Sitting of 12 December 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.
    LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL

      KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL
      Order for consideration read.
      To be considered on Thursday 19 December.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Administration of Justice
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans to heighten confidence in the administration of justice.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): The Government's strategy is to provide a criminal justice system which maintains the rule of law and creates in Northern Ireland the conditions for a fair and just administration.
    Mr. McAvoy: That answer smacks of nothing less than smug complacency. If everything is for the best in Castlereagh, why are there so many out-of-court settlements in actions for damages brought by former detainees?
    Mr. Brooke: Many factors enter into account when the police authority needs to respond to complaints of that sort. The decisions taken are taken on legal advice.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Did the Secretary of State read in the memoirs of Dr. Garrett FitzGerald that during the negotiations on the Anglo-Irish Agreement the Government had been prepared to allow judges from the courts in the Irish Republic to sit on the Bench in Northern Ireland as part of what are described as mixed courts, but that that was stopped because of the resistance of then then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lowry? Is the view expressed then to Dr. FitzGerald—that this was a matter which could be considered as soon as Lord Lowry passed on—being considered by the Government now?
    Mr. Brooke: The nature of my duties both in the Province and in this House means that I have not yet had the pleasure and privilege of reading Dr. FitzGerald's book, but I shall take on hearsay what the hon. Gentleman says about this entry. The issue has not been discussed with me during my time as Secretary of State at any
    976
    conference under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and I am perfectly clear about what response I would give if it were raised.
    Mr. Trimble: The primary function of the administration of justice is to apprehend and punish the guilty. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, contrary to statements made from time to time by Northern Ireland Ministers, the administration of justice in Northern Ireland is signally failing to do that? In 1985 there were 24 convictions for murder, but there were only eight in 1990. Moreover, the people being convicted are very much from the second and third XI. Does the Secretary of State not realise that that conspicuous failure, which is clear to the people of Northern Ireland, is undermining the confidence of the great majority, and that that is pregnant with considerable consequences?
    Mr. Brooke: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about the nature of the charge laid against certain people and the roles that they may have played in particular crimes. That is, I fear, testimony to the experience of terrorists in making certain that the people who commit the crimes are protected by their colleagues. But I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that 112 people have been charged with murder or attempted murder in the course of this year. That is an advance on the previous year and a testimony to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Would it not be helpful if we used existing machinery more effectively? For example, the reciprocal legislation providing for extraterritorial jurisdiction does not seem much used. In the 16 years in which we have had our part of the legislation, we have applied for only 31 people to be tried in the Republic, of whom only 16 were convicted and the Irish Republic has not applied for any such cases at all. Surely there is a lot of ground here to make up if we are to make the machinery of justice as between the two countries more effective.
    Mr. Brooke: The particular question that my hon. Friend raises is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, but I am grateful to him for reminding, me of the precise statistics with which it is always sensible to be armed in any conference on the agreement.
    Mr. McNamara: Will the Secretary of State explain why the Government are still being so stubborn about the video recording of interrogation procedures at Castlereagh and elsewhere? Is he aware of the concern expressed by Amnesty International and the United Nations committee on torture, and that it was recommended by Lord Colville, the Government's own adviser, and by the independent police complaints body and the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights? It is important that the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be seen to be in the forefront of the fight against terrorism with the support and confidence of the whole community. This is one important way in which that could be achieved. Will the Government now reconsider their decision not to introduce video recording of interrogation procedures?
    Mr. Brooke: No matter what arrangements were to be made, the Government believe that the introduction of video recording of interviews with terrorists suspects could seriously jeopardise the process of investigating crime. However, that was a matter which SACHR raised with me

    977
    only this week and made it clear that it was a subject to which it would return. It is therefore a subject on which I expect to be in continuing dialogue.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an essential element of the administration of justice is police primacy? If so, will he ensure that a police officer accompanies every military patrol whenever humanly possible? Will he also consider, as a provisional measure, initiating steps which would enable a magistrate or judge to supervise the interrogation of a defendant charged with a terrorist offence?
    Mr. Brooke: The Government, police and military authorities are committed to ensure that, where feasible and sensible—the hon. Gentleman will know what those words mean in the context of the Province—Army patrols likely to come into contact with the public are accompanied by an RUC officer. That reflects the policy that the RUC is in the lead in the fight against terrorism. However, it must be recognised that at the current level of terrorist threat, full accompaniment of all patrols could be achieved only at the expense of aborting necessary anti-terrorist operations with a consequent increase in terrorist activity.
    On the the hon. Gentleman's second question, he will know that work is proceeding on a statutory code under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

    Shipbuilding
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the number of orders, and for what types of vessels, held by shipbuilders in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): Harland and Wolff Shipbuilding and Heavy Industries Limited currently has orders for 12 vessels—an auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel for the Ministry of Defence, five Suezmax type tankers and six Capesize bulk carriers, for which three contracts have already been signed, with a further three to be completed shortly.
    Mr. Loyden: The Minister will be aware that, with the exception of the MOD vessel, only three of the 11 ships now on order at Harland and Wolff are United Kingdom registered and owned. We welcome the security that the present orders offer to 1994–95, but would not Harland and Wolff's future, as well as that of other British shipyards, be better secured if we were to adopt the policy of new build for Britain's merchant fleet and thus ensure that shipyards throughout the United Kingdom employ our people and that our seamen have jobs to go to?
    Mr. Needham: I am delighted that the recently privatised Harland and Wolff now has the longest order book in its history, with £565 million worth of orders, that it is competing successfully with the Koreans and the Japanese, that the future of 2,500 of its people is assured and that it is the premier shipyard in the United Kingdom.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: In view of the long list of orders that Harland and Wolff has procured—I welcome that, and wholly endorse what the Minister has said—the recent large pay-offs in the island are alarming. Could not
    978
    something be done to obtain some repair jobs to hold those workers so that they will not have to be laid off for a considerable time?
    Mr. Needham: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. It was always apparent that as the AOR was completed many jobs and skills would not be required in the new orders that have come through. However, the hon. Gentleman rightly refers to the other businesses which Harland and Wolff is now expanding and building up, and I am sure that its success, which I believe is assured under privatisation, offers the best hope for those men in the future.
    Dr. Godman: May I say how thrilled I am that that United Kingdom shipyard has such a healthy order book? However, I regret that there is no expansion in the recruitment of workers to that shipyard. How much money has been received by way of those orders from the seventh directive of the European Community's shipbuilding intervention fund, and how much of that money will be used to purchase from United Kingdom manufacturers the goods and services required for the vessels?
    Mr. Needham: Clearly, it is for United Kingdom manufacturers to compete as subcontractors for the work that will be placed out by Harland and Wolff. I am sure that a large proportion will be placed with subcontractors. The percentage of aid given under the EC assistance programme was 13 per cent. last year, and it is being renegotiated this year. However, Harland and Wolff is continuing to compete and to be profitable, even though that intervention assistance is being reduced.

    Schools (Integration)
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the integration of schools in Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): The Department of Education has, so far, approved 15 proposals for integrated status made under the integrated schools provisions of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.
    Mr. Townsend: I welcome the work that the Government have done in that important respect. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware of a recent report suggesting that pupils from such schools are most likely to take a particularly dim view of all paramilitary organisations? Is he further aware that a problem exists in finding suitable financial resources for nursery education? Will he see what can be done about that?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is certainly encouraging that parents, not government, are choosing to expand the number of integrated schools in the Province. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, in that it makes sense to believe that if young people from both sides of the community are taught together in the same classrooms, they will value equally both traditions and will be more likely than some others to find common ground in later life. I will bring my hon. Friend's point about nursery education to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister commend Lagan college in my constituency for the progress that it has made

    979
    in the past 10 years? Can he confirm that there will be no discrimination against state schools, for which the majority of parents still exercise a preference, or in favour of the segregated education system that the Roman Catholic Church and most Catholic parents want to maintain? Will the Minister assure the House that there will be no barrier to those who oppose integrated schools serving on the boards of governors of integrated schools?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to join the right hon. Gentleman in commending Lagan college's achievements. He and I were present at the recent opening of its new school building, for which I had the pleasure of being the Minister responsible for making available the necessary resources. I certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no sense in which the Government want positively to discriminate in favour of one type of schooling over others, because parents have a right to choose. The Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 put integrated schools alongside two other alternatives from which parents could choose. As to the right hon. Gentleman's last point, there will be no bar to any governor being appointed to the board of an integrated school, provided that the appointment complies with the provisions laid down in the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

    Pupil-Teacher Ratio
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current pupil-teacher ratio; what the comparable figures were in May 1979; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The pupil-teacher ratio at January 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, was 18·2. The figure for January 1979 was 19·1.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend pass on my congratulations to all who were involved in that improvement? Pupils will benefit, and that must be the object of the exercise. Has not the time come, however, to evaluate the optimum pupil-teacher ratio for pupils at any given age, with a view to establishing it? As I have said before, there are those who cannot teach one pupil, and others who can teach a hundred with great facility.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments, and for the continuing interest that he takes in this subject. I am sure that he is right in saying that the reduced pupil-teacher ratio provides children with an advantage, and also in pointing out that the quality of teaching and the ability of teachers is at least as important.
    The idea of trying to work out an optimum ratio is interesting, and we should like to think about it further.
    Mr. McGrady: I hope that the Minister is more successful with his new portfolio than his predecessors were and I wish him all the best in the difficult task that lies ahead of him.
    Now that the education and library boards independently assess the formula according to which they delegate budgets to schools, does not the Minister fear that a great disparity in provision will result—not only in regard to pupil-teacher ratios, but in regard to every other aspect of provision across the different area boards?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his kind personal remarks, although I enter a caveat in regard to what he said about my predecessors.
    Part of the purpose of education reform was to delegate downwards from the Department of Education, closer to the chalk face, tasks such as determining the necessary budgets, teacher numbers, and so forth. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind some initial teething troubles that were experienced this year in connection with local management of primary schools. The Department is examining that issue closely, in conjunction with the boards.
    Mr. Beggs: Was the significant increase in the number of temporary and part-time teachers included in the calculation of pupil-teacher ratios? Many parents feel that the speed of education reform and curriculum change has caused their children to suffer because their usual classroom or subject teachers are often taken out of the classroom to undergo courses related specifically to those changes.
    Dr. Mawhinney: As the Minister responsible at the time, let me tell the hon. Gentleman that we went to great lengths to minimise the disruption caused in classrooms by the provision of necessary training related to the introduction of education reforms. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, on some exceptional days, schools were closed so that teachers could be trained.
    Year in, year out, there is always an element of disruption, which is unconnected with education reform, as teachers undergo various courses to upgrade their skills. That is an essential part of the education process, and I do not believe that it was greatly exacerbated by the introduction of reforms.

    Security
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: Since I answered a similar question on 14 November, seven people have been killed as a result of the security situation, of whom six were civilians and one was a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
    The Government remain entirely committed to bringing terrorism to an end through the vigorous and impartial actions of the police and the Army. They have succeeded in bringing suspected terrorists to justice. Up to the end of November this year, 367 people had been charged with terrorist offences, including 37 with murder and 75 with attempted murder.
    Mr. Molyneaux: The Secretary of State will be aware from his own sources of the vast array of weapons being assembled and stored as far south as Limerick for transport to Northern Ireland. Is there not now a good case for strengthening the frontier wire, as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman knows, as does the House, the scale of the shipments from Libya before the Eksund was apprehended by the French customs. It is known that a substantial part of that weaponry is in the Republic of Ireland. Of course, I am delighted that from time to time the Garda find some of it.
    Rev. William McCrea: I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in expressing in the House sympathy for my constituent's family on the murder of Mr. Newell, a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the tremendous fear felt throughout the Province as we face the Christmas period, bearing in mind both the warning given by the security forces of an impending IRA outrage near Christmas and the signal given by the nationalist community in the result of a by-election at Magherafelt today, where there was a 43 per cent. increase in the Sinn Fein vote and a 34 per cent. decrease in the SDLP vote?
    Mr. Brooke: Of course I share the hon. Gentleman's sympathy in the case of Mr. Newell. All terrorist crimes are horrible, but I find those which follow the pattern of Mr. Newell's death especially horrible. The hon. Gentleman is right, too, to tell the House of the warning that the Chief Constable of the RUC gave at the end of last week about the potential level of terrorist violence in the run-up to Christmas.
    As for the pattern of voting in the by-election in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, there may be others besides myself to whom he might address that question.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: May I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the report in The Irish Times yesterday week about the recent meeting of the British-Irish parliamentary group in Dublin, and the contribution of his hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) about the security situation in proximity to the border? Were the reported remarks of his parliamentary private secretary in accordance with an official departmental brief?
    Mr. Brooke: Necessarily, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) is my parliamentary private secretary, he will have taken advantage of the opportunity of briefing. With regard to security at the border, I have consistently said in the aftermath of conferences under the Anglo-Irish Agreement that, although we are delighted that good co-operation exists, it can always be better, and I am confident that we can make it so.

    Commercial Investment
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the amount of new investment in commercial buildings and shopping facilities in Belfast.
    Mr. Needham: I am pleased to report that in recent years commercial and retail development in Belfast have reached unprecedented levels. In total, some £290 million of private investment is being spent or is programmed. In order to undermine the enormous resurgence of confidence, the IRA has planted 400 incendiary devices, of which approximately 100 have exploded, and five car bombs, of which three have exploded. The damage has been and is being made good. All the stores and the vast majority of commercial buildings are back at work. Business performance in the city centre is very little different from last year.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I commend him and his colleagues on their splendid work in restoring the centre of Belfast, especially the
    982
    excellent shopping facilities. I am sure that my hon. Friend wishes to condemn the outrage last week when not only stores but the opera house were bombed, making the children's pantomime and all the other treats that normal families in the rest of Britain have at Christmas, such as shopping, Father Christmas and the Christmas lights, inaccessible to many families. The IRA is again undermining normal decent family life in the Province.
    Mr. Needham: I am sure that all the people of Belfast would like to thank my hon. Friend for her comments. As the IRA's Libyan bombs explode, Sinn Fein and the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) remain strongly and strangely silent. The fact is that 1991 has been an unprecedented year of success for Belfast. Anyone who went to the tall ships race in Belfast and saw 500,000 people thronging through the city centre day after day could see the determination of the people of Belfast to lead their lives normally. It will take more than Mr. Gaddafi's guns and the IRA to undermine the spirit of the people of Belfast.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I congratulate the Minister on the urban renewal and commercial development in the centre of Belfast. We utterly condemn all the IRA's cynical attempts to bomb the heart out of Belfast. However, is the Minister aware that the main concern of business people in Belfast is that they should have adequate security so that they can run their businesses properly? Great efforts should be made to bring tenants into the new office and shop premises that are still empty. Does the Minister agree that instead of freezing the outlay of public money, the Government should hurry on public development to enable those shops to be let?
    Mr. Needham: Over 90 per cent. of the two biggest shopping developments in Belfast are let, which is an extraordinary figure in comparison with other new developments in the rest of the country. Of 720,000 sq ft of office space that has been completed this year, 350,000 sq ft has been let. Some 95 per cent. of prime retail space in Belfast is let.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to security, although he will not expect me to spell out what is happening in the city at present. Belfast is a city of 500,000 people and for its business and commerce to thrive, it must be an open city and people must be able to get into and out of it. Finding that balance is absolutely crucial. There can be no question but that the people of Belfast are showing, by returning day after day to work, to shop and to enjoy themselves in Belfast, that they are the people who are succeeding.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that the confidence of the people has been even more shaken by the tragedy in the prison at which a bomb went off, killing two remand prisoners? Is not that comment on security even more staggering than the bombs that go off in the city, although all such bombings are to be condemned and deplored?
    Will the Minister comment on the question that was sidestepped by the Secretary of State? Does he agree that the nationalists in Mid-Ulster have given a warning to the House by the way in which they voted, with a colossal rise in the Sinn Fein vote and a colossal drop in the SDLP vote?
    Mr. Needham: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, his first question is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who have, no doubt, listened to him carefully.
    On the second question, I am a great believer in the common sense and balance of all the people of Ulster. I will not comment on a particular by-election. I will comment, as I repeatedly do, on the determination of everyone in Ulster to end violence and to ensure that they can get back to living normal lives. That is exactly what most of them are showing in Belfast at present.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Marshall.
    Mr. John Marshall: Question No. 7, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: Sorry, the hon. Gentleman is the wrong Mr. Marshall.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Perhaps I should ask the question of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) instead of my own.
    With regard to the commercial activity in Belfast, I join the Minister in condemning the terrorist attacks in commercial Belfast. Those attacks are clearly designed to undermine business confidence and the economic well-being of both communities. I join the Minister in saying that we are all resolved to ensure that that does not succeed. While I pay tribute to the Government's success in attracting commercial business to Belfast, I remind the Minister that Belfast is only one part of the Province. What plans do the Government have to introduce a more balanced development throughout the Province?
    Mr. Needham: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening comments, but not very grateful for his latter comments. He has been on the Opposition Front Bench for long enough to have seen and understood the redevelopment work that is currently being undertaken in Londonderry and which is being carried out in the county towns throughout the length and breadth of Northern Ireland. There is a feeling of partnership and a commitment to partnership that I have not seen before. I have undertaken missions with the hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume), for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady) in an attempt to get more business and development in their areas. If the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) would like to accompany me in the new year, I should be only too happy to take him on a tour and show him just how much is happening outside Belfast as well as in it.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received about Sunday trading.
    Mr. Brooke: The only representation that my ministerial colleagues and I have recently received was a resolution of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent developments have underlined the fact that the Shops Act 1950 is illogical, out of date, rarely enforced and out of touch with the reality of the 1990s? However, does
    984
    he agree that as part of the process of reform, those who have a conscientious objection to working on Sunday should be given the statutory right not to do so?
    Mr. Brooke: The most recent relevant development has been the decision by the House of Lords and a lower court to refer the relevant questions of Community law to the European Court. We must now await the European Court's decision.
    Mr. Trimble: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the recent statement by the Attorney-General about his reluctance to exercise his discretion applies only to the civil action of injunction; that the Shops Act 1950 is not suspended; that the reference to the European Court on the issue does not prevent or place any obstacle in the way of criminal proceedings for breach of that Act; and that it is perfectly open to the responsible bodies to bring such proceedings?
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made it clear that the law is not suspended and therefore it would remain a matter for local authorities if they wished to bring actions.
    Mr. Bill Walker: While awaiting the views of the European Court, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that Presbyterians in Scotland enjoy shopping on Sundays and that has not been detrimental to those who wish to attend church?
    Mr. Brooke: I have continuously taken the view during the time that I have held my present office that it is a great privilege to be Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, to ask me to take responsibility for Scotland as well would be too much.

    Hazardous Waste
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to deal with hazardous and toxic waste in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Needham: Hazardous and toxic waste not suitable for landfill in existing sites will continue to be transported for disposal at facilities in Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that Du Pont Ltd. is to conduct a study into a proposed incinerator facility.
    Mr. Ross: My constituents are well informed of moves in that direction. However, does the Minister accept that it is absolutely vital that disposal of such waste should be carried out in the safest possible way? Do the Government accept that disposal of such waste must be overseen constantly by the Government and that all those who oversee should be properly qualified, preferably to degree standard? Does the Minister agree that such waste should be treated or disposed of not by the producers of that waste, but by some other body which may be more independent with regard to financial considerations?
    Mr. Needham: The answer to three of the hon. Gentleman's questions is yes. In answer to his last question, I do not believe that it necessarily makes sense for those who may not be fully qualified or experienced to get rid of such waste when those who are involved in a similar business are much better qualified to do so. However, we will certainly look very carefully indeed at

    985
    the qualifications and at the control of any potential incinerator and where it is to go, should one come forward in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister bear it in mind that if he wants to get rid of toxic waste in Northern Ireland, he had better not employ the services of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? When they tried to get rid of toxic waste in Bolsover, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had it sent to Severn Trent in the west midlands. It was not incinerated properly, and the result was that the west midlands was polluted with dioxine—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bit wide of the question. [Interruption.] It is.
    Mr. Skinner: I am in order—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is wide of the question.
    Mr. Skinner: I am talking about Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Speaker: Sit down, please.
    Mr. Skinner: In Northern Ireland—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is an abuse.
    Mr. Skinner: In Northern Ireland—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is an abuse.
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman's question has nothing to do with Northern Ireland.

    Castlereagh Interrogation Centre
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement concerning proposals to appoint a commissioner to oversee interrogations at Castlereagh police office.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I can confirm that the appointment of a commissioner to monitor procedures at Castlereagh, and the two other police holding centres where terrorist suspects are interviewed, is under consideration. My right hon. Friend hopes that he will be in a position to make a firm announcement early next year.
    Mr. Walker: Is the Minister aware that there is a perception in Northern Ireland that that appointment emanated from the Anglo-Irish Conference? In those circumstances, will the Minister please confirm that that appointment will have southern Irish connotations?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The announcement was first made by my right hon. Friend in the House of Lords during consideration of the emergency provisions Bill—as it then was—I am speaking from memory, but I believe that it was last May. The decision will be taken by this Government whenever it has to be taken. The Government of the Irish Republic and anyone else who wishes to make their views known to us before we make a judgment are, of course, entirely free to do so.
    Mr. Mullin: May I say that it seems incredible that, in the light of all that is known about the unreliability of uncorroborated confessions in police custody, there should be those in Northern Ireland who are attempting to defend that practice in relation to the notorious Castlereagh? May I also say that the Department's concern would be taken more seriously if it did not take over three months to get replies from the Secretary of State
    986
    to hon. Members who draw his attention to accusations that have been made in relation to what goes on in Castlereagh?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Castlereagh is not notorious, and most people in Northern Ireland will join me in objecting to the hon. Gentleman's use of that word. Whenever allegations are made about Castlereagh, they are, of course, carefully considered.

    Local Government
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set up an inquiry into the structure of local government in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. Issues relating to Northern Ireland local government would, however, be an entirely appropriate issue for discussion in any fresh political talks.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the all-party talks on the future administration of the Province are stalled, probably until after the general election, and as the previous review of local government in Northern Ireland took place more than 20 years ago, this is an ideal moment for an independent body to be asked to consider the structure and limited powers of present local authorities in terms of whether they meet the contemporary aspirations of people in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: All the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland have, in recent weeks, given encouraging signs that they would wish to return to talks or to start fresh talks prior to the general election. If we were to do that, I would not rule out any particular proposed change to the role and structure of the district councils, but proposals for change would need to be likely to command widespread support and to provide an appropriate and fair role for both sides of the community.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current levels of inward investment into Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Needham: During the past financial year, the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland secured 13 inward investment projects, representing an investment of £9·9 million. Those projects are expected to create 1,294 jobs.
    Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I know that he appreciates the importance of infrastructure improvements to stimulate and encourage inward investment. Now that European Community funds are available to assist in that process, what success did our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have in his dealings with Commissioner Millan over his request for support for the gas and electricity interconnectors from the mainland to Northern Ireland, which would reduce energy costs in the Province?
    Mr. Needham: As my hon. Friend would expect, my right hon. Friend had considerable success in his negotiations with Commissioner Millan, who agreed in principle to help to fund those two crucially important infrastructure developments. I am delighted that, as a

    987
    result of the Government's privatisation proposals, the outlook for Northern Ireland's electricity consumers is better than ever.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that, by rejecting the social chapter, he is rejecting the strikers' friend and the creep of socialism?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. At the end of the 1970s, 29 million days were lost in strikes whereas only 2 million days were lost in strikes last year. I have no enthusiasm for returning to the sort of legislation that applied at that time.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us why Chancellor Kohl and his fellow Conservative Heads of Government do not agree with him that, by adopting the social chapter, they will jeopardise jobs?
    The Prime Minister: Because they do not have the trade union structure that we have in this country or the record of trade union militancy that so damaged this country in the 1970s and to which we have no intention whatsoever of returning. If the right hon. Gentleman begins to listen to what many employers elsewhere in Europe are saying, he will learn that they recognise that we made the right decisions.
    Mr. Kinnock: What those Heads of Government do not have is a record of losing 768,000 jobs in their countries in the past 12 months. Four out of every five of the jobs that have been lost in the European Community in the past year have been lost in Britain because of the right hon. Gentleman's policies. He is the last person to be entitled to think of himself as a protector of jobs; he is the destroyer of jobs.
    Mr. Major: Throughout the 1980s as a whole, more jobs were created in this country than in any other European country. Indeed, nearly as many jobs were created in this country as in the whole of the European Community. I need no lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about the social dimension. The social dimension to Europe was part of the Single European Act, against which the right hon. Gentleman voted.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that record? Is he aware that Britain receives almost half the total investment coming into Europe from the United States of America and Japan and that many of the companies involved have the good sense to choose Wolverhampton and the rest of the west midlands? Does he agree that those companies choose to come to Britain because our taxes are low, our industrial relations are good and, most of all, our Government understand business? Does he agree that none of that would be the case if the Labour party was in charge?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in that diagnosis. She may have read the remarks made yesterday by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which made its position perfectly clear on the agreement at Maastricht. It said:
    "There will be many continental businesses today envying their competitors in the United Kingdom."
    That is because they understand that the decisions that we have taken are in the interests of British industry, British commerce and jobs for British workers.
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Patchett: Given the decision to opt out of the social charter in Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]— can the Prime Minister confirm that he is planning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—to fight the next general election on the slogan "Vote Tory for the lowest wages, least consultation and worst employment protection in Europe"?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—is in no position to talk about opt-outs, considering that his party has opted out of every necessary decision to assist this country in the past 10 years and has backed every inflationary wage claim, every piece of trade union militancy and every policy that would do damage to Britain and its future.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Could my right hon. Friend find time today to think again about the significance of an historic referendum which took place in the Ukraine on 1 December, in which the people of Ukraine freely and democratically voted for their sovereignty and independence? Will Her Majesty's Government recognise the Government of Ukraine and show that they are on the side of democracy and freedom?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend said, the referendum in Ukraine showed overwhelming support for the independence of Ukraine. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] The Foreign Affairs Committee statement on 2 December gave the initial response from the European Community. We shall continue to consult—
    Hon. Members: "Reading."
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House well knows the conventions here. It has always been in order for Ministers on the Front Bench to read their answers and it has never been in order for hon. Members to read their questions.
    The Prime Minister: Most people would have regarded what is happening in the Soviet Union as a matter of some importance, not a matter for the fourth-form behaviour that we see on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Prime Minister confirm that because of his decision to opt out of the social charter—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear everything down here. Perhaps it is just as well.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Prime Minister confirm that because of his decision to opt out of the social charter—
    Hon. Members: He has said that. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman want to ask a question or not? Please get on with it.
    Mr. O'Brien rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is intolerable. Will the hon. Gentleman please ask his question.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Prime Minister confirm that because of his action in opting out of the social charter, Great Britain will be the only country in Europe that will deny its people the legal right to paid holidays? Does not he feel ashamed of that?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can know what we have agreed not to join. What we have agreed not to accept are the sort of damaging laws that nearly brought this country to its knees when we last had a Labour Government. That is what we are not prepared to accept. Matters such as the hon. Gentleman raised can be dealt with at present under the social dimension to which the British Government subscribe and against which the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) voted.
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hannam: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on helping to create a more outward-looking Europe. In that connection, and in view of the impending serious food shortages in the Soviet Union, may I ask whether he was able to take any initiatives at Maastricht to help move foodstuffs from the Community to the Russian people?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we were able to take such initiatives. The European Council reaffirmed its determination to act quickly to help the people of the Soviet Union and in particular those who live in the heavily populated areas of Moscow and St. Petersburg. A substantial package of help for the Soviet Union, totalling over $11 billion worth of emergency aid in 1991, has now been put in place by the Group of Seven, under my chairmanship, and the European Community. That includes new commitments of food and medical aid of over $4 billion. Logistical experts will be meeting shortly to ensure that that aid gets swiftly to those in need. I am pleased also to tell the House that the United Kingdom is sending £20 million worth of animal feed aid to St. Petersburg so that livestock need not be slaughtered this winter.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's decision to pay the mortgage element of income support direct to lenders is a welcome but wholly insufficient response to the crisis facing thousands of families in Britain because of home repossessions? Does he not realise that unless he is prepared to be more imaginative—for instance, with schemes for converting
    990
    mortgages to rents—we shall not avoid in the new year thousands of families facing misery, a further plunge in house prices and serious damage to the economy?
    The Prime Minister: The Government are providing substantial help to those who risk losing their homes when they lose their jobs. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, we made new arrangements on 5 November to ensure that income support payments can be paid directly to the lender. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the Government are looking urgently with mortgage lenders at what further measures might be taken to protect those faced with repossession.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As one who joined the Leader of the Opposition in voting against the Single European Act, before the right hon. Gentleman became a Euro-fanatic, may I appeal to my right hon. Friend to warn the voters about the huge dangers to the much-improved labour relations of Britain if they were to vote into power any Government who were prepared to pass over the power to wreck our trade union reforms by majority vote in Brussels? Will he warn the British people of the damage that could be done to them and the danger to their way of life and democracy?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that if my hon. Friend maintains his position with his normal consistency, the day will come when the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) will join him yet again in that view. On the substantive point, my hon. Friend will know that I agree with him, for I refused earlier this week to agree in Europe to the sort of laws that would have had the effect my hon. Friend sets out.
    Mr. Livingstoneto ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Livingstone: Will the Prime Minister take time today to meet the Home Secretary to discuss how the Government should respond to the letter they have received from the mayor of Conservative-controlled Bexley drawing attention to the 140 per cent. increase in racist attacks in the area since the British National party moved its headquarters into the area? One of those attacks involved the stabbing to death of Rolan Adams by a racist mob. How does the Prime Minister think that the Government can respond to the Mayor's request that Bexley council be given the power to close that fascist headquarters before more lives are lost?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that incident, but I deplore such racist attacks without any reservation whatsoever. I will certainly discuss that incident with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Rowe: The channel tunnel is about to become a major part of the United Kingdom infrastructure. Will my right hon. Friend look with his Cabinet colleagues at the fact that Kent is receiving considerable capital-infrastructure funds but virtually all of that money is going on projects linked to the channel tunnel, to the great detriment of Kent's other needs?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for his constituency and for Kent generally. I will certainly examine the point that he raises.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Leader of the House please tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY I6 DECEMBER and TUESDAY I7 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Local Government Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY I8 DECEMBER and THURSDAY I9 DECEMBER—Debate on the outcome of the European Council at Maastricht on a Government motion.
FRIDAY 2O DECEMBER—Debates on the Adjournment.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Commitee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 18 December to consider the unnumbered explanatory memorandum relating to the dignity of women and men at work.
[Relevant report of European Legislation Committee HC 24-iii (1991–92)]
Mr. Grocott: Is the Leader of the House aware that we are not at all happy about the way in which time is being allocated for debates which the Opposition choose? We had an Opposition day last Thursday, on 5 December. There is none this week, there will be none next week, and we then have the three-week Christmas recess, so the earliest possible date for a debate will be the second week in January. We fully understand that the Government will not want us to pick subjects for debate in the run-up to the general election. Perhaps the Government are beginning to clear the decks for the general election, which of course we would warmly welcome. However, we should not be deprived of our time meanwhile.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an absolute assurance that there will be an Opposition day in the first week of our return, when we can have a debate on a subject of our choosing?
In view of yesterday's figures on homelessness, showing that no fewer than 60,000 people are in temporary accommodation and will be, presumably, throughout the Christmas period—an increase of 33 per cent. on last year—can the right hon. Gentleman undertake to arrange for a Cabinet Minister to make a statement on the crisis of homelessness one day next week? We know that there is to be a debate later tonight, but that is not enough.
May we have a specific day on which we can debate conditions of employment throughout Europe, not as part of the European debate on Wednesday and Thursday next week? Now that we know that the Government's platform is to argue that British working conditions should be the worst in Europe, we want an opportunity to discuss—[Interruption.] Tory Members do not like this, but they will hear a lot of it before the general election. We want an opportunity to demonstrate our agreement with virtually all other informed public opinion in Europe that good working conditions lead to efficiency and higher productivity. Until the Government understand this, we shall keep pressing it.
Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, we are very happy to have Opposition days, when we can exploit all the divisions and difficulties in Opposition policies. However, this week, with the agreement, I think, of the whole House,
992
we are anxious to get the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill through. Then there are all the various debates which we are obliged to have before Christmas and which have to be taken this week. That is why I was unable to suggest a Suppy day this week.
I believe that the House regards it important to have two days next week on Maastricht. It is also very important to get the Local Government Finance Bill through the House before Christmas. That is why we have to deal with it next week. It is a question for the usual channels, but I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request for a Supply day fairly soon after we get back.
On homelessness, the hon. Gentleman will know well that the Government have taken many initiatives. Over three years, about £100 million is being spent on providing accommodation for the homeless in London where there is a heavy concentration of the problem because many people come to London. The hon. Gentleman will know that that initiative is having substantial and beneficial effects. I cannot promise him a debate next week, for the reasons which I have already given.
Conditions of employment throughout Europe can certainly be debated next Wednesday and Thursday. All my right hon. and hon. Friends will be happy to have that topic debated next week, when we can draw attention to the British conditions and traditions and the dangers of militant union leadership which we saw so clearly throughout the 1970s. The employment aspects of the social chapter could be very damaging to conditions of employment here. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that lost jobs are the thing most of all that people in this country would not wish to see. That could well follow from some aspects of the social chapter. I would be happy for the matter to be debated next week.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private Members' day, with an Adjournment motion and a number of important subjects to be debated under the Consolidated Fund Bill. I ask hon. Members to confine their questions to business next week and not to refer to general matters which may be raised later.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Will my right hon. Friend resist the claim for a separate debate in the House about conditions of employment on the continent of Europe? Surely that is not within the sovereign control of the House. Would it not be odd to accede to the request of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) since he wishes to give control over these matters to another assembly and to take it away from the House? Is not my right hon. Friend right to say that those matters can be referred to peripherally in the very welcome debate which we shall have next Wednesday and Thursday?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend except on one point: I do not think that the matter would necessarily be peripheral to the debate next week because it is an important aspect of the successful conclusion to the negotiations which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister achieved. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend on his other points, which is why I have resisted the request from the Opposition for a separate debate.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Leader of the House will be aware that last night there was an extensive debate on the fishing industry. In the busy schedule for next week, will he be able to ensure that there will be a report back from the Fisheries Council, because the matter is of such great importance to many of our constituents?
Mr. MacGregor: I fully understand the point that the hon. Lady makes. She is right about the importance of the matter. I hope that we will be able to have a statement on the outcome of the Fisheries Council. I warn her, however, that it may be late in the week.
Mr. John Butcher: May I agree with the request of the deputy shadow Leader of the House for a debate on social chapter style costs of employment? As we saw yesterday, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on in Europe. It is only in recent years that French and German employment creators have started to complain bitterly about the loss of competitiveness which they are suffering as a result of social chapter style reforms in their countries. As the matter is so key to the European debate, surely we should have a separate debate next week, preceding the full debate on Europe.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that is possible. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees with me that we want to get the Local Government Finance Bill through on Monday and Tuesday. The point that he is making is very important. I hope to allow extended time for the debate on Wednesday to enable the social chapter and other points relating to the Maastricht outcome to be discussed by as many hon. Members as possible.
Mr. David Winnick: As there will almost certainly be a challenge to the European Court of Justice over Britain's opting out of the social charter, will one of the Law Officers be present during next week's two-day debate? This is an important matter and a Law Officer should be given an opportunity to assess the challenge that will almost certainly be made to the European Court.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not agree with the premise, so it will not be necessary for a Law Officer to be present. However, if the point is raised, one of my right hon. Friends will be perfectly happy to respond to it.
Mr. Michael Latham: I thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing to extend the debate on Wednesday night. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that it is not compulsory for Privy Councillors to speak in the debate, particularly not those who spoke last time?
Mr. MacGregor: That is a matter for my right hon. Friends and for you, Mr. Speaker. I am very sympathetic to the matter, however, and understand the great importance of the two-day debate next week. That is why I propose that the debate on the first day should continue until 2 am.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate next week on the important celebration that will take place on 1 January, when badges such as the one I am wearing manufactured from discarded Soviet and American missiles will be sold to raise money for world disaster relief? Should not that cause be highlighted and debated in the House?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give Government time for that matter next week, beyond what I have offered.
Mr. Bob Dunn: My I direct the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 365?
[That this House notes the role of Robert Maxwell in providing employment, funds or both to officials and associates of the Labour Party, including Sir Tom McCaffrey, Joe Haines, Nick Grant and Helen Liddell; observes that, had Labour won a General Election, they would doubtless have transferred their skills from running one man's rickety empire to running the country; notes further that contributions in cash and kind have been made from this source towards running the Labour Party; and calls for full explanations, appropriate disgorgement and compensation to the unfortunate pensioners of the Maxwell organisation.]
Will it be possible to fit in a debate next week on links between the Labour party and the late Robert Maxwell? That would prove to the country that there is no difference between them, in the sense that they both like to spend other people's money.
Mr. MacGregor: I have noted the early-day motion. I shall not comment on the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but there will be plenty of opportunities in tomorrow's debate for the second part to be raised. I suspect that it will also be in order to raise various aspects of the Mirrior Group affair. I draw attention to the point that my hon. Friend rightly raises about the willingness of the Labour party to spend other people's money on every problem, which is why it is now saddled with such a high expenditure commitment. I agree with my hon. Friend that that could be raised tomorrow.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to allow the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the deplorable service in the north-east of England on the InterCity east coast line? Millions of pounds have been spent on electrification and the service is appalling. People are waiting 11 hours for trains to reach their destinations and trains are being cancelled. Will the Secretary of State for Transport make a statement on what he intends to do about the problem?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand the recent difficulties. As the hon. Gentleman says, there has been a substantial capital investment programme. I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but I cannot promise a statement because the House will be anxious to spend as much time as possible next week on the Local Government Finance Bill, which has a timetable, and on the important two-day debate on European matters on Wednesday and Thursday.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Is the Leader of the House aware that hon. Members were grateful for the speed with which the original Maastricht text and the amendments thereto were made available yesterday? When will the consolidated text be made available?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and I am grateful for his acknowledgment of the speed with which the latest texts were placed in the Vote Office and the Library. I hope and am informed that the consolidated texts on both the political and monetary

995
union aspects—they will not be consolidated together but a text will be consolidated for each—will be available on Monday. We shall ensure that they are in the Vote Office and Library as soon as possible.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: Is the Leader of the House aware that no statement has been made in the past week by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the fact that all capital expenditure in Northern Ireland has been frozen for the rest of the financial year? No statement has been made to the House, no information has been given to hon. Members from Northern Ireland, and no debate has yet taken place on the appropriations. The measure affects housing, hospital, health and education programmes. If the capital expenditure is to be suspended until 1 April, will the Leader of the House, as a matter of grave urgency, give at least an hour next week for a statement or a debate on this important matter, which is affecting every aspect of life in Northern Ireland?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise Government time on that matter next week. As I was not present earlier, I do not know whether the issue was raised during questions. However, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the responsibilities of non-executive directors? Does he recall the debate in another place on 31 January last, in which Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Donoughue lectured the Government on that subject—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.
Mr. Wardle: I simply wish to say that both those Lords have been directors of Maxwell companies which filched their—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What about Lord Rippon and Lord Havers?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Leave it to me, please. If hon. Members wish to criticise Members of the other place, it must be done by a motion.
Mr. Wardle: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will find time next week for a debate so that those subjects may be aired in this House in the interests of the pensioners of the Maxwell companies whose funds have been filched?
Mr. MacGregor: As you, Mr. Speaker, have already said, there will be opportunities this afternoon and during the Consolidated Fund debates this evening for those matters to he raised.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you ask the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) to withdraw the comment that he made at the end of his question? Will the hon. Gentleman repeat what he said?
Mr. Speaker: I am not asking the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) to do that. I understood him to say that funds had been "filched"—not a word that I would use. The hon. Gentleman did not imply that the noble Lords had done it.
Mr. Wardle: If I did, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. I simply wished to say that they were directors of the companies from which those funds disappeared.
Mr. Speaker: That is nearly as bad. I think that I had better call Mr. Nellist.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House find time for a full debate on early-day motion 352?
[That this House recognises that this year's Christmas bonus, first paid to pensioners in 1972, would need to be £82·20 to match the increase in earnings since then; and calls for its immediate increase to restore its original value.]
Is he aware of figures given to me recently by the Department of Social Security that show that, if the conditions of 1989 are repeated this year, the number of pensioners who die this month, compared to the average number who die in July, will be 31,000? Why is it that, after 12 years of the Conservative Government and their economic policies, so many pensioners have to choose between food and fuel? If last night's temperatures are repeated, 1,000 of them a night will lose that battle.
Mr. MacGregor: Unless I am misinformed, I think that early-day motion 352 relates to the Christmas bonus. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have paid the Christmas bonus throughout their years of office, unlike the Labour party when it was in government.
On the hon. Gentleman's wider point, there have been substantial improvements in the vast majority of pensioners' living standards in the past decade or more. On the issue of meeting fuel costs, he will know that the schemes that we have introduced have been extended, which will be of great benefit to many people if we have cold weather.
Mr. Steve Norris: Having chided my right hon. Friend for the inadequacy of time available for the European debate before the Maastricht settlement, may I warn him that, despite the additional hours that he has allowed, there is likely to be even more dissatisfaction on this occasion, as the overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to participate in the debate to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the tremendous success that he has achieved?
Mr. MacGregor: It was because I was conscious of the requests from many of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members for plenty of time for the debate that I have extended the time available. I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's chiding on this occasion, because the reason that he gave for it is one of which I entirely approve and fully support.
Mr. John P. Smith: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate so that we might consider whether legislation should be introduced to compel record companies to place warning labels on recorded material that is unsuitable for children, especially in the light of the irresponsible decision by EMI not to do so? If we fail to do that, there is a danger that there will be a repeat of what happened to my constituent, Mrs. K. Morris of Barry, who unknowingly purchased for her 10-year-old son, and in the presence of her seven-year-old daughter, a cassette which contained the most foul and obscene language. [Interruption.] I am sure that everyone believes that Parliament has a duty to

