendment.
The first two parts of the amendment—those to Sections 1(5) and 15(3) of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987—concern the time to pay arrangements introduced by that Act. The amendment will mean that it will not be possible for the absent parent to apply to the court for either a time to pay direction (at the time the court makes the liability order) or a time to pay order (after enforcement action on the liability order has started). That is the present position with court orders for maintenance.
The third part of the amendment will reduce from three payments in arrears to one the level of default needed before a current maintenance arrestment can he put into operation. That will enable a maintenance creditor to act swiftly as soon as there is default to secure payment of the maintenance from the debtor's earnings. It will be particularly helpful where the payments are due monthly or less frequently.
There can be cases where non-payment has been inadvertent on the part of the debtor. Retaining a default requirement but reducing it will assist those debtors who, through oversight, fail to respond immediately on receipt of the notice by the creditor that the court has made a maintenance order against him. The reduction in the level of default required before a maintenance creditor can instruct a current
608
maintenance arrestment should minimise the amount of arrears which could build up and should act as spur to regular and prompt payment.
The last part of the amendment is a minor drafting amendment to remove a superfluous reference to the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 37, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 19.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Harris Tweed Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Adelphi Estate Bill
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons on Friday last agreed to with amendments. The amendments printed pursuant to Standing Order.
House adjourned at nine minutes before one o'clock.

  REFUGEES IN IRAN: AID
  REFUGEES IN IRAN: AID
  AUTHORISED PRACTITIONERS: CONSULTATION DOCUMENT
  AUTHORISED PRACTITIONERS: CONSULTATION DOCUMENT
  SPEED LIMITS: ENFORCEMENT
  SPEED LIMITS: ENFORCEMENT
  BUS SERVICES: COMPLAINTS TO TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS
  BUS SERVICES: COMPLAINTS TO TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES: GUIDE TO THE LAW
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES: GUIDE TO THE LAW