997
protect mothers and fathers who want to exercise parental guidance and judgment, even if some Conservative Members do not. Will the Leader of the House carefully consider this important issue?
Mr. MacGregor: I think that my hon. Friends were referring to a different matter from that to which the hon. Gentleman believed they were referring. Of course I understand his concern. We all wish to ensure that children are protected by their parents from such incidents as he mentioned, although I cannot comment on the particular case because I do not know about the incident. However, I cannot find Government time for such a debate next week. If he wishes to raise the matter in detail, he must find an opportunity himself.
Mr. David Sumberg: May we have a debate next week on safety in the home, which would give me an opportunity to point out to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how vital it is to adopt the practice that is prevalent on the continent of having moulded-on plugs for electrical appliances? At the same time, it would give me the opportunity to salute the excellent campaign run by The Mail on Sunday, which is urging the Secretary of State to allow that to happen.
Mr. MacGregor: I think that my hon. Friend has already made his point.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House allow Government time in the very near future for a debate on the future of the textile industry? Does he acknowledge that, even in areas such as south-east Scotland and at the high value end of the textile industry, there are substantial factory closures and redundancies? The importance of the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations and of the Uruguay round to the future of the industry is recognised by all hon. Members, and it would be a good thing if the Government could find time for a debate in the near future.
Mr. MacGregor: I know the importance of the GATT round to the textile industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the basis for agreement of the Uruguay round needs to be established by the end of the year. It is now known that the GATT director general, Mr. Dunkel, has announced his intention to table a comprehensive paper embodying the results of the negotiations of all the issues, including textiles, on 20 December. We must all hope that that will enable the round to be concluded formally early in the new year.
As the hon. Gentleman also knows, there has been an agreement to extend the multi-fibre arrangement on textiles for another year in the event of that timetable not being met, but I should have thought that the time to consider a discussion of that matter in the House would be when we know how the GATT negotiations are going.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to study an as yet largely unnoticed declaration to the treaty on the protection of animals and which was included at the special behest of the British Government? Would it not be widely welcomed by our constituents who care deeply about animal welfare, and
998
should not the important success of the British Government be given some prominence in the debate next week on the Maastricht treaty?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that he will wish to go further and to draw attention to the recent success of right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the successful outcome to the negotiations on the directives, which involved, among other matters, the export of live horses.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House accept my apologies for being unduly patient with the profligacy of the Government—especially of the Secretary of State for Scotland—in relation to the Sheriff Kearney inquiry into social work in Fife? May we have a statement before the recess on why an inquiry costing £600,000 to the Scottish Office and £1,350,000 to Fife—nearly £2 million in total—has not printed one word and on why we have no sign of when Sheriff Kearney will report? May we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland on that matter?
Mr. MacGregor: Most hon. Members would want us to restrict oral statements next week to those that are most urgent, given that we have a timetable on the first two days and an extremely important debate on the next two. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but I would not want to hold out hope of an oral statement.
Mr. Rupert Allason: In business questions last week, my right hon. Friend heard calls for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement about what and when the Government knew of the serious allegations made against Maxwell Communication Corporation, dating back to December 1990. As the Secretary of State has not made such a statement, can my right hon. Friend confirm that he has not been deterred or fixed by the Opposition, who are clearly worried by the fact that not only is the legal adviser to Mirror Group Newspapers a former Labour Member of Parliament but a director of MGN is the deputy leader of the Labour party in another place—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Business question time is not an opportunity to make that sort of allegation. We are asking about the business for next week.
Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the House, undeterred by calls from the Opposition, to make a full statement on Mirrorgate?
Mr. MacGregor: If and when it is appropriate for my right hon. Friend to do so, I am sure he will. As my hon. Friend knows, these matters are the subject of an inquiry by the Serious Fraud Office and by IMRO, the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, and they will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend any matters that they feel should be drawn to his attention.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week giving more information, following the Prime Minister's welcome announcement today that additional help will be given to those on benefit who are experiencing difficulties in repaying mortgages? I ask on behalf of constituents living in Hanover square in Bradford, many of whom are

999
pensioners on low incomes or are unemployed. Having sold their homes for £1 to the British Heritage housing trust, they are extremely angry because they cannot afford to buy them back at prices of up to £51,000. May we have a full statement on the help being given to those having difficulty in repaying mortgages? I hope that that will help my constituents to buy back the homes that they are occupying.
Mr. MacGregor: That is a rather different matter from the one to which my right hon. Friend was responding. If and when a statement is to be made, I am sure it will be made as quickly as possible.
Mr. Michael Irvine: In 1987, the late Robert Maxwell took control of Ransomes and Rapier, a long-established Ipswich company. Five months later he closed it down. It now appears that, not content with robbing several hundred of my constituents of their jobs—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is making a statement. Will he relate it to the business for next week, or raise it later tonight?
Mr. Irvine: I certainly will. It now appears that this socialist millionaire, having robbed several hundred of my constituents of their jobs, went on to plunder their pension funds. I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that before long we will have a full day to debate pension funds and how best to protect them against the depredations of unscrupulous directors and negligent trustees.
Mr. MacGregor: I have noted my hon. Friend's request for a debate on these matters in due course. As you, Mr. Speaker, have said, some of those issues can be debated later today.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Attorney-General to come to the House next week to make a statement on Sunday trading? I know that he has already made one, but there is a national outcry at the way in which the Government, including the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister, are standing by while there is an outbreak of lawlessness among the multinationals on Sunday trading. Does the Leader of the House realise that without such a statement many people outside the House will conclude that the Government's inertia and double standards in allowing such lawlessness are not unconnected with the large contributions which B and Q has made to the Tory party?
Mr. MacGregor: That is a disgraceful allegation which has nothing to do with the issue. "Lawlessness" is an inappropriate word to use because the state of the law is now being considered by the highest court in the land. The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. and learned Friend made a full statement to the House the other day, and I see no need for one next week.
Mr. John Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the public funding of Opposition parties in this place? There now seems to be a need for public funding for Militant Tendency in this place. If that were true, it would encourage not just the hon. Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) but other Labour Members who are closet
1000
Militants to come out of the closet. The Opposition parties would be grateful because they are likely to remain in opposition for a long time.
Mr. MacGregor: I notice that my hon. Friend is due to initiate a Consolidated Fund debate on that very issue tonight, and I hope that we reach it.
Mr. David Trimble: Further to the comments made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), with which I agree, on the extraordinary moratorium on public sector contracts in Northern Ireland which will hit hard several important health projects in my constituency as well as being a poor Christmas present to the construction industry, is the Leader of the House aware that the excuse given by the Northern Ireland Office for that remarkable action is that criminal damage claims have run between £10 million and £15 million higher than budgeted for, a figure which ought to be within the scope of the contingency fund or covered by the many billions of pounds of additional public spending announced recently by the Government, is literally incredible? Is it not more likely that the Northern Ireland Office's finances are in a mess, underlining the need for a Select Committee on Northern Ireland?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already made clear many times the position on the Select Committee. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's first point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend noted the decision of the parents of St. George's school, Gravesend, by a majority of nine to one, to become grant-maintained, and the same decision of two other schools by similar majorities? Therefore, may we have a debate on the management of schools which will enable us to highlight the Opposition's policy to overrule the decision of the parents in those schools, to claw back education funds to the centralised bureaucracy and, while we are about it, highlight the Opposition's policy to destroy the two excellent grammar schools in Gravesend?
Mr. MacGregor: As an enthusiast for and advocate of grant-maintained schools, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will take every opportunity to express his points locally because, in so doing, he is clearly very much on the side of the parents and the extra choice that we are now giving in education as well as the raising of standards.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Leader of the House mentioned that European Standing Committee B, of which I am a hard-pressed member, is to meet next week. Will he confirm that the Procedure Committee will be publishing its report on the modus operandi of that Committee and European Standing Committee A? May we have as soon as possible a statement on the right hon. Gentleman's reaction to that report in order, among other things, to give some sustenance to the members of those two Committees? I am not talking about financial sustenance. We need assistance to deal effectively with a work load which, I suspect, will increase during the next few months.
Mr. MacGregor: I thank the hon. Gentleman and all right hon. and hon. Members who serve on those two Committees, which are doing a valuable job in a more

1001
effective way than was done previously. That is the general conclusion that I am reaching from all the reactions that I am receiving.
I look forward to receiving the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, and agree with the hon. Gentleman that, depending of course on what it says, we ought to see whether any further measures could be taken to assist the Standing Committees in their work. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is an interim review. We have had only comparatively short experience, and no doubt we will look more widely in due course. I look forward to receiving the report.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a significant number of my right hon. and hon. Friends are bitterly disappointed that during today's Consolidated Fund Bill debate only one and a half hours have been allocated to discussing pension funds? We would wish to pursue further the criminal frauds committed by Robert Maxwell and others associated with the Daily Mirror. In particular, I ask my right hon. Friend to find time next week to allow us to pursue the role played by Mr. Joe Haines, sometime press officer of a Labour Prime Minister, an executive director of Mirror Group Newspapers—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that he is also a peer—[Interruption.] No, he is not a peer.
Mr. MacKay: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that he never will be. In addition to being an executive director of Mirror Group Newspapers, Mr. Haines cringingly wrote the authorised biography of the late Robert Maxwell, in which he threw out of the window what little journalistic integrity he ever had.
Mr. MacGregor: It is clear that there is considerable interest and concern in the House about that matter. I know that the Consolidated Fund Bill allows for only a short debate, but there will be other opportunities for raising the matter, including tomorrow.
Ms. Joyce Quin: Is the Leader of the House aware that decisions will be taken in Brussels on 18 December about the permitted level of support for the shipbuilding industry in Europe? Has any consideration been given to allowing right hon. and hon. Members to express an opinion on that matter, either on the Floor of the House or in European Standing Committee B? If not, can the Leader of the House at least persuade the silent Department of Trade and Industry to say something on the subject?
Mr. MacGregor: I will look into the point and will write to the hon. Lady.
Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. Friend intimated that the House cannot expect a statement on Sunday trading next week. Will he give an assurance that there will soon be a full day's debate so that the House can clarify its view, if that is possible, on Sunday trading?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that I can give that assurance in the near future, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is continuing with her discussions. The House has been expressing its view quite a bit recently, such as on the two statements that we had.
1002
I would not necessarily say that it clarified its view. Certainly I felt that it made it clear that there were still strongly divided views in the House.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: The business of the House for next week means that we will yet again have a 10 o'clock vote on a Thursday. When the Leader of the House came to the Select Committee on Procedure when it was considering the sittings of the House, he tried to reassure us that right hon. and hon. Members with constituencies some distance from London would, through the usual channels, be able to return to their constituencies to conduct their business at weekends. As the right hon. Gentleman has already heard, we from the north are already having exceptional difficulty in travelling to and from London on public transport. There have been six votes at 10 o'clock on a Thursday evening since the right hon. Gentleman told us that that would not happen.
Mr. Speaker: Order. With great respect to the hon. Lady, what does that have to do with next week's business? Will she ask a question about that?
Ms. Armstrong: It has to do with the way in which the Leader of the House organises the business of the House. He is making it exceptionally difficult, given the commitment that he made to the Procedure Select Committee, for some right hon. and hon. Members to fulfil their responsibilities as Members of Parliament to their constituencies and to the House.
Mr. MacGregor: I did not give any commitment to the Select Committee; that was not the purpose of the evidence. I made known a number of personal views, proposals, and recommendations for the Committee to consider. It is now for the Committee to do that, and to report to the House. I indicated also that, wherever possible, we endeavour—including through the usual channels—to assist right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies well away from London to return to them on Thursday evening. However, it is not always possible to arrange that. I hope that the hon. Lady understands that next week's debate is of great significance, and I cannot believe that Members of Parliament feel that it would not be right to have that debate and the 10 o'clock vote on Thursday.
Mr. Tim Devlin: I shall be happy to vote in the hon. Lady's stead.
The Tees and Hartlepool port authority is currently being privatised. The board will decide on the preferred bidder on Monday, and the Government will make a statement on Thursday, but we shall have no opportunity to debate the matter in the House. May we have a statement on Monday or Tuesday?
The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology in Banchory was destroyed by fire on 4 December. So far no statement has been made about its future. May we have such a statement?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall have to discuss the hon. Gentleman's second question with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. As for his first question, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority is the vendor in the current privatisation, and it is for the authority to assess bids for the port in the light of its objectives of sale and then to decide which bid

1003
to recommend. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will, I know, consider that recommendation carefully, but the decision will he his; I cannot anticipate it, or the exact time when he will make it.
Mr. Brian Wilson: We are now entering the coldest spell of the year. Once again, statistics show that the mortality rate among elderly people in cold conditions, whose homes lack heating facilities, is higher here than in any other European country.
Opposition Members wish that European standards in this regard could be imported. May we have a debate—not towards the end of the year, when conditions will have changed, but now, while the problem is urgent and immediate—about the effectiveness of support systems for elderly people in cold weather, and the possibility of delivering the pittance that is, potentially, available now, in time for it to have an effect? Can the House possibly be faced with a more urgent subject than that of the thousands of pensioners who will die in the weeks ahead because of a natural element against which this prosperous society has proved incapable of protecting them?
Mr. MacGregor: There is no need for a statement on cold weather payments. The Government introduced those payments, and they have also introduced significant improvements for this winter. All those eligible will be paid automatically and quickly. We also have the facility to base payments on forecasts made by the Meteorological Office, as well as on recorded information. The capital rule has been abolished, and 400,000 more people will be eligible as a result. The links with weather stations have also been improved. No statement is necessary; the Government have done the right thing, and they have already acted.
Mr. John Browne: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 373?
[That this House, aware that as a result of the recent agreement at Maastricht the United Kingdom will now move inevitably, despite an 'opt-in' clause, towards a single European currency which will replace the present European composite currency or ecu; recognises that such a new single currency will be heavily influenced by Germany and that its naming is of great importance; suggests the name of Karl, derived from Karl der Grosse or Charlemagne, who in early times achieved the unification of much of Europe; notes that the monetary sign of K, like £, is unique and therefore well fitted to take its place beside the $ and ¥ and urges Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to put this initiative to his colleagues at the European Council of Ministers.]
Does he accept that the naming of a new single European currency is a matter of considerable importance? Please may we have a specific debate to consider that important matter so that we can present a well-considered British suggestion to our European colleagues?
Mr. MacGregor: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will wish to make his own suggestions, and he will be able to do so next week. I do not think, however, that I can give a time for a specific debate on that one item.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on the future of the bus and commercial vehicle manufacturing industry, particularly in the light of Volvo's decision to close Britain's principal bus manufacturing plant, which is in Workington? Does the Leader of the House agree that it is not for private companies to decide to close strategic parts of British industry, and that it is for a British Government to be fully consulted and to be part of such decisions?
Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman is recommending direct intervention in particular commercial decisions, I do not agree with him. Obviously, I have great sympathy for all who have been affected by the closure, but it is for the hon. Gentleman to look for opportunities to speak. I know that he has already tried, but other opportunities are available. I cannot promise a debate next week.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week about the plight of the homeless? We shall not be occupying this place for three weeks during the Christmas recess. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman make a decent gesture, instead of just talking? Why does he not throw open the doors of Parliament to the homeless of London? There is plenty of heat and plenty of light here; there are plenty of places to sleep—plenty of empty Benches. There are catering facilities, and there is plenty of security.
I think that it is high time that the Government did something about homelessness, instead of just talking about it. Open the doors—or will the Government opt out of that as well?
Mr. MacGregor: We have already acted, rather than talking about it, and have provided substantial additional facilities for the homeless in London.

Adjournment (Christmas)
Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 20 December up to nine Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning, and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.
BILL PRESENTED
  PROTECTION OF PENSION FUNDS AND INVESTMENTS
  Mr. Kenneth Hind presented a Bill to require that trustees of pension funds and investments shall be independent of the employer company concerned; to require trustees to furnish annual reports and accounts to contributors and beneficiaries; to give contributors and beneficiaries additional rights in respect of the control and ownership of pension fund assets; to limit pension fund investment in the employer company; to afford other protection to pension fund contributors and beneficiaries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 31 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

  Adjournment (Christmas)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House at its rising on Friday 20th December do adjourn until Monday 13th January 1992.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
  4.15 pm
  Sir John Stokes: The theme of my speech is the grievous shortage of officers in all walks of life in this country—except, of course, in the armed forces of the Crown—and, more generally, to consider the state of the nation after the settlement reached at Maastricht, to enumerate the good and bad points of our institutions and our society, and to try to find out where remedies can put things right.
  Constant visits to Europe over many years have made me realise more and more how different England is from nations on the continent. We are an island, unconquered for 900 years, and we still look to the great sea routes of the world, and to our cousins in America, as well as to our close neighbours on the continent.
  Our whole history and background are different from those of most continental countries. We have had, on the whole, a long and peaceful history here. We have not had the appalling revolutions or wars which have so disfigured continental nations. We much value our Houses of Parliament, in contrast with the low esteem in which continental assemblies are often held. Not only our constitution but our laws are different from those of other nations. We have not had a Code Napoleon.
  Until recently, we had a hierarchical and conservative society, with the great lords living on their estates—not at court in Versailles, as they were in France—and the small squires running the villages where they knew the people and their way of life intimately.
  We have had few riots in this country, and no fighting for hundreds of years. In short, we are a quiet, kind, politically mature people who have learned over the centuries to live together. We are proud of our history and our traditions; our monarchy is greatly beloved.
  In my view, our best institutions are the armed forces of the Crown. The Navy and the Army, of course, are very old, and the Royal Air Force, although founded only in 1918, has fully carried on their ideals. The hallmarks of the armed services of the Crown are chivalry, truthfulness, honesty, integrity and loyalty. Those are not always found in other occupations. The armed forces perform magnificently whenever called upon to do so, and when their members retire they are highly respected in civilian society.
  As we all know, the forces consist of officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks. Those clearly separate roles are not usually found in other organisations —sometimes I wish that they were. We instantly know what the rank stands for. We know where we are, and we are never let down. Unfortunately, we do not always find such high standards in the other great institutions of the state or in the main professions.
  We in this House should hold to the highest standards ourselves, and try to keep others up to the mark.
  Most of the nation spends several hours a day looking at television screens and reading newspapers. How degrading the tabloid press has become. On television, the swearing and sexual licence is unacceptable. In the tabloid press, the emphasis on sex and sexual misbehaviour is
  1006
  nauseating. Unfortunately, the Church of England, that great institution established by law, fails to reprove those tendencies and even appears unable to control homosexuality among its own clergy. The bishops no longer, alas, have the respect that they used to have and the Church seems to fail to recruit the best men in the land for its clergy.
  We find a further tragedy with education. Over the past generation, so-called progressive methods of teaching have meant that many children now leave school being unble to read, to write or to do simple arithmetic. Those responsible were sinning against the light and it will take another generation to get things right.
  In the old days, Oxford and Cambridge and our great universities were admired throughout the world. It is a mistake to try now to increase the number of university students and to pretend that the polytechnics, which have a different, but most vital, role to play, are the same as universities.
  The public schools have maintained their standards and are still a nursery of leaders. It would be far better if we were to increase the number of our public schools, even with the assistance of some taxpayers' money, rather than to continue to produce what some people fear are half-baked intellectuals in enlarged universities. We should also extend the assisted places scheme which has been so successful.
  The amount of crime, especially violent crime, is a blot on our society. Responsibility for that must lie to a great extent with how young people are brought up. Parents, teachers and clergy bear a heavy responsibility.
  There was less dishonesty in high places when I was a young man and virtually none in the City of London. Unfortunately, the Maxwell case is only one of a long line in recent years of crime on a massive scale in financial circles.
  We constantly find examples of poor management in some of our largest institutions. The banks, which seem to lend millions of pounds to doubtful Governments in South America, to property companies and, I am afraid to say, to corrupt financiers, often seem rude and unhelpful to ordinary customers who badly need the money to help them to carry on their businesses.
  British Rail, the Post Office and the management of the health service—not the doctors and nurses—are of varying quality. If anything goes wrong in British Rail or in the Post Office, it is unusual to see anyone about above the rank of lance-corporal.
  My solution to all those problems is to try to educate, to train and to recruit more officers and leaders, as in the armed services, who can take charge in almost every walk of life. We should also cherish the House of Lords, especially the younger Lords who are coming on. The Lords are independent and highly respected, and always possess the most perfect manners.
  We need better men in British industry if we are to compete on level terms with Germany, with the United States and with Japan. A career in industry should be as much respected as a career in the City.
  We all know that the police face appalling challenges today. I am glad that they are highly paid, and they deserve all our sympathy and support. However, what is lacking, as I have said so often, is an officer class. The Home Office should insist on the refounding of the

  1007
  Hendon police college as it was under Lord Trenchard where officers were recruited and trained for leadership and the highest positions.
  We know from recent opinion polls that English people are still highly patriotic and that many more here in these islands are prepared to die for their country than is the case on the continent of Europe.
  That deep, abiding patriotism is still found among the mass of the working people. The middle class, of which most of the country is now composed, still keeps high standards in that respect. However, it now unfortunately includes a number of over-educated intellectuals who believe in nothing and wish to destroy all that we hold most dear.
  One can have too much democracy. We are not all equal in our abilities. We must pay more attention to finding and choosing those who will become our leaders. The old grammar schools did the job so well—as well as the public schools—until, alas, they were abolished. Let us hope that some grammar schools can now be re-established.
  When educating and training our leaders in society, we must ask what is our national purpose. What are we aiming at in our daily lives? We are a mature people, as I said earlier. Sometimes we are inclined to be lazy, but we are capable of great exertions in times of crisis. We now live in a highly competitive world. We must be as good at business as our competitors on the continent and elsewhere.
  Of course we must defend the nation properly and keep law and order. We must maintain moral standards and ensure that our children are properly educated. It is important that in every walk of life we should articulate where we are going and where we are trying to go.
  I learnt some of those principles as a young officer serving under General Montgomery both on the staff and in the field. We all knew what the object was and what we had to do. Above all, everyone was put in the picture.
  In an organisation it is the people who matter most. Their performance can be improved enormously by proper training, example and leadership. As a people, in spite of the faults that I have enumerated, I believe that we have great talents. We must not hesitate to build on them. Therefore, after Maastricht I believe that our country, with all its experience and history and achievements, still has a great deal to give Europe and the world.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Don Dixon: I appreciate, as no doubt you, Mr. Speaker, appreciate as a former Deputy Chief Whip, the strictures that that places on hon. Members who hold that position. However, I am so concerned about a safety problem in my constituency that I want to intervene briefly in this debate. I have put myself on the Standing Committee of the Transport and Works Bill and I will speak on the matter in more detail there.
  I want to draw to the attention of the House a very dangerous situation in relation to a railway crossing in my constituency. The railway crossing is an unmanned crossing at Newton Garths on the main Newcastle to Sunderland line which runs through my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark).
  The crossing is located between two large housing estates—the Biddick Hall housing estate and Boldon
  1008
  Colliery estate. There are fields beside the crossing in which horses graze. As we know, children are often tempted to play near horses and feed them. On 14 May 1990, a seven-year-old girl called Lisa Mohamed was killed on the crossing. She had spent the day with her great-aunt and her younger brother. She had played in the field and walked along the road to the crossing.
  Anyone who knows anything about crossings will be aware that the tracks on a vehicular crossing are recessed into timber to allow vehicles to cross the track. The young girl walked along the road believing that she was crossing the field on her way to feed the horses. Unfortunately, she was killed on the track by a train which came around the curve.
  The crossing is particularly dangerous because the secondary school on the Biddick Hall estate has been closed and many of the children on that estate must cross to the Boldon Colliery secondary school. That unmanned crossing has become an unauthorised short cut for some children.
  The crossing is about one mile from the signalman's cabin, and it is not visible because of the curve in the rail line. Therefore, no one can supervise the gate and crossing procedures. More than 120 high-speed trains pass over that crossing daily, at approximately 65 mph. I have visited the crossing several times, along with Lisa's father, Philip Mohamed, and one of our ward councillors, Councillor Mrs. Wagott. She is a new councillor, but she is capable and competent, and she has taken an interest in that dangerous crossing.
  The crossing has been and is plagued by vandals. Warning signs and telephones have been ripped out. Despite repeated warnings, children still use the crossing as a short cut. The crossing is used to service what used to be Harrison farm, and it is used by vehicles and by people riding horses. At times, the gate is tied back and not closed. It takes only one person to leave the gate open, and safety at the crossing goes out of the window.
  Several letters have passed between myself and various Ministers at the Department of Transport and between me and the local authority. Ministers, the local authority and everybody on the estate have agreed that the crossing should be closed and are trying to find an alternative route into the farm. However, until it is closed, someone from British Rail should man that crossing.
  What appalled me and led me to intervene in this Adjournment debate was a statement by a chap named Brian Ward, who is supposed to be a British Rail regional spokesman. Since Lisa died, her father Philip Mohamed has fought a campaign to have the crossing closed. I have been supporting his campaign. Philip Mohamed, like most people in our area, which has high unemployment, must work away. When Lisa was killed, he was working on an oil rig in the middle of the North sea. His wife has had health problems ever since—her nerves have suffered, as any parent can imagine.
  On Friday 29 November, when I went to my constituency, I obtained a copy of the local paper, the Gazette. According to that paper, British Rail has decided that it should blame Lisa's parents for her death. That character, Brian Ward—I do not know who he is; he is some pinstriped moron who works in a British Rail heated office—said:

  1009
  "We find that Mr. Mohamed has rarely, if ever, publicly expressed any concern for the train crew involved in his daughter's death … We have no real wish to attack Mr. Mohamed or his family."
  He felt that Mr. and Mrs. Mohamed were to blame because of lack of supervision. That is an insensitive and scurrilous attack on loving parents who lost a seven-year-old daughter.
  An editorial in the Gazette stated:
  "British Rail's outburst against grieving South Shields father Philip Mohamed is astonishing in its insensitivity. Following the tragic death of his seven-year-old daughter eighteen months ago, Mr. Mohamed has waged a ceaseless campaign to get the railway crossing where she was killed closed down."
  Any parent would join him in his campaign. He will not fetch Lisa back, but he did not want other parents to suffer the sadness that he and his wife have suffered since Lisa's death.
  The article continues:
  "Yet BR are adding to the heartbreak of the Mohamed family by blaming 'those who failed to supervise his daughter' for the tragedy.
  Such a vitriolic attack does BR no credit whatsoever … Now they criticise him for 'failing to show concern for the train crew involved in her death'. This statement is almost breathtaking in its tactlessness.
  Only those unfortunate parents who have lost a child can know the suffering involved."
  After that scurrilous article by Brian Ward appeared in the newspaper, Mr. Mohamed, the young father who lost his seven-year-old daughter while working in the middle of the North sea, stated:
  "British Rail have attacked me and my family. I was at work in the middle of the North Sea on the day she died. Lisa was on a visit to my aunt for the day.
  At the time of the incident my aunt was in her front garden along with several other adults, and in front of her house is a large field surrounded by houses and a school.
  There is virtually no traffic, only the occasional car going past to a nearby farm. My aunt has brought up a large family in that home for over 12 years and her children along with neighbouring kids have played on the field for many years without incident.
  No one thought for a moment Lisa could without instruction or hindrance walk straight on the main Newcastle to Sunderland line after seeing horses on the other field."
  That is precisely what happened.
  Following that outburst from British Rail's so-called "public relations officer", I found on my return to the constituency last weekend that the Gazette had reported that a lorry had been hit by a train at the very spot on the crossing where Lisa was killed 18 months ago. The newspaper reported that the lorry driver, Andrew Atkinson, 25, narrowly cheated death when the 12.30 pm Sunderland to Newcastle train demolished the back of his lorry. I repeat that that happened on the very same crossing on which a young girl was killed, yet British Rail had the effrontery to blame her parents for not supervising their child. It is a dangerous crossing.
  I ask British Rail to make a public apology to Mr. and Mrs. Mohamed for its outburst. I also call for the sacking of Mr. Brian Ward. Perhaps he should be sent to work on the North sea oil rigs where he could perhaps do the job that Philip Mohamed had to give up so that he could look after his ill wife following their daughter's death. I hope also that the Minister for Public Transport will disassociate himself from British Rail's remarks. I apologise to the House for having to speak in this
  1010
  Adjournment debate, but I was so appalled by British Rail's attack on parents who had lost their seven-year-old daughter that I felt that it was my duty to do so.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: Last Saturday, I had the pleasure of calling on a new constituent, Mrs. Noreen Hill, at her new home in Holywood in my constituency. However, that visit was tinged with sadness because, as some hon. Members will recall, Mrs. Hill's husband, Ronnie, a former school headmaster, has been in a coma for over four years since being seriously injured in the notorious IRA terrorist explosion at the remembrance day service in Enniskillen in 1987.
  I was deeply moved by Mrs. Hill's quiet courage, dignity and total commitment to the loving care of her husband. She prays as we all do, that Ronnie will one day come out of his coma. To that end, she constantly talks to him in the belief that he understands what she says and that it will eventually help his recovery. I am sure that, like me, all hon. Members admire that wonderful couple and I pray that Noreen Hill's hopes will be realised.
  However, I compare the tremendous service that Ronnie Hill gave to the community of Enniskillen, especially as a headmaster, and the love, care and dedication of Noreen Hill, with the ruthless, merciless and cowardly behaviour of the IRA which caused that explosion and so many of the atrocities in Northern Ireland during the past 20 years and more.
  The police have warned the people of Ulster that they face increased atrocities from the terrorists during the Christmas season. Is it not ironic that, when goodly people, prepare to celebrate the birth of Christ and provide a memorable and happy time for their children, evil men lurk in the dark recesses of Northern Ireland and, indeed, mainland Great Britain, planning death, mutilation and destruction?
  The massive 1,000 lb IRA van bomb which caused such grievous injuries and havoc last week in Belfast could easily have caused widespread carnage. Indeed, it was a miracle that no one died in that explosion, but the IRA demonstrated what, of course, we have known for years. It demonstrated by that bomb outrage that it was at war even with little children, because it badly damaged the opera house where a Christmas pantomime "Babes in the Wood" was being rehearsed, to which many families and their children were looking forward with infinite delight.
  The IRA wishes to destroy the economy of Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the spirit of the business men of the Province who, never daunted, though often depressed, reopen as soon as possible after their premises are damaged by IRA bombs or incendiary devices. Previously, grants were provided by the Government so that the firms could pay for security guards at the premises. It is time for the Government to reintroduce financial assistance. The money would be well spent. It could certainly save businesses hundreds of thousands of pounds.
  I am deeply worried about the number of unemployed in my constituency of North Down and the lack of sufficient vacancies, especially for school leavers and graduates. I have complained in the past to the Minister responsible in Northern Ireland that the North Down area benefits least from Government help, because most effort is concentrated in the west and south of the Province.

  1011
  Therefore, I appeal to the Government to attract more inward investment to my constituency. I urge the Government to get the unemployment in the North Down area off the dole queues. I urge them to give hope and help to our young people. I have met many young people in my constituency who are out of a job. It is difficult to explain the position to them. They are disheartened, and I do not blame them. They are disenchanted, and I fully understand that. That is why I believe that we must help our most prized possessions in Northern Ireland—our young people. I make that appeal strongly and fervently to the Government tonight.
  I appeal for adequate recreational facilities for children and young people in my constituency. For instance, they see the vast concrete marina in Bangor, which has cost millions of pounds and has row upon row of expensive yachts beyond the reach of the vast majority of people in the area. Indeed, many of the yachts belong to people from outside the area. The young people feel—in my opinion. rightly—that they are victims of economic discrimination. As no recreational facilities, or only inadequate facilities, are provided in their separate areas, either in Bangor, Holywood, Conlig or Dundonald, they feel that others are benefiting and they are losing.
  I refer in particular to places in Bangor such as Kilcooley, Whitehill and Bloomfield. I also think of Holywood, which is in need of better recreational facilities. Young children in Conlig have asked through me for playgrounds for many years. Other areas also suffer a lack of such facilities.
  In this season of good will, when we concentrate our intentions on young people, the Government should bear in mind their needs and the fact that, if facilities are not provided, it is all too easy for young people to go astray. It would be money well invested to provide recreational facilities. I hope that the Government will listen to and heed my appeal.
  4.44 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: There are two very important issues I want briefly to raise before the House is asked to approve the motion. Both are of urgent public concern and affect the interests of people whose claims to the attention of this House are of undoubted priority. They are issues about which there ought at least to be ministerial statements before we rise for the recess.
  I turn first to the issue of homelessness this Christmas, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred in his business question. Everyone expects there to be more people sleeping rough this year than at any other Christmas in the post-war years. As the Leader of the House may be aware, I have for many years been a trustee of Crisis, still perhaps more widely known as Crisis at Christmas. The deep social concern of all who work for the charity, in whose splendid achievements Lady Macleod can take especial pride, is well appreciated on both sides of the House. My own approach to the challenge of homelessness is very much informed by their work. Crisis recognises that homeless people are to he found not only in London and gives vitally important help to voluntary organisations which work to reduce the suffering that homelessness causes in many parts of Britain.
  1012
  By contrast, the Government are widely accused of ignoring the claims of homeless people outside the capital. I quote a recent letter sent to me by Shelter. Simon Keyes, its director of housing services, said:
  "The Housing Minister has announced some provision for people sleeping rough in London this winter but has, once again, limited the scope of this provision to London only. This is despite evidence from Shelter's report … on the 'big freeze' last February and the recent official census data showing that the majority of people sleeping rough are outside London. Sixty per cent. of those counted in the census were outside the capital."
  That is very strong criticism, well justified by the facts, and Shelter is right to call on the Government to extend to the rest of Britain the full range of initiatives being undertaken in London. After all, homelessness is no less calamitous for people living elsewhere in Britain than it is in London, especially at this time of the year. Nor can Ministers be unaware of its cost in human terms.
  Ministers must know that last year, in Manchester alone, there were five recorded cases of people dying from sleeping out during the winter. Their deaths in my native city naturally cause me very deep concern. Yet Manchester is not alone in the north-west it its difficulties in trying to cope with the worst-ever homelessness crisis. There, as elsewhere, the rising tide of repossessions by building societies is an ever more worrying factor.
  Council-owned hostels in Bury are authoritatively reported to be almost full and bed-and-breakfast accommodation may have to be found by next Wednesday for families there who face repossession of their homes. At present only 91 council properties are vacant. Most of them are unsuitable for living in, owing to vandalism, fire damage, dilapidation or the fact that they are too small for families.
  The situation is set to worsen soon, and Joseph Robinson, the council's assistant housing director, said last week:
  "This is the worst situation our staff can recall."
  At the same time, the housing chairman said:
  "We are in desperate circumstances. We have only one vacancy in our temporary hostels and nine families are due to have their homes repossessed by 18 December."
  He went on:
  "It's not helped by the fact that we are having to sell 300 council homes every year, but are unable to spend the money on building new ones."
  I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that we must have a ministerial statement on this issue before the House rises for the Christmas recess. He may have seen Tim Rayment's reports in The Sunday Times about homelessness this Christmas, with their emphasis not only on London but on giving the national picture. His reports bear moving testimony to the priority of the claims of a huge number of our fellow citizens who, without very urgent help, will have to spend Christmas on the streets in localities all over Britain.
  The second issue I wish to raise concerns severely disabled people whose well-being and often whose personal freedom and safety depend heavily on the availability of services to which they are entitled under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. At Question Time on 3 December I raised from the Opposition Front Bench a number of crucial questions about the difficulties that more and more disabled people now experience in trying to secure and/or retain the services to which the Act entitles them. I asked the Minister for Health:

  1013
  "How many disabled people, after being assessed for services under the … Act …, are now on waiting lists for the help that they need … how many local authorities at the latest date for which figures are available, had reduced or removed services in cases where there was no diminution in the disabled person's needs".
  I also asked the Minister to comment on a case, of which I had informed the Secretary of State for Health
  "where home help provision was withdrawn from an elderly couple both of whom are severely and progressively disabled?"—[Official Report 3 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 138.]
  Not one of my questions was answered by the Minister. I shall be grateful, therefore, if the Leader of the House will obtain the answers for me before the motion is approved.
  Before he does so, I must tell the House that the legal advice given to me, when I was Minister for the Disabled, was that it was unlawful to keep disabled people who have been assessed for services on waiting lists for them. I was also unequivocally advised—as I know all my successors as Minister for the Disabled have been—that it was unlawful to reduce or withdraw a service provided under the Act unless the disabled person's need for it had diminished. Yet in the case about which I questioned the Minister for Health, on 3 December, home help provision was withdrawn from an elderly and severely and progressively disabled couple whose nearest relative lived over 180 miles away in Manchester.
  They are not alone in having their legal rights trampled on. Arthritis Care and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation said in a recent statement that such cases could be found all over Britain and that
  "widespread distress has been and continues to be caused among disabled people."
  In a letter that I received from the Minister for Health before I questioned her in the House, she said, without any suggestion of criticism, that some local authorities had now withdrawn cleaning-only home help services altogether. If so, then ipso facto such services are no longer available to any disabled person in their areas, irrespective of need and the requirements of the law.
  That is a very serious matter indeed, about which there should not only be a statement to the House before the recess, but urgent ministerial action to end all misconceptions about the legal duties imposed by the Act. On behalf of many national organisations of and for disabled people, I implore the right hon. Gentleman to make a positive response to my plea to him to play his part in ending what their members see as law-breaking on an increasingly wide scale.
  In pressing the right hon. Gentleman to help, I emphasise that about 50 per cent. of the homeless in Britain this Christmas are expected to be disabled people, most of whom sleep rough due to the yawning gap between promise and performance in the Government's approach to community care. Thus, the two issues that I have raised are linked. Shelter says that there was a 92 per cent. increase in the number of homeless disabled people between 1980 and 1988, and the number has undoubtedly risen since then. That is sombre further proof of the need for a humane response from the Government before this debate concludes.
  4.55 pm
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: In eight days' time, the House will rise for the three-week Christmas recess. I have no doubt that we are all looking forward to that event, a time for rest, a time to be at home with our families, a very special time when we talk of good will towards all men and hope that the happiness to which we look forward will be shared by others.
  However, I suspect that for 28 people at least—those who remain of the 50 or so people who received blood transfusions contaminated with the HIV virus from the national health service between 1982 and October 1985—Christmas will be overshadowed by the deadly nature of the virus and its awful consequences—its life-shortening consequences if it becomes AIDS. Now, of course, blood donations are screened to prevent such contamination happening again, but for those poor 28 people, unlike the 1,200 haemophiliacs who got the HIV virus from contaminated samples of the factor 8 blood product, no Macfarlane Trust exists for them, nor for those 22 who have already died from AIDS as a result of the virus, nor for their dependents.
  It is right to ask why that should be the case. According to a letter that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Health in the other place, Baroness Hooper, on 19 October 1991, the Government
  "decided to make special provision for HIV infected haemophiliacs because we accepted that they were a very special case. The haemophiliacs were doubly disadvantaged by their hereditary condition, which was compounded by the onset of HIV. The position of those others infected with HIV through blood transfusions is more difficult, since the Government does not consider that their case is different in principle from that of others seriously harmed through medical accident."
  So the Minister seems to acknowledge that those people have been seriously harmed through a medical accident derived from their treatment at the hands of the NHS, but the Minister goes on to say that it was nobody's fault—and anyway, that the haemophiliacs got compensation because they were haemophiliacs, not simply because they had been given contaminated factor 8.
  It is almost the identical defence originally submitted by the Department of Health when it first refused to pay compensation to haemophiliacs. Effectively, it said, "If you can prove we were negligent, we will pay. If not, you get nothing." Legally, I recognise that that is strong ground, because proving negligence is an expensive and long drawn-out process, perhaps taking six to seven years, and how many of those 28 people who are still alive and who had contaminated blood transfusions will be alive that far ahead?
  There is another dimension to those cases in terms of what any of us expects from treatment under the NHS. Surely we expect to be made well or better than we were when we went for treatment. Also, I know of no patient who tells his doctor what treatment he should or should not receive. I know of no patient who has ever told his doctor that he needs a blood transfusion. The decision about the treatment is one for the medical staff. The patient does as he or she is told.
  I do not complain about that—the doctor has the experience—but, if we place our lives in the hands of medical men, we presume that the course of treatment they prescribe will make us better, not give us a viral infection from which we will die. That is implicit in the contract, unwritten though it may be, between patient and doctor.

  1015
  It adds up to a moral obligation which the service takes on when it describes itself as the national health service. Of course, the chance of our being made well depends on what we are suffering from when we enter hospital, but few, if any, of us expect to die from the treatment that we are given. Yet that is what is happening to the haemophiliacs and to those who have had tainted blood transfusions.
  Those people are now living in the twilight existence outlined to me by a haemophiliac constituent who had received contaminated factor 8. He asked me to go and see him at night so that his neighbour would not ask why the Member of Parliament was visiting him. He told me how fearful he was that his children's friends might find out about his condition and refuse to come to the house or to continue to be his children's friends.
  He told me of his financial worries for his wife and his family if he could no longer work and if he subsequently died from AIDS; about the problem of keeping up mortgage payments that pressed on his mind; about the impossibility of obtaining any insurance and about that permanent worry as to whether his HIV positive condition would in the course of time turn to full-blown AIDS. Lastly, he explained that because of what had happened to him he had ceased to have any sexual relationship with his wife owing to the risk of infecting her. Effectively, that side of his marriage is over—as, probably, is his life.
  Thank goodness, the Government softened their attitude and their heart towards the haemophiliacs and gave them a sum, through the Macfarlane Trust, which relieved the financial worries of people like my constituent; they gave a sum of £42 million. If they can give it to that group, why not to this much smaller group of transfusion-damaged people? All the problems that apply to the haemophiliacs apply equally to them, and to give all 50 the same compensation would cost only £1,750,000.
  I find the Department's argument that haemophiliacs are a very special case a very difficult one to follow. All these people are human beings. They have been given this dreadful virus, not because they asked for it, but because of something that happened within the Department. The same faith in the NHS that persuaded the haemophiliac to accept factor 8 from the NHS persuaded the 50 to accept blood transfusions from the NHS. But for the grace of God, I might have been one of them. I was receiving blood transfusions at that time from the NHS because of kidney failure. That is why I stand in the House tonight conscious that it is the grace of God that has preserved me and aware that I at least have a voice through which to make this House think again about the plight of the now only 28 people whose lives have been so blighted.
  I put this appeal to the Leader of the House: a measure of compensation should be provided for these unhappy people. I know that I am not the only Member who feels strongly about this matter. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have made a number of appeals and put many questions to Ministers. In my opinion the good name of the Government, the Department of Health and the National Health Service is somehow besmirched by the failure to recognise the dreadful blight that has come to these people at the hands of the NHS.
  When a Minister admits in a letter to me that a medical accident has killed 22 people and looks likely to kill a good many more, leaving families without financial support and ruining marriages, natural justice—and I submit that there is such a thing—demands compassion demonstrated by financial assistance.
  1016
  I have already referred to the Macfarlane Trust, which disburses Government funds to the haemophiliacs. I wrote to its chairman, the Rev. Prebendary Alan Tanner, asking if the trust had any discretion as to who it helped with funds. In his reply Mr. Tanner said:
  "The Macfarlane Trust Deed was written very specifically for the haemophiliac community … I am sorry to say that I do not think that your enquiry reveals a viable option. We hope that you and like-minded colleagues of all parties will be able to provide a separate and additional solution for other afflicted groups."
  So do I. After all, only as recently as last Tuesday the French Government decided to change its mind and bring forward a compensation package which included both haemophiliacs who had contracted HIV from contaminated blood products and those who had received blood transfusions also containing the virus. So why not us?
  Baroness Hooper, in her letter, argues:
  "The more that is spent on making payments to those who, through nobody's fault, have been harmed as a result of a medical accident, the less there is available for treating patients who have become ill."
  That is quite right, but is her statement borne out by what we know of spending on AIDS, to take an example linked to the case that I am arguing? I fear not.
  Only this week, on 10 December, The Daily Telegraph reported, under the heading "MPs attack NHS over AIDS money", as follows:
  "Government health officials were strongly criticised by MPs yesterday for their handling of health authorities who `pinched' money earmarked to treat Aids for other purposes. Mr. Duncan Nichol, chief executive of the health service, was closely questioned by the Commons public accounts committee about the lack of disciplinary action against those responsible for significant lapses in Aids spending uncovered by the National Audit Office.
  In a report in the summer, the Office found more than £15 million granted by the Government to combat Aids remained unspent or had been diverted to other work."
  I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the Government need not stumble over the £1,750,000 which would give the same compensation to the 50 who received contaminated blood transfusions as was given to the haemophiliacs. The money is really there in terms of this £15 million, which I gather is now being sought from the local authorities that have misspent it and some of which, apparently, is unspent.
  If I am right, providing that compensation would effectively cost the NHS nothing, but it would end one of the unhappiest and most tragic incidents to afflict the health service in my lifetime. While I know that my right hon. Friend, in winding up this debate, may not feel that he can comment in detail on what I have said, I ask him to convey my comments to the Secretary of State for Health and that, as a distinguished former Treasury Minister, he will consider what I have said about payment of compensation and, perhaps, before we resume in the new year, will have been able to make a statement that will give comfort to the 28 people who are still alive and to the dependants of the 22 who have already died from AIDS.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. David Alton: Eloquently and at times movingly, hon. Members have used the Adjournment debate to raise distressing situations and to take the opportunity to remind us, as we approach the Christmas festivities, that many find themselves in very distressing circumstances. I take the opportunity to press the Government on the position in Croatia, where there

  1017
  continues to be a massive loss of life. In particular, I want to ask the Leader of the House to comment on the dual issues of recognition of Croatia and the need for an international peacekeeping and peacemaking force in that troubled part of the world.
  If anyone is in doubt about the importance and the urgency of the matter, he need look only at today's tapes. Just two hours ago, I took the following extract from the tapes:
  "Undeterred by freezing temperatures, the Yugoslav army and Croatian forces fought new battles today in Yugoslavia's breakaway republic of Croatia, further denting dwindling hopes of peace. The fighting raged throughout Croatia yesterday and up to 26 people were reported killed. This reduced the likelihood of a ceasefire taking hold that would allow the United Nations to send peacekeeping troops to Yugoslavia. Croatian radio said the town of Valpovo in eastern Croatia was under artillery fire all night and nearby villages were also fired on. The two of Zemenuk Donji, about six miles from the Adriatic coast, was also under attack".
  According to the tapes, the European monitors, who have been reporting about the position in Croatia say that about 1,000 have been identified as having been killed during the fighting in Vukovar. The report continues:
  "The once quiet town of 50,000 people on the river Danube was reduced to rubble by constant shelling and house-to-house fighting. About 14,000 civilians stayed through the siege, cowering in cellars."
  Inevitably, much of the information is a patchwork of reports, but we know that about 11 per cent. of the population have been displaced by the fighting that has continued since the summer. Although estimates of casualties are notoriously unreliable, about 15,000 people have been registered as injured during the fighting, and 30,000—90 per cent. of them civilians—are missing. We are told that 223 churches and monasteries have been destroyed, that damage to hospitals and other medical facilities is estimated at about £100 million and that damage to civilian property is estimated at between £1 billion and £2 billion. Dubrovnik, now in its 72nd day without electricity or water, is in a parlous state.
  I heard from one Croatian earlier today about what had happened to her friends. She said that they had recently killed a pig for food but could not eat it after discovering human hands in its stomach; it had been scavenging food from unburied bodies. That graphic illustration demonstrates the desperate seriousness of the position in Croatia and perhaps our failure in the West to concentrate our minds and our attention sufficiently on the tragedy.
  There has been no debate in the House on the war in Croatia, but hon. Members have tabled early-day motions with which I have been associated. An all-party Friends of Croatia group has been established. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) tabled early-day motion 138. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) tabled early-day motion 219. About 70 signatures have been added to those motions. The hon. Members for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) and Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) are among the sponsors of those motions. That demonstrates the breadth of concern in the House.
  In looking at the origins of the conflict and at why hon. Members believe that there is a need for recognition of Croatia, it is worth reflecting that, in any civil war, families and communities become pitted against one another as old
  1018
  grievances, half-remembered slights, distortion and disinformation compete tenaciously for attention. As we have heard today from the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), we need look no further than Northern Ireland to see the truth of what I am saying.
  Now, in what was Yugoslavia, there is massive communal violence between Croat and Serb, Catholic and Orthodox. One in ten of Croatia's inhabitants are of Serbian extraction and they, as a vulnerable minority, fear that in an independent Croatia they will be reduced to servile status. That issue has to be addressed by Croatians. For decades, Serbian privileges have permeated every public institution, the police, the army and all the apparatus which enabled the communist regime to flourish.
  Collective memory prevents many of the principal players from seeking solutions based on trust, reconciliation or consensus. Serbians prefer instead to remind us of the all too real atrocities committed by the Ustashe, backed by the Nazis, who reputedly supported a programme of racial purification: one third of Croatia's Serbian population was to be exterminated, one third repatriated to Serbia and the remainder forcibly converted to Catholicism. Many Serbian families living in London can graphically describe the barbarism which they experienced during that lamentable period. Notwithstanding that, many Croatians also supported Tito and the patriots.
  The issue now is not what happened in the 1940s. To confuse those events with the present tragedy is as logical as saying that every member of today's German Government could be associated with the events of the 1930s and with Hitler's Germany. Surely, in looking to the future, we must look to today's Croatian leadership. We must examine what they stand for, whether they are entitled to our respect and whether their goals differ from those of the Ustashe.
  Most of today's leaders are modern democrats who see their future as an independent state within the European Community of nations. With a population of 4·5 million, that would put them on a par with some of the Community's smaller states. The Croatian Democratic Union successfully fought the 1990 election on a programme of establishing a modern democratic state. It is pledged to reprivatising social ownership, the establishment of a market economy, the guarantee of all human and civil rights and the rule of law. In contrast, Serbia continues to be ruled by communist hardliners who seem totally uninterested in resolving the Yugoslav crisis democratically.
  Some commentators have caricatured Croatia's leaders as the heirs of fascism. I think that caricature is unworthy of those commentators. We need to look more deeply at the issue. We must recognise that people in Croatia are entitled to the same aspirations as the rest of us. In the recent referendum, 94·6 per cent. voted for self-determination and the right of autonomy.
  I should like to commend three principles to the Leader of the House for action. The first is self-determination and the protection of democracy. We should not be locked into borders created in the aftermath of world war two. We have already had to recognise the reality of events in the Soviet Union and the emergence again of the Baltic states as independent republics. There will be massive changes

  1019
  throughout eastern and central Europe, so there is no point in clinging to old borders and old boundaries. Surely it is the principle of self-determination which must count.
  I agree strongly with the Foreign Secretary's description of the Serbian-dominated federal army as a band of brigands. He should also recognise the legitimacy of the Croatians to break free from that band of brigands and to be able to have control over their own affairs.
  The second principle is international recognition. The Prime Minister said that the Government would consider recognition "when there is peace". That is a formula for ensuring that there never will be peace. It builds in a reason why the Serbs should continue the conflict. Germany is about to recognise Croatia, probably before Christmas. European Community leaders will discuss the issue on Monday. I hope that we will not try to impede the process. We should not see it as a stalking horse for a common European foreign policy or defence policy.
  If the Prime Minister is to be consistent with the statements made post-Maastricht that every issue will be considered on its merits, he and the Foreign Secretary should look at the position in Croatia on its merits and consider again the issue of recognition. If Croatia were recognised, it would enable it to go to the United Nations to argue its case. That is the main reason why that important decision needs to be taken.
  The third principle is international peacemaking. In the House, we have maintained the need to have a United Nations peacekeeping and peacemaking force in parts of the world where people's rights are suppressed. When Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, in the House we sanctioned the use of force to re-establish the legitimacy of the Kuwaiti Government to govern their own affairs. I believe that we should argue for nothing less, despite the fact that no oil or financial interests are involved. Sadly, those are all too often the major motivating force.
  The same logic should apply to Croatia. One half of Europe should not become obsessed with monetary union and internal policy while the other half cracks up. We must take action with our European neighbours and through the United Nations to try to end the conflict in Croatia. We should not wait until the conflict is resolved before discussing whether to send a peacekeeping force.
  The Government should consider the possibility of erecting a sky shield over Croatian air space. It would not require the deployment of troops on the ground, but would stop some of the worst aerial bombardment and could be enforced effectively by NATO or the United Nations. We also need the establishment of more humanitarian sea lanes, which the Foreign Secretary has already supported. Such a sensible idea could give immediate relief.
  We should also consider the issue of humanitarian aid. So far, just £77,000 has been given, yet one in eight Croatians are displaced persons or refugees. Given the chronic poverty, hunger and destitution, we should try to increase the amount of aid that we give.
  The European Community observers' report starkly and bleakly reminds the House of our need to be concerned about what is happening in that important corner of Europe. In their report published today, they say that the army is
  "ready to press the button for a ground offensive which could cut through Croatia and Slovenia".
  That could happen within the next seven days—before Christmas. But the report says that the army will try to
  1020
  take back Slovenia and reclaim the old Yugoslavia. It says that nine regions of Bosnia with Serbian majorities are said to be preparing to declare autonomy but that the army is arming Bosnian Serbs and disarming Muslims and Croats.
  The EC observers say:
  "An aerial photograph would show Bosnia as a huge assembly area of army forces ready to break into Croatia."
  EC observers have warned President Kucan of Slovenia that he is likely to be personally attacked. The European Community mission has been told that it should leave
  "if the expected surge in fighting takes place next week."
  European Community observers do not favour recognition. They, too, have been saying that we should wait. But that is a form of appeasement. After 14 broken ceasefires, such a position will not deter the Serbian army, which the west has armed as a buffer state. The moral case for international intervention and recognition is overwhelming. When the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) went to Prague last year, she said—I totally agree with her—that never again would we in the United Kingdom ignore the plight of a small country because it was a faraway place and we knew little about it or its people. Is not that precisely what has been happening as Dubrovnik and Vukovar have been pounded into the ground, while people have been terrorised and churches and hospitals destroyed?
  We must recognise that it is not a conflict between equals—the Queensberry rules have not been applied in Croatia. Serbia invaded Croatia, not the other way around. Serbia has access to stockpiles of arms and the full might of the federal army, whereas Croatia does not. In trying to shape western public opinion, Serbia is using all the crude black propagandist tricks that have been the hallmark of communist Governments throughout the years.
  There is no logical reason why the British Government and the European Community should be indifferent to the plight of a small European nation, or why we should pretend to hold a neutral position in that battle of unequals. We should ensure that there is an effective international response to the conflict and, once a democracy is constructed in Croatia, minorities are adequately protected and all possible efforts are made to achieve reconciliation in that part of the world.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. John Ward: This evening we shall hear various speeches on matters of national and international importance. I draw the attention of the House to two subjects, the first of which is concerned with human welfare and the second with animal welfare.
  In 1988, stringent regulations were introduced in this country to prevent the sale of furniture and furnishings that did not meet tough flammability standards. Those regulations affected particularly the use of foam in furniture but covered only domestic upholstered furniture. Many of us hoped that similar regulations would be introduced to cover furniture in buildings open to the public, in cars and in public transport, including aircraft.
  At present, the only European Community countries with fire regulations for domestic furniture are the United Kingdom and Ireland. Furniture in public buildings throughout the EC is covered by guidelines, voluntary agreements and codes of practice. Many of us hoped that avoidable deaths by fire could be prevented through the introduction of EC-wide regulations and, two years ago,

  1021
  work began on such a directive covering both domestic and contract furniture. A second draft directive was circulated last year and there was talk of a separate draft directive covering furniture in means of transport.
  Now, however, EC Commissioner Bangemann has announced that the new directive, which would introduce lower standards of fire resistance than those currently required in the United Kingdom, could be postponed for up to eight years. That decision has been taken because the original proposed directive would introduce controls on the ignition resistance of furniture, and later measures would be introduced to control the spread of fire in ignited furniture. Commissioner Bangemann now wants to wait until the tests on the latter requirement have been devised before introducing either control.
  That is bureaucracy gone mad. Although the United Kingdom would still be protected from the deadly effects of old-style foam fillings, the rest of the EC would continue to be at risk. I presume that we must now monitor the problem carefully to ensure that furniture that does not meet our high standards is not imported into the United Kingdom. Above all, we do not want lower standards of fire protection in this country, simply in the interests of EC harmonisation.
  I congratulate the Consumers Association, which has campaigned for many years to have dangerous foam banned in the United Kingdom. I commend to the House its current campaign to ensure that our safety regulations are introduced throughout the EC in the shortest possible time. The association tells me that it is supported by fire brigades throughout the United Kingdom and it intends to bombard Commissioner Bangemann with seasonal greetings that will also ask him to reconsider his decision to postpone the introduction of an EC directive on safety in furniture. If any hon. Members wish to join in that campaign, full details are contained in the current edition of Which? I am sure that the House will wish to support the Consumers Association in its campaign.
  I hope that Commissioner Bangemann will accept that we should introduce the safety regulations that can be implemented now, and introduce those that require more sophisticated testing at a later date. It is madness not to introduce each safety measure as soon as possible. We should not have to wait to present a neat and tidy package of regulations.
  It is particularly distressing that we should have to debate this sad but vital subject at Christmas and we must convince the European Commissioner that he has a duty to take immediate action to prevent needless deaths that could be avoided by strict controls over the use of foam, which rapidly produces toxic fumes when subjected to fire.
  The second subject to which I wish to refer is animal welfare. Records show that standards of animal welfare in this country are generally higher than those of our European partners, but many of us are still concerned that regulations to be introduced in this country in 1998, such as a ban on tethering sows, will not apply to the rest of the European Community until 2006. The EC directive does not deal with the close confinement of sows, which has already been dealt with in this country.
  At present, the only way of showing our disapproval of veal crates is not to buy veal in this country, provided we
  1022
  are able to identify it. Animal welfare in an appropriate issue for the European Commission to act on and improve standards throughout the Community.
  At a time when European food stores are bulging it seems senseless to go on producing surpluses of meat in such cruel conditions. We have all seen the distressing scenes on television when live animals are transported across the continent of Europe for ultimate slaughter. I am sure that most of us would prefer all the animals to be slaughtered here before being exported. I accept that that may not always be possible.
  I want the European Commission inspectorate which is to be appointed—largely as a result of the effort of our own Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his colleagues, on which I congratulate them—to have effective powers and penalties at its disposal. I welcome the fact that there are proposals for a directive covering the welfare of animals at slaughter. I am told that it will roughly conform to the laws already in force in the United Kingdom. I am worried that some of our European partners will not wish to enforce directives on animal welfare; so the European Commission inspectorate must have the power to enforce the regulations.
  I particularly wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on achieving what some may consider a minor protocol at Maastricht on animal welfare. It ensures the consideration of cruelty issues in all future moves by the Commission and European Community Ministers, which should help to prevent some of the factory farming scandals of which we know and some of the well-publicised Spanish practices involving cruelty to animals. I trust that progress can be made in obtaining protection for animals and—this is important—fire protection for humans.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Allen McKay: I hope to raise a number of issues that affect my constituency and constituents.
  Since the Government introduced poll tax capping, I and other hon. Friends and representatives from local authorities have tried, without success, to persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment of the unfairness of the standard spending assessments and how the system works to the disadvantage of my local authority of Barnsley and its residents.
  The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has clearly recognised the problem, and responded by saying that the system is unfair and it would not object to movement in the total SSA of all local authorities to try to overcome that unfairness.
  Next year's increase in standard spending assessment will give Barnsley authority an increase of just 4·6 per cent. —only 89 per cent. of the average increase for all the Metropolitan districts, 68 per cent. of the national average increase, 65 per cent. of the average of the shire counties increase and 55 per cent. of the increase given to the city of Westminster. The rate support grant settlement announced recently, the unfairness of the SSA and this year's reduction in the area support grant mean that the poll tax payers of Barnsley will have to pay significantly higher poll tax while the local authority is faced with a £5 million cut in its already depleted services.
  While I accept that someone has to be at the bottom of the league, the way that the figures are calculated means

  1023
  not only that we are at the bottom, but that the system is unfair. Why is it that for every £1 per adult that Barnsley receives, Manchester receives £1·78, Westminster receives £2, Liverpool receives £1·54 and Birmingham receives £1·53? How can the House accept that an average 1,000 pupil school, costs Manchester £654 per pupil more than it costs Barnsley? Surely there cannot be such a difference in the educational system of the two authorities. Why is my authority deprived of the money that other people are able to receive?
  While I think that the Secretary of State understands the problem, he cannot find a formula to alter Barnsley's position without altering that of every other local authority. His answer that someone has to be at the bottom does not alleviate Barnsley's problem. The gap between those at the top and bottom of the league is huge, and needs to be decreased through a restructuring of the grant system for all local authorities. I accept that that will mean that other local authorities will have to lose some of their grants, but the extent of the present unfairness is unbelievable.
  There are many effects of that injustice: roadworks are not carried out; the parks and recreation department has been cut to a minimum; repairs to schools have not been carried out for the past three to four years; the whole of the adult education system is now being wiped out; and social services provisions such as home helps has been curtailed. About 50 per cent. of social workers are currently on strike purely because the necessary regrading structure cannot be implemented because the money is not available.
  The fire service, which runs on the same standard spending assessment formula, is also affected. The fire service SSA was due to be increased by 9·2 per cent.—the highest increase for some time—but the capping level is below that. Therefore, the service cannot receive the 9·2 per cent. increase that it was supposed to have. Once the figure reaches 4·8 per cent., its levels are capped.
  The issue is significant in relation to the speech of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on foam furniture. The fire service, which is already 28 firemen short, will lose another 52 men because they cannot be paid. Training has been cut: for the past two years no senior officers have been sent to Moreton in the Marsh for specialised training because the money is not available. The trickle-down effect of that is that services and training are not available. There is a delay in the replacement of equipment, and repairs to equipment have been cut. That means that appliances are kept on the road for far longer than they should be without being serviced. Minimum basic training is disappearing.
  I know of a specific problem involving Mr. and Mrs. Hodgson of Rockley Abbey farm, Worsbrough, who farm various districts around my constituency, one of which is at Worsbrough, down White Cross lane. The only way out from that district involves crossing a railway bridge. The central farm is at Rockley Abbey; farm machinery and the stores of produce are kept in outlying regions. That means that 500 tonnes of corn, 300 tonnes of rape, 100 tonnes of barley and a quantity of beans have to be transported down that lane. British Rail has asked the local authority to reduce the restrictive load across the bridge from 30 to 3 tonnes, so the produce and farm machinery cannot now be moved across the bridge.
  Since April, nobody said a word to the farmer about that happening. Had he been told, a store would have been made on the other side of the bridge, but his produce is
  1024
  now waiting in a barn or a store. Farm equipment is on the wrong side of the bridge and it cannot be got across; nor can the containers go across to bring out the produce.
  Nothing has altered on the bridge since it was built. The structure and the surface are the same. Only the regulations about how to calculate the safety of a bridge have altered. It is merely a bit of paper which says that such a bridge can now carry only 3 tonnes. Since April, there have been arguments with the local authority about whose responsibility it is. The local authority, as the highway authority, has accepted that it is responsible. At
  a cost of £6,000—that sum has to be put to a committee because of poll tax capping—the authority could enable the bridge to carry 17 tonnes and thus allow the farm equipment to cross, but that would still not bring out the farm produce.
  It is inconceivable that in 1945 we could in a few hours build across the Rhine bridges that could bear armies, but that now we cannot build a bridge to carry corn in a 20-tonne load. British Rail insists that the work must go out to tender and that there must be a design stage before then. It is estimated that the work to increase the capacity to 17 tonnes will take three months.
  However, there is another problem. European Community regulations impose a certain way of bringing the corn across. They ask whether the load can be decanted and brought across in 10-tonne loads and pushed into 28-tonnes vans. That problem is currently being considered, but, even if the regulations are waived, there is still the problem that in three months the farmer will be near bankruptcy because the contracts that he had already signed to sell his produce cannot be kept. It is inconceivable that such an attitude should prevail.
  It is necessary only for British Rail to lift the restriction for a few hours and for its inspectors to be present to allow the load to cross. The local authority, having accepted a 17-tonne limit, could do the work in three months and the farmer could get his machinery across and store it on the other side.
  In the long term—this relates to standard spending assessments—it will cost the local authority £1 million to build a new bridge. It is a political issue because, in view of capping, the authority must decide whether, faced with crumbling schools and cuts in services, it can spend £1 million to build a bridge to satisfy the needs of a farmer who has a legal right to get his stock across.
  That is a Catch-22 situation and the Government must consider two aspects. First, they should persuade British Rail to lift the restrictions so that the farmer does not go bankrupt and, secondly, they must ensure that there is; sufficient flexibility to allow a local authority to spend the. money to remedy the problem with the bridge. If they do not, it will be clear how ridiculous and inflexible central and local government are in not allowing the authority to carry out its duties merely because of insufficient finances.
  Before the House rises, I should like to think that the produce will get across and that there will be some sensibility in the SSA to help my hard-pressed authority. I should also like to think that the Secretary of State who refused to meet representatives of the authority will at least have the magnanimity to recognise the problem and to use his good offices to remedy it. I should like to see some sensibility in the Government's attitude towards allowing local authorities to get on with their duties.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton): I shall follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) by talking about another public service, in this case one which is very near the heart of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, because he was once Secretary of State for Education and Science. I want to talk especially about adult education, and to ask for a clear statement of Government policy before the House rises for the Christmas recess. I appreciate that the House has exceptionally important business next week, but there are a number of matters about which there is considerable public concern and which need immediate clarification.
  During Question Time this week, I asked the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science about the representations that he had received on the future financing of adult education. he said:
  "I am aware of the concern felt by community colleges in Leicestershire, Devon and Cambridgeshire."
  He continued:
  "we can categorically reassure those colleges that they have nothing to fear."—[Official Report, 10 December 1991; Vol 200, c. 724.]
  The community college provision in Leicestershire and in many other counties is extremely important. Such colleges are, so to speak, schools during the day, and cater for varying ages, although in my constituency Rutland is different from what I would call "old Leicestershire". However, in the late afternoon and evening, they become an important part of adult and further education. I believe that the same is true in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). My wife, my family and I take advantage of these provisions at Uppingham community college in my constituency.
  Such institutions are important and are well respected by members of the public, so there is concern that they might be badly affected by the new Bill. Having had assurances from my hon. Friend, I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could repeat them and say that community colleges—I am not talking about colleges of further education—play an important part in Government thinking, and that the Government do not believe that they will be disadvantaged by the new arrangements.
  That would reassure the community colleges that have expressed their concern to me, and it would also reassure the Workers Educational Association, which is a respected organisation. The secretary of its east midlands district wrote to me—and, I am sure, to many other hon. Members representing east midlands constituencies:
  "There is no recognition of Role Education in the White Paper"—
  which is now a Bill. He continued:
  "This includes retirement education, school governor training, education for those actively involved in voluntary organisations, many courses enabling women to play a fuller part at work and in society and courses building the confidence of the unemployed."
  He asked:
  "Can you bring pressure to bear to identify and acknowledge the importance of this very large sector of adult education?"
  One specific aspect, I know, is of great concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), whom I am delighted to see here. Only the day before yesterday, he and I were discussing adult basic education, which means, in practice, helping people who have learning difficulties. Such people have often left school and
  1026
  might be in their late teens or twenties, or may be considerably older. Some may have handicaps and difficulties with reading skills.
  The usual method of assisting such people in Leicestershire and Rutland—and probably in other counties—is either to work in small groups with a maximum of 10 students with individual support and some voluntary assistance, or, in many cases, on a one-to-one basis in the student's home or in a neutral place such as a church hall. These people do not find it easy to go to formal classes in colleges of further education or schools.
  I have received a letter from some people who act as tutors or perform similar roles in Syston in my constituency:
  "Every student within the scheme is visited in their home by a specially trained tutor. The tutor finds out what the student's needs are and informs them of what adult basic education actually is. They tell them that the groups are small and informal, you leave whenever you feel ready and join when you want to. Students are treated as adults and therefore all our materials are adult based."
  The lady goes on to ask:
  "Informal groups such as ours help to build confidence and enable students to apply for better jobs or to attend further courses … Will an FE teacher be able to handle this situation correctly so as not to cause further harm, whilst getting information at the same time?"
  She goes on to ask whether students who are physically or mentally handicapped or who have Down's syndrome will be catered for in the new arrangements. She wants to know what will happen to groups during the day, held for unemployed people, mothers at home and people who cannot attend during the evening. These are genuine questions, and they must be answered.
  I have had a number of moving letters from students who are receiving help by means of adult basic education in community colleges, and receiving one-to-one teaching. I want clear assurances from my right hon. Friend that the matter will be properly dealt with.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to me on 28 October on this very matter:
  "We want to see a pattern of provision which makes the best use of facilities and expertise and which is readily accessible to local communities. This will mean using all resources properly—whether these are in further education colleges or in adult education centres and colleges run by local education authorities. We shall expect colleges and local authorities to work closely together, building on existing collaborative links, to secure a pattern of provision for adults which best suits local circumstances and is accessible to local communities. We are looking at this might be achieved."
  I presume that my hon. Friend meant, "looking at what might be achieved in this regard."
  I want clear assurances from my right hon. Friend that matters have moved on since that letter and that Ministers can reassure me, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and people from other county authorities in which adult basic education is handled on a one-to-one basis. We need to know that the new arrangements will not disadvantage these people, who are struggling and who often experienced difficulties in their school careers. They are trying to bring their reading and numeracy skills up to scratch so that they can go on to other courses, to better jobs or to any job at all.
  We must help these disadvantaged people. I am worried by the number of letters that I have had from them. They, in turn, are worried about the new proposals; and I look to my right hon. Friend to offer me clear assurances that their needs will be tackled.
  Sir John Farr: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way to me on this important subject. I echo all that he has said. Leicestershire is in a peculiar situation, because we have spent more than the national average on one-to-one education and adult basic education, and we want to be absolutely certain that anything the Minister puts in place under the new legislation will provide us with no less than we already enjoy in the form of high standards.
  Mr. Latham: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it so well. He reflects my views exactly. I commend his views, my own and those of my constituents to my right hon. Friend.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I should like to bring to the attention of the House serious matters that arose in Northern Ireland on Friday 22 November.
  That morning, the people of Northern Ireland read in their papers and heard on the broadcast media reports that, in its first ever decision, the Fair Employment Tribunal, established by an Act of this House in 1989, had found the Eastern health and social services board guilty of religious discrimination when making an appointment. That was regrettable, but my complaint is not with the finding of the tribunal. The news went on to say that the tribunal had found that it was discrimination, and thus unlawful, to display in a workplace the union flag and pictures of the royal family. It was also said that one of the board's supervisors had displayed a photograph of herself and a leader of a principal party in Ulster. We were told that that was also unlawful.
  These reports were based on a Fair Employment Commission press release issued the previous night. The first page of that release, after announcing in its first two sentences that the tribunal had held the board guilty of discrimination in failing to appoint a Catholic laundry worker to a permanent position, continued:
  "The tribunal recorded that the officers of the EHSSB who appeared and gave evidence appeared to know of the existence of the board's equal opportunities policy but that none of them were acquainted with the contents of that policy and none of them appeared to be in the least disturbed by that fact."
  The press release further recorded that the undisputed evidence of the applicant was that party tunes were played in the laundry, the union flag was displayed in the laundry, pictures of the royal family were displayed, and one supervisor displayed a photograph of herself and the leader of a political party in Ulster; but that the Eastern health and social services board stated that the board did not have a policy on such matters as flags and had no reason to think that offence would be taken to the union flag. The tribunal described the respondents' evidence as "contradictory and fundamentally so".
  This press release clearly gave prominence not to the reasons why the board failed to appoint the applicant but to what, on any reading of the case, was a peripheral issue. This emphasis was reinforced by the behaviour of one of the commission's directors who, the night the press release was issued, telephoned the main media outlets to let them know that the commission was releasing an important statement on flags and emblems. That of course biased the discussion the next day. The director followed that up in interviews. I did not hear those interviews, but the
  1028
  director's conduct of them has been described to me as aggressive and as leaving the listener in no doubt that these emblems must be removed from the workplace.
  The press release and the comments on it gave considerable offence to a wide range of people in Ulster who were appalled by the disrespect shown by a public body to the royal family.
  The story so far is bad enough. It gets worse when one realises that the reaction of the press and its presentation of the story was based on a complete misinterpretation of the tribunal's decision. The case concerned the failure of the board to make an appointment to a job and it turned on the reasons why other candidates had been preferred, and on the interviewing panel's assessment of those other candidates.
  The tribunal's reasons concentrated on the conduct of the interview. Paragraph 7(g) of the tribunal's judgment reads:
  "Whilst it is not in any sense conclusive regard can nevertheless be paid to"—
  three matters are mentioned here, and the fourth is:
  "whatever may be said about the effects of the union flag or indeed pictures of the royal family in the work place in Northern Ireland, the fact that the local management permitted the playing of party tunes in the laundry at Purdysburn".
  It is clear that in this part of the judgment the tribunal is taking into account only the playing of party tunes, which is fair enough. I should perhaps point out that "party tunes" does not refer to the sort of festive music in which people might be engaged at this time of the year. Party tunes might involve on one side Orange songs and on the other, Republican songs—or any other form of what we call diddle-de-de-music.
  It is fair enough to criticise the playing of party tunes, but it is also clear that the tribunal does not take into account at any point in its decision the display of the union flag and pictures of the royal family. The most that can be said from the Fair Employment Commission's viewpoint is that the tribunal left those matters to one side and criticised the absence of a board policy on them. But the FEC distorted matters so as to give a false impression. In the reasons given by the tribunal no reference was made to the photograph, which appeared prominently in the press release of the FEC.
  I consider the most damning aspect in the FEC's press release was the description by the tribunal of the board's evidence as "contradictory and fundamentally so", which, in the FEC's press release, comes after the words:
  "but that the [board] informed [the tribunal] that the board did not have a policy on such matters as flags and had no reason to think offence would be taken to the Union flag."
  That gives the reader the impression that "contradictory and fundamentally so" is related to this aspect. But it comes nowhere near the brief mention of flags in the tribunal's judgment; it comes at the tribunal's assessment of the evidence of the interviewing panel and its reasons for preferring someone else to the applicant. It is a comment on the evidence of the chairman of the interviewing panel when comparing the applicant with one of those successful in obtaining employment.
  I have said enough to show that the commission issued a press release which created a false impression. Sadly, I have to say that I am convinced that that false impression was created deliberately. This was not a case in which someone, in his enthusiasm, misinterpreted a complex legal document. The judgment was fairly short and clear.

  1029
  Moveover, the commission director who issued the press release is a lawyer who is perfectly capable of reading a short tribunal judgment correctly. She cannot have forgotten how to read a case so soon. You see, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that that commissioner is known to me not just as a lawyer but as a person of strong nationalist opinions who would probably be hostile to the display of our national flag or our sovereign's portrait at any point in Northern Ireland.
  There are important issues of principle. It is appalling that a public body should issue such falsehoods. That will only reinforce the widespread impression in Northern Ireland that the commission is biased, following its own political agenda. I am sorry to say that that impression is strengthened by the commission's silence since I first exposed the errors more than two weeks ago.
  The fair employment code of practice speaks of promoting a harmonious working environment where no worker feels threatened or intimidated. That is a fair objective. One can easily think of slogans and emblems which would intimidate. One could even think of circumstances in which the union flag might be used in an intimidating way—for example, by pushing it aggressively at people—but I cannot see how it can be said that our national flag or pictures of the royal family can by themselves ever be threatening or intimidating.
  If they were—if the commission's apparent view on the matter were followed—it would lead to absurdities. Portraits of Her Majesty are displayed as a matter of course in schools and police stations. The union flag is regularly used in advertising and packaging. It is even used by some firms which bear the name "British". Are those uses to be outlawed?
  It is significant that in this matter the commission has pursued and attacked only those emblems which express a British identity. It does not pursue the emblems of Irish nationalism with the same vigour, and it is silent on Roman Catholic religious symbols prominent in some schools and a national health service hospital—symbols which many would find offensive, not just on aesthetic grounds.
  The Northern Ireland Office must curb that campaign. I wrote to the Secretary of State on that matter on 25 November, nearly three weeks ago. Not only has there been no reply but to my knowledge no statement has been made by the Northern Ireland Office on the matter. It is time for that silence, which might appear to give consent, to be ended. I hope that the Leader of the House will arrange for a statement to be made on the matter before the House rises.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Douglas French: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) on the moving way in which he presented his case on behalf of those who have received contaminated blood. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) on a vintage performance in which he reminded the House of the great traditions and components of British public life. He is a touchstone of sound values and common sense, which we neglect at our peril.
  1030
  I was interested in the case made by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). He spoke about rail safety, and I want to refer to road safety, which merits attention before the House rises. Road safety usually finds a place in the Christmas Adjournment debate, because it is a sad fact that, during the holiday, there will be many road accidents. I hope that the number of those will be down on last year, but I am afraid that many will be killed or injured and vehicles will be damaged.
  In all such cases, the drivers will need to produce details of their insurance. Many will be able to provide such details for the police or for the other drivers involved on the spot, but unfortunately many will not. Some will not have their insurance certificate or cover note with them, some will think that they have it but on looking will find that they do not know where it is, and some may have to produce their documents at a police station within five days, a procedure which is reported to cost the police about £20 million a year. Some involved in an accident will adopt an indignant attitude because they believe that they are innocent, and may refuse to produce their documents altogether for fear that that might affect their no claims bonus.
  In some cases, it will be discovered that the insurance cover has expired, that the driver has no insurance cover at all, and that has serious consequences. Sometimes that situation might exist knowingly or even deliberately, and in other cases it will be the result of an oversight.
  On the face of it, that problem could be eased by requiring evidence of insurance to be displayed in the windscreen of every vehicle in the same way as the tax disc provides immediate and visible evidence that a vehicle has been taxed and may be used on the road. In the same way, an insurance disc could be required to be displayed in the windscreen, and would provide visible evidence of insurance cover.
  That would not be a total solution to the problem. The uninsured motorist who has failed for one reason or another to obtain the necessary insurance cover may not be persuaded by that procedure any more than the person who is determined to avoid the payment of the tax necessarily finds that the requirement to have a tax disc persuades him to abide by the law. But it can be fairly said that, if the tax disc were not required to be displayed, the level of evasion would be likely to be higher. It follows from that that, if an insurance disc were required to be displayed, the number of uninsured motorists would be likely to decrease.
  It has been estimated that the number of drivers driving while uninsured is in the region of 1 million. Some may have stolen the vehicle that they are driving, a situation which the House had an opportunity to consider on Monday, 9 December, when it debated the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill, but tonight I am not so much concerned with those who steal vehicles—they can be dealt with by separate legislation—as with those who decide to take a chance on not being insured. They may think that it is a fair bet that they are unlikely to run into difficulties if they do not have insurance cover, and will at the same time save a considerable amount of money. There are also those who simply neglect to get cover because they are disorganised or cannot be bothered, and who do not appreciate its importance.
  The proposal for an insurance disc has some objections. Under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the user of a vehicle is required to be insured rather than the vehicle

  1031
  itself. Some insurance policies cover an insured person and his spouse or a named driver only; it is not the vehicle that is insured but the individual. Therefore, an insurance disc would not necessarily prove that the person driving the vehicle was insured to drive it.
  A similar difficulty might be said to arise in regard to the use to which a vehicle is being put. Some policies restrict use to social, domestic and pleasure purposes only, and that problem would not automatically be solved by displaying an insurance disc on the windscreen. Such a disc would not provide total proof, because the terms of the policy might be being broken. However, it would provide usable and tangible evidence that cover of some kind existed in relation either to the driver or vehicle; evidence of the existence of an insurance policy, rather than proof of its adequacy.
  It would be possible to incorporate in the design of the disc information about the insurance cover in force. It could specify the name of the driver, which should be no more difficult than specifying the make of a car on a tax disc. Likewise, specifying the restricted use attributable to a particular driver should be no more difficult than specifying on a tax disc the class of vehicle that it covers.
  As to insurance being based on individuals rather than on vehicles, most people are accustomed to driving one or perhaps two vehicles most of the time—but an individual could display his or her own personal insurance disc in the windscreen at the beginning of a journey in any other car that they might drive.
  Those arrangements have found favour in several other countries. It is the prevailing system in France, Italy, Belgium, and the Irish Republic. It was introduced in Ireland and France as long ago as 1986, and has proved very successful. In Ireland, it was estimated that, prior to the system being introduced, as many as 20 per cent. of drivers on the roads in the Republic were uninsured. Within one year, the number fell to between 6 and 8 per cent. It was estimated also that each uninsured car was costing as much as £70 extra on the insurance of those drivers who did take out insurance.
  In the Republic of Ireland and in France, it has become the practice for insurers to provide discs as part of the certificate issued when a policy is granted, in the form of a tear-off section to be displayed in the vehicle's windscreen. If any details change during the term of the insurance, the old disc is called in and a new one is issued. That simple procedure has presented neither country with any difficulties.
  The time may eventually come when the Chancellor of the Exchequer decides to abolish vehicle excise duty and the tax disc in favour of a duty on petrol. Successive Chancellors have considered doing so for a very long time, and Jersey is to adopt that system with effect from 1 January 1993. If that practice were adopted in the UK, it would bring to an end the annual regular check on insurance, under which drivers are required to produce insurance documents before a new tax disc is issued. That would increase the argument in favour of being required to display a separate insurance disc.
  It remains an anomaly that, in order to obtain a vehicle excise disc that relates to a vehicle, one has to produce documents that relate to an individual. It is anomalous also that the driver's insurance may expire within a week of the issue of a tax disc that could remain valid for as long as one year afterwards.
  1032
  The scheme that I have described would discourage evasion and effect considerable savings in administrative and police costs, and in insurance premiums, and would provide greater certainty and knowledge for motorists. In due course, such a system could form part of a greater scheme in which driving licences, MOT certificates, excise duty, and insurance all found their way on to the same database, which would bring great benefits to the organisation of motoring in general. However, a good start could be made by the introduction of insurance discs.
  6.14 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I should not want the House to adjourn for the Christmas recess until I have raised the issue of the desirability of the Government reviewing the distribution of food surpluses from Europe.
  Today, I received a telephone call from a reporter on the Halifax Evening Courier informing me that, at 10 o'clock this morning, a constituent of mine—79-year-old Mrs. Maria Clark—died as she stood in the freezing cold, queuing for free surplus butter and beef that is distributed to those eligible for it. I understand that, earlier this week, two other elderly people collapsed as they queued for hours in the cold for that food.
  In March, a member of the women's section of the Halifax branch of the Royal British Legion contacted me for advice on how she could help to distribute food surpluses. I contacted the local authority's director of social services, Mrs. Meryl Denton, who arranged for that lady to approach the local Council for Voluntary Service's. It decided to apply for a licence to distribute food surpluses—as did another voluntary organisation, the Islamic Cultural Centre.
  I tried to highlight through the local press the fact that Government policy meant that not all elderly people were eligible to free surplus food, but only those who are on income support, and that strict criteria had to be observed. The local press did a very good job in conveying that information to the public. However, many pensioners who believed that they could be recipients were left disappointed when they realised that they were not eligible.
  Such has been the increase in poverty during the last 12 years under a Conservative Government that 17,000 people in Halifax and the Calder valley are eligible for free butter and beef. The local authority cannot act as a distributor, and in any case does not have the money or the resources to do so, given the cuts that it has suffered in recent years as a consequence of poll tax capping and the rest.
  Instead, applications to serve as distributors were made by the CVS and the Islamic Cultural Centre. I supported the former's application, but was unaware of the second. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the ICC applied, because the application by Mrs. Jackie Stark of the CVS was turned down by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In August, she received notification that it had been made one day late. She was very cross, and disputed the fact that her application was late.
  Given that it took the Ministry five months to respond. I cannot help but suspect petty bureaucracy and deliberate obstruction. The Ministry could be much more helpful to the voluntary sector, which is hard pressed trying to cope' with the state's abandonment of caring for the less well-off.

  1033
  That left the Islamic Cultural Centre. I place on record my gratitude and thanks to that organisation, which works hard to distribute food to queues of literally thousands of people who turn up every time that it is available. It is a small organisation, and its centre cannot accommodate indoors all those who queue for the food. The Asian community are known for their respect for the elderly and concern for those who are not very well off. The ICC had a herculean task given the resources available to it, and it worked very hard.
  I can think of no other recent incident that serves to highlight the way in which the Government have divided society and impoverished our nation over the past 12 years. The queues for food are reminiscent of what we saw in the 1930s. I find it tragic that a 79-year-old woman should die in freezing cold conditions while queueing for food.
  The Government should be ashamed of their inability to organise a better distribution method. Every community should provide a place to which people can take a voucher and collect the food to which they are entitled, without experiencing the humiliation of queueing in the cold. All pensioners should be automatically eligible to such provision, as should everyone who receives benefit. The present criterion is much too mean.
  I understand that the United States has called today for a conference on food aid for people of the Soviet Union to be held in Washington. In the light of what has happened in my constituency, I feel that the United Kingdom should be included in that conference.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. William Powell: I understand that the Select Committee on Sittings of the House—which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)—is considering a proposal that Adjournment debates such as this should cease to be part of our procedure. I hope that, if any such proposal is made, the House will reject it.
  Yet again, our debates this afternoon have been extremely interesting and informative. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) made a characteristically splendid speech, and the moral strength with which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) treats the subject that he raised is without parallel. The quiet authority with which he advanced his case made his speech one of the most impressive that I have ever heard in the House, and I hope very much that it will be taken seriously by my right hon. Friend and his colleagues.
  I strongly agreed with what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said about Croatia. I am a member of the all-party group chaired by the hon. Gentleman, and I have twice called in the House for the recognition of Croatia. What is going on there now besmirches the reputation of our continent, and we must take a more robust attitude towards bringing the current dangerous nonsense to a halt.
  We have heard other remarkable speeches this afternoon. It would be a great pity, and would diminish our procedures, if Adjournment debates ceased to take place.
  1034
  A year ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) asked for the prosecution of President Saddam Hussein for war crimes. She was quite right, and I strongly supported her view that he should be brought before a suitable international tribunal and required to account for his behaviour in the Gulf region.
  The United Kingdom, Germany and the United States are all extremely concerned about the prosecution of those who are alleged to have been involved in the bombing of the aeroplane that exploded over Lockerbie a year or two ago. Warrants are out for their arrest, and no one has a greater admiration than I for the work of the Lord Advocate and the constabulary of Dumfries and Galloway: they have carried out a magnificent investigation. The fact remains, however, that it will be virtually impossible for us to bring those whom we wish to hold to account before any criminal tribunal in this country. Moreover, we must be honest and admit that the reputation of the quality of justice administered in British courts is not as good as we should like, following the alarming miscarriages of justice that have taken place in recent years.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley was absolutely right to call for the prosecution of Saddam Hussein; there is, however, no international tribunal before which he, or any other international criminal, can be brought to justice. I hope that the country will begin to take seriously the work that is being done in the United States and many other countries to establish such a tribunal, under the authority of the United Nations.
  The first international court of criminal justice—I am not talking about appeal courts or bodies such as the European Court; I am talking about first-instance criminal courts which try people to establish their guilt or innocence—was established in 1474, in Breisach, Germany. No fewer than 27 judges of the Holy Roman Empire—I imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge approves of the Holy Roman Empire just as much as you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker—judged and condemned Peter von Hagenbach for his violations of the laws of God and man. He had allowed his troops to rape, kill and pillage innocent German citizens and their property.
  Modern international criminal law began with the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Those present—we heard about Prince Metternich only last week—discussed an international law relating to the suppression of the slave trade. Since then, there have been no fewer than 315 declarations, international instruments and protocols on substantive international criminal law, covering 22 crimes that could be recognised as having a genuinely international dimension: aggression, war crimes, unlawful use of weapons, crimes against humanity, genocide, apartheid, slavery and related practices, unlawful human experimentation, torture, piracy and crimes on board commercial vessels, aircraft hijacking and the sabotage of aircraft, kidnapping of diplomats and other internationally protected persons, the taking of civilian hostages, the mailing of explosive and dangerous objects, illicit drug cultivation and trafficking, destruction and theft of national and archaeological treasures, environmental damage, bribery of foreign public officials, international traffic in obscene materials, interference with submarine cables and the false accounting and theft of nuclear weapons and materials. Many of those are grounds on which an indictment or impeachment could be applied to

  1035
  Saddam Hussein—and ought to be—but the world has no tribunal before which he, or anyone else who could legitimately be charged with such crimes, can be tried.
  From time to time, efforts have been made to establish such an arrangement. At the end of the first world war, at Versailles, it was agreed that the Kaiser could be tried; he was not tried. It was agreed that the Turkish leaders could be tried for the mass genocide of 600,000 Armenians during their occupation of the area in which Armenians lived during the first world war, but no progress was made. After the second world war, international tribunals were established at Nuremberg and in Tokyo, but their authority was subsequently undermined. Meanwhile, the United Nations has been trying to establish an international court of criminal jurisdiction.
  This is not the first time that I have raised the matter in the House. I did so in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I did not, of course, expect my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to have sufficient grasp of the subject to reply, but I did expect him to pass on my views to the Foreign Office. I expect that he did so, but I have heard nothing from the Foreign Office about the action that it is taking. I regard that as disgraceful: I do not believe that the Foreign Office is doing anything about the matter, and it ought to be doing something.
  An immense amount of work is being done in the world, under the leadership of one of the most remarkable legal scholars alive today—Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni, professor of law at De Paul University in Chicago, Illinois. His international institute has the support of the Italian Ministry of Justice in Syracuse, Sicily. Officials as well as academics in many countries have worked hard and the United Nations has published two draft constitutions for such an international court—the most recent was published in 1990. Professor Bassiouni took the leading role in the preparation of each, and is regarded as the UN draftsman on the subject.
  What should we be doing? I have several suggestions. First, this country is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Given the change in the international situation since the collapse of the iron curtain, and the fact that the UN is now for the first time capable of operating in the framework which its founding fathers envisaged, we and the other permanent members of the Security Council should take a lead in bringing forward the draft convention which is in place and turning it into agreed international law with an agreed permanent international tribunal capable of enforcing it.
  I shall not go into detail on all the legal rules, and so on. They are all there. For the benefit of the House, they are easily available in the spring 1991 editions of the Nova Law Review and the Indiana International and Comparative Law Review. My right hon. Friend and our colleagues in the Foreign Office may find the articles by Professor Bassiouni in those two journals rather more interesting than many of the other documents that they may be given by their Departments to take away over the Christmas recess.
  We need to start taking the matter seriously not only in the Security Council but in the European Community. Over the past few days, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with our other right hon. Friends, has been involved most successfully at Maastricht, but in the new architecture of the European Community no place has been found for an international criminal tribunal dealing
  1036
  with European matters. I am convinced that, if there were such a tribunal, it would be easier to bring those accused of the Lockerbie bombing to justice.
  Surely that would be true in the dimension of Irish terrorism, too. The quality of justice in British courts has been called into question from Ireland so many times that I am sure that it would be easier to overcome the difficulties of extradition if we had an international tribunal operating on a European basis.
  One of the biggest deficiencies in the European institutions is the absence of such an international court. I hope that we will use our presidency of the Council of Ministers in the second part of next year to advance and bring to a successful conclusion the establishment of such a court.
  One other factor is noticeable. Not only is the Foreign Office doing very little, if anything, but almost none of the vast literature on the subject is British. Almost none comes from English or Scottish universities, or the professional literature of lawyers and law libraries. In this country, an international tribunal is a Cinderella subject. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor should do much more to stimulate the study of how such an international institution could be used to overcome some of the deficiencies in our present system.
  I have already said that Professor Bassiouni is one of the outstanding legal scholars in the world today. His work seems to be taken seriously in almost every country in the world—except this country. I am glad to say that in the United States Congress his work has been pursued with considerable vigour by Senator Specter and Congressman Jim Leach, who have brought the idea to the attention of the American public.
  It is worth remembering that the US Senate voted by 97 votes to two that Saddam Hussein be brought to trial—but even if we manage to get hold of him, there would still be no place to try him. That problem must be dealt with.
  In his seminal article in the Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, Professor Bassiouni concluded:
  "We no longer live in a world where narrow conceptions of jurisdiction and sovereignty can stand in the way of an effective system of international co-operation for the prevention and control of international and transnational criminality. If the United States and the Soviet Union can accept mutual verification of nuclear arms controls, then surely they and other countries can accept a tribunal to prosecute not only drug traffickers and terrorists"—
  and those who ensnare people into slavery, and so on—
  "but also those whose actions constitute such … crimes as aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture.
  Many of the international crimes for which the court would have jurisdiction are the logical extension of international protection of human rights."
  I entirely agree with Professor Bassiouni. We proclaim human rights again and again. Many people both in the House and elsewhere have distinguished reputations for proclaiming human rights. Long may they continue—but it is not enough merely to declare human rights: we must provide a forum in which we can enforce them. Some human rights can be enforced in the domestic courts of individual countries, but the world is getting smaller all the time. More and more crimes are being carried out across borders, and many of those crimes are becoming more serious in their extent, scope and inhumanity.

  1037
  That is why it is our duty to do everything that we can to ensure that there is a tribunal available that has authority not only in our continent but throughout the world. Great Britain should take the lead.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ensure that this time my remarks are brought to the attention of the relevant Ministers, and that action is taken to ensure that an idea which I am certain would command wide support in this country if only people were aware of it, can make greater progress than it has done hitherto.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: There is one more Conservative Back-Bench Member who wishes to speak, and as the Front-Bench spokemen want to sum up soon. I shall try to split the remaining time between us. I imagine that if I take five minutes that will not be too long.
  I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the theme of my speech, because you, more than anyone else, already know what I shall say. I have raised the issue in the House with growing momentum since the Report stage of the Bill that introduced the poll tax, because it was obvious that that would have some devastating consequences. We now have empirical evidence and details to show that that was true: the poll tax has seriously damaged electoral registration in this country.
  A report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys reveals that 1 million people are missing from the electoral register—2·5 per cent. of those entitled to be registered. That represents the equivalent of 21 parliamentary seats—more seats than exist in Northern Ireland, for example—having their entire electorate disappear. But there is no problem with the franchise in Northern Ireland, because it never had the poll tax. The register there is in a healthy state.
  The worst deficiency in the register is in youngsters coming up to vote for the first time—those approaching 18, who are called "attainers". The attainer figures in Northern Ireland are healthier than they have ever been. They are worse than they have been in recent years in Scotland, in England and in Wales. They began to become worse first in Scotland where the poll tax was introduced. The House should be deeply concerned about that.
  I make no apology to the House for raising the issue, because I think that we should take the matter seriously. It should not be left to me to raise the matter as if it were my bugbear. The Government expecially should take the matter seriously. It is appropriate to raise the subject on the Christmas Adjournment because we are approaching the time when there must be a general election. We still have some opportunity to try to do something about the disastrous situation.
  We cannot put the electoral register right before a general election, but we can at least show that we are aware of the problem. Money spent on seeking to encourage electoral registration would be worth while. Advertising on television, in cinemas and on billboards to encourage people to register is of vast importance. There are about 350,000 expatriate voters on the register who have been encouraged by new legislation. We have spent £22·50 of public money for each voter who has been registered. For
  1038
  registration in this country on what is supposed to be the compulsory register, we have spent one tenth of a penny per person. We should spend considerably more.
  There has been massive expenditure on all types of Government advertising, such as advertising for fancy employment schemes and for privatisation programmes. The money spent on advertising to encourage electoral registration amounted to 0·32 per cent. of the Government's total publicity expenditure.
  The matter should seize us considerably. We are supposed to believe in democracy and in a full franchise, but those views are becoming dogma from the past. We repeat them without fully understanding them. The people who fought for the franchise through the Reform Acts of the 19th century and through the legislation that introduced votes for women in 1919 and 1928, which finally gave us a full franchise, understood the importance of people having a vote and a full say in decision making. It is now becoming a matter that should apply to Europe as a whole and to proper democratic federal structures in which the vote begins to mean something and is not neutralised by deals being done in secret by the Council of Ministers.
  We must ensure that the franchise is correct. It would be bad enough if the franchise were being destroyed at random so that a cross-section of voting patterns was affected, but what is happening is worse. The poll tax has deterred from registration the people who have most to fear from its operation and who have the most reason to object to the Government. A fiddle is involved in the franchise.
  The Leader of the House knows the matter well, because I have often raised it with him. I hope that he will tell us tonight that something is being done to overcome the problem and that legislation will be introduced which stipulates that the two registers are kept wholly separate from each other and that the present arrangement by which they are linked by computer will cease.
  We introduced legislation to try to separate the census from poll tax provisions in the Census (Confidentiality) Bill. If something similar were produced for the operation of the poll tax, it would at least be a sign that things were being done. The council tax, which is the likely successor to the poll tax, will still require a register for local authorities.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to raise three points. Last week, Essex county council decided to give my constituents and their children a Christmas present by announcing in a sub-committee that it intended to close Fryerns secondary school. The announcement came as a bolt out of the blue. There was no consultation and there was not even the common courtesy of informing the local Member of Parliament. As ever, the local socialists were out next day delivering leaflets saying, "Save Fryerns school. Vote Labour." They play at politics; I intend to ensure that the school does not close. As long as I am Member of Parliament for Basildon, there will be no closure of schools in my constituency.
  I have five children, which is not unusual for Basildon. In contrast to the rest of Essex, we have a growing population. The idea that the other six secondary schools could absorb the children from Fryerns schools is crazy.

  1039
  Over the past year, I have spent a lot of time working with the excellent headmaster, Mr. Slater, and his wonderful teaching staff. They offer the full range of the national curriculum, they concentrate on helping children who have special educational needs and they run an excellent adult education centre. We certainly need Fryerns school. I give Essex county council a warning. Fryerns school will not close and I intend to ensure that it does not close.
  At my surgery on Saturday, I had a deputation from shopkeepers in Whitmore way. In Basildon, we have the largest covered shopping centre in Europe. It is an excellent shopping centre and I hope that people throughout the country will do their Christmas shopping in Basildon. One effect of the covered shopping centre has been that local traders have suffered to an extent. The Basildon development corporation and the Commission for New Towns have spent a huge amount of British taxpayers' money on the infrastructure in Basildon. There is, of course, a duty for the CNT to return some of that investment to the British taxpayer.
  However, it came as a tremendous blow to the local shopkeepers when they recently received the rent review on the leases of their shops. Most of those people are small shopkeepers who have been in the town for 30 years. They have found that their rents have gone up by 50 or 75 per cent. That is not acceptable. Trading conditions over the past 18 months, as we all know, have not been favourable in the south. We need to help those small shopkeepers stay in business and the rent proposals are quite unacceptable.
  Earlier this year, I tried to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951. I know that it may seem unpleasant to spoil children's fun at Christmas, but, extraordinarily, under the Act minors are allowed to go into pet shops without their parents' permission and to purchase all kinds of animals including dogs and exotic reptiles. I am delighted to say that the House gave my Bill an unopposed Second Reading. The Bill was referred to a Standing Committee, but we ran out of time.
  I hope that the House will unite on the issue. We can then amend the 1951 Act so that any child who wishes to purchase a pet will have to have the permission of a parent or, better still, be accompanied by a parent. As the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals can testify, many pets are abandoned at Christmas time. Let us make this a happy Christmas for human beings and also for animals.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: The debate on the Christmas Adjournment is always interesting. Hon. Members speak on a variety of subjects about which they feel strongly and on which they feel they are knowledgeable. However, it is an impossible debate to respond to. Therefore, I will not make much of an attempt to respond to it but instead will concentrate on a few issues that I believe it is appropriate to consider at this time of the year.
  I am sure that hon. Members were concerned to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) about people infected with HIV. Several other contributions will also be worth reading.
  I cannot possibly carry on without mentioning the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). As a result of his position as deputy Chief Whip, he does not often have an opportunity to speak in the
  1040
  House. However, my word, I enjoyed his speech today. Perhaps we should alter the convention that deputy Chief Whips should not speak in the Chamber.
  I apologise for not being able to respond to all the points that have been raised. I want instead to refer to two issues that have a holiday and seasonal flavour. The first is holidays, and in particular bank holidays, and the second is television, which is the nation's most popular entertainment during holiday periods and which, for reasons that I will spell out briefly, is facing tremendous problems not least as a result of the Broadcasting Act 1990.
  As hon. Members will be aware, we will enjoy three bank holidays during the Christmas recess, two of which—Christmas day and new year's day—are common throughout the European Community. That is a basic standard of provision for workers throughout the Community. I am not sure whether the Government are hostile towards that harmonisation of holidays. Perhaps they feel that our competitiveness would improve if there were no holidays in this country or that investment would flow into this country if we ended those basic minimum standards of provision. However, even this Government must agree that it is not a bad idea to have some bank holidays. Mercifully, we will not have an opportunity to discover whether the Government want those privileges to be removed because the Conservatives will not be in office for much longer.
  It is worth drawing attention to the fact that we have the worst provision of any European Community country in respect of national public holidays. We have only eight and we will be using up three of them in the next few weeks. Ireland and Holland have nine; Italy and Denmark have 10; Germany and France have 11; Luxembourg and Portugal have 12; and Belgium, Greece and Spain have 13. I cannot for the life of me understand why we should not have more public holidays in this country. I am a reasonable fellow, so I will not ask for 13 overnight. However, perhaps we should have 11, the average for the Community.
  The bank holiday on 25 December will be the first bank holiday since 24 August. That is a huge gap. Almost every other country has at least one public national holiday between those dates. Only Denmark and Holland are the same as us in that respect. It is high time that we had a holiday between 24 August and 25 December. That is another harmonisation that I would be delighted to see developed. There would be no crisis of confidence in British industry if we had another holiday then. The Government talk about a crisis in confidence whenever we make any improvements in basic employment rights. There would be no flight of capital, so why not will the Government take a risk in that respect?
  The other subject to which I want to refer which is oddly appropriate at Christmas time is the television industry and broadcasting in general. Whether we like it or not, television is the national recreation at Christmas time. The highest viewing figures always occur on Christmas day. The figures stagger me: 30 million of our fellow citizens will be watching television at peak time on Christmas day. The average person watches television for six hours on Christmas day. Over the last Christmas holiday period, an average of thirty-three hours of television were watched by our fellow citizens. That figure is much higher than for the rest of the year.

  1041
  I believe that the British television industry and British programmes produced by British television are the best in the world. It would be a sad day if we began to slide down the road towards American-style television. I should perhaps declare an interest as I once worked in the industry, but I have no financial involvement with the industry now.
  Morale and confidence in the television industry are at an all-time low, largely as a direct and deliberate result of the Government. I do not often pray in aid the present and former Prime Ministers. However, we all know the former Prime Minister's view of what she did to the television industry via the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the ludicrous franchise round that followed. When TV-am was told that it could not continue to broadcast, she wrote a letter to Bruce Gyngell in which she said that she was "only too painfully aware" that she was responsible for the system and that she was "mystified and heartbroken" by what had happened. It is astonishing that anyone could respond like that to legislation for which her Government had been responsible.
  Even the present Prime Minister announced in his usual ringing rhetorical tones, "I don't think it has been an optimum success." That was his description of what happened during the franchise round. What happened was absurd. Sixteen companies had to tender for the franchise by placing bids in sealed brown envelopes. On those bids depended the jobs, programme plans, hopes and careers of many people and, most fundamentally, the quality of the programmes that we see on our screens.
  The results of the round were absurd. The most dramatic contrast involved Central Television, which I was delighted was able to beat the system. It received its franchise with a bid of £2,000 a year, while Yorkshire Television—a smaller company—bid £38 million a year. There are no winners or losers in such a situation. It was a farce of free enterprise and so-called market forces. The irony is that the franchise that went via market forces was TV-am, about which the former Prime Minister was most upset.
  Of the 16 independent television companies, three went to the sole bidders; five went to the highest bidders—Anglia, Tyne Tees Television, HTV and a couple of others. Eight were awarded on so-called quality grounds; in other words, the franchise went, not to the highest bidder, but to one of the others.
  The net result has been chaos and uncertainty in the ITV system and that is mirrored in many ways by fear and anxiety in the BBC. The BBC is deeply afraid of the plans that the Government—should they remain in office—have for it. I can reassure the BBC that none of those plans will come to fruition, but it is still very worrying for the people working at the BBC.
  As a result of all the changes, about £100 million which was previously available for programme making will go to the Treasury through taxation, and that is bound to have an effect on programme quality.
  I referred to the number of people who will watch television over the Christmas period, but I did not mention that much of that television material would be made by the BBC. About 150 hours of Christmas programming is made by British film editors, producers, production assistants, location managers, lighting engineers and
  1042
  sound engineers. All that expertise is in Britain, and it is under threat because of the Government's broadcasting lottery.
  Conservative Members do not often get worked up about some matters, but I shall mention one about which they will get worked up. Another effect of the so-called free market on broadcasting is that, in the gloomy days of February when the world cup cricket series is being played in a sunny clime, because of a higher bid by British Satellite Broadcasting, we will not be able to see it on our television screens. The free market at work will ensure that most of our fellow citizens will not be able to watch it. I hope that plenty of constituents rightly complain about the operation of the free market on broadcasting.
  Mr. Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Grocott: I cannot give way, as I have only a minute left.
  I should like to think that the Government would pay attention to those considerations, but I know that they will not do so. In a sense, that does not matter, because the Government will not be with us for much longer. The only reason why this Parliament is stumbling on is that the Government are waiting and hoping that something will turn up. There is no raison d'etre left for this Parliament. It has no functions of substance left to perform. The Government have no mandate left to fulfil. As we all know, it is simply a matter of the Prime Minister checking the opinion polls and hoping desperately that three or four in succession will show a slim lead for him. As soon as that happens, Parliament will be dissolved. The sooner that happens, the better.
  7.1 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons Mr. John MacGregor): Unlike the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), I do not have the luxury of not being able to respond to the debate. As always, many interesting and often detailed points have been raised. I try to keep abreast of most issues of policy, but I cannot cover every detail of what happens in constituencies. As usual, there has been a fair amount of telephoning to Departments during the debate. If I do not manage to cover all the points in the short time available to me, I will certainly draw Members' comments to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), with his characteristic courtesy, warned me that he could not stay for the end of the debate. However, I must comment on his speech. As always, my hon. Friend spoke for England, which makes me wonder how appropriate it is for a Scotsman to reply to his comments. However, as I have represented an English seat for nearly 18 years, I can say that we would be sad if we did not hear his voice and sentiments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge paid tribute to the armed forces. As recent conflicts have shown, the benefits of their discipline, courage, training and professionalism have been very evident. He also commented on the effect of progressive methods in education. He had in mind some of the heavy emphasis on child-centred education in primary schools. He will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I have

  1043
  been concerned about such matters and have been trying to obtain a different approach in some of our primary schools.
  My hon. Friend was a little off balance today in the picture that he painted. He might have pointed out that there are many outstanding teachers and clergymen, and a huge improvement in British management. In the 1970s, there was constant interference by the Government and difficult industrial relations which prevented managers from managing. We must contrast that with the position today: many British firms are performing extremely well, not least in export markets. I hope that he will agree that, over the past 10 years, there has been a huge improvement rather than the reverse.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the competitive world in which we live. I could not agree more. In training, which is a vital part of the performance of British industry, we have seen a two and a half times increase in real terms in Government expenditure on training, and, of course, a massive £20 billion emphasis on training and expenditure on training by British industry. I am pleased that that training priority has been maintained throughout the past year.
  The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) made a rare but very welcome contribution to the debate. It was an understandable intervention. It was sad that it had to be about such a tragic accident. I am sure that the whole House would wish to offer its sincere condolences to Mr. and Mrs. Mohamed on the loss of their daughter. I understand that the authorities concerned—British Rail and the South Tyneside metropolitan borough council—are pursuing the provision of an alternative access road to land on the south side of Harrison farm crossing with a view to closing the crossing. The hon. Gentleman emphasised that he wanted a public apology from British Rail for some of the comments that he quoted from local newspapers. Of course, I will refer his comments to the chairman of British Rail, and Iwill do that straight after the debate.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) spoke very movingly about what happens in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to our sentiments as we move towards the Christmas period. All hon. Members share his view about Mr. Hill and hope that he will recover. We share absolutely the abhorrence of terrorist activities to which he referred. I join him in his tribute to the business men of Northern Ireland for their resilience and determination. The hon. Gentleman knows well that the Government remain absolutely committed to bringing terrorism to a permanent end.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) raised a couple of points, one of which was about homelessness in Manchester. He will know of the considerable sums of money—
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give way at all.
  Mr. Morris: It was not only about Manchester.
  Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman referred to Manchester. I cannot give way, because I must be fair to all hon. Members.
  I was about to say that, with reference to homelessness, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the concentration
  1044
  is very much on London, because many people come to London for a variety of reasons. He will be aware that there has been a considerable increase in the provision available to the homeless. About £100 million over three years is being spent on that issue because of the heavy concentration of the problem in London.
  In respect of areas outside London, where concentrations of rough sleepers are comparatively small, the Government expect individual local authorities to make emergency provision for people sleeping out in their areas. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government provide funding for voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness throughout the country. Grants totalling £4·5 million have been given in the current financial year to 93 voluntary organisations in England, which involves an increase of about 30 per cent. in expenditure. I have in front of me the names of the three organisations in Manchester which are currently receivilng support.
  Another important point is that much housing stock in Manchester—6·5 per cent. of homes—is currently empty. Action on that front by local authorities is a way of dealing with the problem. There are points that I could make about repossessions, but, in view of the time, I must move on.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked particularly for answers to some factual questions that he raised with my hon. Friend the Minister for Health. I have been endeavouring to obtain answers in the short time available since the right hon. Gentleman spoke, and I regret to say that I cannot supply the figures that he requires. However, he will know that the Government expect local authorities to be well aware of their legal responsibilities under the 1970 legislation and to ensure that their policies and practices comply with it. The Government have powers to intervene in alleged cases of default, and will not hesitate to do so if necessary.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) made a most moving speech. We understand not only his tremendous interest in such matters but his outstanding concern. His point has been substantially considered already and raised on many occasions in the House. I have great sympathy with the plight of those who have been infected with HIV as a result of blood transfusion.
  As my hon. Friend knows—this will disappoint him —the House has only recently decided that it does not support the principle of no-fault compensation for medical accidents. I say "disappointed" because that point has already been made to him in the context of that case. It is widely accepted that the haemophiliacs are a special case, and the Government have acted accordingly. However, we have not been convinced that the blood transfusion recipients who have been infected by HIV are a similar special case, but we would consider any new arguments that might be made. As my hon. Friend requested—this was his precise point to me—I shall certainly draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who has also advised me that he cannot be present for the close of the debate, raised the question of the recognition of Croatia. As he will know, considerable efforts are being made to try to achieve a lasting ceasefire in Yugoslavia and my noble Friend Lord Carrington has been unceasing in his efforts, as has the European

  1045
  Community. In addition, Mr. Cyrus Vance has only recently returned from a visit to Yugoslavia. I understand that his report to the United Nations will be issued today.
  We shall continue actively to explore the possibility of United Nations involvement. However, recognition would not stop the fighting. The Serbs could be provoked to tighten their grip on the areas of Croatia that they now hold. Recognition now, without any agreement on such issues as minorities, could be a recipe for chaos. The southern republics might also seek independence, and fighting could spread to them. Although there are difficulties, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been taking the closest interest in all the peacekeeping efforts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) raised two matters. The first related to foam-filled furniture, an issue in which I recall being involved when I served at the Department of Trade and Industry. As my hon. Friend knows, the United Kingdom supports the introduction of the European directive that will provide a level of fire protection that is commensurate with the requirements of our furniture regulations. However, the Commission's former proposals were not acceptable because they would have resulted in a lower level of safety requirements than we already have. They would not have provided any protection against the toxic effects of foam fillings. We have made it clear to the Commission that the United Kingdom will retain its regulations until a satisfactory regime is available under the directive. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to pursue that point.
  My hon. Friend's second point related to animal welfare. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When I held that post, I put a lot of effort into animal welfare issues and into trying to ensure that the Community sought to achieve similar high standards to our own. My hon. Friend referred especially to the new directives on pigs and calves. They do not satisfy the necessary basic welfare requirements that are provided for in our legislation. That is why we voted against them. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to press for the Commission's reviews to be completed as soon as possible.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raised a detailed case relating to fair employment tribunals. It would be wrong for me to comment on a tribunal decision. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Fair Employment Commission is independent of Government. However, I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who will bear them in mind. I can advise the hon.
  1046
  Gentleman immediately, however, that there is nothing wrong with the display of the Union flag or royal portraits in appropriate locations and circumstances. I have already referred to the difficulty of making statements next week, so I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman one then but, as I have said, I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) spoke interestingly and with much knowledge on the subject of uninsured drivers. I shall draw his suggestion about the introduction of insurance discs to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
  I advise the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that the Community funds for butter aid allow for considerable expenditure in this country. About £43 million-worth of surplus produce has been distributed in the past three years, and we rely on the voluntary organisations to carry out that distribution. This year we have designated 774 organisations as potential participants, which is way up on the number designated last year. That is why there must be rules. Although I greatly sympathise with the hon. Lady's constituent, I do not know of the individual circumstances to which she referred.
  I have only one comment to make about the closing remarks of the hon. Member for The Wrekin. There are plenty of raisons d'etre for the House to continue with this Session, because we have plenty of work to do. His comments totally ignored the fundamentally important outcome of the Maastricht negotiations and the importance of the fact that it was my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary who undertook those negotiations, not his right hon. Friends, as the country has widely recognised. That is why the country will want my right hon. Friends to lead Britain into the 1990s and beyond.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House at its rising on Friday 20th December do adjourn until Monday 13th January 1992.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

  Crime
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: It is said that fortune smiles alike on the just and the unjust, and I am grateful that in the ballot for this evening's debate, fortune did not make that distinction, because I invite the House to consider the subject of crime and how to reduce it. That subject is a source of great concern to my constituents.
  In the industrial black country of the west midlands, we could list many problems. We are never short of topics for conversation these days, but one recurring source of anxiety is the crime wave. I accept that the statistics show that the increase is not uniform across all offences, but no one will persuade the people of Rowley Regis and Oldbury that crime has not been increasing or that it is not continuing to increase. Their experience tells them what the statistics confirm—that between 1980 and 1989, recorded crime rose by 46 per cent. In 1990, the last year for which we have the figures, it increased by a further 17 per cent. And those figures relate only to recorded crime. People increasingly say to me, "I had a break-in but, no, I did not report it. What's the use?" I shall return to what they mean by that observation in a moment.
  My constituents sometimes read about massive frauds, and some of them are the victims of what has come to be known as white collar crime. However, when they speak about crime, they have in mind the burglary of people's homes, malicious damage and petty but distressing assaults. They believe that it is a function of Government to do something about it. They have lived for 12 years with a Government who believe that nothing is the legitimate concern of Government. It is all the fault of parents or of the decline in churchgoing or of the break-up of the family. That is a bit rich from a Government whose policies on the poll tax and social benefits are driving children away from home.
  "But," the Government say, "it is nothing to do with us." My constituents do not accept that. They believe that Governments can do something about the increase in crime, especially when they see the Home Secretary receiving standing ovations at successive Conservative party conferences for saying that he jolly well will do something about it.
  I do not suggest that there is a single simple solution that will restore law and order at a stroke. There are as many ways of reducing crime as there are reasons why people commit crime. Human conduct—whether human virtue or human wickedness—is not reducible to one single motivation. I would not dispute that increasing the penalties that the courts may impose may help to reduce some offences.
  As the Minister of State and my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will recollect —I am encompassed about with a great cloud of witnesses —earlier in the year I was responsible for tabling an amendment in Committee to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to increase the penalty for badger baiting. To her credit, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) listened and was persuaded. I believe that increasing the penalty will go some way to reducing that vicious manifestation of cruelty.
  1048
  My constituents would not dispute with the Home Secretary the part that increased penalties can sometimes play, but they think it reasonable to expect that he should sometimes have some other ideas. Like the old army doctors who thought that the answer to every complaint was a laxative pill, the Home Secretary goes on prescribing the same remedy as he offered last time, while the patient's condition continues to deteriorate. That is despite the fact that the Home Office, even under Tory Governments, has produced some valuable studies of the factors that encourage crime, as the Minister and Opposition Members have agreed more than once.
  It is not always necessary to wait until a crime has been committed and then respond to it. It is better, if possible, to prevent a crime from being committed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There seems to be some unanimity about that. In the past few years, a whole science of crime prevention has grown up. No one now argues that medical science is confined to waiting until people fall ill and then curing them. Everyone knows about preventive medicine. If we are wise, we all try to arrange our diet and life style accordingly.
  A great deal of work has been done recently on what has come to be called situational crime prevention. I am happy to announce that I did not invent that expression, but it refers to a valuable field of activity. It involves such measures as improved household and car security, property marking, better street lighting, safer pedestrian access and better design for car parks and shopping areas. It includes building security considerations into planning practice and improving the design of public transport systems. It would be sensible to bring together, by greater use of crime prevention committees, all the various groups and bodies that should be involved in taking those measures. Indeed, local authorities could give a better lead if they were not confronted by a Government determined to reduce them financially and funtionally to impotence.
  I repeat, perhaps at the risk of being tiresome to some of my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members, what I have said many times before. Of course it is not true that everyone who is unemployed or deprived resorts to crime, nor is poverty an excuse for lawlessness—that is not the argument—but there is such a thing in every locality as a social climate. The greatest single influence on most people, especially in the age groups where, unhappily, crime is most prevalent, is the opinion of a peer group.
  A teenager on a deprived estate will not respect the law because the Minister and I say that he ought to do so, but if his friends and associates and other teenagers tell him that the authorities are trying to be fair and trying to build a better environment, and that taking out his frustrations on his neighbours will not help, he may listen to them. Of course, they will not be conned into telling him that if it is manifestly not true.
  The Government paid lip service to the Scarman report. They denounced "Faith in the City" without even reading it. No prophetic messages from the Government reach those peer groups. Common sense tells us that three of the factors that are most likely to induce crime are poverty, boredom through enforced idleness, and resentment. The Government would do us all a favour if they did something about those factors and explained what they were trying to do.
  I should like to concentrate the remainder of my contribution on one aspect of crime reduction. There is virtually no dispute between academics and the people

  1049
  whom I meet in the clubs, between the two sides of the House, or between social science and common sense that an important factor in reducing crime would be greater activity by the police, giving them a higher profile and in particular putting more officers on the streets.
  The West Midlands police force has been addressing that problem. I have an account of its thinking over the past few years. It has considered how to arrange administrative tasks so as to leave the maximum number of officers free for operational duties. It has established administrative support units manned largely by civilians to remove as many administrative tasks as possible from officers who have operational duties. It has saved an average of one hour per officer per day. It is seeking to replace controls at sub-divisional level with single divisional control rooms. It has established a computer and communications system. If time permitted, I could list more of its initiatives.
  West Midlands police force then considered carefully how the operational officers who had been made available should be deployed. Some have to be put on specialist tasks. The more we urge the police to undertake a wider range of activity, the more special tasks there will be. The West Midlands police force has a programme of working with schools. The programme is designed to induce more confidence and co-operation with the police and to reduce the number of juvenile offenders. It has set up special domestic violence units.
  I suspect that I would be naive if I did not expect some reaction when I mention special units in the West Midlands police force. No one in his right mind would accuse me or any of my hon. Friends of minimising some of their units' less praiseworthy digressions. This is not the occasion to discuss them, except to say that I have learnt that if any group of people have specific duties imposed on them and discover that the burdens placed on them are not matched by the time and resources available, they may be tempted to cut corners.
  The West Midlands police have made provision for the various special units. Subject to that, they have tried to arrange that as many officers as possible are out on the streets. Of course, some of them need to be in squad cars so that they can respond quickly to a call. Sometimes they need more squad cars, but the object is to have as many officers as possible on patrol and for residents to have a resident beat officer who is available when they need help.
  The chief constable and the police authority in the west midlands calculate each year the number of officers they will need to perform their duties, but it is not left to a police authority to decide what its establishment should be. It must obtain the approval of the the Home Secretary, with or without the advice of the Minister of State. Lest there should be any confusion, let us be clear that police authorities do not come as beggars asking for a gift that will cost them nothing.
  When the establishment figures are approved, the police authority has to pay its full share of the cost. The cost is shared between central Government and the police authority, precepting on its constituent councils. The authority consults the councils. Councils know that money for policing has to be raised out of poll tax or by cutting some other service to their residents, but they recognise
  1050
  that, if their residents are to be protected and crime is to be reduced, the money must be found, subject to the amount that the Government have cut by poll tax capping.
  In 1988, the West Midlands police authority went to the Home Secretary and said, "Here are our proposals. These are our detailed calculations. We need an increase of 350 officers." Do you know what the Home Secretary said? He said, "You can have 70." In the following year the authority said, "We have looked at it again and we still need 350 officers." The Home Secretary said that it could have 62. The next year the authority asked again for 350 officers. The Home Secretary said that it could have 63. Last year the authority tried to compromise and asked for 148 officers. It was allowed 48. This year it asked for 121 officers and he has allowed it 11.
  Those are depressing figures on any showing. They mean, translated into fact, that in Sandwell there are whole estates the doors of which are made of steel because, if they were made of wood, they would have been kicked in on the first night they were put up. People living alone are afraid to go out shopping beause they fear that when they get back they will have been burgled. I know people who park their cars a quarter of a mile from where they live because if they parked them outside their homes the vehicles would be vandalised, and by the next morning they might not be there at all.
  Happily, there is some good news from time to time. Recently on one such estate, the CID arrested an entire gang. They were tried, convicted and sent where they belong, and I hope that there will be a period of peace on that estate. But it is all like the Roman empire in its decline, with the forces of law and order too thinly spread, racing to beat the latest threat, only to learn that while they have been away the vandals have broken through somewhere else.
  I am somewhat inhibited in telling the House the whole story. If I made all the details public, a welcome signal might be sent to the criminal fraternity, but I know of a sub-divisional station which on some nights is manned by one woman police officer, together with one male officer who has agreed, with no great joy, to do a night's overtime.
  If that male officer is out responding to a call and another call comes in, the woman police officer must seek such help as she can get from another sub-division, or close the station and go herself. So people who telephone the police station may or may not see an immediate flurry of activity, depending on whether somebody was available when the phone rang. Hence, sometimes they do not bother to telephone. That is why I say that the recorded crime figures do not tell the whole story. That situation is the despair of local residents and heartbreaking for the police. It is not the way to reduce crime.
  Let me add one other matter, on which my hon. Friends who represent Sandwell constituencies and I have written to the Home Secretary seeking a meeting. I shall understand if the Minister of State does not respond tonight to the issue, and I am not inviting him to do so, but it is part of the picture and is well known to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The present headquarters of the West Midlands police is situated in central Birmingham. It is overcrowded and unsuitable in many ways. A number of changes that the police wish to make, which would increase efficiency and save expense, are not possible in that building. The car parking space is too limited for the purpose and, in any event, the whole place requires extensive refurbishment,

  1051
  which would be very expensive. As it is held on a lease, the cost of the refurbishment would virtually be money thrown away.
  It would be better—and, over a reasonable time scale, cheaper—to construct a purpose-built headquarters. An ideal site is available in West Bromwich, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). The police authority has decided that it would be common sense to go there.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Hear, hear.
  Mr. Archer: I knew that I would not have to try hard to persuade you on that point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Such a move would offer a bonus, because it would regenerate the appearance, the environment and the economy of the area. The project is wholly supported by Sandwell metropolitan borough council. It would greatly assist the effectiveness of policing, and be value for money, if the Home Secretary looked favourably at that proposal.
  That being so, wisdom may suggest that I should abstain from further comment about the Home Secretary, but he should know that my constituents would find the quality of their lives changed if crime were more effectively reduced. They expect more from a Home Secretary than a periodical upgrading of the penalties and a rousing speech at the party conference, followed by a wave of hysteria from pinstripe-suited and blue-hatted lynch mobs. A little thought would be worth a great deal of that kind of reaction.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): At the last Conservative party conference, which rightly gave a standing ovation to my right hon. Friend, there was only one hat worn by a lady in the audience, and it was grey and knitted.
  Mr. Archer: I suppose that even a cosmetic improvement is to be welcomed. Some of us wish that when the leopard changed its spots, it changed its behaviour as well. While perhaps I am responsible for the frivolity, I am making a serious point.
  My constituents want some serious thought applied to the problem. That would be worth a lot of shouting. Our constituents deserve better, and we are not asking for the impossible. It is better to spend money on crime prevention than on long criminal trials, prison sentences that could have been avoided and repairing and replacing property which need never have been damaged or lost in the first place. My hon. Friends and I say that a little thought and some resources now would pay a worthwhile dividend.
  7.35 pm
  Sir John Wheeler: It is a particular pleasure for me to speak following the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and to be able to respond to some of the points he made. He must know that much of what he said is well understood and that the general thrust of his argument is supported by my hon. Friends and myself.
  I wish at the outset to trespass into the area of his jurisdiction and comment on the methodology of arriving at police establishments in the 43 police forces of England
  1052
  and Wales. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that I have a particular interest and responsibility for the subject, and I comment accordingly.
  It is right to say that it is for the chief constable to decide what his police resources should be, both police and civilian, with the increasing emphasis these days on civilian resources, for what they do in support of the police and in the prevention of crime is increasingly recognised and often outstanding. I think, for example, of scene of crime officers. Without their work, the information and necessary evidence would not be available to clear up crime and make arrests.
  So the chief constable decides what his establishment ideally should be, and he discusses that with the police authority, which inevitably supports him. But then it is a matter for Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to decide, on an independent basis, what resources should be available. It is on the advice of that body that the Home Secretary makes his decision about police strengths.
  We should not just ignore the number of police officers in a constabulary. We should think also of the ways in which they are used, and my recent Select Committee on Home Affairs report, for example, on sick leave was a good example of an analysis of the use of police officers and their time.
  Mr. Archer: So that nobody is misled, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to make it clear that the Home Secretary is not bound to act on the advice of the inspectorate of constabulary, and the fact that he has made a decision does not necessarily reflect what the inspectorate said?
  Sir J. Wheeler: That is correct. The Home Secretary is not bound to act on the advice of the inspectorate of constabulary, but he must take into account a large number of other factors. For example, he may want to see whether the chief constable has been making use of civilian resources as well as he should, and he might be saying to the inspectorate of constabulary, "If you can demonstrate a better use of money and resources through civilianisation, that might have a bearing on the availability of uniformed police officers."
  The Home Affairs Select Committee report, when the Committee looked at sick leave, for example, found that some progress could be made in improving on the sick absence record of police officers. The equivalent of the entire strength of the West Yorkshire constabulary is absent on an annual basis through sick leave, if we use that as a means of illustrating the depth of the problem, and, by improving on that, more police officers, who are expensive, would be available. My right hon. Friend must also take into account the fact that, by one means or another, 90 per cent. of the cost of the police service comes from the Exchequer, the taxpayer, and only 10 per cent. is raised through local government tax.
  I was very interested in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about crime figures and the extent of crime in Britain today. It is widely believed that the United Kingdom has a rising crime wave, and crime is thought to be more widespread in the United Kingdom than in other western countries. That is simply not the case. Crime levels have been rising throughout the western industrialised world since the 1950s, on average by about 6 per cent. per annum. They have risen everywhere, under Governments of every political complexion, so it has nothing to do with the nature of the politics of a country.

  1053
  It is widely believed that the United Kingdom has one of the highest rates of crime, whereas it has one of the lowest in the western world. Our society is much less violent than that of north America or of the Commonwealth of Australia, as the 1989 international crime survey showed in the report published in March 1990. The United Kingdom and Germany have the lowest overall crime rates of all the industrialised countries.
  Crime statistics, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, are the most commonly used indicators of the level of crime, but they refer to notifiable offences reported to the police. That measure does not show the total crime, only the incidents reported to the police. When these figures show a substantial increase, it is usually assumed that crime, in particular violent crime, has risen dramatically, but, particularly in recent years, other factors have influenced those statistics.
  Women have been encouraged to report rape and domestic violence. I was delighted to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer to the work of his own police force in setting up a unit to receive that kind of report from women. That is a very desirable objective. Because this is being done, crime statistics are increased and their nature is changed. This is particularly true in this country, where the insurance industry requests that thefts and burglaries are reported so that a claim may be proved.
  The increasing ownership of telephones has created a greater inclination to get in touch with the police. Five million more motor cars on the roads since 1980 mean that there is bound to be more damage to, theft from and taking of motor vehicles. Also, of course, 15,500 more police officers are likely to detect and record more crime and, indeed, to be available to receive reports. So a whole host of factors influence the collection of statistics.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Sir John Wheeler: I was going on to give an explanation, which may help the hon. Gentleman. May I do so and see whether he is still of the same mind?
  Since 1980, the Home Office has collected its own crime figures through the British crime survey, which attempts to gauge the total number of crimes committed rather than those notified to the police. The survey shows that crime is not rising anywhere near as fast as police figures suggest. For example, the 1988 British crime survey reported a 12 per cent. rise in wounding, the most common form of assault, between 1981 and 1987, whereas police statistics showed a 40 per cent. rise. The increase in robbery was 9 per cent., compared with a police total of 62 per cent.
  The fear of violent crime has risen out of all proportion to the actual risk. I am not saying that that is not worrying, and we must address that problem; I shall seek to suggest how in a moment. Interviews with 10,000 people for the survey showed that one in five women felt very unsafe when out walking at night; yet fewer than one in 70 claimed to have been attacked in the past year.
  It is very important to get the facts if we are to contemplate what the police should be for controlling and preventing crime.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman must also know that it depends how one selects one's facts and which surveys one looks at. Referring to the point at which I first
  1054
  tried to intervene, he will know that there is under-reporting of crime. At a time when there is more sympathetic treatment of rape cases and domestic violence, there is greater reporting, thank goodness, but all the evidence shows that there is under-reporting of burglary as people become worried about making claims against their insurance policies. We know also that police screening encourages people not to report.
  Can I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Islington crime survey, which gives rather different evidence about how much crime is being committed and how much it is rising?
  Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I suspect that we are not really disagreeing. I am suggesting that the British crime survey is very important. It is independent of Government and is formulated by researchers who are anxious to establish the truth, because without those facts we cannot deploy the resources effectively. I know about the Islington survey, and I also share his concern about under-reporting in some areas of the country of some types of crime in particular, but let me continue with the facts before we begin to look at the solutions.
  It is very important to know that less than 6 per cent. of all recorded crime is violent; 94 per cent. of the crime about which most members of the public are concerned relates to property. Rape, for example, accounts for less than 1·5 per cent. of violent crime. In 61 per cent. of cases, rape is by someone known to the victim, so women are not at risk from every man they happen to encounter when they go for a walk on a dark night. Over half the assaults on women are domestic, according to the crime survey of 1986, and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, are now being reported and investigated.
  Although women, elderly women in particular, feel at greater risk from violence, it is young men who are by far the main victims of assaults, which occur principally in the middle of the afternoon, not late at night.
  Let us begin to look at what is being done to remedy these problems. The Government's initiatives are many and varied and of very great importance. The safer cities programme, for example, has resulted in reductions in burglary on a housing estate in Wolverhampton to the tune of 40 per cent. These are surely the solutions for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is looking. There has been a drop of 35 per cent. in car crime in a central Nottingham car park through the safer cities programme. Crime in central Birmingham is showing a 16 per cent. decrease after the introduction of new security measures. So there are ways forward in difficult inner-city areas which bring real solutions to the lives of ordinary people, which is what we want to see.
  Perhaps I can deal now with car crime. Seventy-five per cent. of people are prepared to pay for built-in car security features. At long last, the motor manufacturers are waking up to the reality that they ought to do more and that they too can assist in the reduction of car crime.
  I am delighted that the Association of British Insurers, an organisation committed to a reduction in car crime, has recently issued a video aimed at young males, particularly in the 12-to-16 age group. Those are the people who commit most car crime and who take away and drive away most motor vehicles. The video will try to help them understand the misery they cause and what they should do to avoid being tempted down that road.

  1055
  That is an example of an institution joining the Government to try to provide a solution to a serious problem. The majority of known car crime offenders are males aged 15 to 16. The evidence is overwhelming; we must address crime prevention far more successfully if we are to achieve the reductions referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West.
  The other important statistic is that 94 per cent. of crime relates to property, much of it to burglary and breaking into people's homes. Here again, more could be done by ordinary people. A large number of homes lack basic security measures. About half those surveyed said that they had no locks on their windows, and one in four were without mortice locks or deadlocks. People have taken very few sensible precautions to stop young male burglars breaking in. Of those surveyed, 73 per cent. felt that they could do more to protect themselves. Part of the crime prevention initiative which many police forces are following is to assist the public to take more precautions to help themselves.
  One other initiative was announced in a written answer to me only today, so it is topical and relevant. I refer to the 16 local drugs prevention teams which are being brought into action to assist in dealing with the problem of drug addiction among the young. Again the emphasis is on primary prevention of the misuse of drugs and on preventing young people from being drawn in.
  As to serious and organised crime, in the 1990s we must address the subject of police structure with greater enthusiasm. The common police services must be combined in a central police agency so that we can deal with serious and organised crime, not necessarily crime which immediately affects the lives of constituents but crime which can affect them through the stealing of their pension funds or the misappropriation of their assets and savings.
  As we examine the structure of the police in the 1990s, I hope that we shall see the need for a national police agency to deal with national and international crime, while preserving the important links through the local constabularies, because it is through the local police links with the public that crime is prevented.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) on initiating the debate. He reflected the view of my constituents when he said that crime and how to reduce it are matters for the Government. The Government have failed to tackle or prevent crime. I want to touch briefly on four areas in which the Government could and must do better, in addition to the initiatives mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend and the preventive programmes, such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) in relation to drug addiction.
  I shall rely not just on statistics but on the position in communities which I have known well over many years. The Government's record is not as good as the hon. Member for Westminster, North suggested. For instance, the safer cities campaign has minimal resources and ignores Wales completely. Other worthwhile initiatives do not go to the root of the problem.
  I compare the Government's record to the experience I once had of helping to redecorate a pensioner's home to
  1056
  brighten up the dingy gloom. As we tried to attach fresh wallpaper to the wall, we found that the damp had so undermined the structure that the wall fell down. That was not a criticism of the redecoration scheme, any more than my remarks are a criticism of some of the Government initiatives. Rather the criticism is that the basic and structural problems are not being tackled with the vigour that is required.
  The Government are not giving the police the tools they need to do the job, certainly in south Wales. Here I reflect very much the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend. In Wales, the Home Secretary cannot distinguish a rural community from an urban community, much less appreciate the different policing needs of each. Let me spell that out.
  When the Home Secretary announced the additional numbers for police forces throughout England and Wales, I was shocked to find that Gwent merited only one extra officer and was astounded to find that the South Wales police force was not to have a single extra officer, especially as the chief constable has undertaken a major review to ensure the best use of available manpower, a process which must continue.
  In the South Wales police area, the crime level this year will be up some 22 per cent. on last year. I spent a Saturday night recently on patrol with the police in central Cardiff and saw just how thin is the blue line which looks after law and order in the city at night. Weekend availability was frightening, even before the Home Secretary's failure to tackle the issues within Cardiff prison, and other areas put enormous pressure on police time and cells.
  My constituency includes part of four divisions, so I have had a unique opportunity to see the problems which the police face in diverse communities. Right hon. and hon. Friends could replicate that experience and express the same concern about urban and rural areas throughout Wales and England. The Home Secretary and the Minister of State must face up to two facts: first, that their party is guilty of creating the conditions for crime and failing to tackle the root causes of crime; and, secondly, that the police do not have the tools for the job.
  I set out to find out why no extra police were coming to help our communities. It is not enough for the Minister to pass the buck to the chief inspector of constabulary. I found that part of the reason lay in the formula used to decide the police needs of each area, by which the Home Secretary gives greater weighting per thousand of urban population. Hon. Members might say that that was fair enough, but the Government have gone on to use a bizarre and irrelevant definition of urban and rural.
  According to the definition, Cwmbran is not an urban area, nor is Aberdare, Rhondda, Abertillery, Neath, Barry, Penarth, Merthyr, Pontypool or Port Talbot, that well-known steel town; nor is Newport, the third city in south Wales. According to the bizarre method of calculation, the urban population of Gwent is nil. Only Swansea and Cardiff fall into the urban category. It is no wonder the Home Secretary came up with a derisory response to the heartfelt plea for more police to restore a sense of security to our communities. How, a week after that crazy decision, are we to place confidence in Ministers who talk about policing and crime prevention in our urban and rural communities when they cannot tell one from t'other?
  It is not as if the Home Secretary had not been warned. If present trends continue, reported crime will have risen

  1057
  by 113 per cent. between 1981 and 1991 in the South Wales police area. Incidents requiring attendance by police officers are up by nearly 80 per cent. since 1984, and 999 calls are up by over 20 per cent. in the same period. I am not sure who is more demoralised by that—the local people, who frequently complain that they do not get a quick response when they need help, or the local police, who attend the crime in an attempt to do the good job that they intended when they entered the police force, knowing that they are likely to be pulled in all directions to answer calls on a blue line that has been pulled far too thin by the Government's demands. In 1990, the number of crime calls per officer in south Wales was more than 42, compared with 29 in Cheshire and 39 in Leicester, to take just two examples. Where is the sense or comparability of that?
  In his response to the Home Secretary's manpower announcement, the chief constable of south Wales, Mr. Lawrence, said:
  "I must repeat my warning that the South Wales Constabulary cannot be treated like a sponge and continually expected to absorb an ever-increasing workload without an inevitable decline in the quality of the service we provide".
  In the light of the facts that I have set out, his conclusion that the Home Office decision is "ill-conceived" is a masterpiece of restrained understatement.
  In a number of ways, the police are making positive responses to suggestions of working together to tackle problem areas and undertake inter-agency approaches to the many problems that need a co-operative approach. But they need help from the Home Secretary both to do their basic job properly and to take their share in such initiatives, and I greatly regret that help has not been forthcoming. I understand that the Home Secretary still has some flexibility within this year's resource allocation, and I appeal to the Minister of State who is present for this debate, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), to undertake to reconsider the needs of the South Wales and Gwent police forces.
  I wish that I had time to go more deeply into the Government's failure to tackle the root causes of crime in our communities, but suffice it to say that neither unemployment nor lack of a decent home is an excuse for crime. On that, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). However, failure to tackle the economy, provide relevant training and create long-term prosperity all help to create a second and third generation of young people growing up with despair ever present in their communities. That is not healthy, and it nurtures the likelihood of crime, which damages victim and delinquent alike, as well as their families and the community in which they live.
  I worked in the communities that experienced the most painful impact of the first of the Government's recessions in the 1980s. At that time—at least to start with—we could pick up some of those who had been the least successful in their school careers, often because they had turned their backs on the opportunities open to them, and provide the first steps towards training and employment. They often responded positively to being given a chance, but as time went on, the same families ended up with the father on the dole and older brothers and sisters unable to find work. Younger brothers, sisters and cousins approaching working age did so in an atmosphere of discouragement
  1058
  and despair. That experience angered and frustrated me sufficiently to consider coming to this place to try to change the evil which the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was letting loose on decent families in decent communities.
  Sadly, largely the same communities felt the burden of crime. Most of the delinquent youngsters with whom I worked—I stress most, not all—did not need to be involved in delinquent activity. There remains truth in the adage, "The devil makes work for idle hands"; and I assert that lack of hope is the greatest recruiting officer for all criminal activity.
  The assertion, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working," shows callous disregard and ignorance of the effects of social problems on individuals, families and communities at the sharp end. As for the economy, when it hurts in this recession, the pain is felt most—in a way that is most unfair—by the same families and communities who felt the worst pain in every other recession. It is felt by the same people who experience the pain of all the other inequalities in our unequal society. It encourages the conditions for crime in communities that already feel more impact from crime because they contain more victims of crime, as well as more offenders.
  For many hon. Members, unemployment and criminal activity are one-off experiences. It is often a matter of history repeating itself from generation to generation and, under this Government, even within a single generation. That is the real failure of the Government's approach. They cannot wash their hands of social problems and the incidence of crime by saying, "Let the markets take care of it all". That will not work; it is not responsible, and future generations will pay for the Government's failure.
  The Government must recognise that there needs to be a positive approach to young offenders if we are not to encourage them to grow into hardened and repetitive offenders. I served on the Committee which dealt with what is now the Criminal Justice Act 1991, in the hope that I could draw on my own experience as chairman of the Cardiff juvenile bench, and as someone who had worked with young offenders. I found that amendments that sought to divert young people from criminal activity would not fit into the Bill because of what an Officer of the House described as
  "the curious geography of the Bill".
  Whatever the Bill was about, it was certainly not about preventing crime and diverting young people from it.
  Since well before I was elected to this House, I have pressed for the provision of secure accommodation to end the scandal of young offenders and remand prisoners in particular being held in prison accommodation. Others, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), have pursued the matter vigorously in the House in recent years. The Home Office has now decided that places should be provided but that the Department of Health and the Welsh Office must find the money. But it gets worse: the Home Office has now decided that those Departments must find the money to build the places but that local authorities must find the running costs. If the Prime Minister really believed in the principle of subsidiarity, as he said yesterday, that would certainly not be allowed to happen.
  Magistrates and others who have called for more secure places want them to be used to contain the activities of young offenders who are not currently kept in prison accommodation, like so-called joyriders and repetitive

  1059
  burglars. The current proposals do not meet that requirement. Indeed, they contain the seed of a massive oak tree of nonsense.
  At present, if there is an objection to bail on the ground that the young offender may commit another crime while on bail, there are two alternatives. Either the magistrate refuses bail and says, effectively, that the court orders that the weekly equivalent of £20,000 a year is spent on the offender until his case is heard, or the court grants bail and orders that nothing is spent on the offender until the case is heard. There are many cheaper and constructive ways to contain young offenders, but they ware not being funded by the Government. Custodial sentences and remands prevent immediate offending but increase the likelihood of later and more serious reoffending. That is an area for immediate consideration and actions by the Government if they have the slightest interest in protecting society from the growth in criminal activity over which the Home Secretary and the Government continue to preside.
  The Government's actions regarding observance of the law do not escape attention by ordinary people. My constituents are outraged by the fact that Ministers seem to regard themselves as above the law. I shall not refer to wider policy matters, or to matters that are currently subject to argument in the courts or on appeal, but I condemn the Government for running away from their responsibilities on Sunday trading. Ordinary citizens cannot understand why they do that. In their squalid and cowardly decisions announced last week, they spelled out in large letters the message that, in Conservative Britain, there is one law for powerful corporations that have a voice at the heart of the Tory party, and another for ordinary individuals in urban and rural communities of Wales and England.
  Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is being most unfair. The senior Law Officer of the Crown, the Attorney-General, explained to the House that, on the question of the Shops Act 1950, he had to make a decision based not on party politics but on the law.
  Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman rightly describes the responsibilities of the senior Law Officer. I bow to the knowledge of people like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West on the technicalities of the law, but the Attorney-General's comments satisfied neither me nor my constituents. My constituents saw him as a responsible Government officer who came to the House to say that the Government washed their hands of the matter and would leave it alone. I repeat my view, which is shared by my constituents, that a squalid and cowardly decision was announced last week, spelling out the fact that there is one law for those with a voice in the Tory party and another for the ordinary individual in the urban and rural communities of Wales and England.
  Commercial organisations like the Co-operative Retail Society, the Co-operative Wholesale Society, Marks & Spencer and Iceland have expressed their horror that the Government should so abdicate their responsibility as to say, "We shall do nothing if you break the law," and weakly add the unconvincing refrain, as the Home Office Minister did, "But we'd rather like it if you didn't." Organisations that want to keep the law are effectively being invited to watch their competitors steal their trade, which is not on.
  1060
  As chairman of the Co-operative parliamentary group, I was delighted to see Sir Dennis Landau's comments on behalf of the CWS. As he said, such a retailer must recognise that each family in such hard times will buy only one turkey, one tin of biscuits, and one Christmas pudding, and the retailer which is not open will lose that custom. However, he went on to say that the CWS
  "remains wholly opposed to unrestricted Sunday trading and will continue to seek a sensible reform of the law on the basis of the REST proposals put forward by Keep Sunday Special Campaign."
  That must be the way forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) will tackle that issue later if we reach his subject for debate. The point that I am making is that the argument is not one of Sunday trading, but one of law and order, with the Conservative party ranged firmly among the enemies of law and order.
  We should not be surprised by that. I saw £3 million stolen from my local authorities of Cardiff and South Glamorgan when the Government introduced retrospective legislation to change the rules that they had set and which those councils had followed carefully and obediently. From 1979 to 1987, six Conservative Ministers were found guilty of breaking the law—in their official capacity, I hasten to add; I hate to think what the tally is now. The Conservative party has never been the party of law and order, and during this Parliament it has thrown away the last vestiges of any claim to such a title.
  To restore law and order in a way that makes sense to, and works to the benefit of, ordinary people—we have an obligation to ensure that Government actions make sense—we need action to tackle the four issues that I have mentioned. We must address the social ills that are at the root of much crime; we must take action to divert young people into more positive ways of using their time and lives; we need the sort of common-sense and long-term commitment shown by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his team. In short, we need a Labour Government as quickly as possible.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: This has been a most interesting debate, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) on introducing it. I have enjoyed all the contributions, particularly those that touched on the way that crime affects constituents who live in districts such as Cardiff and Sandwell. I have been to many of those areas and seen the problems. I sympathise with the views expressed. I do not want to cover the whole subject, this evening; I shall focus on what I understand to be the thrust of the debate—tackling the causes of crime.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) disappointed me, as usual. He is extremely knowledgeable on the subject, and I am still something of an idealist at heart. I have an ideal picture of a Chairman of a Select Committee who is knowledgeable, takes an overview of the subject and does not hold a strongly party political view, but weighs the evidence in a dispassionate way. In such a debate, he should both praise and criticise the Government. That would give the House the impression of a Chairman of a Select Committee of some stature.
  However, every time I hear the hon. Member for Westminster, North, I am disappointed, because he is such

  1061
  an awful Government apologist, and is renowned as such. For example, he reels out evidence that the Government are doing a wonderful job. He mentions Home Office research suggesting that crime is not as bad as everyone thinks, but he does not mention any of the other analyses and carefully toes the party line. He avoids mentioning Home Office research that suggests that there is a relationship between deprivation and crime. That causes me deep disappointment. I hope that, before a Labour Government come to power early next year, the hon. Member will give one speech in the mould of a great Select Committee Chairman.
  One of the aspects we should consider in this debate is the necessity of taking a pragmatic rather than an ideological approach. My remarks will follow that line. There is a tidal wave of crime in this country, and it does no good to the people of Cardiff, Sandwell and Westminster to say there is not as much crime there as in Chicago or Sydney. That does not wash. Crime has doubled since 1979 under the so-called party of law and order.
  The one sphere of crime that the Government will not consider is its underlying causes. Crime is a complex social phenomenon with no single cause or solution. Research has identified some key factors that affect crime rates. There is a critical link between crime, recession and employment opportunities. Last year, Home Office research showed a clear correlation between recession and levels of property crime. Other research has shown a critical link between crime and employment opportunities.
  Only last week, the National Association of Probation Officers issued a report showing that up to 80 per cent. of probation clients are now out of work. The Apex Trust work shows that ex-offenders in employment are three times less likely to offend than those who are unemployed, which is remarkable. I wish that the Minister would respond to a point that I made in a debate last week when I spoke of the tragedy that the employment advisory service—available to prisoners both before and after their release—had been withdrawn by the Government. I wish that it could be restored.
  The link between recession, deprivation and crime hardly comes as a surprise—it is a common-sense notion. Moreover, it has been obvious for more than 50 years. As long ago as 1940, Mannheim produced a report on the social aspects of crime in England in the inter-war years. His work showed that crime more than doubled during those years. The idea that the 1930s was a crime-free era is a myth. The same disastrous pattern of crime rising in the wake of recession was seen then as now. In 1940, Mannheim concluded:
  "Where unemployment and crime both stand at a high water mark, it can safely be assumed that the latter is largely due to the former."
  The second critical factor is the treatment of youth. Anyone wishing to tackle crime rates must pay enormous attention to youth crime because of its sheer scale. The hon. Member for Westminster, North touched on that, but he was not convincing when he spoke of the underlying causes of that crime.
  Is it not astounding that half of all crime in Britain is committed by people under the age of 21? Some 73 per cent. of all auto crime is committed by those under 21. Some two thirds to three quarters of all solved burglaries
  1062
  are committed by young men under the age of 21. There is a tidal wave of youth crime, and the Government have not begun to answer it.
  Mr. John Patten: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there is something new about a substantial majority of crime being committed by young people—that it is a phenomenon of the 1980s and 1990s? If he looks at the statistics, he will see that it has always been like that. Right up to the head waters of time, young men have always been those most inclined to commit crime.
  Mr. Sheerman: The right hon. Gentleman is right about the significance of that age group, but I am trying to point out that the age for offending has become very young. The enormous crime rate and the fact that the average age of a young person who takes a car is 15 are new and frightening phenomena.
  Mr. Patten: I shall attempt not to intervene again, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way with his characteristic courtesy.
  As a student of these matters, surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that in, for example, the past five years, the peak age for offending for a young male has not gone down but gone up. The average peak age for offending was 15 but is now 18.
  Mr. Sheerman: We can pick over whether the peak age is 15 or 18, but I am saying that crime has doubled. The youth component of that crime is much more substantial than it was, according to all the figures. Whether or not the peak age has gone from 15 to 18—and specific categories of crime move either way—the average age is 18. That is worrying enough, but we are talking about a category of young criminals up to the age of 21.
  Research has shown clear links between the level of crime and number of children brought up in poverty in families in difficulty. I quote from Professor Irving's introductory report to this month's international conference on urban safety, drugs and crime prevention in Paris. I hope that the Minister has read this—it should be engraved on the hearts of the Home Secretary and his Ministers. The report states that rates of child poverty
  "remained constant in the 1980's for most countries, but doubled in the United Kingdom … The results of longitudinal studies suggest that countries that have more child poverty and do not provide universal child care or other programmes to reduce inequalities before the child goes into the school system will have more crime. This is indeed the case. Moreover the rapid increase in child poverty in England, some of which is mitigated"—
  admittedly—
  "by income transfers, is likely to result in further acceleration in the crime rate in the 1990's".
  That is a chilling thought.
  The Government are pursuing policies that are directly linked to the rise in crime. There is increasing child poverty in our country. The level of unemployment is rising—especially among the young—and we are seeing the creation of what some commentators call an 'underclass'. We see alienated young people with no stake in society and, increasingly, without even a bed. Is not that what we would have expected when the Government take on the 16 to 18-year-olds and perpetuate the myth that that age group is in full-time employment, in full-time training or in full-time education? We all know that that is a myth or a lie.

  1063
  Many 16 to 18-year olds are living off their wits and on the streets. That is a sad comment on our society. Only a bone-headed Government would not accept that, by taking away young people's ability to claim benefit and housing benefit and the opportunity to receive a decent reward for a training scheme, and by halving the value of the training allowance in the past 12 years, they are picking on young people who, at the same time, are being pushed ever further towards the consumer society. Television advertising tells them that they must have designer trainers, designer clothes and good stereos. It is a sad comment on our society that the Government cannot see what they have done to young people and cannot see the relationship between what they have done and the crime rate.
  The Minister said that the peak age for offending has risen to 18 from 15, but he chose the end of the two-year period that I would describe as covering the most vulnerable young people on whom the Government have picked in the past 12 years.
  If, with the help of all the civil servants who advise Ministers and who sit under the Gallery and elsewhere, one worked on a policy to create crime, one could not come up with anything better than what the Government have created in the past 12 years. They have done a wonderful job of creating crime, but they will still not recognise the link to which I have referred.
  Any Government who are seriously concerned about dealing with the escalating crime rate must begin to tackle crime at its roots. That means a concerted attack on poverty and it means attaching far more importance to early crime prevention measures, such as the development of pre-school provision. How can the Minister be complacent about pre-school provision? Why do not the Government set up—as the Labour party will when it takes office in a few months—a national crime prevention council to co-ordinate the work of all the Departments of state in crime prevention?
  I return for a moment to the link between pre-school education and the later propensity towards crime. It has been shown that the development of pre-school provision has a very marked effect on later offending. As I have said, we lag behind our European counterparts. Ninety-five per cent. of pre-school children in France and Belgium receive state-funded education. Furthermore, each child has access to eight hours daily nursery provision in France and five to six hours in Belgium. In Britain, only 44 per cent. of three to five-year-olds receive pre-school education, and a substantial proportion of them have a school day of only two and a half hours.
  The knock-on effect is unacceptable to the Government, because it means having a properly resourced training programme, a properly resourced pre-school education programme, proper training opportunities and the development of measures to counter unemployment. It also means providing a range of creative leisure opportunities for young people. They are Labour party policies, which are desperately needed in their own right but which have a vital knock-on effect on offending rates generally.
  Other countries saw the need for such policies years ago. Again, the French have been at the forefront. In 1983, the Bonnemaison report brought the issues to the fore. The result was a network of municipal crime prevention councils which co-ordinate social and criminal justice agencies to deal with the circumstances that breed crime
  1064
  and which focus on youth in particular. Our Conservative Government reject that, as they do so many other aspects of the European social programme.
  Indeed, one of the most disgraceful things that we have seen in the Chamber this week was the Maastricht agreement which, in terms of social policy, means that the opportunity to do so much to support the family, children and working mothers has been lost. The knock-on effect will be seen in the crime rate and in other aspects of our social life.
  The Government have lead the country into the second division in Europe in this aspect as in many others. Their record on crime is a disaster, and it is time they gave way to a Government who have the imagination and policies to tackle crime fundamentally, not at the periphery.
  8.28 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), with whom I have debated closely during the past three or four years, on his good fortune in getting this debate at a rather fashionable hour—earlier than the watches of the night—during the Consolidated Fund debate. I think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is as pleased as I that the debate started at 7.15 pm rather than at 4.15 am. I also congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the style and content of his speech.
  It is a sad loss to this House that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have decided to lay down the burden of representing the electors of Warley, West. He looks, sounds and acts youthful, and it is a great shame when someone like him decides to retire absurdly early. Doubtless he will spend a certain amount of his time enjoying himself. After his retirement, I might try to persuade him to enjoy himself by accompanying me to whatever seaside resort the Conservative party attends for its conference next October—I will ensure his safety of passage into the hall—so that he can see how few pinstripe suits there are, let alone the mythical hats of which he spoke.
  I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I answer first the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who supported the Government's position, before answering the remarks made by Opposition Members, who took a rather different line.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North characteristically set the record straight about manpower allocations in the police force and about the critical role of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary in objectively advising the Home Secretary on correct force levels and on the identification of posts suitable for civilianisation—for that releases policemen and women from desk jobs and puts them back on the beat, which is what the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West wants. He rightly paid tribute to the West Midlands police for what they have done in this process. Would that other forces had briskly followed the excellent example of the West Midlands force—
  Mr. Archer: Perhaps it is churlish of me, after the kind remarks of the Minister, to venture to comment on what he has just said, but at the risk of being tiresome, may I point out that what I said before was that it does not follow that a decision made by the Home Secretary

  1065
  corresponds with the advice that he receives from the chief inspector. Lest anyone be misled, I should be grateful if he would confirm that.
  Mr. Patten: I can confirm that the ultimate decision is ministerial. Ministers must accept our responsibility for decisions. But the Home Secretary benefits from the objective advice of HMCIC, a distinguished policeman, and of his colleagues, who are all serving policemen and who can therefore speak from both sides of the fence.
  The other important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North concerned looking at English and Welsh crime in the context of the international scene. I agree with Opposition Members that what matters to our electorate is crime in this country. The people in my constituency are concerned about what happens there, not in America or France. Still, it is important to point out that Britain is not a violent country compared with almost every other western European country. Opposition Members like to make great play of comparing our unemployment rates with those in certain west European countries, of course. I do not suggest that, just because Britain is less violent and less prone to crime than most other west European countries, that diminishes the necessity to concentrate on the picture at home, but let us not frighten people unnecessarily by comparisons with the rest of Europe and the United States.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North also mentioned car crime in his short but excellent speech. I agree with what he said about the Association of British Insurers, the insurance industry and the motor car industry, here, in western Europe and increasingly in central Europe—not to mention Japan and Korea. Those industries are scrutinising much more what they can do to make cars more secure and less easily stolen.
  Yesterday, the Home Secretary and I saw representatives of car manufacturers and car importers in the United Kingdom for the second in a series of meetings. Considerable progress is being made, and we have agreed a three-point agenda for improvements in car manufacture, not just in this country but in western Europe. Happily, the message is also being carried back to Japanese manufacturers.
  The first significant area for improvement concerns visible vehicle identification numbers, which are critical in stopping the international trade in car crime. Secondly, we must continue to work on introducing deadlocking for all cars. Thirdly, we must introduce effective and efficient immobilising devices. We were delighted yesterday to obtain the agreement of the manufacturers to concentrate on these three key areas. I pay tribute to the increasing attention that the industry is giving to these aspects.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West first discussed the causes of crime. Any sensible policy concerned with reducing crime—crime can never be abolished—needs three components. First, we need a tough and hard-edged law and order service. The right hon. and learned Gentleman sits in court and passes sentence himself, so he has seen the issue both from these Benches and from the Bench he adorns when he sits as a recorder. That is the traditional part of British law and order, and it is what people think of when they mention it
  1066
  at Tory or Labour conferences. I do not know what they talk about at Liberal party conferences on law and order, and the party is not represented here this evening.
  Secondly, we have added to the traditional approach the new approach of crime prevention. There has been an extraordinary growth in neighbourhood watch schemes. In 1982, there was one such scheme; now there are 92,000—a great tribute to people, for instance, in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency.
  There is a great deal of co-operation between the police, the fire service, the social services and South Staffordshire water board, which has devised a crime prevention package which home helps from the social services department distributed to about 5,000 homes in the area. Some of the information was printed in large type so that elderly people could read it. From such little things, considerable advances can accrue. I pay tribute to all who work in these services for what they do.
  The third element, on which we have not yet concentrated enough, is criminal prevention—trying to stop people becoming criminals in the first place. Last week I was in the north-west and in Salford, where I toured a number of places, among them a primary school—it would be wrong to name it here—where the head teacher, who was clearly devoted to her inner-city children, told me that there were 260 children in the school.
  I asked the sort of questions that visiting Ministers always ask: how many people worked there, what kind of classes they had, what activities and problems there were. She began to talk about the problems. Without my prompting, she said, "I have a lot of people here who I can predict are going to get into trouble." I asked how many. She said, "I have about 30 here who will get into trouble when they reach their teens. They are all right when they are five or six—they are protected then—but between seven and eleven they start becoming"—her phrase is burnt into my memory—"clones of their elder brothers and sisters who have got into trouble before." She was cheerful enough, but she was saddened when identifying those children whom she thought at risk.
  It is surely important that we begin to concentrate our efforts on trying to find ways of helping such children before it becomes necessary to punish them, and to prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place. I hope that the Labour party would agree with that.
  Mr. Michael: It is hardly our place to agree with something that we have been trying to tell the Minister for a long time. If he is serious in what he is saying now, it is rather like a conversion on the road to Damascus. I hope that the Minister will address seriously the comments that he has just made. Will he now take the sort of steps that people such as myself, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) urged on him before, during and after the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill, or is that apparent conversion just another anecdotal experience? Did he really experience a conversion, and will he now respond to the remarks that he has just made?
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is impertinent, because it was all those who thought like the Opposition who did so much in the 1960s and 1970s to undermine some of the messages which used to come from schools,

  1067
  teachers, park keepers and others who were part of the warp and weft in helping people grow up straight rather than crooked. But that is a debate which will continue.
  Mr. Michael rose—
  Mr. Patten: I am trying to reply, but I have only five minutes in which to do so.
  I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West that we need more officers on the beat. That is why, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced 1,000 additional officers, he specified that 80 out of every 100 should go straight on to the beat. However, I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Earl Ferrers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's views on police manpower in the west midlands.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) drew attention to the lack, as he saw it, of adequate policing in south Wales, and I shall also draw the points that he made to the attention of my noble Friend. He and I also share an interest in obtaining better secure accommodation for youngsters, particularly for those who are awaiting trial, to which the Government have given considerable priority.
  I am concerned when I hear reports from the police on a number of things that trouble them. I was concerned about reports of attacks on the police, which is why the Government commissioned research into that problem. I am also concerned that some police forces are reporting apparent large-scale reoffending by those on bail—bail banditry, as it has been called by at least one policeman. The Home Office is conducting in-depth and rapid research into those suggestions, and I hope that we shall be in a position in the not-too-distant future to tell the House what we intend to do about the problem of reoffending on bail.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) reminded me of the late and unlamented Senator Hughie Long at his worst. I have never heard such a rant. His attack on my hon. Friend the Member for
  1068
  Westminster, North was disgraceful. People not just in this House but worldwide now listen to what my hon. Friend has to say on law and order issues. I wish that my hon. Friend was remotely biddable in the way in which the hon. Gentleman suggested. I still bear the scars of his report on the criminal injuries compensation scheme. It took me a long time to recover from the mauling that he gave me on that. I registered my protests with the Whips, but that has done no good whatever, and my hon. Friend goes from strength to strength.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield provided more equivocal support for the law and order measures which we have debated in the House in recent weeks. We have introduced the Prison Security Bill. That received a welcome from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) which was equivocal in the extreme, and the Labour party does not support it. Earlier this week, we debated the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill, to deal with those youngsters who take vehicles, causing mayhem, injury and damage with them. As always, the Labour party tried to have its cake and eat it by not voting against the Bill on Second Reading but tabling a series of wrecking amendments to destroy the Bill.
  Mr. Sheerman: That was for exactly the same reason that I would criticise the right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight. It contained not one word about the fundamental problems that cause crime, but was all peripheral nonsense.
  Mr. Patten: Let me end on a cheerful note. The hon. Gentleman must get himself a better brief. His speech was erected on the idea that juvenile offending had increased. Since 1985, the number of known juvenile offenders—that is, those cautioned and found guilty—has declined steadily year by year. If it is to be worth while to deal with the hon. Gentleman's arguments, they must be erected on a sound factual basis. His speech was based on the premise that juvenile offending is increasing, on which the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong, as he was throughout his speech.

  Pension Funds
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss this subject tonight. This debate could be regarded as a continuation of the previous debate on crime.
  I have two major concerns. The first is the long-term need to protect pension fund contributors, and the second, which has worked as a catalyst, is the appropriation from the Daily Mirror and Maxwell Communication Corporation pension fund, of between £300 and £500 million by the major shareholder, the recently deceased Mr. Robert Maxwell. That in itself points to the need for closer consideration of the matter and probably for reform.
  Earlier today, in support of this debate, I introduced a Bill to provide a framework of protection for contributors to and beneficiaries of pension funds. In future, large occupational pension funds will be a major source of British wealth. It is not without significance that we have obliged the public to contribute to pension funds to provide for their old age. We must also provide a framework which will protect them and ensure that those funds are available to benefit them when the time comes.
  As the population ages, pension funds will become more significant as support for large numbers of workers in their old age and will play an important part in investment in the economy. We need only look around the City and at company reports to see the importance of pension funds as a form of investment in our major companies and in the economy.
  First, I want to address the problems of Mirror Group Newspapers and the Maxwell Communication Corporation. This debacle—that is the only word to describe it—must under no circumstances be allowed to happen again. That, as much as anything, is what this debate is about.
  Mr. Roger King: I hope that my hon. Friend will not take it amiss if, as somone with an open mind on the matter, I ask him whether he has had any dealings with the Maxwell empire in any shape or form and is now seeking to cleanse his spirit and soul this evening. I make that point because it is abundantly clear from statements made by many people who seem to have spent years toadying the the great man that they are now seeking to cleanse their souls and spirits by saying that they never had anything to do with him. I am sure that my hon. Friend is not such a person, but he probably has had parties in Blackpool and may well have enjoyed the odd tincture with the great man so that he now feels that he is almost obligated to his conscience to present a case this evening which is probably not true to his natural form. I await his reassurance on that.
  Mr. Hind: I have no need to cleanse my soul. Perhaps those who need to do so will recollect the words of Mark Antony at Julius Caesar's funeral:
  "So are they all, all honourable men."
  Mr. Robert Maxwell, a former Labour Member of Parliament, was the subject of an inquiry in respect of his company, Pergamon Press. The inspector's report said of him:
  "This man should never be allowed to control a public company."
  1070
  How right that inspector was. How foolish we were not to take due note of that incisive comment, by a man who read Mr. Maxwell's character extremely well.
  In the past, Labour Members criticised supporters of this Government and right hon. and hon. Members for financial mismanagement, but that is not the exclusive preserve of Members of every party other than Labour. No one can point a finger at anyone in this debate in that regard. The guilty have an equal share in that respect.
  Robert Maxwell helped himself to the Mirror pension fund. While professional journalists—rightly, in my view—investigated the financial misdeeds of others, Maxwell had his hand in their pocket and robbed them blind. That was not all. A more serious aspect is that, after Robert Maxwell's death, we are led to believe by the newspapers that a further £300 million went missing from the group's various pension funds, which suggests that such activities went deeper than just one man, and that others were involved. They too must be called to account, and we know that those matters are now being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.
  The existing law has failed us in respect of the proper control and management of pension funds. The law is clearly defined. It is based on the law of trust—and most pension funds are trusts. There was a major judgment on that subject in 1883. In the case of Speight, the judges held:
  "Trustees also have a duty to act diligently and prudently…in selecting an investment the trustee must take as much care as a prudent man would take in making an investment for the benefit of persons for whom he felt morally obliged to provide."
  They were saying, in the language of the Victorian era, that a trustee should be as prudent in his selection of investments as he would be in dealing with his own.
  More recently, in the case of Cowan v. Scargill in 1984, the same sentiment was repeated in modern-day language:
  "Trustees are required to exercise their powers in the best interest of present and future beneficiaries; trustees must put on one side their own personal, social, or political views".
  Those are clear guidelines to the way in which pension funds should operate. The Maxwell affair has clearly shown that a coach and horses was driven through that law, so we must consider carefully the need to change it.
  Mr. David Martin: My hon. Friend makes a significant point about the duties of trustees. Will he deal also with the trustees themselves, and say whether there should be better legal rights—to provide for a more significant number of ex-employees to serve as trustees, so that the interests of all members of a pension fund can be better protected?
  Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend leads me to my next point. My Bill would not allow a director or shareholder to serve as a member of the pension fund trust of the employer company. Control of the pension fund should be at arm's length, by independent persons who are not involved in the management of the employer company.
  Robert Maxwell proved the undesirability of having directors or chairmen who are in control of both the company, as majority shareholders, and the pension fund. He was a fund trustee, along with his two sons, so effectively he controlled both the company and the fund. That led to the problems that the fund faces today.
  If one individual holds a dominant commercial position in respect of a pension fund, he or she will be able to direct those who operate the fund, in the same way that he or she manages the company—and will be able to select those

  1071
  persons who are to serve as trustees and manage the fund. That clearly happened in respect of the MGM and MCC pension funds.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: My hon. Friend's views will be shared by many pensioners. Does he agree that pension fund assets would be easier to identify if they were held in the fund's own name rather than in the names of nominee companies? Although nominee companies are perfectly legal, do they not present a determined manipulator such as Robert Maxwell with opportunities to cover his tracks as he goes along?
  Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend makes a good point. My Bill advocates that there should be no nominee companies, and that a pension fund should be a recognised legal entity. The people who control a fund should be clearly defined, as should the rights of contributors. I will return to that aspect later.
  If one person dominates the fund, directors are appointed by this majority shareholder, as well as the trustees. On 31 January, Lord Williams of Elvel, Labour's deputy leader in another place, and a director of Mirror Group Newspapers, addressed their Lordships on that very point—on corporate governance. He raised questions on comments made by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Technology,saying—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is, I think, aware that hon. Members are not allowed to quote directly what has been said by a Member of the Upper House unless that Member is a Minister. I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would paraphrase.
  Mr. Hind: Lord Williams of Elvel was talking about chief executives, and about non-executive directors confirming what he described as the outrageous ambitions of a chairman or chief executive. Now, the outrageous ambitions of another chief executive, unfortunately deceased, have been revealed for all to see. Perhaps Lord Williams and one or two others should take their own advice.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Is it not particularly extraordinary, in the case of Lord Williams—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I could give the hon. Gentleman and the House a little guidance. The Chair is not prepared to entertain criticism of Members of the Upper House unless there is a substantive motion before this House. There is no such motion this evening, and I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will observe the correct procedures.
  Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful for that guidance. I did not intend to express a direct criticism; I merely wished to comment that it was extraordinary that someone with such a distinguished record, who had been a managing director of Barings and, I believe, chairman of Ansbacher, should associate himself with the gentleman whom we are discussing.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given my guidance. Hon. Members are enjoying themselves: let us keep it at that level, provided that it is within our procedures. I know that they will follow the procedures of
  1072
  the House, and stay in line with the guidance that I have given—and that given by Mr. Speaker, which will have been heard by hon. Members who were present earlier.
  Mr. Hind: An important aspect of the relationship between directors and trustees is illustrated by the closeness of the relationship between the Mirror Group Newspapers pension fund and the companies. The accounts for last year contain an interesting section headed "Investment Report". It states
  "As part of this process, the following changes were made in the structure of the Scheme's investment. Due to uncertain stock market conditions and relatively high interest rates, the Trustees instructed its investment managers to sell stocks, and hold an average of 20 per cent. of their portfolios in the form of cash deposits".
  The trustees and directors must have been aware—as it was in the report—that they were converting stocks into cash, which the company could subsequently borrow and invest in other Maxwell companies. As we know, that is probably what happened. It almost seems as if preparations were made for what subsequently took place.
  The report continues:
  "a further £12,034,000 was invested in the Common Investment Fund…this fund is managed by Bishopsgate Investment Management (BIM) in conjunction with other pension funds managed by the Pergamon Group Pensions Departments. The Scheme's participation in the CIF remains crucial to the Trustee's overall strategy".
  The management of a pension fund must be independent of the employer company. BIM—a company that was charged with the management of a large proportion of the pension funds—was a private company wholly owned by the Maxwell family. Effectively, they were appointing the directors and staff, and, therefore, handling all the funds from the pension schemes.
  We are not discussing an arm's-length transaction. If legislation is to be drawn up, as I advocate in my Bill, that is precisely the sort of abuse that we should set out to prevent.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Is it not slightly ironic that various investigative journalists such as Paul Foot and Alastair Campbell, who spend considerable time investigating corruption in other parts of the business world, should find that their own pensions seem to have been pinched from their own company over their heads?
  Mr. Hind: I made that point earlier. While those people were investigating other people's pockets, Robert Maxwell had his hand in their pockets and was robbing them blind. That is a fact of life. I feel deeply sorry for them, and hope that their experience will be a salutary lesson that will help the rest of the country to avoid repeating it.
  We cannot avoid the fact that the people appointed to manage the funds must carry some responsibility. Sycophants and nominees of the dominant majority shareholder of the employer company must not be in a position to manage the company.
  Lord Donoughue, a Labour peer, was one of the directors of Bishopsgate until fairly recently. Interestingly enough, Madam Deputy Speaker, he is reported to have said in another place—[Interruption.]—I mean, Mr. Speaker. I apologise—it was the wig that threw me.
  In the other place, Lord Donoughue said that tame directors were often appointed—friends of the majority shareholder, who would not ask too many awkward questions.
  Mr. Roger King: Flunkeys.
  Mr. Hind: That is a good word, and I shall adopt it. We must ensure that no more flunkeys are appointed to pension funds. It is not in the interests of the general public.
  Mr. Butterfill: It might have been better if the company had been called Billingsgate rather than Bishopsgate. Then everyone would have known that there was something fishy going on.
  Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend makes his own point.
  The fourth matter to which the House should give serious consideration is the proportion of any pension fund that can be invested in the employer company. I shall listen with interest to what my hon. Friend the Minister says about that. I know that the Government are giving serious consideration to restricting to 5 per cent. the proportion of a total fund that may be invested in the employer company. I would certainly advocate that as a sensible course. It would prevent a pension fund from collapsing should a company go into receivership.
  A recent example from the north-west was provided by the Lewis's stores group, which has recently gone into receivership. It was the subject of a motion under Standing Order No. 20 on which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I spoke some months ago. The receivers found that in February 1990 the company had sold an empty building in Bolton to the pension fund for £2·4 million. That building has not returned any profit to the pension fund and since then, I am told, it has declined in value.
  In April 1990, £250,000 worth of contributions to the pension fund were not paid by the company. The following summer, that company borrowed £1·25 million from the fund. That sum has not been repaid, and since then the group of companies has gone into receivership, been broken up and sold. The money is probably lost to the pension contributors and beneficiaries. Although the group owned several department stores, it was not a big company. We must act with care to guard against such things happening.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: While he is talking about tracing assets, does my hon. Friend intend to say anything about the Labour party's failure so far to admit how much money it received from Maxwell over the years, and to offer to restore it, since the donations were clearly funded directly or indirectly by pillaging the pension funds of working people? Early-day motion 365 refers to the matter. Perhaps my hon. Friend, having introduced this debate, has heard from the Labour party about its intention to reveal how much money it has received.
  Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I have no doubt that the House will note the early-day motion to which he referred.
  The fifth point to be included in a Bill is that there should be a declaration that the assets of the pension fund are the property of the contributors and not of the employer company. A case has been decided on those lines, but the principle has not yet gained widespread acceptance.
  The first time when such a case came to my notice was in the mid-1980s when BTR—the Birmingham Tyre and Rubber company—tried to take over the Pilkington Group, which is one of the major employers in my constituency. On that occasion, it was made clear to me by the employees who worked and lived in my constituency
  1074
  that they had real anxiety that the balances that were oversubscribed in the pension fund would be taken by BTR as part of the takeover and would be used for the benefit of BTR because they would be regarded as part of the acquisition.
  It is important that we make it clear that that should not be allowed to happen, and that all payments into the pension fund are the property of the contributors and of the beneficiaries. If that principle were established, even if there were oversubscriptions, the contributions would be carried forward in perpetuity for the benefit of future contributors and future recipients of pensions.
  Mirror Group Newspapers is a similar case. To whom do overpayments into a pension fund belong? At Mirror Group Newspapers, there has been a recent holiday payment for the company of the 14 per cent. that should have been made into the pension fund. That means that the company is benefiting from what would normally pass into the company pension fund for the benefit of the employees. I should like such practices to end, and we should take a clear look at the problem. Oversubscriptions should be not for the benefit of the employer company, but for the benefit of the contributors and of those who will receive pensions from the fund.
  Mr. David Martin: On the subject of holidays from contributions, does my hon. Friend consider that there should be a duty to make up pensions that have fallen behind in inflationary terms? That would restore them to their original value. Should that be an obligation over the years so that, as people get older, they do not find that their pension is falling in purchasing value?
  Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Surely that must be the responsibility of the trustees and of the contributors to the pension fund in the terms and conditions when a pension fund is set up. Within the framework of legislation, such an aim would be difficult to achieve. It might be regarded, especially in relation to some of the existing pension funds, as quite an onerous burden to take on. However, as an aspiration, it would seem a sensible approach.
  The sixth point to be included in a Bill is that the trustees should make annual reports to each contributor. The directors of an employer company are required to produce accounts which are registered at Companies house and which are distributed to shareholders. They know exactly where the company stands. The company provides a balance sheet and consolidated accounts. Shareholders know how a company performs. That same luxury is not provided to the pension fund contributors. Under the legislation that I have in mind, the contributors would be able to deal with those matters. The trustees would then be appointed by the pension fund contributors. If there was any difficulty, the contributors could go, as in company legislation, to the High Court for directions.
  The seventh and most essential point is that we must have regulations to make such a system work. There should be a registrar of pension funds who would be appointed to apply to all funds to register annual returns and to distribute them to their members. Such a registrar would have enforcement powers, so that he could deal with those who failed to register and to carry out the duties imposed under the legislation. I appreciate that my colleagues will say that that is another quango. Of course

  1075
  it is. However, it is an important move which must be taken when we are considering the large sums involved in pension investment and management.
  Apart from a home, a pension is probably the largest single item that we purchase in our lifetime. It is also one of our most fundamental purchases, and it is the security for our retirement. Because of that, it is important that it is adequately protected. It should be free from the pilfering or appropriation of the likes of Robert Maxwell and people who want to follow in his footsteps. We should separate the company from the pension fund and protect the workers of this country, so ensuring that we can provide adequately for their futures.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on securing a debate on one of the major live issues. That it has only just become so is incredible, because over the years pensions have been regarded as rather boring and not many people have been interested in them, although 11 million people have rights under occupational pension schemes.
  The Select Committee on Social Security, of which I am a member, is currently investigating occupational pension funds in this country. Although it is early days, some things are clear. On the evidence that we have received, the vast majority of pension funds are operating satisfactorily.
  The case that has highlighted one of the shortcomings of pension funds, the Maxwell affair as it has become known—or Mirrorgate and Labourgate as it is known in some circles—is the only known instance where a man who was once described in a Department of Trade and Industry report as unfit to be a director of a public company ended up running a pension fund. Maxwellgate is the only known instance where a man with a series of major family companies, both offshore and onshore, based in Liechtenstein and Gibraltar, ended up running a pension fund. That is why we are debating the affair today.
  The present system for looking after pension funds and pensioners' money should have been more than adequate. Lawyers draw up constitutions of pension funds and normally operate them to a high standard. The actuaries attempt to assess liabilities while the auditors carry out audits. With the benefit of that professional work and advice, the trustees supervise and control.
  One should be able to rely on the trustees. They should be the right kind of people with proper training, qualifications and expertise to carry out the job. I would differ from my hon Friend the Member for Lancashire, West over his reference to trustees. Directors are often the right and proper people to be trustees. The directors must determine what benefits the pension fund should provide. They also have a responsibility, as company directors, for earning the money to make up the deficiencies if a pension fund becomes short of money. That can occur when investment returns are not sufficient to meet the benefits that the directors want to pay.
  It will always be necessary with occupational pension schemes to have a relationship between the directors of a company and the trustees. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West that there should be at least one or two directors and trustees, who are non-executive directors with wider experience than just
  1076
  being a director of the company and trustees, who are totally independent of the company. That clearly failed in Mirrorgate.
  The Financial Services Act 1986, one of the tightest and most bureaucratic pieces of legislation that the House of Commons has ever passed, should have provided many significant controls to protect the Mirror pensioners. It appears to have failed, because the two fund management companies were allowed to come under the control of Mr. Maxwell, his family interests and the Liechtenstein and Gibraltar trusts.
  Mr. Michael Irvine: My hon. Friend has rightly referred to the Mirror Group pensioners. Is he aware that, according to my information, it was not just the Mirror Group pension fund that Maxwell was running? He had effective control of no fewer than seven pension funds. Many of my constituents have suffered from his pillaging in another pension fund, and there are other pension funds besides that on which he had his hands.
  Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. I am aware that he has been involved in trying to defeat and thwart Mr. Maxwell in his own constituency. I hope that his constituents realise how hard he has fought Mr. Maxwell and his cronies on their behalf. I have every confidence that, at the next election, he will get a result that will show his constituents that he has taken a strong interest in looking after their affairs in this matter.
  Besides the professionals and the Financial Services Act, the superannuation fund office of the Inland Revenue takes a strong interest in the affairs of pension funds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West pointed out, the superannuation fund office of the Inland Revenue is an internal organisation, and it is not responsible for publishing accounts. Indeed, today, in answer to a question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to tell me the latest dates for filing accounts of the Maxwell group of companies pension funds because he regards that as confidential taxpayer information.
  Much tax relief is given by the authority of the Ho-use of Commons to people who have and run pension funds, yet, with large amounts of tax relief being given, we do not have, through the superannuation fund office, rights of access to very large pension fund accounts for the general public as well as, perhaps, for the people who are interested as beneficiaries. Some form of registration, very similar to that of the Registrar of Companies' operation, is necessary for major pension fund accounts. About £200 billion to £300 billion is now manged in pension fund form. Not only beneficiaries but the general public should have access to those accounts, as happens with private companies that must disclose their accounts to the Registrar of Companies.
  We should focus on the main safeguard that Mirror Group pensioners and all other pensioners should have been relying upon—the role of the trustees. The trustees should have been the protection for the Mirror Group pensioners and the Maxwell Communication Corporation pensioners, and for all the other pensioners whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich mentioned.
  What has gone wrong, and what questions should we ask? I prefer to ask questions rather than give answers and suggestions, because the Social Security Select Committee is still investigating the matter, and other matters

  1077
  connected wth pension funds. How could one man who was unfit to be a director of a public company have so much power?
  That is not the only thing that was said in the report. I read the Department of Trade and Industry report extensively in 1981, when I worked in a merchant bank and Mr. Maxwell came on the telephone to say that he wanted to be a client of that merchant bank. I rejected Mr. Maxwell as a client of that bank not only because of the statement that he was unfit to be a director of a public company but because the rest of the report shows that he did not take professional advice. He was not interested in legal or financial advice; he was interested only in the ends of whatever he wanted to achieve.
  We must also ask how Mr. Maxwell, with his reputation, could end up running an investment management company that was controlled through Liechtenstein and Gibraltar.
  Mr. Butterfill: Mr. Maxwell's track record did not relate only to Pergamon. Before that, a mail order company had collapsed in considerable disorder and disarray. There was therefore a long track record of such problems being associated with Mr. Maxwell.
  Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is correct. Before Mr. Maxwell became a Labour Member of Parliament there was what one might call a "blemish" in his background, but it got worse over the years. What happened is, therefore, all the more strange given the Liechtenstein connection, which was obviously set up for tax avoidance or tax evasion purposes. Mr. Maxwell was a man who wanted to avoid doing what the rest of us in this country do—pay our taxes—by operating through Liechtenstein. According to a written answer that I received today, nine Department of Trade and Industry reports have been produced in recent years showing that Liechtenstein is a dubious place for any company in this country to have business connections with. However, Mr. Maxwell, who was fiddling his taxes, ended up owning investment management companies that were supposed to be properly regulated in the City of London.
  Mr. Roger King: I have been listening to what my hon. Friend is saying and understand the message that he is successfully putting across, that change is required because we need to protect ordinary pensioners from having their pension funds looted by freebooting capitalists. Does my hon. Friend have any evidence of how widespread that practice is? Does it touch every single pension fund? One gets the impression that every pension fund is being plundered by out-of-control behemoths, like the hideous Maxwell. My hon. Friend should look carefully at this case, because Mr. Maxwell was an outrageous and extraordinary creature, who somehow controlled everyone around him, even honourable newspapers such as The Daily Mirror and the campaigning journalists who have been mentioned.
  I wonder whether my hon. Friend, in seeking to avoid any repetition of what has happened, is going a little too far in seeking all the changes to which he has referred, bearing in mind the fact that vast numbers of perfectly honest and respectable trustees control pension funds. Let us hope and pray that it does not happen again. After all, Mr. Maxwell is buried on the Mount of Olives and we are
  1078
  told that, in the event of a second coming, he will rise up to haunt us all again. Let us hope that, if we get hold of a JCB, we can eliminate that possibility. But let us remember that we shall probably not see the like of him again.
  Mr. Shaw: I began by saying that this is a particularly unusual case because Mr. Maxwell was named in a Department of Trade and Industry report and we do not know of any other example in which somebody who was named in a DTI report has ended up running a pension fund or pension fund companies. I think that my hon. Friend was intending to suggest that Mr. Maxwell was probably not a capitalist, but a socialist who liked living off other people's money.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend would want us to ask other relevant questions, such as how all this came about. We must ask ourselves how Mr. Maxwell became so desperate for cash that he plundered the pensions of 16,000 people in the Mirror group and the Maxwell Communication Corporation and other pension funds. We are talking about something serious and about a serious amount of money.
  We must also ask ourselves why no one stood up to Mr. Maxwell. Why did the trustees not stand up to him? We have heard earlier about trustees in the other House, whom we must not talk about for various reasons of propriety and the rules and regulations of the House. However, we must question how people with titles could turn out to be such a weak lot. Surely it is not simply because they are socialists or members of the Labour party. Surely there is more to it than that.
  Why did directors resign from some of those companies in the past year without explanations being given? Why did not the remaining directors, some of whom are members of the upper House and have socialist and Labour party connections, stand up and inquire? These members of the upper House demand enough information of the Government. Why did not they demand the information of Mr. Maxwell and his cronies? One is led to the conclusion that in this case the trustees consisted of a lot of political cronies and that the real questions were not asked because of Mr. Maxwell's political power and connections.
  I come to the last and significant question that I want to ask.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: On the nine o'clock news tonight, we learned that evidence has come out that the Department of Trade and Industry was told about possible irregularities over a year ago and took no action. The hon. Gentleman would do better to address the system and structure that control pensions, rather than make cheap political points. Everyone is worried about irregularities in the City. For a long time, the Opposition have searched for structures and asked the Government to implement them against their friends in the City.
  Mr. Shaw: The so-called irregularities of which the hon. Gentleman speaks are being investigated by the Conservative Government and have been investigated for some time. They are being dealt with. I cannot go into the irregularities in detail, because they are not relevant to the debate. However, in all probability the irregularities were financed by pension fund money. The purpose was to create a false market in the shares.
  Any decent director of a public company—in the case of Mirror Group Newspapers and Maxwell

  1079
  Communication Corporation, those directors were Labour party sympathisers and supporters—would take steps to check why the price of the shares in the market was above what it should have been. Clearly, the Labour party supporters who were on the boards of those two companies did not investigate to a sufficient extent their share prices, where the pension moneys were going and what the trustees were doing.
  The key questions are: where has the money gone, and what lessons can we learn for the future? The money appears to have been diverted into 400 companies, to end up sometimes in the banks and sometimes in private family money accounts around the world.
  But more significantly and importantly, there is a political aspect to the loss of the pension fund moneys. Moneys have gone into publications such as The European. The European unfortunately brings us close to the question whether the Leader of the Opposition and his family benefited from Maxwell or Mirror Group pension fund moneys. Two children of the Leader of the Opposition were employed at The European newspaper. That is very close to the Leader of the Opposition. It is sad, and normally I would not make much of it, but the Leader of the Opposition did not worry about unleashing the dogs of war on Mark Thatcher when my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister. In the end, Mark Thatcher went abroad to make his money legitimately and properly.
  I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will want to come to the House and make a statement about all moneys that his family may have received directly or indirectly from any Maxwell organisation, whether The European newspaper or any other. He should make a statement about the full amount of money and what he proposes to do. He should state whether he proposes to repay it to the Mirror Group pensioners and other pensioners who are suffering and may suffer as a result.
  It would be helpful also if the Leader of the Opposition would answer some obvious questions. Has his office—has he—at any time benefited in any way, shape or form from Mr. Maxwell's and other contributions? We know that the Labour party has benefited from Mr. Maxwell. We know that pension fund money may have gone to the Labour party, even if indirectly. We know that £38,000 went to the Boundary Commission fighting fund and that £44,000 went to the Labour party direct. We know that other sums have been used to support advertising and publications of the Labour party.
  The suggestion has been made that a Member of the upper House closely connected with the deputy Leader of the Opposition may also have facilitated that person receiving money to finance his office. We all know that politics is tough in this country and that there are not state moneys in that connection, but it is important when something like this happens that, if pensioners' money has ended up financing the offices of the Opposition, that money must be declared openly, and a statement should be made on the Floor of the House. I hope that personal statements will be made.
  Mr. Butterfill: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to read an article in The Spectator which says that one of the directors of the Mirror Group was being seriously considered by the Leader of the Opposition as a future Governor of the Bank of England?
  Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. I am aware of that article in The Spectator today, but I had imposed my own self-censorship because the article refers to a Member of the upper House closely connected with the Labour party, and I have taken great pains to remain in order throughout my speech. I accept—one can say this without criticism—that it would have been very dangerous had that person become Governor of the Bank of England.
  It seems that the trustees have failed the pensioners and have much to answer for to the Select Committee on Social Security, which has asked them to attend next Tuesday's meeting. More legislation may be required on trustees. At present, case law operates for trustees, and that case law is not as clear as statute law. That is unfortunate, because, until this case arose, by and large we had few problems with pension funds. The vast majority of such funds in this country are run satisfactorily and properly.
  It is equally clear that, particularly in the case of the Mirror group, the merchant banks and the profes-sionals—who carefully briefed the City of London to the effect that Maxwell had been separated from control and that Maxwell companies were separated from any influence over the public company and its pension funds—utterly failed the pensioners.
  More than anything, the Labour party, its contacts and connections failed the 16,000 Mirror Group pensioners and other pensioners who obtained their pensions through Maxwell-connected companies. The Labour party has a lot to answer for in this case.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on obtaining a debate on what is undoubtedly an important subject. I have been seeking for some time to get the issue urgently on the parliamentary agenda, but the Secretary of State for Social Security, whom I have already dubbed the invisible man of the Government, has maintained, and is still maintaining, a deafening silence.
  I do not know how he justifies his keep in the Cabinet, when an explosive issue of this kind arises, directly within his responsibility, and he says nothing, apart from suggesting that he may bring forward the regulation on self-investment on which he has already been sitting for over 18 months and which, as I shall show, is in any case irrelevant to the Maxwell saga.
  Pension funds currently total £300 billion to £400 billion, the largest single block of funds in the City. The degree of regulation at present is the lightest imaginable. It is true—I did not know that it was Speight 1883, but I am sure that that is correct—that pension funds are run by trustees, who are under a legal obligation to manage the funds in the interest of their members, but in practice the discretion that they exercise is virtually unlimited. Moreover, the trustees are generally appointed by the employer and often—not just in the Maxwell case—the chairman of the company is also the chairman of the pension fund. That may well mean, as has already been said, that the funds are used in highly questionable ways.
  There is nothing at present to stop trustees investing in the shares of the parent company. There is nothing at present to stop trustees appointing managers from their own group. There is nothing to stop new owners of a business after a takeover winding up the fund and

  1081
  transferring the pensioners to a new fund and then pocketing the surplus. That is exactly what Hanson tried to do in respect of Imperial Tobacco.
  There is nothing to stop employers paying pensioners a miserly 3 per cent. a year increase in their pensions—far below the average rate of inflation of the Thatcher years, which was 9 per cent. a year—while draining off the surplus or taking a unilateral contributions holiday. There is nothing to stop an employer shifting pension fund moneys away from reliable blue chip stock investments into much more risky and speculative gambles. All these things have happened, and they are by no means confined to Maxwell.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I shall only give way a few times, because there is limited time.
  Mr. Butterfill: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  While we are on the subject, would the hon. Gentleman agree that Mr. Maxwell clearly had difficulty in distinguishing between personal and corporate assets, and even greater difficulty, apparently, in distinguishing between personal and pension fund assets? Given that Mr. Maxwell was a major benefactor of the Labour party, both corporately and personally, and given that not just the Labour party but perhaps the private offices of some Labour party Front-Bench spokesmen may have benefited, and therefore, quite unwittingly perhaps, benefited from moneys which were tainted and not properly available to be given to them, can the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking tonight that the Labour party will forthwith undertake to repay all those moneys just in case they may have been tainted?
  Mr. Meacher: I must say that I find it nauseating hypocrisy for Tory party Members who have for years received hundreds of thousands of pounds from people like Mr. Asil Nadir, the Hong Kong tycoon whose name I cannot remember, and Mr. Latsis, who had a close relationship with the Greek colonels, to seek to lambast the Labour party for receiving money from rich men. It is an utterly disreputable and contemptible attempt to divert a serious debate by those lurid charges.
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that the Tory party has been the recipient of moneys over the years from the City and has justified it as perfectly proper. As my hon. Friend has said, their hypocrisy is now evident. I do not know whether the bubbles and the heat are bringing up the sewer rats of the Tory party, but some of the statements that I have heard here tonight have been absolutely appalling.
  Tory Members, as I am sure my hon. Friend will point out, have opposed the regulation of the City year after year; they have opposed any moves towards the declaration of political funds for political parties. They have dithered like this for all these years, and now, just like sewer rats, they bubble up to the surface.
  Mr. Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an Opposition Member to call Conservative Members who raise legitimate points of interest sewer rats? Is that parliamentary?
  Mr. Speaker: That is probably going over the top. I ask the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) to withdraw the phrase "sewer rats", which is not parliamentary.
  Mr. Rogers: Under your direction, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.
  Mr. Meacher: There is a yawning gap in pension fund law. That is agreed on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I am not giving way. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would only perpetuate the low quality of debate which he generally introduces.
  Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not unparliamentary.
  Mr. Nicholls: That was not the point that I was about the make, Mr. Speaker. I had it in mind that it was a tradition of the House that, if a Front-Bench spokesman deliberately spoke critically of a Back-Bench Member, it was courtesy to give way.
  Mr. Speaker: The convention of the House is that, if an hon. Member does not give way, other hon. Members sit down.
  Mr. Meacher: As the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) rightly said, the superannuation office of the Inland Revenue makes sure that it gets its tax. The occupational pension advisory service makes sure that minimum pension benefits are provided. After that, it is a black hole.
  The Government's response has been mind-blowingly complacent. Faced with a national outcry over the Maxwell revelations, the Secretary of State, like the three monkeys, heard nothing, saw nothing and said nothing. Instead, at the end of last night's debate, the Minister of State was wheeled out to mumble a hastily prepared script which purports to be the Government's considered response to a week of angry, blazing headlines. He said:
  "but we acknowledge that trustees have a clear duty to act at all times in the interests of the beneficiaries of the scheme. They are required by law to disclose certain facts to their pensioners, the trade unions and the members of their funds. The actuarial valuation of the funds is an important part of that. When we have considered the outcome of the Maxwell situation, we shall consider whether any further changes to the law are needed. I am not prejudging that issue when I say that, if somebody deliberately sets out to commit fraud on a massive scale, there is precious little that the law or regulatory agencies can do to prevent it entirely."
  That last sentence takes the biscuit. The Minister says that they cannot stop a deliberate fraudster breaking the law but the Government have not given the regulatory bodies any powers to prevent fraud in the first place. Hon. Members will note that he said:
  "When we have considered the outcome of the Maxwell situation, we shall consider whether any further changes to the law are needed."—[Official Report, 11 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 918.]
  The Mirror Group Newspapers case is not by a long way the first episode which should have put a shot across the Government's bows. Many well-known companies, including Vauxhall, Decca, Babcock and Wilcox, Imperial Group and Thomas Tilling, have all over the last few years revealed serious flaws in the structure of their occupational pension funds.

  1083
  Then, of course, there is Hanson. A week ago, I received out of the blue a letter from a person in Stockbridge, Hampshire, whom I have never met. He wrote:
  "I should like to remind you of the raid on Courage Brewery pension fund during the short ownership by Lord Hanson prior to the sale to John Elliot of Elders. The business had been rationalised by the Hanson henchmen—staff sacked, businesses sold off, assets transferred, land thought to belong to the sports and social club sold for an industrial estate, then Courages put up for sale. A dispute occurred over a huge cash surplus, £100 million, I think, in the employees' pension fund. This money was to be transferred from the pension fund of Courage employees to a fund in Lord Hanson's control prior to the sale, of course quite legally. The new fund was not to be used for the Courage employees whose contributions made the surplus but lost to the Hanson empire."
  I hope Conservative Members will note that it is not by any means only in the case of Maxwell that wrongdoings occur.
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Hind rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I will give way to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who made a much more balanced speech.
  Mr. Hind: Clearly, there are problems in the industry generally. I use the Maxwell case as an example because it is horrendous. Would both sides of the House agree about introducing legislation on this matter? If it is felt that legislation should be introduced in the near future, will the hon. Gentleman pledge, on behalf of the Opposition, to support it so that it could be taken through the House quickly?
  Mr. Meacher: Indeed. I am glad to give that assurance, and if the hon. Gentleman listens to the rest of my speech, he will see that I shall take that line strongly.
  In the light of what I regard as cheap party political points made by several hon. Members, I make it clear that Maxwell's actions were inexcusable. But they are not new—such action has been going on for years. Everybody knows that—pensioners, company employees, the media and the public—and everybody wanted action to stop it, except, apparently, the Government.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way.
  I was interested to read a few days ago an article by Christopher Fildes of the Daily Telegraph, who wrote on 9 December:
  "The Minister responsible—Tony Newton, caught with his mouth open, and surely not long for high office—cannot say he was not warned. More than two years ago, I told him here that pensions would blow up in his face".
  He then quotes a previous article of his entitled "Bomb in Tony Newton's in-tray", of 31 July 1989.
  Why has the Secretary of State failed to act in the past two and a half years? Does he realise that, by sitting on his hands and doing nothing about the matter for the past several years, he bears some responsibility for the losses suffered and for the fact that Mirror Group Newspapers pensioners have been cheated of their pensions? He bears some responsibility for the losses suffered by other pensioners and employees in a string of recent notorious cases because of the lack of a law which would have prevented those dubious and questionable practices from
  1084
  taking place. By his complacency and by dithering over his response—or rather non-response—to the Maxwell scandal, he is still causing anxiety and apprehension to millions of pensioners who are genuinely very worried about whether their pension fund is secure.
  I mean no disrespect to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone, but if the Secretary of State does not come out of hiding soon and come to the Dispatch Box with considered proposals to stop the rape of pension funds, he will have forfeited his right to retain his office and, in my view, he should resign. If he has any doubts about what he should do, I shall tell him.
  First, the Secretary of State should enshrine in law the clear principle—I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Lancashire, West make the same point—that the pension fund moneys belong to their members, not to the employers. That is not just the long-held view of the Labour party but was the decision last year of the European Court in the Barber judgment, which declared that men and women should have equal pay. That meant that there should be equal pensions, because pensions are deferred pay.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman should legislate—again, I am wholly in agreement with the hon. Member for Lancashire, West—to provide for an independent chairman who is not to be the chairman of the parent company, or a member of the parent company board. He should require—we may differ a little on this, but I insist on it—that there be a 50 per cent. Employee representation, consisting of at least one pensioner representative, on the trust board. Those employee representatives must be independently elected, not chosen by the managers or owners of the parent company.
  That is exactly the framework that we proposed during the Committee stage of the Social Security Act 1990, but it received the same negligent and complacent response from the Government then, on 6 March 1990, as it does now. The then junior Minister for Social Security said in response to our proposal:
  "We feel that it would be an unnecessary intrusion into he way that pension schemes are run and set up, to give the state the power to require schemes to have member trustees".— [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 6 March 1990; c. 348.]
  It was that folly, due to political dogma—the Government's refusal to require the appointment of 50 per cent. employee representatives to keep a close eye on an errant employer—that led directly to Maxwell's autocratic control of the MGN pension funds and their subsequent misuse.
  Thirdly, the Secretary of State should require full and up-to-date disclosure of all relevant information covering the financial state of the pension fund. Every member of that board should be an equal recipient of that information.
  Fourthly, the Secretary of State should regulate extremely tightly both self-investment and stock lending—I am surprised that stock lending has not been mentioned more tonight. The 5 per cent. self-investment regulation, which the Secretary of State has already been sitting on for 18 months and has still not introduced, is flawed because it exempts permanently any self-investment in the company's properties, as opposed to shares which exist when the law is finally changed.
  More importantly, reference to that much-delayed regulation was the only response made by the Secretary of

  1085
  State to the Maxwell revelations, and it was irrelevant because Maxwell did not self-invest in the parent company, but drained off the funds to an entirely separate set of private interests. Therefore, even if the Secretary of State's regulation had been in place five years ago, it would still not have stopped Maxwell doing what he did by one iota. We await any Government response that is relevant to preventing what has happened, which we all agree involved misdeeds.
  Fifthly, the right hon. Gentleman should make statutory provision for the redress of complaints. He should offer recourse to an independent tribunal with enforcement powers—possibly within the industrial tribunal framework—so that the complaints and grievances of pension fund members can be properly addressed.
  Sixthly, and most importantly, we need a statutory trust deed to provide a model for the operation and administrative procedures of pension funds. At present, employers can, idiosyncratically, write their own trust deeds. They do not have to conform to a trust framework that guarantees the protection of the proper rights and interests of employees and pensioners. That standard trust deed should regulate the nature and frequency of trustee meetings, establish minimum standards for disclosure, standardise rules for the actuarial calculation of surpluses, which are gravely lacking at present, and regulate investment procedures.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will note that I think that we should look at European procedures and practice. In particular, we should consider the rules in the Benelux countries, whereby about two thirds of pension fund assets must be invested in cash or fixed-interest stock. We should also look at the provision in Germany of a degree of compulsory insolvency insurance so that pensioners are protected against losses suffered from speculation outside blue chip stock investment. I think that the Select Committee is to do so, which I strongly support.
  There must be new rules to regulate the allocation of surpluses. It is simply wrong for employers to siphon off surpluses or take unilateral contributions holidays, which amounts to much the same thing, when pensioners are being fobbed off with a mere average 3 per cent. annual increase in pension to protect them against inflation—especially when the average inflation rate in the Thatcher years was 9 per cent. The first duty of the pension fund must be to provide best quality pensions for its members, including adequate inflation protection, which is currently gravely lacking.
  I draw attention to the secret protocol to the economic and monetary union treaty which, it was announced today, was signed at Maastricht. In effect, the Prime Minister has signed away equal pension rights between British men and women for the next 40 years, secretly, without warning or consultation, and with dubious constitutional validity because it flies in the face of the Barber judgment of May last year. This is, in effect, the third opt-out from the treaty on economic and monetary union by this outsider Prime Minister.
  When that is fully understood, it will cause intense anger among the millions of pensioners and employees who will find that their hopes and expectations of pension
  1086
  equality in retirement have been abruptly and unceremoniously dashed by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. However, it raises two important issues.
  First, six months ago the Secretary of State suspended the 5 per cent. limited price indexing regulation on the grounds that it could not be afforded with the overhang of costs from the Barber judgment. If that has now been removed by this protocol—I want an answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe)—will he urgently reinstate the limited price indexing regulation? [Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary is worried about time, perhaps she should have had a word with two of her hon. Friends, one of whom spoke for half an hour and one for 25 minutes.
  If the LPI regulation is introduced, occupational pensions will be slightly better but still inadequately protected against the ravages of inflation. Will the Secretary of State reintroduce that regulation? Secondly, will he use the latest protocol to ditch the hopes and expectations of equal retirement age and equal pension rights in the state scheme? On that alone, he owes it to millions of people to make clear the Government's position.
  If there is one good thing about the Maxwell saga, it is the way in which it has highlighted the flaws and gaps in the control of pension funds so that even this Government can no longer drag their feet and ignore them. Procrastination and delay must stop. We must have a new, effective and comprehensive law on the statute book before the election if it is in six months' time. As I have been asked, I give an assurance that, if the framework of protection that I have spelt out is speedily adopted by the Secretary of State, we shall give such a Bill a fair wind in Parliament. If not, it will be on his head and on that of the Government when millions of pensioners and employees give their verdict on the issue in the forthcoming election.
  10.2 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Well, well, well. On the night when we were discussing matters of supreme importance to millions of pensioners, where were the Opposition? On the night when we were discussing the fears and anxieties of employees—past and present—who worked for years for a major Labour newspaper, where were the Opposition?
  It is worth recording that, for the first three quarters of an hour of this one-and-a-half-hour debate there was no one on the Opposition Back Benches, whereas, on the Conservative Back Benches, interest has been shown not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), whom I congratulate on obtaining the debate and on the eloquent and reasonable way in which he opened it, but by my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), for Dover (Mr. Shaw), for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin), for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), for Ipswich, (Mr. Irvine) and for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens). But where was the Labour party?
  I find it rather nauseating—I think that that was the phrase used by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that he should criticise my right hon. Friend the

  1087
  Secretary of State for inaction when we have taken consistent action, not just in response to some very large headlines but since the passing of the Social Security Act 1990.
  That is only the most recent measure. I could also mention the Financial Services Act 1986 and its importance for this matter, but it is worth recording that the Social Security Act 1990 provided powers enabling restrictions to be based on the extent to which the resources of occupational pension schemes may be invested in the sponsoring employer and—this will interest the hon. Member for Oldham, West—in an associate employer or connected employer. The hon. Member for Oldham, West has rushed in with his mouth open to say that the Act had severe limitations, when in fact we should examine carefully the extent of the Act and make careful judgments on the basis of that.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: In due course. I apologise, but the hon. Member for Oldham, West did not leave me much time.
  Shortly after the passage of this Act the Government commissioned independent consultants—they did not just pass the Act and have done with it—Ernst and Young to report on the extent of such investment and on any problems that could arise in restricting it. We wanted to be sure when we brought in the regulations to follow the Act that they would be sensible and would stand up. That is not inaction: it is sensible action.
  Following the report, draft regulations to achieve such restrictions were then referred to the Occupational Pensions Board. That is not inaction either. After consultation with interested bodies, the board reported on the draft towards the end of July. So my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not been sitting on this for 18 months; there was solid action right up to the time when Parliament rose for its summer recess.
  Having considered these representations, together with others received subsequently about the need for appropriate provisions to avoid causing unnecessary difficulty to companies and pension funds in respect of existing self-investment, we intend to lay the regulations shortly.
  Mr. Rogers: I agree that the Government have, under considerable pressure, introduced legislation. If the legislation, however, is as good as the hon. Lady suggests, why did it not stop Maxwell criminally diverting funds from pension funds?
  The hon. Lady invoked the Financial Services Act. I remember Opposition Members frequently suggesting that we should set up a structure to control the City and its financial dealings. Tory Members said that the City can regulate itself. That is the problem—without control of the City of London there will always be these scandals.
  Miss Widdecombe: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman asks why these measures did not stop Mr. Maxwell when, as we have just said, they are about to come into force. They are not retrospective and they would not have bitten on the Maxwell problem.
  The protection of pension funds is of importance to the vast majority of people, and the Government have worked consistently to strengthen safeguards for pension funds and to protect scheme members. The bulk of what has
  1088
  been said tonight notwithstanding, I feel that I cannot comment on problems to do with the Maxwell group of companies' pension funds——
  Mr. Rogers: Why not?
  Miss Widdecombe: Because at best that would be speculative and at worst it could be seen as prejudicing the outcome of the Serious Fraud Office investigation.
  In general, we should first consider the legal basis for the vast majority of pension schemes—in the main, it is trust law. This ensures that a scheme's assets are held separately from the employer's assets. This is a requirement for approval of the scheme for tax purposes. Under trust law, the trustees of the scheme, including those appointed by the employer, have a duty to act at all times in the best interests of all the beneficiaries under the trust, in accordance with the trust deed and the scheme rules.
  As we have discussed the independence of trustees tonight, it is worth rehearsing their main duties. They must act in accordance with the trust deed and rules of the scheme within the framework of law. They must act prudently, conscientiously and honestly and with the utmost good faith. They must act in the best interests of beneficiaries and strike a fair balance between the interests of different classes of beneficiaries. They must take advice on technical matters and any other matters which they do not understand and they must invest the funds.
  The duties of trustees in relation to investment have most concerned the House tonight. Under the Financial Services Act 1986, it is a criminal offence for an unauthorised person to carry on investment business, and that includes the day-to-day management of pension scheme investments. It is most unusual, therefore, for trustees to seek authorisation under the Act. Instead, trustees mainly delegate the work of detailed investment management to an authorised investment manager. However, they must retain control over broad strategic decisions such as the proportion of the total funds to be invested in particular categories of investment.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the Maxwell case, that work was delegated to Bishopsgate, which is an authorised investment manager—regulated by the Financial Services Act and a member of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, and that there may be a claim against IMRO as a result?
  Miss Widdecombe: As I have said, I shall not comment on the details of the Maxwell case, pending the outcome of the specific investigation. It would be prejudicial for me to do so, but I shall take on board my hon. Friend's point.
  In stating what the Government have already done, there is no suggestion that we are not interested in other representations. Not least among those representations must surely be the outcome of the Select Committee's deliberations. It would be wrong for us to rush in and take precipitate action without making judgments based on the important representations of the Select Committee and others which we shall receive.
  If a trustee carries out some act in relation to the trust which is not authorised by the terms of the trust or a statutory obligation, or fails to do something that he should have done, there is a breach of trust. If that causes a loss to the fund, the trustee is personally liable unless the scheme rules exempt the trustee from liability—for instance, where there is some entirely unintentional error,

  1089
  which could be something as minor as paying a pension to someone who, upon examination, is not strictly entitled to it. Most pension schemes contain a provision binding the employer to indemnify the trustees against any liability or costs resulting from the proper exercise of their functions, but that would not apply to fraudulent transactions.
  The trustee body sets out the procedure for the appointment of trustees and who is eligible. It may include people who are members of the board or senior executives of the company. It may include members of the scheme or the pensioners. The trustee body may be a company with individuals as directors of the compnay and it may include one or more persons with no direct interest in the scheme.
  It is interesting that there are about 160,000 such schemes, of varying size and complexity and with different memberships. One of the difficulties in taking the sort of action being recommended by Opposition Members and one or two of my hon. Friends is that we have to devise schemes that will not have an adverse impact on genuine operations by smaller companies. It was precisely that sort of consideration which led us into such detailed consultation on the self-investment regulations and which would lead us again, however worthy a proposal might seem at first sight, to investigate the effects thoroughly.
  We do not want to lay regulations only to find that we then have a string of amending regulations because, owing to the varying types of schemes, exceptions keep coming to the fore. Membership of those schemes now totals 20 million. It is a serious business. With all due respect to Opposition Members and to my hon. Friends, it is not something into which we can rush without full and proper consultation.
  To improve understanding of the role and responsibilities of trustees, the Occupational Pensions Board, in its report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on protecting pensions, expressed the view that a brief statement of the principles of trusteeship should be prepared and that the disclosure requirements, which have not featured much in tonight's debate but which are important, should be extended to include information on whether each trustee has received a copy of the statement.
  My right hon. Friend accepted the board's recommendation—again, action not inaction—invited it to prepare a booklet and undertook to extend the disclosure requirements as soon as it was published, to include information as to whether trustees had access to that booklet. My right hon. Friend will then be in a position to extend the disclosure requirements accordingly.
  Trustees are governed not just by trust law in that respect but must comply with legislation enacted by——
  In accordance with MR. SPEAKER'S Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

  Homelessness
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: The time is 10.15 pm, and all over the United Kingdom people are getting ready for bed—not all in the comfort of their own homes, and certainly not in two, three, or four-star hotels, but in shop doorways, on park benches, and in derelict buildings.
  The homeless of the United Kingdom—our country—are men and women of all ages. This evening they are sleeping rough, as they do on many nights, on the streets of this country. That is the United Kingdom of December 1991—be it in the cities of London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, or Bristol. The list is endless.
  Those are some of the principal cities of our country, but a survey undertaken in February shows that, even in small towns, people are sleeping rough tonight, as they were at the beginning of the year. The survey revealed that the number of people sleeping rough in Andover was 50; in Cambridge, 60; in Luton, 50, and in Blackburn, 25. Not half a mile from this building—the mother of Parliaments—hundreds of people are sleeping rough tonight.
  Early-day motion 304, "Homeless people sleeping rough in severe weather outside London", was signed by more than 70 right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I have over a long period tabled questions on that issue. I did so in June 1990, February 1991, and November 1991. As long ago as December 1989, I put this written question to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher):
  "To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit the Crisis at Christmas centre in London during Christmas."
  She replied:
  "I have at present no plans to do so."—[Official Report, 19 December 1989; Vol.164, c.122.]
  And she did not.
  That is the background to the homelessness that stretches throughout the country, but there are other aspects. Official estimates suggest that some 40,000 homeless households in London are in temporary accommodation. Many of those families include young children. The figure for homeless households in the whole of the United Kingdom is estimated at 145,000.
  We all know what such accommodation offers: a roof over one's head, but very little more. People must live in a single room with all their belongings. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have visited such accommodation, and seen suitcases and plastic bags piled high on wardrobes or cupboards. There is nowhere for youngsters to play, and what facilities there are—bathroom, toilet and kitchen—are shared. Often, the accommodation is some distance from where the occupants have been living, and the move involves a major upheaval.
  As I have said, there are 40,000 homeless households in London. In 1979, there were 2,750. Both figures reflect a pattern that is repeated throughout the country.
  Why do such conditions exist in 1991? There can be no doubt that the position has worsened every year since the Government came to power in 1979. Since then, however, the country has gained enormous wealth through North sea oil and the sale of state assets. Where have those vast sums gone? How much of the money has been spent on trying to tackle the tragedy of homelessness, which many would describe as not only a tragedy but a national scandal?
  Mr. Clive Soley: The point about privatisation is important. We should bear in mind the fact that the assets resulting from the sale of council houses total more than £23 billion—more than the assets from all the other privatisations put together—while investment in housing has been cut from £11 billion to £6 billion. That is a measure of the extent to which resources have been wasted.
  Mr. Cox: My hon. Friend has considerable experience of all aspects of housing, and, as always, he has made a telling point. I intend to develop it further, and, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend will no doubt do so as well.
  New elements have entered the problem of homelessness. It has been estimated that, in the first half of this year, well over 36,000 properties were repossessed. We know the reasons for that: high interest rates and ever-increasing unemployment have caused the break-up of marriages and families, and have introduced tensions.
  According to official figures, so far this year 162,000 people have incurred mortgage arrears of between six and 12 months, with over 59,000 being more than 12 months in arrears. There can be no doubt that the position is worsening month by month. I had a letter earlier this week from the all-party group on homelessness. It is dated 10 December, and gives notice of a meeting in the House next week on the subject of mortgage arrears and how to prevent homelessness arising from repossesions.
  In The Observer last Sunday there was a major article about repossessions headed: "'Homes catastrophe brewing' as losses soar". The report gave harrowing details about what happens when people lose their homes, not because they are idle or could not care less but simply because they have lost their jobs and cannot get others, so they cannot keep up the payments that they were making before the loss of the man's job, or that of his wife.
  Housing experts estimate that there will be between 80,000 and 90,000 repossessions this year. I have here a Public Accounts Committee report on homelessness which was published in May. As I expect hon. Members know, the PAC is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). On the extent and causes of homelessness, the report says:
  "We are gravely concerned that homelessness has more than doubled over the last decade … and is continuing to rise at a higher rate than before. Our concern is underlined by the fact that the official statistics may well significantly understate the true scale of homelessness, since they are confined to those applying as homeless and accepted as having a priority need".
  Under the heading "On Department of the Environment action", the report says:
  "We note the improvements being made in the Department's arrangements for allocating resources to local authorities for general housing purposes"—
  I am trying to make my comments as fair as possible—
  "and we support the aim of targeting resources increasingly on authorities with the worst housing problems, including homelessness …
  We regard it as unsatisfactory, however, that the Department have not set clear, quantified targets for the extra homes these substantial expenditure programmes are expected to provide and the impact on the numbers who are homeless …
  We expect the Department to review their homelessness programmes accordingly, with a view to setting appropriate targets and timescales…
  We are very concerned about the extensive use of bed and breakfast accommodation which is often very expensive and unsuitable for families".
  1092
  I described earlier the kind of accommodation that people who become homeless are offered. The report continues:
  "a cost of £15,000 per family a year is bad value for money."
  I think that all of us would agree. As well as being bad value for money, such accommodation provides bad conditions for the families who, sadly, find themselves put there.
  Let us consider the views of organisations that have enormous experience in all aspects of housing. Even Ministers would not sneer at Shelter's comments and, if they did, they would be unwise.
  Mr. Sydney Chapman (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Who said that they sneered?
  Mr. Cox: I merely made a comment, which I have a right to do.
  Shelter, in a letter dated 14 November 1991, says:
  "People sleeping rough in severe weather … Despite the enormous publicity of the plight of thousands of homeless people, the Government took no action outside Central London."
  In May 1991, Shelter published a booklet called "Left Out—Sleeping Rough in Severe Weather". It followed a survey by Shelter in February 1991, when, as we are now, we went through a period of severe weather. Shelter made some damning indictments of the Government and their policy on helping homeless people. Shelter says:
  "Outside central London (where the Government contributed to a basic—and highly publicised—relief operation) 7,000 'roofless' people were almost entirely dependent on the charity of volunteers. Government and most local authorities refused to accept any responsibility for these people's survival."
  I will quote some of the authorities which had to pick up the pieces in February 1991—and which will no doubt have to do the same this December. Cambridge city council says:
  "Local authorities were left in an ad hoc and pretty much accidental situation. It was pure luck that ad hoc arrangements actually worked. We would expect the Government to provide funding for what the voluntary sector do over and above normal arrangements. They cannot be expected to do it with no money."
  The Shelter housing advice centre in Manchester says:
  "Voluntary groups…can point to a need but don't have the resources to begin to fulfil it."
  The Bishop of Chelmsford said on 18 February 1991:
  "Voluntary agencies, including the Church are therefore doing all they can to alleviate the problem but it is vital that in the short term the Government acts quickly in collaboration with local authorities to meet the needs of the homeless in these critical circumstances and in the long term that the underlying causes of homelessness are addressed."
  Those comments were made in February 1991. All the evidence shows clearly that, within hundreds of yards of Parliament—in Victoria, for example—people are sleeping in cardboard boxes tonight. Indeed, that is true of others throughout the country. As I have said, that is what happened in February 1991, and it is happening again this winter. More people are sleeping rough and becoming homeless. More pressure is being placed on organisations like Shelter, the Churches and local authorities.
  I received a letter from the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association. They represent Labour and Conservative-controlled authorities in London. The letter was sent on 2 December and it states:
  "It is an understatement to say that the growing problem of the backlog of homeless families in temporary accommodation is causing the homeless working party major

  1093
  concern. This is reinforced by recent research by the London Housing Unit on behalf of the homeless working party which shows that unless there are some significant changes in Government housing policy the gap between the supply of permanent homes and demand from homeless families will widen even further."
  It was signed by the directors of the London boroughs of Haringey and Kensington and Chelsea. Those boroughs are under different political control, but they both make the same damning indictment of the Government's lack of action in respect of a problem that sadly has been with us for far too long.
  When the Minister replies, it would be interesting if he would comment on a letter that I received today which questions the future of the resettlement agency. Do the Government propose to close next March four Government-run homeless units? Many people would like to know the answer to that. It would also be very interesting to hear from the Minister exactly what contact the agency has with those who work with the homeless.
  What I have said about London as a London Member can, I am sure, be said by hon. Members irrespective of the part of the country they represent. As I have said, the problem gets worse every year. We must ask why it worsens year by year. I have referred to the reasonably new tragedy of repossession of property. That problem ranges across the board in respect of the professional backgrounds of the people who are losing their homes.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us about the Government's involvement with the banks and building societies to help people when they have difficulty repaying their mortgages. What discussions have the Government had with the banks and building societies about impressing on them the urgent need to keep families together and to keep people living in their homes instead of repossessing homes which causes people to become homeless?
  Within the past month, I heard of the case of someone who had a mortgage with Nationwide Anglia. I took up the matter with the director of that building society. To his credit, he expressed deep concern at the way in which my constituent had been treated. The behaviour of many banks and building societies is an utter disgrace. They should hang their heads in shame at the pressure and harassment that they inflict on decent, honest, law-abiding citizens who sadly have lost their jobs and find themselves in the great dilemma of how to pay their mortgage.
  Banks and building societies have much to answer for. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister just what meaningful discussions—not just, "You really should know better, gentlemen"—have taken place. I have mentioned the estimated number of repossessions that will take place not only during what is left of this year but well into next year.
  Our great housing problem is that there is not enough affordable housing for people to buy, if possible, or to rent. There has been a massive decline in council house building. The Government have encouraged councils not to build properties.
  Let me quote one or two figures to show the enormous decline that has occurred over recent years. In 1974, 120,000 council properties were being built. In 1979, 56,000 council properties were being built. In 1989, the figure went down to 14,000. In 1990 the figure went down further to 7,500. The figure for the first half of this year is
  1094
  2,412. Since the Government have been in office, 56,000 properties have been built. I am being generous, as the Government would have inherited properties that were in the development pipeline. The figure this year will be even lower. About 130,000 council properties have been sold. Those properties have moved out of the affordable market.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman, because I think that he is having difficulty in reading his script. In fact, 1·3 million houses, not 130,000, have been sold under the right to buy. The hon. Gentleman may have left a nought off the end.
  More important for the purposes of the debate, the hon. Gentleman has completely overlooked the large and growing contribution made to affordable housing by the housing association movement, into which the Government are pouring huge, ever-increasing amounts of taxpayers' money, and delivering value for money and attractive accommodation with which tenants show themselves highly satisfied.
  Mr. Cox: That sounds attractive, but it is not borne out by the facts or by what is said by the various people whom I quoted earlier, who work in all areas of housing and not only in connection with the homeless. They are not saying what the Minister is saying, so I shall not be swayed by him.
  Mr. Soley: To put the record straight, the housing associations are only just getting back to the number of housing units that they were providing in the mid-1970s.
  Mr. Cox: My hon. Friend makes the point more forcefully than me.
  This Government have given people every encouragement to buy their own home. That may be commendable and may help those who can afford to buy. Some can, but many cannot. Who helps them? The Minister will say, "I've just told you who helps them," but why is there such an enormous need for housing in this country if what we are told is true and various organisations—not local authorities—are now providing housing?
  Like many other hon. Members, I believe that now is the time for a massive house-building programme. We all know from the letters and documents that we receive that our construction industry is on its knees. Thousands of highly qualified building workers are on the dole—not only for a week or two when the weather is bad, but for month after month. What has happened to some of the big building consortiums? We have seen how their profits have slumped, but why is that happening when we all know that new properties should be built?
  A valid criticism to make against the Government is that vacant land throughout the country is being sold—not for affordable housing, but for supermarkets and up-market property—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister will have his conversation with his hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) privately—
  Mr. Steve Norris: Oh, do let us get on with it.
  Mr. Cox: The hon. Gentleman says, "Let's get on with it." Some of my comments are undoubtedly embarrassing for the hon. Gentleman, who is an outer-London Member of Parliament and must have problems similar to those that many other hon. Members are encountering,

  1095
  irrespective of constituency. Perhaps it is expecting a little much of the hon. Gentleman to ask him to consider the plight of people who are looking for somewhere to sleep or for somewhere they can be with their families this Christmas.
  Given what the Minister has said, I ask him where people without large incomes can find affordable housing either to rent or to buy. What discussions are held with the local authorities and hospitals that have a lot of land? The London borough of Wandsworth, for which I am one of the Members of Parliament, contains classic examples. Tooting Bec hospital is now nearly closed and there is demand for a massive supermarket to be built on the site. There is demand for a golf course at Springfield hospital, which also has a great deal of land.
  In inner London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith will know, old Greater London council and Inner London education authority properties and lands are being sold off, not for local needs, but for the most money that can be obtained. One has to ask—this goes back to the point that the Minister made a moment ago—what is the Government's policy to encourage private house building along with local authority, housing association and Housing Corporation building?
  When will the constraints on local authority capital spending to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith referred be relaxed? Many authorities have substantial capital receipts. When will they be allowed to spend them? It would be interesting to hear from the Minister when local authorities will be allowed to spend that money, the existence of which no one disputes.
  If one sadly—[Interruption.] I am delighted that the Minister thinks that is so hilarious. I do not know whether the Ministers or other hon. Members were present for the previous debate. I know that you were, Mr. Speaker, but I realise that you are not in a position to comment. The Minister who replied to that debate made the most enormous play of the fact that there were no Labour Members on the Opposition Benches to debate that great issue and what a scandal it was.
  But this is a scandal. Conservative Members are laughing their little heads off because they think that is so funny. I hope that when the debate, or possibly a debate in which they are involved, is over, they will take a walk to Victoria and tread over the people. I am aware of the comments made by the Minister for Housing and Planning a little while ago. They have not been forgotten. I will not be unkind and remind him. He knows what I am talking about.
  Mr. Yeo: That is a disgraceful slur on my hon. Friend, who is known by people in all parts of the political spectrum as one of the most committed Members of Parliament, with a determination to see an improvement in the housing condition of the country. For the hon. Gentleman to drag that comment in, even by the appalling standards that he has set in the past 37 minutes, is nothing short of disgraceful. I hope that he will withdraw that slur.
  Mr. Cox: I did not make the slur. The Minister for Housing and Planning knows the comments that were attributed to him. The Minister should understand a little about the procedures of the House. I did not cast any slur on the Minister. I referred to a comment that had massive coverage. I suggest that the Minister should not pursue it.
  1096
  Whatever may have happened in this debate, outside the House throughout Britain many people have nowhere to live and are sleeping rough. They have done so for many years. It will be interesting in the time that is left—there is still quite a bit of time left—to hear from the Government exactly what they propose to do. I have quoted the criticisms of the Government made repeatedly by reputable organisations. If they are untrue, let the Government say that they are untrue. Let them challenge the quotes that I have given. I named where they came from. Let them dispute them in the debate tonight.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. Steve Norris: I shall find it difficult to comment on many of the points made by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), for although I tried to concentrate on the thrust of his speech, it took quite an effort. I was impressed with one aspect of it, however, and that was his ability to err in his facts by a factor of 10.
  Having misrepresented the number of council houses sold in Britain by over a million, when he was corrected about that, the hon. Gentleman continued with a glissando that was breathtaking and completed his remarks without any recognition of the fact that he might have been pursuing Aneurin Bevan's adage that one should never let a good speech be confused by the facts, and following it rather more literally than might have been advisable.
  The hon. Gentleman has only one good point in his favour. That is that he has raised a serious subject of interest to hon. Members in all parts of the House. There is a different dimension to the whole question of housing and the homeless. As we have seen in the past decade, there are a number of issues on which it is appropriate to pay a fulsome tribute to the Minister, his hon. Friends and their predecessors. Less remembered than it should be is the fact that, under Conservative rule, we have attempted to free into the housing market hundreds of thousands of units of accommodation in the private rented sector. Due to no doubt well-meaning but, in the event, totally misguided rent legislation, that accommodation was prevented from being available for tenants to occupy.
  Every hon. Member has had experience of elderly owners with available accommodation to let who would have been satisfied with a modest return but who were prevented from letting by the law as it stood and the experience of their peers who had been involved in letting with disastrous consequences. It was extraordinary to hear the hon. Member for Tooting present a picture of housing and homelessness in Britain without recognising the huge impact of the release of property into the private rented sector.
  The irony of the work done in that sphere is the possibility that still deters many from embarking on letting property—the vestigial possibility of a change of Government. The prospect of a return to the bad old days under Labour denies the availability of hundreds of thousands of units of accommodation to people who desperately need it from people who are more than happy to provide it.
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is digging himself into an ever deeper hole. He criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for not being concerned with facts, when my hon. Friend made more of a conventional slip than the sort of fundamental error that the hon. Gentleman just made. When the Conservatives

  1097
  came to power, 14 per cent. of the rented market was in the private sector. The decline continued and has accelerated, to the point where it is now only 7 per cent. There has never been any such suggestion from the Opposition. Indeed, the position has been made clear by me and my hon. Friends—there will be no retrospective legislation, and everybody knows it.
  Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is tacitly accepting that our reforms in the rented sector have been in the right direction, and I am grateful for his pledge that retrospection will not be in the mind of a future Labour Government. I am pleased that he accepts that our reforms are appreciated, not just in the inner cities, where they are of particular advantage, but in urban and suburban areas.
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that the legislation of 1980 reduced rent controls dramatically. Indeed, in Northern Ireland they were abolished in 1956. But in all cases the decline in the rented sector accelerated. The hon. Gentleman will take the figures from the Duke of Edinburgh's report, if he will not take them from me.
  Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman misses my point, which is two-edged. There is the potential impact of the private rented sector and the extent to which Labour attitudes—as evidenced by their actions when in government and their statements during the last decade—have been a huge disincentive to the release on to the market of many affordable units of accommodation which could be derived from existing single units and which are currently denied to people who have no accommodation.
  At the risk of bogging the hon. Gentleman down in argument when I am sure that he will make his own speech, which I look forward to hearing, I suggest that the other great area in which the Government deserve congratulation is the introduction into the housing market of infinitely more creative financing than has been available hitherto.
  Again, the hon. Member for Tooting, who has just given us the benefit of his views on housing for 40 minutes, seemed to neglect the marvellous impact that the housing asociation movement has had on housing in Great Britain. Housing associations have been able to offer shared equity schemes, link equities, rent mortgage schemes, and so on, which have all been of tremendous benefit to tenants in all parts of the country, many of whom are keen to convert tenancies into ownership and who, without the creative financing available through the housing association movement, would never be able to do so.
  In addition, the more creative financing which is now available has led to the most desirable schemes for those with special needs—those with handicaps, single parents who would otherwise find it difficult to obtain accommodation, and so on. We all have examples in our constituencies. There has been a very heartening development of this sector and the housing associations and housing corporations continue to make a very significant contribution to meeting the needs in this area.
  One thing that is underrated is the extent to which, over the last decade, there has been an attempt to involve tenants a great deal more in the management of their own property. That, again, is something that I very much
  1098
  welcome. The Government inherited the most appalling nannyish tendency to assume that tenants were the last people who should ever be consulted on the way in which their properties were managed.
  I look forward to the next Parliament, when I hope that my hon. Friends may both have moved on to higher and even more rewarding pastures. Perhaps the Whip on duty, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) will be with us; some good things in life are ever with us and we look forward to his continued presence on the Treasury Bench. I hope that those who will take on our housing policies into the 1990s will continue the very welcome trend of putting more power into the hands of tenants—not just local authority tenants, but housing association tenants and private tenants as well, all of whom deserve to have this extra power in their hands.
  This debate is not simply about the benefits that we have derived from housing policy over the last decade. It is also to some extent about the specific issue of homelessness, which the hon. Member for Tooting mentioned. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Minister in placing on record what I believe to be the incontrovertible record in this field of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), the Minister for Housing and Planning.
  No one who has taken the slightest interest in the problems of the homeless in London could ignore the beneficial impact of my hon. Friend on this problem, and it is extraordinarily churlish to suggest that he has had anything other than the greatest commitment to this unfortunate group of people, which he has discharged with immense distinction. I place on record the warmest congratulations of Conservative Members and, I suspect, of the vast majority of Opposition Members on the work that he has done.
  It is still, however, an immensely disturbing proposition to me and, I am sure, to the hon. Member for Tooting, to his hon. Friends and to mine, that there should be, as he says, as we drive along the Strand or in Victoria, anyone forced to use a shop or office doorway as accommodation on a bitter winter night such as this. That is not something that any sane Member would deny exists, and the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to point out that it does. The remedy, however, is perhaps more complex than that suggested by the hon. Member for Tooting. It has always seemed to derive from two phenomena, both of which call for attention and of neither of which I fully understand the ramifications.
  The first is the extent to which London is still regarded as a magnet by many young people who do not have stable home conditions in their towns and villages, or even in the outer suburbs of their cities. They look to London for excitement, employment opportunity, money or whatever, and so often are sadly, tragically, disappointed and misled when they arrive. There has been a welcome increase in the services available to them. Those services are offered by all the agencies concerned, from the police through the voluntary sector, the social services, and so on.
  There is no merit whatever in allowing people to stay in doorways in those circumstances, simply because it may seem a more convenient solution; quick intervention is needed. I say that against the background of the knowledge that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning made available extra hostel accommodation, and that in many cases the problem in central London is

  1099
  not technically the availability of beds, but rather a question whether the various agencies have chosen to intervene, and on what basis.
  My simple observation is that it is in everyone's interest to intervene sooner rather than later. It would be better if the young people could be caught on the first day away without a stable roof over their heads, and returned to their homes. I appreciate that it is not always possible to return them, so if they could be counselled about how to find their feet independently, that would be in everyone's interest.
  I do not want to enunciate a philosophy that people who live in doorways are making the place look untidy and should be removed for the sake of it. Most of us would have more charity in our hearts, particularly when the weather is so cold, but we have to recognise that if a young person is allowed to develop the habit of seeking refuge in that way, it is a desperately difficult habit to break. Early intervention, despite the fact that it might be thought by some to be heavy-handed, is therefore important.
  The second obvious source of homelessness in London is even more tragic, because its origins are in schizophrenia and other mental illness. Such people find it hard to accept the confines of institutional housing, and are very difficult individuals with whom to deal. My heart goes out to all who have to deal with them. I pay tribute to their work and to the commitment of volunteers, as well as people in the national health service and social services, to those who are mentally disordered and whose behaviour patterns occasionally cause the most disturbing incidents. We have to deal with those people at a slower pace than in the past.
  None of what I say is new to my hon. Friend. I merely state it because it is the most important element in the debate about homelessness. Surely we are now in a position to deal with the consequences of our enthusiasm to decant people from the large, long-stay institutions, as part of our genuine commitment to a community care policy which had all-party approval when it was introduced.
  It is as clear now to the Secretary of State as to the whole House that there was clinical over-enthusiasm to decant from long-stay institutions people for whom there was not adequate personal planning. It left such people with a tenuous link to social services and to those who had a medical input into their conditions. I urge those with competence in such matters to think again about the extent of decanting, although it may not be a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning.
  I appreciate the desire to achieve a large capital receipt from the closure of a long-stay institution. Incidentally, having been involved, together with the health authority, in Borocourt, an institution for the mentally handicapped just outside Reading—I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State know that institution—I shall never regard it as desirable to keep such places a day longer than is necessary, but there may be a day on which it is necessary. However wrong it may have been for a person to be incarcerated in such an institution 30 years ago, it may be better for a person to be retained there, with care, warmth and at least some sort of regime of supervision, before he or she embarks on a life outside where there will need to be adequate support services.
  I say in all good humour that we have often listened to the hon. Member for Tooting with interest and he makes a conscientious point. However, it is not sensible to
  1100
  describe the entire private sector market as littered with repossessions and tragedies. It is extraordinarily sad that some young people bought their houses at the top of a market which has declined and that they are now experiencing difficulty. I welcome the fact that the Government have considered creative ways of avoiding repossessions wherever possible. Nevertheless, 99 per cent. of mortgages are still being paid and kept current. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) may have queried my statistic, but I assure him that it is accurate.
  In the context of the worst recession in many years—that is not even a matter for debate—and substantial reductions in house prices, that statistic is a tribute to the flexibility of the system and to the way in which many building societies have already recognised that their long-term interests lie in trying, wherever possible, in helping home owners to stay in possession of their dwellings, even if it means a slight elongation of the repayment period.
  I commend the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that an increasing number of people who find it difficult to pay their mortgages are allowed a scheme of, for example, temporary rental or contributions from their local authority. It is desperately sad and pointless to make a family homeless because they cannot afford to keep up payments on their house, especially when they can pay something, in order then to have to find far less satisfactory homeless accommodation for them at public cost. If families can be kept in their own homes, so much the better.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. It has given me a chance to correct an understandable bias in the remarks of the hon. Member for Tooting and to suggest that, even now, when the housing market generally has never been more difficult, my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department have much to be proud of.
  11.13 pm
  Mrs. Llin Golding: I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on choosing this subject for debate tonight, when the cold weather is with us again and the misery of the homeless increases.
  About three weeks ago, I was told by a voluntary worker for the homeless how she had found a 15-year-old girl, five months pregnant, sleeping on the concrete steps of a doorway in Charing Cross. She did not even have a blanket, she had no money for food, and no idea of where to go for help. She had been sleeping on the same step for three nights.
  Despite all the publicity that the homeless receive and the many organisations set up to help them, there are still desperate people who do not know how to get help. There are many people who suffer due to lack of affordable housing to rent and inability to cope with mortgage repayments.
  However, as the bitter winter weather approaches, I should like to concentrate my speech on the basic problem of enabling people to find shelter so that hon. Members do not again have to face the awful reality of stepping around people huddled under snow-covered tarpaulins, lying in shop doorways in the streets of our city. The Minister announced the setting up of a helpline for the homeless. What use is that if people have no money to telephone? If

  1101
  they are fortunate to have enough money, where are they to find out that that helpline exists and obtain the numbers?
  Mr. Yeo: It is important for the House to know that the telephone line is free to the users.
  Mr. Golding: I repeat: where do people find out that the helpline exists and obtain the number?
  I understand that the Minister is talking to London Transport about advertising the campaign, but it needs much more than that. The Government have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on imaginative advertising for selling off the country's nationalised industries. I am sure that they did not consider just talking to London Transport about that. Many of our people have become homeless as the result of the Government's policies. Is it too much to ask the Government to spend some of the money raised by privatisation on giving much more help to homeless people throughout the country, not just in London?
  The homeless are suffering just as much in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme and other districts throughout the country, as in London. Why cannot money be spent on advertising the help available in places where the homeless gather? Could there not be in every tube station, railway station and bus station, and on bus shelters—especially in rural regions—specially prepared posters with information to tell people where day and night shelters exist for the homeless?
  I know that the organisations that help the homeless would be more than willing to co-operate with the Minister to help to identify the many places throughout the country where posters would be of greatest benefit to the homeless. I know that the Government have not found it in their hearts to extend the cold-weather provision for shelters for the homeless outside London and the many districts of need throughout the country. That is no reason not to provide an advertising campaign to cover the whole of the country.
  Will the Minister put himself in the place of that 15-year-old girl, too frightened to ask anyone for help, alone, desperate and penniless? Will he please help her and others like her to come in out of the cold?
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on their speeches. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting displayed the facts well, and it was perverse of Conservative Members to pick him up for a slip of the tongue when he gave an incorrect figure, which it is relatively easy to do. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), although well intentioned, made many mistakes. If he had read the Duke of Edinburgh's report or the reports of the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association and Association of District Councils he would know that some of his arguments were invalid—I put it no stronger than that. I believe that he cares, and I beg him to read those reports and read his speech.
  My charge against the Government and most of the Conservative Back Bench Members is that the majority of
  1102
  them do not care, and those who do—I include the Minister for Housing and Planning—are too wedded to, too unable to break away from, the principles of the Government who during the past 12 years, have created the crisis. Consequently, they are still driving the figures up. They are not my arguments—they are based on the Government's own figures. The Government yesterday released figures showing a 30 per cent. increase in the number of homeless.
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): No.
  Mr. Soley: Yes they did, or they appeared in that light in the newspapers. Perhaps the Minister should issue a correction.
  Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman has accused my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) of making a mistake, he should not make one himself. The figure of 30 per cent. was not an increase in the number of homelessness acceptances. It was the increase in the number of those in temporary accommodation. Even in London, the numbers in bed and breakfast fell. The figures published yesterday did not show a 30 per cent. increase in the number of the homeless.
  Mr. Soley: I am happy to refine that, and say that the figures revealed a 30 per cent. increase in the number of those in temporary accommodation, but is the Minister suggesting that they are not homeless? If not, is he saying that there has been a decline in other forms of homelessness? He knows that, in his borough of Ealing, the figures for acceptances have dropped by 25 per cent. because the council has taken a very hard line on the interpretation of legislation and is turning people away. Even more important, the number of those on the street is going up.
  The money that the Minister has provided has been recycled more times than I can count—although he talks about it as if it were new money—and it will run out in April, but there is still no commitment to replace it.
  The figure of 30 per cent. to which I referred was an overestimate compared to the figure that I suggested, which was based on the same information. I rang a sample of local authorities, but, because I prefer not to err on the side of scaremongering, I gave a figure of 20 to 25 per cent. In fact, the Government's figures were 5 per cent. higher than mine, and they got those figures from a much wider survey based on all council returns.
  The figures alone are not enough. The hon. Member for Epping Forest must take on board the fact that the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne referred—that of the 15-year-old girl—is all too common. I have said hundreds of times—in the House and outside—that, in 1979, that girl would not have been homeless. The big turnaround came in the mid-1980s. Never since the first world war have we had homeless teenage children begging in the streets.
  Mr. Norris rose——
  Mr. Soley: Before the hon. Gentleman gets up, let me say that I worked as a probation officer in the King's Cross area, which was one of the most difficult areas for homelessness in the 1970s. Homeless people got off trains at Euston, King's Cross and Paddington and came to that area. At that time, I could have got that girl a bed straight

  1103
  away in a decent place—I am not talking about a mattress on a floor. She would have been eligible for and would have got local authority accommodation.
  That has changed precisely because of the figure of which the Government were boasting—the 1·3 million sales of council houses which were not replaced. The right to buy with a duty to replace is a good housing policy, but the right to buy without a duty to replace is a housing disaster. We have lost 2 million homes from the rented sector. [Interruption.] Ministers should argue the figures with the Duke of Edinburgh—I am quoting figures from the Rowntree report.
  Mr. Yeo: They cannot bear it.
  Mr. Soley: The Minister says that they cannot bear it, but perhaps the Duke of Edinburgh has more feeling. I was using a figure of 1·5 million homes, but his figure is 1·9 million, half of which have gone from the council sector and the other half from the Government's much-loved private rented sector. The hon. Member for Epping Forest should take enough interest to consider the arguments about the decline in the private rented sector, which started before the Rent Acts were invented.
  When the Rent Acts were abolished in Northern Ireland in 1957, 25 per cent. of the rented market was private. No party even hinted at reintroducing the Acts, and that sector is now 5 per cent. of the market. There has been a slight increase recently due to the depression in house prices and, to a limited extent, to the 1988 legislation.
  When house prices begin to rise again, all the assured shorthold tenancies in properties whose prices have risen will suddenly look unattractive. People who sell will want to sell with vacant possession, and that means asking people to leave. The hon. Member for Epping Forest does not understand that. The argument is about housing finance. As long as we go on subsidising house purchase to make buying and selling so enormously profitable, and to make renting unprofitable for landlords and for tenants, so long will the rented sector continue to decline.
  Mr. Norris: There is an argument about whether 2 million homes have disappeared or are still there, occupied, thus contributing to the housing stock. But when the hon. Gentleman referred to the constituent of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), he was, I agree, referring to a new phenomenon of which he has personal experience. That problem is not a function only of Government or their housing policy—it is much more deep-seated and complex than that. It is a function of family breakdown, which takes place over generations and whose consequences the Government will have to tackle. We are only beginning to come to terms with it.
  Mr. Soley: Conservative Members desperately want to believe that family breakdown is the cause, but the increase in family breakdowns is much smaller than the dramatic increase in homelessness. By removing 2 million homes from the rented sector at a time when families are becoming smaller, the Government have left young people with nowhere to go. Local authorities that could have taken them before cannot now do so.
  As a Social Security Minister, the Prime Minister devastatingly took away from young people the right to income support. That was removed from 16 to 18-year-olds who were not on a Government course or in
  1104
  full-time education. They are the people begging in our streets. Almost overnight, they arrived in our streets. That is a function of Government, not of family breakdown. Families were breaking down when I was a probation officer in King's Cross, but then I could get these kids rent money for private accommodation up front. I would not be able to do that now. They are turned away from River Point and Centre Point—by 7 pm or 8 pm, they are closed or full up.
  There are beds in warehouses, but many young people will not use them because they do not want to sleep next to someone who is mentally ill or loused up or alcoholic. It is no good the hon. Member for Epping Forest showing concern if he does not understand this, because it will be empty concern. When he expressed anxiety about people who cannot pay their mortgages, he sounded like the Walrus and the Carpenter—weeping tears as he ate the oysters.
  There is an answer to the mortgage problem. The Government should never have used high interest rates alone. For a long time, I have been advocating a mortgage rescue scheme that would allow people to stay on in their properties on a short let tenancy. One in eight mortgage payers are in arrears because the Government have launched a drive towards home ownership so powerful that mobility of labour has suffered. They are screwing up the whole economy, not just housing.
  I have often spelt out the long-term answer. We need to invest in housing, to set up a national housing bank, to use all sectors. When we go out into the freezing temperatures tonight, we know that we should be doing something. Capital receipts are important, but they are not enough. Local authorities must be allowed to buy selectively in the private sector. We must relax or remove some of the rules on private sector leasing.
  We must change the income support rules for 16 to 18-year-olds and under-25-year-olds. The Government must discontinue their stupid propaganda about empty properties and do something about them. I shall say it again: local authority stock is 2·5 per cent. void; 3 per cent. of housing association stock is empty; 5 or 6 per cent. is empty in the private sector—and 16 per cent. of Government properties are empty.
  Today in Swindon, I saw 24 houses in a main street—they were attractive properties—all of which had been empty for 20 years. I correct that. Some of them have been empty for the 20 years since they were built, others have been empty for just a few years. There are 35,000 empty houses, not just those in Swindon. One in five police houses in London are still empty. The Wormwood Scrubs prison houses are still empty after 10 or 12 years—I have lost count.
  I challenged the Minister to pick up the telephone and ask the Secretary of State for Defence to say that those houses in Naylor road, Swindon, must now be transferred to the ownership or management of a housing association or the local authority. Families who would otherwise spend Christmas in bed-and-breakfast accommodation would then have a house to live in. That is what I call housing the homeless.
  11.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): If the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and his Labour colleagues around the country,

  1105
  who control far more houses than the Government, showed even a tiny percentage of the indignation that he is now attempting to express about empty houses in Swindon in relation to the 5,000 empty houses in Labour-controlled Liverpool, the 2,800 in Labour-controlled Salford, the 2,000 in Labour-controlled Newham, the 5,500 in Labour-controlled Manchester, the 2,000 in Labour-controlled Newcastle, the 1,000 in Labour-controlled Knowsley, and so on——
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Yeo: No. Conservative Members have had only a fraction of the time in this debate.
  If the hon. Gentleman had showed even a tiny amount of the indignation that he expresses about empty houses in Swindon in relation to all those in areas under Labour control, there would be scarcely any problems of homelessness in Britain.
  I regret to say that this has been a breathtakingly disappointing debate, even by the standards of those initiated by Labour Members, redeemed only by an excellent constructive contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who made an outstanding speech.
  The debate began with a 40-minute speech from the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) which was nothing but a litany of unsupported assertions. In a spirit of friendship across the Floor of the House, I have to say that if the hon. Gentleman really thinks that he advances the cause of housing by denigrating my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, he displays an ignorance that is staggering even by Labour party standards. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Hammersmith in effect repudiate his disgraceful slurs against my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Cox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the record, I make it clear that I cast no smear or slur on the Minister for Housing and Planning, I simply commented on what has been widely publicised. If the Minister is saying that hon. Members are not allowed to do that without running the risk of being accused of slurs, he is abusing parliamentary procedure.
  Mr. Yeo: When it comes to abusing parliamentary procedure, I fail to see what point of order the hon. Gentleman was seeking to make. But I am glad that I provoked him into an unqualified withdrawal of his disgraceful unjustified comments. They will have done him no good in the housing movement, which recognises that my hon. Friend stands for a real commitment, typical of this Government, to the needs of homeless people.
  I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman did not just stoop to the gutter in terms of smearing my hon. Friend: he used a series of inaccurate figures. To my surprise, many of them were echoed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith.
  We have had several exchanges in the House in the past year or so on the number of people sleeping rough. I remember arguments at the beginning of 1991 about the precise number. But we knew, because we were closely in touch with the voluntary organisations which are in the front line, of the efforts that we were making to tackle the problem of rough sleepers. I pay the warmest possible
  1106
  tribute to those organisations, which have made a magnificent contribution. At the beginning of this year, they estimated that the number of rough sleepers was in the order of 1,000. That was borne out by the census that was taken in April, in rather warmer weather.
  I am glad, but not surprised, that, after another 10 or 11 months of Government efforts to provide suitable hostels and move-on accommodation for rough sleepers, the voluntary organisations now estimate that the number sleeping rough as of this month is down to about 430.
  The hon. Member for Tooting was as wrong about the number of homeless as he was about the number of rough sleepers. He said that there are 40,000 homeless in London. If he had troubled to study figures published a couple of days ago, he would know that was wrong. More importantly, the hon. Gentleman tried to imply that a substantial proportion of homeless are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, whereas the number is only 7,900—which in London represents a decrease of 5 per cent. over the previous quarter. The number in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London is falling. That is a result of the Government's £300 million special homeless initiative in London and the south-east last year and this year.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith, who usually knows better, tried to suggest that there had been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of homeless. Again, the statistics published this week—not by the Department of the Environment, but based on figures provided by local authorities throughout the country—show that the figure is not 30 per cent. but 2 per cent. The hon. Member for Hammersmith can flick through his papers, but I have those statistics before me, and they present a very different picture.
  Of course the Government are not satisfied with that, but at least it is clear that our efforts are having an impact and are bringing to an end the unsatisfactory increase in the number of homeless in bed-and-breakfast accommodation—which is falling in London, and is virtually stable across the rest of the country. The Government are keen to have a constructive debate on housing policy when they can, but it is a pity when it cannot be based on proper acknowledgement of the facts.
  Reference was made to the need for affordable housing. I was deeply disappointed that neither the hon. Member for Tooting, in a 40-minute speech, nor the hon. Member for Hammersmith, except in an intervention, found it possible to acknowledge the contribution made by housing associations. That is, by any standards, a profound insult to the housing association movement, which is supported by people of all political persuasions.
  Next year, such associations will house more than 20,000 homeless families, but the hon. Member for Tooting chose totally to ignore that in his lengthy speech. He ignored also the growing contribution made by the private sector, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest rightly drew attention. I was glad that, his skilful speech, he teased out of the Opposition an admission that the Government's policies on the private rented sector are right.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith was at pains to point out, in an intervention in my hon. Friend's speech, how much he supports the Government's policy. Of course I welcome that, but it is a belated conversion. If a similar

  1107
  statement of support for the Government's deregulation of the private sector had been made in 1979, there would have been no decline—but there was, because that sector continued to feel under threat from the Opposition.
  Even today, private landlords within a mile of this building would say that they are nervous of letting their properties to homeless families because, and only because, of the whiff—albeit faint—of the risk of a Labour Government. If, in 1979, the then Labour Minister responsible for housing had given the assurance offered this evening by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, the decline in private rented accommodation might have been arrested.
  As a result of the Housing Act 1988 and the introduction of shorthold tenancies, we are witnessing rapid growth in the number of shorthold and assured tenancies being let by private landlords—so much so, that at last they are taking up the slack created by the number of secure tenancies. That is welcome news, and I look forward to further endorsements from the Opposition.
  The Opposition bitterly opposed the right to buy council houses when it was first introduced; now they are in favour of it—or, perhaps, not quite in favour, for they become very cross when I point out what a huge success it has been. The hon. Member for Tooting was not reading his brief properly; not 130,000 but 1·3 million houses and flats have been sold under the arrangement. The Opposition do not like to draw attention to that, but the Government are very proud of having created so many new owner-occupiers.
  Opposition Members are also changing their minds about housing action trusts. In a Committee debate, they have completely reversed their previous position. No doubt, in due course they will completely reverse their position on the private rented sector, large-scale voluntary transfers and a raft of other Government initiatives. The only speech that mentioned the enormous opportunities that we now offer tenants for participation in management systems was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. He was the only speaker who thought it worthy of mention.
  The Government have doubled the resources available to housing associations, from just over £1 billion last year to more than £2 billion in 1993–94. That amount is topped up by a substantial contribution from the private sector in the form of loans. Under today's construction industry conditions, those resources will buy a much-increased level of output.
  In an intervention, the hon. Member for Hammersmith tried to suggest that housing association output had not increased greatly since the 1970s. He will be surprised—I fear that he may even be disappointed—by the figures that we shall announce next week, which specify the output that we expect from housing associations in 1992–93. They are able to combine increased contributions from the taxpayer with an element of private sector funding to take advantage of the exceptionally keen prices now being quoted by the construction industry for new output.
  We have two private sector initiatives. We are now operating pilot schemes in five different places, allowing owners of empty property which we wish to be returned to productive use to let that property to homeless families, using a housing association as an intermediary or managing agent. That will give the landlord a degree of
  1108
  confidence about his ability to regain his property when he wants it; it will also give the homeless family a degree of confidence about the quality of their landlord.
  We are optimistic about the prospects of the scheme, and I hope that, in due course, the hon. Member for Hammersmith will be able to bring himself to give it an unqualified endorsement. It is difficult to see how even the Labour party, with all its promises to the trade unions and others, can find any possible ground for objection to such a scheme.
  Our other private sector initiative involves flats over shops. We believe that there are nearly 100,000 empty flats over shops, and we have therefore embarked on a three-year campaign to try to change attitudes in the commercial sector. We have made £25 million available to local authorities for schemes involving housing associations and private owners; we believe that they have considerable potential in regard to dealing with homelessness.
  Even Roof magazine—not a magazine normally associated with the Tory party—has acknowledged that the Government's £96 million three-year initiative to deal with rough sleeping is the most determined and comprehensive programme ever introduced to tackle the problem. It is making substantial progress in reducing the number of people sleeping rough in London, and we are optimistic about its continued progress. More places are being made available all the time: last night, a 25-bed hostel was opened in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tooting, to be run by the English Churches Housing Group.
  Mrs. Golding: Places are closing.
  Mr. Yeo: In view of the continuing cold weather, we have asked Single Homeless in London to see whether other emergency hostels can be opened at short notice. Moreover, despite what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has said from a sedentary position, there is no question of places closing.
  Since the rough sleepers initiative began, 900 places have been made available in houses and flats, 400 of which are permanent, and 700 more places have been made available in hostels and shelters. There is an important distinction between the shelter to which the hon. Member for Tooting referred and the rather higher quality provision in hostels and in permanent accommodation. Almost 200 places, in addition to those in shelters which I have mentioned, have opened this month, and we expect a further 120 places in winter shelters to open very shortly. All that is on top of the emergency accommodation to which I have just referred and about which we are talking to Single Homeless in London.
  The hon. Member for Tooting spoke about mortgage repossessions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest pointed out, 39 mortgage payers out of 40 are not in arrears with their mortgages, and that is after a period of unprecedented expansion of owner-occupation. There have been 7 million first-time buyers since 1979. Even after a period when interest rates were higher than we would have liked, 39 mortgage payers are still up to date. That is the measure of the success story of the Government's expansion of owner-occupation.

  1109
  There are other success stories. We have a range of initiatives which are designed to promote owner-occupation and to widen choice for tenants. All we have from the Opposition is unsupported assertions, uncosted
  1110
  commitments and empty rhetoric. Their policy is confined to giving more money to local authorities—the one group who have proved unable to discharge an adequate housing policy.

  Territorial Army
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: We shall now debate the reserve forces and especially the future of the Territorial Army. We have every reason to be proud of the service of the Territorial Army over the years, because we can trace the history of volunteer and reserve commitment back to the Norman conquest. We have a special position in that the oldest regiment in the British Army is the Honourable Artillery Company, which traces its history back to 1537, whereas the oldest regular units go back only to the middle of the 17th century. For that reason, the Territorial Army does not consider itself in any way a second-class alternative.
  In the middle ages, all men over the age of 18 were required on Sunday, after attending church, to participate in archery practice; it was from those roots that the Territorial Army grew. The 19th century was an especially important period, for it was then that many of today's Territorial Army units were formed.
  I commanded an officers training corps. Those corps came into existence in the early 20th century, when it was discovered that attendance at university did not necessarily mean an ability to lead troops. That was discovered especially during the South African war, when a number of university graduates were commissioned and sent out to South Africa, and it was found that they singularly lacked an ability to act in an officer capacity. It was decided that training was necessary, so the officer training corps were introduced at several universities. I am delighted that they have done so well that it is now proposed, even in these difficult times, to increase their establishment.
  At the start of the second world war, there was an enormous expansion in the Territorial Army, as there was in the first world war. It was the custom then to double the size of most infantry battalions and of many gunner and other units. That was done quite simply by creating a new unit alongside the original. The commanding officer, the adjutant and the regimental sergeant major were required to form a parallel unit, while the second in command, the regimental quartermaster sergeant and the assistant adjutant took command of the original unit. In that way we were able to double our Territorial Army forces very quickly.
  In two or three months in 1939, territorial units were brought close to the standard of regular infantry battalions and gunner regiments. That was an extraordinarily fine achievement in such a short space of time. It was achieved only because the senior ranks were there and able to provide the infrastructure and necessary training.
  Things are more technical today. Equipment is more sophisticated, and more experience is required. However, many jobs require similar skills, and in respect of engineering and signals, the forces can take advantage of the skills that people acquire in their civilian jobs. The same is true in medicine: the TA played a spendid role in the Gulf, where a complete field hospital was made available from Glasgow. That provided support for the regulars in a vital role.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is aware of the situation. He promised in the Chamber that he did not want any volunteers to be turned away from offering their service, and I am sure that
  1112
  he will do his best to keep that promise. He has given me and many of my colleagues the firm impression that he has listened to our recommendations and suggestions, and that he will continue to do that in the years to come. This exercise cannot be completed overnight; it will take many years to accomplish. We must ensure that we get it right and that the alterations that are required take advantage of all the volunteers on offer.
  Mr. William Ross: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government have given an undertaking not to turn away volunteers, but 102 Royal Artillery in Northern Ireland is at a strength of 103 per cent. I understand that it is to be merged with 105 Royal Artillery Scotland. How on earth is 103 Royal Artillery to be reduced from 103 per cent. to 50 per cent. to comprise one artillery regiment?
  Mr. Thorne: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Northern Ireland is a special case. There are already a large number of troops in the Ulster Defence Regiment. I believe that a substantial proportion of the population of Northern Ireland already serve in a reserve capacity with the UDR. The TA there is well recruited, but there are other opportunities for people to serve in Northern Ireland, and I hope that they will use elsewhere the skills that they have acquired in the TA. We need their help.
  Over recent years, the TA's establishment has been 91,000. However, the paper strength is only 74,000, of which a smaller number train regularly. The latter figure is thought to be between 63,000 and 65,000. It was originally suggested that the establishment might be reduced to as low as 50,000 to 55,000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ensured that that is not the case, and that we will have an establishment of 63,500, because that figure is more in line with the actual number of people available, willing and able to serve.
  We must acknowledge that honorary colonels of regiments play an important part. In the middle ages, it was discovered that many regiments were not getting their fair share. When they were asked to turn out and fight on behalf of king or queen and country, some regiments performed much better than others. When an inquiry was carried out, it was discovered that the regiments that had the most influence, either through royal or noble connections, were doing much better in respect of ammunition and supplies than some others. Therefore, a system was introduced which enabled regiments to appoint honorary colonels of their own choosing so that they could speak on their behalf and as a last resort have a direct right to apply to the sovereign in order to make representations on behalf of their unit. The honorary colonel system therefore has an important role to play in the British Army.
  It is important that, whenever there is a reorganisation, honorary colonels should be fully and properly consulted. I fear that this has not necessarily taken place in every case. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to examine the matter, in particular in relation to 151 Royal Corps of Transport Regiment. I am not certain that the honorary colonel of the regiment was given the notice that he could expect. He was apparently told in June that there was nothing to report, and in September, he was told that the proposals were a fait accompli. Clearly, that could not be construed as proper consultation. Perhaps that was the only case that fell through the net, and I hope that it was

  1113
  an isolated case, but I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would examine the matter and if necessary ensure that such a thing is not allowed to happen again. Honorary colonels, as I have said, have an important role if we are to maintain our fighting troops at the standard that we have come to expect.
  It is essential to have a proper press campaign to explain to the general public—particularly those who are interested in serving in the Territorial Army—that the Territorial Army has a bright and promising future. Traditionally, every spring, a campaign is launched, but this year we must hold a special campaign to ensure that everybody knows what the way ahead will be. I fear that, if we do not do that, we will not put the Territorial Army on a proper basis. People will feel that it is threatened, and we shall not get the recruits we need. Those who do not wish the Territorial Army well will point to reduced recruiting figures and make claims for further reductions. That would be most unfair and unfortunate, and I am sure would not be what my right hon. Friend wishes.
  We must ensure that, in any future mobilisation of the armed forces, such as occurred in the Gulf and in the Falklands, formed TA units shall be used. We had disagreements in the House about the number of Territorial Army personnel that were serving in the Gulf. At one time, my right hon. Friend thought that there were only 500, whereas I believed that there were 1,000. We eventually managed to reconcile the figures, when we took into account the large number of people who had volunteered to serve on regular engagements in order to participate, but who had been trained as territorial soldiers.
  The Territorial Army was therefore entitled to the credit for having trained those people, because there is no way in which, having volunteered off the street, they could have gone out to serve effectively in the Gulf. We must ensure that the territorials have a much more satisfactory and satisfying role in the future and that those who wish to make themselves available in such an emergency have that offer taken up and that they are readily called upon in such times of emergency. I hope that we will not have a two-tier regular and TA system, in future emergencies.
  The Territorial Army should provide a basis for the expansion of our forces and as a general reserve. As I have said, it performed extraordinarily well at the outbreak of both world wars, when it provided the bedrock upon which we were able to build. I am not alone in believing that the result of both world wars could have been very different if we had not had those effective territorial forces in place in 1914 and 1939.
  I should also like my right hon. Friend to look carefully at what extra help the Territorial Army can give the civilian population in civil disasters. Extensive use is made of reserve forces elsewhere in the world. We could learn from the American experience of using the National Guard not only to help with civil disasters but also with drug enforcement, which are both areas in which we cannot have too much help, provided that it is properly directed and properly trained.
  I hope that red tape will not prevent the use of the enormous reservoir of skill and good will that is held in our reserve forces from being available for use at such times purely and simply because Departments might haggle over
  1114
  who will be billed for the cost. Admittedly, this is a Treasury matter, but it cannot possibly be beyond the ability of Treasury Ministers to work out an effective formula to ensure that the Ministry of Defence is properly rewarded for any help that it gives. Such help is certainly required, so I hope that this facility of the Territorial Army will not be wasted.
  The Territorial Army provides a reassuring military presence throughout the country. It does so effectively in much the same way as the presence of police on the beat reinforces a sense of law and order. In times of national emergency, it is reassuring to see the Territorial Army around. The Territorial Army also provides important social functions, discipline, comradeship, leadership training, both mental and physical fitness, and a great sense of patriotism, all of which are important and should be encouraged.
  One of the Territorial Army's biggest problems in recent years has been the substantial turnover of recruits, which has amounted to as much as 30 per cent. per annum in some units. It is important not only to make the training interesting, stimulating and exciting, but also for the Territorial Army to provide the best possible club in any area. We rely upon the support of the families to retain personnel within the forces.
  If the families believe that they can enjoy their social hours with the territorials, they will support their men and womenfolk and encourage them to maintain their membership of the Territorial Army. That would considerably reduce the turnover of personnel, encourage people to serve in the force and enable us to use their expertise in it for much longer, so that less time will be spent on training.
  It is extremely important to keep the senior ranks. I explained how, at the beginning of each world war, it was possible quickly to double the number of infantry battalions, gunner and other regiments. That depended on the skill and expertise of those senior ranks. In recent years, we have found that, throughout the Territorial Army, most regiments were undermanned on average by 15 per cent. The 15 per cent. was largely accounted for in the lower ranks. The more senior ranks, such as sergeants, warrant officers, captains and majors, were all in post. Of course, the more junior members of the TA have so many other pressures on their time. They change their jobs more frequently than older people. They get married and move, and may have young children to care for. Those and many other pressures may distract them from remaining for a long period in the Territorial Army.
  The more senior ranks are usually more settled. It is very important to keep them, and we would be silly not to provide sufficient places for those more senior ranks to occupy. If we do not provide sufficient places, the necessary skill will not be in the right place at the right time. Moreover, if only a limited number of more senior places are available, very able corporals and subalterns will get tired of waiting for promotion to sergeant and captain respectively, and will be inclined to leave at that stage. We would therefore lose many capable people who have a lot to offer.
  The 63,500 places now available should not be allowed to reduce to 54,000 over the next five years, as would be the case if the 15 per cent. rule came into effect. That is why it is so important that we provide challenging and interesting roles to make those senior people keen to remain.

  1115
  I was encouraged by the Secretary of State's answer to my question on Tuesday that he would be flexible with the extra numbers that were available. I hope that he will find it possible to allow extra ranks to be recruited all the way along the line—not only at the most junior level—to ensure that we do not lose those very able people.
  If we are to have a leaner, meaner, keener regular Army, inevitably we shall need a good Territorial Army to support it. After six years of the second world war and 45 years of the cold war, the taxpayer is entitled to a peace dividend. However, if the dividend is to be effectively delivered, it cannot leave us vulnerable to the many other surprises hiding around the corner.
  Two years ago, few people could have accurately forecast the possibility of the Gulf conflict. Certainly the trouble in Yugoslavia has been a great surprise to many. Today, we hear that Mr. Gorbachev thinks that his time of public service is near its end. That will raise a number of new question marks throughout what was the Soviet Union. Therefore, we must expect some major changes in that region in the coming years and be prepared for anything that might arise as a result.
  Much has been done in recent months to draw those matters to the attention of the Department and, as I said, I believe that Ministers have been listening. I am extremely grateful to the chairman of the Greater London Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Association, Sir Greville Spratt, and to Brigadier Peter Bowser, the secretary, for all that they have done to lead the way in ensuring that the Government have been properly informed that the Territorial Army is adequately provided for in the future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) is grateful for what has been done to help him with the preservation of his local Anglian Regiment. Many other hon. Members are equally grateful for what has been done to ensure the future of the TA in their areas. I believe that the Secretary of State agrees with us about the importance of the future role of the Territorial Army, and I am sure that he will do all in his power to help us achieve that objective.
  12.11 am
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I thank the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for having initiated the debate and for giving us an opportunity to discuss some of the implications of the Secretary of State's announcement earlier in the week. I thank him also for the history lesson on the Territorial Army, although my recollection is somewhat different. My stint in the TA was as a conscript, and those of us who did our national service in the TA made many friendships that have lasted to this day.
  That has been the cornerstone of the TA concept, and many people have protested about the changes because activities in and around the TA and the drill hall created a culture of its own, certainly in many working class communities. That may not be so evident in larger towns, but in smaller towns and villages—for example, in the mining valleys of South Wales—the TA is held in high esteem.
  Hon. Members in all parts of the House recognise the valuable role that all arms of the reserve forces have played in defending Britain, and the hon. Member for Ilford, South reminded us that, in the two world wars, it was possible quickly to enrol sufficient numbers to save
  1116
  Britain. More recently, they were deployed in the Gulf, and more than 1,700 reserve personnel, including the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), served with the British forces in Operation Granby. We should put on record our tribute to those reservists and members of the TA who served in the Gulf. I know that, in saying that, I reflect the sentiments of all hon. Members.
  My hon. Friends and I were interested to note that the NATO summit declaration in London on 6 July 1990 called for the alliance to place more reliance on reserve forces, and the Government have emphasised the importance of part-time soldiers. As the hon. Member for Ilford, South said, their skills are extremely high, although the army has become more technical. I think back to the more rigid skills studied by foot-sloggers such as myself. The height of my military skill was the ability to strip a Bren gun blindfold and put it back together in 30 seconds. The fact that it sometimes did not work after that operation was incidental.
  The reserve forces were mentioned by the Secretary of State in his "Options for Change" announcement on 25 July 1990. It seems to be a very sensible move by the Ministry of Defence to alter the structure of our forces in the way in which it is at present proceeding.
  We are concerned, however, to learn from various Territorial Army representatives that the Ministry of Defence is considering cutting TA and other reserves by a disproportionate amount compared with the regulars. There were at one time, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South said, rumours that the TA could be cut to almost 55,000 or 50,000. I am sure it was the pressure from the warrior class and the impending general election that led to a final figure of 63,500, which is a cut of about 17 per cent. We are not quarrelling with this decision in any way, because I believe that our full-time forces are already overstretched for the roles and tasks that the Government have outlined for them both in and out of area, and that the territorial forces play a vital support role.
  As I mentioned earlier, we recognise that, besides the vital role in defending the United Kingdom which the Territorial Army plays, it also provides very positive outlets for the energies of young men and women, many of whom unfortunately are unemployed. That is why, in the defence estimates debate on 14 October 1991, my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said:
  "We should be careful to preserve the opportunity for as many of our civilians as possible to serve in the volunteer forces."—[Official Report, 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 72.]
  I was very glad to hear that the Secretary of State, in his announcement on Tuesday, accepted this view when he said:
  "we would not wish to turn away willing and suitable volunteers".—[Official Report, 10 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 734.]
  I congratulate the Government on the recognition of the need to keep this doorway open.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan asked a number of questions on Tuesday regarding the reserves, and perhaps the Minister could provide some of the answers this evening. I do not know whether it would be proper to extend it a little beyond the army, but I am very concerned in particular about the ex-pilots in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the RAF Volunteer Reserve, because, according to a parliamentary answer on 14 June 1991, only 10 ex-RAF pilots are in these organisations. It seems to me that, if we are spending £3 million on training someone to fly a fast jet and if, when he leaves the force

  1117
  —there are a lot of people leaving before their time is up—he is not being used in the reserve forces, that is a tremendous waste of a national resource.
  I hope that the Minister agrees with us and his colleague the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who raised this point on Tuesday. I ask the Minister if he will undertake to develop proposals to encourage greater involvement by ex-RAF pilots in the reserves.
  The same applies, of course, to ex-regular soldiers going into the TA. I am not attempting to compare the quality of the Territorial Army now and following national service, but the TA then consisted almost entirely of people who had served for two years on a full-time basis, and the level of skill and general martial ability was very high. Very many men of that vintage had served in action areas such as Malaya and Korea, so it was a reserve of tremendous value, as well as containing the numbers that were required.
  Another question that I want to return to is the problem of employment protection. The Secretary of State said that he would note my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan's suggestion that the employment protection aspects of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 be extended to cover those TA members have less than two years' continuous employment. I wonder if he could tell us whether he is prepared to amend the legislation in this fashion, and perhaps tell the House exactly what other amendments he needs to make in order to take account of changing circumstances.
  Perhaps the Minister could also go into a little more detail about the criteria that are being used when making his decisions. In the White Paper on the Army a number of criteria were listed. It would be interesting to know whether the same criteria were used in the restructuring of the reserves.
  On occasion, the Minister has criticised the lack of detail in our overall defence expenditure proposals and what we propose for the Territorial Army and the reserve forces. We suffer a great handicap in dealing with a Government who are obsessed with secrecy. Whenever we put down questions, it is impossible to get answers. That is sometimes the case with the Select Committee on Defence as well. In its recent report, it said that the White Paper
  "contains no hint of the Government's financial strategy for defence over the coming decade."
  The Minister has also criticised our lack of proposals for individual units, but when we table questions to get information on which to base proposals, which perhaps we will be implementing in six months' time, we cannot get proper answers from the Government. The stock answer to defence procurement questions is that the information is commercially confidential or that the Department does not normally give the information.
  When it comes to operational issues and manpower, the stock answer is that information on the running costs of individual units is not held centrally and could be provided only by the use of disproportionate time and effort, yet the Minister criticises us for not being more specific. We cannot be more specific unless we get the information. I assure the Minister that in six months' time, when he is in opposition, we will be kinder to him and much more open with information.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I am sure my hon. Friend well remembers the Committee stage of the Atomic Weapons Establishment Act 1991 when we had great difficulty in discussing the measure properly because the Department would not release the necessary information. He will remember that we also had difficulty over the Tombs report when again we could not get the necessary information. The Department can be very awkward at times. That makes it difficult not only for Opposition Members but for hon. Members on the Government Benches to discuss matters properly. [Interruption.] The Minister is mumbling—I hope that he will get up and clear the air.
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is right. We had great difficulty getting information on the atomic energy privatisation measure. I understand that, because the proposals were so ludicrous, there was no rationale to justify them. As to the Tombs report, that was the correct name for it because the information was buried very deep.
  If I may put on my nationalistic hat for a moment, one issue which concerns us greatly in Wales is the disproportionate cut in regular and volunteer troops. The decision to close 217 Air Defence Battery in Cwmbran, leaving only one gunner battery in Wales, concerns people very much. The battery was formed in 1987, and its purpose-built barracks, costing over £2 million, was opened by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and General Sir Peter de la Billiere. It is noted for its very high calibre loyalty and involvement in the local community. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) has emphasised those points to me. It provides much-needed jobs and good training for many young people. There has been a great outcry in Cwmbran about its possible closure.
  The Secretary of State talked on Tuesday in terms of people moving from one unit to another, and said that it would not be a problem if a unit was closed, because people could simply go to the next one along the road. But that will not happen, because members of the Territorial Army are not so mobile or nomadic in that sense as regular forces. They live at home with their families and, if they should have to travel from Cwmbran to Newport, for example, or from Pontypool further on to Newport, many people would be deterred from getting involved in the voluntary forces. As a result, the loss of trained people and the expense in recruiting and training new people at a new location would be considerable. Many units would suffer a loss of morale and motivation, which may put the operational effectiveness of those units in jeopardy.
  The other issue that concerns us in Wales is the future of the 4th Volunteer Battalion the Welsh Regiment. It may be my wish upon them, but this is the second time this year that the two regiments in which I served, the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Welsh Regiment, have been under pressure. I thank the Minister very much for saving the Royal Welch Fusiliers. May I implore him now, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), to save the 4th Volunteer Battalion? My hon. Friend, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) are extremely concerned.
  We are committed to the maintenance of the defence of this country. It is the one issue on which there is a consensus in this House. Every Government since the war,

  1119
  whether Labour or Conservative, have given a full commitment to the defence of the nation. On both sides of the House, we are anxious to defend the values, traditions and freedoms that we all cherish. The Territorial Army had been a cornerstone of our defence for so many years. It is a civilian army and democracies need civilian as well as full-time professional armies.
  Again, I thank the hon. Member for Ilford, South for giving us an opportunity to place on record our tremendous tribute to the TA for the way in which it has served this country over many years.
  12.27 am
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for giving us this opportunity to discuss the Territorial Army and for demonstrating his prodigious knowledge of the TA, its history and traditions, going back over a number of years. I must admit that I learned a considerable amount just listening to his speech.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his statement on Tuesday, the Territorial Army, along with our other volunteer reserves, will continue to make a vital contribution to our defence effort.
  The reshaping of the Territorial Army is intended to produce a force that meets the new needs stemming from the radically transformed European security environment and the more flexible and mobile force structure which the Alliance is introducing. The new structure that we have designed for the TA also reflects the changed requirements of a smaller mobilised Army and the need for volunteer reserves to be able to complement our regular forces.
  In developing the restructuring plans, we consulted widely with those with an interest in, and knowledge of, the TA. In addition to senior serving volunteers, that included regimental colonels and the Council of Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations. The advice of local associations on deployment and accommodation issues was also sought. We endeavoured, so far as it was possible, to accommodate those various and on occasion, conflicting views in the plans that were developed. May I take this opportunity to express our gratitude to all those who contributed to the exercise for their positive and constructive approach?
  As my hon. Friend said, the current establishment of the TA is 91,000, but its actual strength is no more than about 74,000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement in July on the restructuring of the regular Army and in the Command Paper "Britain's Army for the 90s" that we envisaged that the long-term future strength of the TA would settle at between 60,000 and 65,000.
  The force structure that we have developed takes full account of our likely future operational needs and assumes a peacetime strength of about 63,500. It would be reinforced in war by the addition of regular reservists to a fully mobilised establishment in excess of 71,000. In addition to integrating our regular and volunteer reserves in a way which enables us to make the most effective use of both, the peacetime establishment is set at a level at which we are confident of achieving full manning, in contrast to the present circumstances.
  Substantial numbers—approaching 20,000 volunteers—join and leave the TA every year, and the reduction of
  1120
  10,000 personnel will be achieved by natural turnover. No active volunteer who remains suitably qualified for TA service will be forced to leave. Where units disband or change their role, every effort will be made to offer volunteers an alternative opportunity to serve, if not in the same TA centre, then in another unit in the vicinity; although precise arrangements will need to balance the requirement of the service and the wishes of the individual.
  Volunteers will receive assistance with any additional travelling costs that they may incur as a result, and arrangements will be made for them to retain rank and pay classifications. Where necessary, local overbearing of manpower will be allowed.
  It may be important for my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South to note that, if we want the figure of 60,000 to be maintained—as we do—it will be necessary for some units to overbear and contain excess numbers to compensate for the units in which numbers will inevitably be lower. There will continue to be a requirement for high-quality recruits.
  The restructuring of the TA has been undertaken to ensure its continuing relevance in a very different world. It is self-evidently no longer appropriate for volunteers to train for many of the tasks which previously they would have undertaken in support of 1 British Corps in Germany—those are no longer relevant in a unified Germany or under the new Alliance strategy.
  In addition to providing essential logistic and combat service support capabilities, the reshaped TA will have a range of new and demanding operational roles in support of the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps. The Queen's Own Yeomanry Regiment will provide a medium reconnaissance regiment equipped with tracked armoured vehicles for the corps. Two TA Royal Artillery regiments will be equipped with the 155mm FH70 towed howitzer, and all three future TA air defence regiments will be equipped with the Starstreak high-velocity missile when it enters service.
  Mr. William Ross: Given the experience of the Gull, where air power was a decisive factor, surely it is foolish to cut our air defence commitment. Is that not the one aspect above all others in any rapid deployment force that should be, if anything, overstrengthened, in order to protect our ground troops from air attack?
  Mr. Hamilton: Yes, but we must take into account the fact that the number of units in the Royal Air Force regulars and the stations are being reduced. Therefore, we are merely matching the new requirements for the United Kingdom's air defence.
  The TA Royal Engineers, in addition to their traditional roles, many of which will be expanded, will in future take on greater responsibility for airfield damage repair and contribute for the first time to the support of the RAF Harrier force. Some TA Royal Signals units will be equipped with the sophisticated Ptarmigan communication systems to improve the support that they can offer to both ARRC and national deployments. Many of those capabilities have previously been provided exclusively within the regular Army.
  The TA will also take on greater responsibility for the direct defence of the United Kingdom. The diminished threat and increased warning times will mean that this role will increasingly be seen as that of a general reserve for

  1121
  national defence. It will not be limited exclusively to the essentially static tasks previously associated with military home defence.
  Overall, there will be a shift of emphasis within the TA towards combat support and combat service support. Whereas, for example, there will be a reduced requirement for infantry, the Royal Engineers, Royal Signals, Intelligence Corps and Army Air Corps will all need to attract substantially more volunteers in order to meet the new roles which they will be taking on. As with the Regular Army, the TA will be appropriately funded and trained to take on the roles required of it. It is also intended to increase the level of support for the TA provided by the Regular Army by the establishment of closer training links between the two, thereby further emphasising that the Army is one Army.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the main changes as they affect the combat arms in detail in the briefing pack which supported his statement on Tuesday, so I shall not go over that ground again. Suffice it to note that, on completion of the restructuring, there will be a total of five yeomanry regiments and 36 infantry battalions, of which eight will be earmarked to support the ARRC All but one of the infantry battalions will in future comprise three rifle companies.
  In addition to providing a better basis for expansion in an emergency, this will provide a more manageable span of command. It will also enable us to retain appropriate representation across the country. The TA Royal Artillery will comprise two field and three air defence regiments. A second Army Air Corps squadron will be formed, with its headquarters in Scotland. Significant reorganisation will be required within the Royal Engineers and Royal Signals to accommodate their new expanded roles.
  The reduction in the threat to the United Kingdom means that we no longer see a requirement for the Home Service Force as a separate organisation, and it will accordingly be absorbed within the mainstream TA. I am sure the House would wish to join me in expressing appreciation to all who have contributed to the success of the HSF during its short history.
  We recognise that, because the TA is a volunteer force, it is important that we implement these changes as soon as we can in order to minimise the uncertainty caused by reorganisation. However, further work remains to be done to develop detailed implementation plans before decisions on regimental titles, affiliations and local estate issues can be taken. All these issues will be addressed in the new year, and restructuring will therefore not begin before 1 April 1992.
  I am sure that the House would wish to join me in acknowledging the debt that we owe to the Territorial Army personnel who give so willingly of their time in service of the nation. The imaginative proposals that we have set out for the TA will launch it on a new era. They reflect the need to support a smaller mobilised army and to provide a firmer basis for expansion and a more manageable span of command. They also offer the prospect of full manning for the first time for many years.
  There will inevitably be disappointment where changes result in reorganisation or the amalgamation or disbandment of units, but I am confident that the proposals will be welcomed by the volunteers themselves
  1122
  as representing new and challenging opportunities to make an even more significant and professional contribution in the future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South mentioned 151 Royal Corps of Transport Regiment, whose honorary colonel said that, although he was consulted at the beginning, he was subsequently not consulted about what was happening, but was presented with a fait accompli. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to investigate and write to him about it.
  He also mentioned—rightly—the need for a press campaign. Such a campaign will be starting shortly and it will combine recruiting for the Regular Army and the Territorial Army. It will remind the country at large that, although reductions are being made in the Regular Army, we still need young soldiers and officers to join up.
  We have listened to my hon. Friend's plea that the TA should be more involved in civil disasters. We are looking into that. It has played a role in the past in flood disasters and so on. We see it continuing in that role, and we shall think about whether it has a role to play in combating the misuse of drugs.
  My hon. Friend rightly discussed how to make training more effective. That must be one of our ambitions. We want a smaller but better regular Army; similarly, we want a smaller but better TA. It is essential that we increase the number of training days and make the TA's training more effective.
  I have already mentioned my hon. Friend's fear that 63,500 will become 54,000, but if the TA goes out to sell itself well and to recruit, and given our enabling certain units to contain greater numbers than their strength, I hope that it will be possible to meet and keep to the 63,500, which we shall certainly pay for.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) brought up again the issue raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) about former pilots in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the RAF Reserve. He should realise that pilots cannot train in the RAAF or the RAF Reserve. It is very expensive to train fast jet pilots, and we do not have the money in either of these reserve organisations to enable them to fly the fast jets that would be the only way to keep their training going.
  These people are not necessarily wasted. A certain number of pilots leave the RAF and go off and fly with commercial airlines, where to some degree they maintain their skills. If they have only recently left, the regular reservists of the RAF can be called back into service should they be needed, and they can play an effective role again in fast jets if they brush up their training.
  We intend to look into the matter of changes in legislation. Once we have decided what needs to be done, we shall return to the House and make our intentions about call-up legislation clear.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda asked what criteria we applied to the TA. One of the most essential criteria during the consultation period was the geographical spread. We recognise the need to go on providing opportunities for people to serve in the TA, even if they cannot go on doing the same duties in the same units as before.
  We also had to take into account the future roles of reservists, bearing in mind the end of the reinforcement role in Germany. Some units will, of course, have a role in the Rapid Reaction Corps.
  To excuse the fact that the Labour party is incapable of spelling out its policy, the hon. Member for Rhondda said

  1123
  that the degree of secrecy in the MOD makes it impossible to procure the detail on which to plan Labour policy. That is a pathetic excuse. It is clear that the Labour party intends to cut defence spending further; the Opposition voted for a recent amendment to that effect.
  I do not know what effect that would have on the TA in Wales or anywhere else. It would presumably mean further cuts. There is quite enough information in the defence White Paper and in other publications for any party to know in broad terms what sort of defence it wants for this country. It is about time the Labour party stopped being so pathetic, stopped hiding behind a ridiculous claim that it cannot get the information it needs, and started telling the country what plans it really has for the defence of this country in future.
  But the Labour party will not do that, because its cuts and reductions, and the risks that it would take with Britain's defence, are too frightening. Labour Members will never tell the people that, because they know that it will lose them votes at the next election.

  Rail Services (North Kent)
  12.44 am
  Dame Peggy Fenner: Hon. Members from north and north-east Kent are pleased to have the opportunity tonight to raise the important matter of the breakdown in the rail services provided by Network SouthEast to north Kent.
  Long before the past few disastrous months of travelling for our commuters, the line to north Kent, north-east Kent and the coast was, self-confessedly by British Rail, one of the worst two lines in the south-east. The other one, the Essex line to Southend, has attracted a great deal of notoriety.
  The chairman of British Rail, Sir Bob Reid, has recently taken a much publicised journey on the Essex line and I am sure that, even if he did not visit our line, he would accept that he would find an equally appalling service on that line also. He knows that.
  The transport users consultative committee for southern England, entrusted with listening to the complaints of travellers in the south of England, has been inundated with complaints, and in the third week of November it informed me that the daily service performance continued to be bad. On the day of its letter, 21 November, there were heavy delays of 40 to 50 minutes for many people travelling on the line that morning.
  That line has been one of the worst for some time, needing new rolling stock and with heavy commuter pressure. But finally, its terrible performance drove the Medway towns commuter committee to issue an invitation to a public protest meeting headed "Kent commuters have had enough." Despite that meeting being the night of the Gillingham football club cup replay, our local well-supported football team, it had an attendance of 500-plus, with some people unable to get in the hall.
  Under that heading, the invitation said:
  "The past month has been the worst for commuters that many of us can remember."
  Yet from 23 December commuters face reductions which have been deferred and are alleged to be the cause of lower income during the recession, and in the new year they face fares increases above the rate of inflation of 7·9 per cent.
  The new rolling stock that we were promised was expected early, but is now predicted to arrive in 1996. In their invitation, the commuters, who are now so pessimistic about it, are talking of having new rolling stock in the next century.
  From mid-October, the service was monitored during a four-week period by the transport users consultative committee: it was found that only just over 70 per cent. of the evening peak period trains were arriving within five minutes of their due time. Since then, the situation has deteriorated further.
  I received a letter recently which claimed that nearly 50 per cent. of the trains were late. Many additional speed restrictions are being imposed, and BR says that the track renewals are deferred. That reduces the standard of punctuality, although one understands that safety must take its full part as well. Once again, delays on the line have been severe as the annual phenomenon of leaf fall strikes again. Surely technology has some response to that.
  In a letter to British Rail's chairman, a copy of which he sent to me, a Medway towns commuter wrote that, on 19 November, the 7.53 am Ramsgate to Cannon Street

  1125
  service which stops at the Medway towns was 25 minutes late, and that no explanation or apology was offered. On 20 November, the 8.44 am service to Cannon Street was 20 minutes at London Bridge, and again there was no explanation or apology. On 21 November, the same service was 14 minutes late, and no explanation or apology was offered on that occasion either.
  Whatever disputes there may be about funding, a little human communication can be exercised without involving a great budget. There can be no adequate excuse for lack of information to passengers who are so inconvenienced and frustrated.
  Fares increases for Essex line commuters from the new year have been reduced to 5 per cent. by way of acknowledging the poor service that they have suffered. North and north-east Kent commuters are fully entitled to the same consideration. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Dispatch Box have frequently referred to the exceptional investment currently being made in the railways. It is hard for our commuters to accept that when they see no improvement to their daily travel—only a decline.
  The cost of the annual season ticket to Medway towns commuters is more than £1,700. The quarterly ticket is comparatively more expensive, at around £500. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, that is highway robbery—or rather, railway robbery.
  In view of the emphasis that my hon. Friend the Minister places on rail services and his commitment to them, and reflected by public expenditure on them, my commuting constituents are entitled to significant improvements before they are expected to pay even more for an appalling service.
  12.51 am
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) on her success in securing this important and urgent debate on the quality of commuter services serving northern Kent. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Members of Parliament representing Kent constituencies have battled for many years to secure improvements to the quality and reliability of commuter rail services. I am saddened that we are having to rehearse yet again arguments that we have made on many previous occasions, both inside and outside the House.
  I note that the Opposition Benches are almost empty, although it is good to see the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) in his place. I would have liked to see present also the official transport spokesmen for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but it is left to Conservative Members for Kent constituencies—indeed, there are such only—to make the strong case for the commuter.
  We need a commuter strategy. It would have been nice to hear from Opposition Members their proposals, but they do not care because it is late, no media persons are present, and we are out of sight of the cameras. We shall undoubtedly make that known not only to our local media but to members of Kent county council and local councils. When in future Labour and Liberal Democrat Members pay lip service to the problems of our commuters, others will know that in tonight's important subject, none were present to speak up for them but Conservative Members.
  1126
  I would argue a little with my hon. Friend the Member for Medway, although she was fair in pointing to the two worst lines in the country—the Southend to Fenchurch Street line and the Dartford loop line, en route to her constituency and elsewhere. I believe that the latter is the worst line in the country. That was confirmed at the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) when he was Secretary of State for Transport, and by British Rail.
  My constituency contains two major lines, the Chatham line and the Dartford loop line, and I believe that the catalogue of events mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Medway is of significance to my constituents. British Rail should adhere to three principles when providing a commuter service: reliability, quality and fair pricing. On each of those three counts, British Rail's performance leaves a great deal to be desired.
  First, there is not much reliability. Often, trains do not arrive; when they do arrive, they are overcrowded and arrive late at their London or north Kent destinations. Secondly, their quality leaves much to be desired—which is not surprising, given that the rolling stock dates back to the 1950s. Thirdly, the price of BR's commuter service is now significantly higher, in terms of the fares paid out of net income by many people who have to struggle to London to earn their living. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Medway: it is highway robbery.
  British Rail must improve its service on all three counts. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that all possible representations are made to British Rail suffer a smaller increase in fares, more in line with that experienced by south Essex commuters.
  Another problem is timetabling. British Rail prefers to call its timetable changes "redesigning", which I believe is a euphemism for a reduction in service. As many Conservative Members will remember, in August British Rail slipped into the culture of commuter travel radical changes to services from Longfield and Farningham Road, and from Dartford to Black friars. Almost all the services to Blackfriars from Longfield and Farningham Road have disappeared, and services from Dartford and Crayford to Blackfriars were reduced by about 60 per cent. That had a significant impact on many people who work in the City, and who have no alternative means of access to it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Medway also mentioned rolling stock. On a number of occasions, my hon. Friend the Minister has pledged that the Networker 465 rolling stock will arrive for the short-haul inner Kent services. I understand that the first will arrive very soon, and should be in passenger use some time next May. Although that is good news, it represents a slippage: we were promised that the trains would be in use in September, and would be taking passengers soon after that.
  We want strong representations to be made to British Rail. We want apologies to our constituents who have suffered, and will continue to suffer. We want a radical examination of British Rail's management structure, and proper consultation about timetable changes now and in the future. We want to ensure that British Rail takes all possible action to minimise the disastrous impact on family life, jobs and marriages. Many people are undergoing extreme stress: they are having to cope not only with problems at work, but with the problems of getting to work and returning home. For them, such problems may be just as significant.

  1127
  We need to work towards the creation of a commuter strategy. There are large gaps in provision on the north Kent to London service. Many people whom I represent have only either the petrol engine or a British Rail locomotive-drawn vehicle by which to gain access to their point of work. Far more needs to be done as motor car ownership continues to increase.
  I hope that we can, from now, start to make progess with and assist British Rail. When there are difficulties, we hope that they will be explained to the people who are forced to use British Rail services.
  12.59 am
  Mr. James Couchman: On Monday 9 December, Kent Members of Parliament were having our annual meeting with local district councils when we heard about a major disruption to rail services at London Bridge due to a fire. We could not know then that it was to prove to be arson. It seemed to us to be the last staw. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) erupted and melted the telephone lines between here and Euston house, where British Rail lives. Bob Reid capitulated and agreed to meet Kent Members yesterday at 8 am.
  I initiated a request for a Consolidated Fund debate, and was immediately supported by seven colleagues. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) on hers being the name that came up in the ballot for this debate.
  Monday's fire at London Bridge was the last straw in a miserable saga of mishaps for commuters from north Kent and on the north Kent line. The saga goes back for some months—even for years—but it has got far worse this autumn. North Kent's rail services, as my hon. Friend the Member for Medway pointed out, are the worst in the whole of the Network SouthEast area—even worse than the notorious Fenchurch Street to Southend line, which the Father of the House, our right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), has mentioned so frequently.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) said, the rolling stock dates from the 1960s and even from the 1950s, and is now completely worn out. It is therefore uncomfortable and dirty. It carries too many people, and a substantial proportion have to stand the whole way into London—for 40 minutes from Chatham and for even longer from the stations of Gillingham and Rainham in my constituency. That is twice as long as British Rail thinks that people should stand. The service is uncomfortable, unhealthy, uneconomic for workers whose employers find that they have tired people arriving for work, and dangerous, as the Cannon Street crash earlier this year proved.
  The service has seen a sharp deterioration in reliability this autumn. The notorious leaf fall is blamed, but I believe that that may be a smokescreen for other failings. The unreliability is compounded by the attitude of British Rail staff. Their attempt to communicate the reasons for failure is lamentable. People wait in the carriages in main-line stations when trains are late to leave. They get no explanation. People stand on platforms listening to those awful nasal tannoys giving some sort of notice that trains are late, but there is precious little attempt to apologise or to communicate any sort of explanation to people who are, after all, paying customers.
  1128
  The most unacceptable of all the delays occur because staff do not turn up for work. They do not let their managers know that they are ill or that they cannot turn up for work. People are left waiting for the next train. Trains are in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the problem escalates out of all proportion.
  I have a growing file of letters, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Medway, about the delays that have occurred over the past four or five weeks. The return journeys from the Medway towns to London for a whole week should not take more than seven to eight hours. There have been delays of anything up to five hours during one week. That simply is not acceptable.
  Travel on the north Kent line is uncomfortable, unreliable and dangerous. To add insult to injury, as my hon. Friend the Member for Medway said, it is also very expensive. The price of an annual season ticket from Chatham has escalated from £1,464 in 1990 to more than £1,600 this year, and it is to rise to £1,736 next year. The prices of season tickets from Gillingham and Rainham further down the line are that little bit more expensive.
  Many people cannot afford a lump sum of that magnitude, so they have to pay the quarterly season ticket rate, which takes their fares to more than £2,000 a year. That is not acceptable for the kind of service that is provided. Price increases over the past two years have been beyond inflation. My constituents have been told that they must pay for increases of twice the rate of inflation to fund investment. That is all very well, but it provokes a hollow laugh among my constituents, who see precious little investment on the north Kent line.
  The trains get older, dirtier, less reliable and more expensive. There is a rumour that we will see the new Networker 465 trains on the inner suburban lines as far as Gillingham, but that will do nothing for the people who travel in from east Kent and from the eastern end of my constituency.
  Only this morning, the chairman of British Rail told us that the 471 Networker programme, the long-haul Networker programme, is not even in the frame for the next three years. It was in the frame when my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) was Secretary of State for Transport. It has been taken out of the frame because, as Bob Reid has said, all his investment this year must go on channel tunnel-related projects and because his income from passengers and his receipts from land sales have fallen, while his debt charges and spend on safety have increased. He tells us that the gap has widened effectively by £1·8 billion. He has also told us that there are no trains ordered for London beyond 1993. The suburban Networker programme is incomplete, and the Kent coast Networker programme is beyond the horizon.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport must surely hold one of life's more miserable ministerial positions at the moment. Can he tell me what I can tell my constituents who travel daily on old, unreliable and dangerous rolling stock which is putting pressure on their health and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, on their marriages as well? What hope of better travel do they have? When will their employers be able to rely on their prompt arrival in a fit state for work? When will their spouse or partner be able to rely on their timely arrival home in the evening? When will my constituents who rely on the Kent coast line be able to enjoy the Networker 471 trains for which they are even now being asked to pay?

  1129
  I have asked many questions. The chairman of BR would not or could not answer them yesterday morning. At this early hour, will my hon. Friend the Minister, whose heart is in the right place and who travelled on the line only last week, give my constituents some hope of better value for money for north Kent's rail services after a thoroughly miserable autumn?
  1.2 am
  Mr. Roger Gale: I add my congratulations to those that have already been expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) on securing a debate on a subject that is of burning importance to those of us with constituents who use the north Kent line.
  I must express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport for taking a personal interest over a long period in the problems we face. We have discussed the problems of the past few months, but some of us are aware that the Minister took the trouble to come down to Kent some months ago to unveil the mock-up of the new Networker train at Margate station to allow the public to express their views about the design before the trains were built. We appreciate that, and the trouble that the Minister took last week when he spent a considerable time—it was not a publicity stunt—on platforms where he spoke to constituents and commuters. He then travelled by train to see the problems for himself. I only wish that BR's senior management had taken the trouble to do the same thing this week.
  We have faced problems on that line over many months. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is right to say that we have been pursuing the matter for a considerable time. We regard with some distain the Johnnie-come-lately publicity-seeking activities of some hon. Members trying to cash in on a real problem.
  What are the problems? Commuters on the north Kent line are late to work in the mornings because the trains are unreliable. Commuters on the north Kent line are late home at night because the trains are unreliable. For employers, that is a nightmare. It means that they cannot rely on their staff. It means also that people travelling on the north Kent line do not get jobs in the City of London these days, because employers know not that the employees are unreliable but that the train service that they are required to use is unreliable.
  Employees who travel, and have done for weeks since June, suffer enormously from stress. My hon. Friend the Minister stood on the platform with me only last week, when a lady and her two young children waited for the best part of 40 minutes for her husband to come home, not being told by British Rail when that train might arrive. It was not just the fact that the train was late but the fact that no information was provided. That is a daily occurrence for families whose breadwinners travel on that line.
  Trains are overcrowded for much of the journey between north Kent stations and the centre of London. Passengers are standing to and from work. At the end of a hard day's work, that in itself is difficult to bear. It is also dangerous. My hon. Friends have referred to recent rail disasters. Unless something is done, it will be only a matter of time before a another similar occurrence takes place. Only tonight, we read in the London evening paper of the
  1130
  widow of the train driver who was sadly killed on the outskirts of London not so long ago. At a memorial service, she said that not enough had been done to put things right since her man was killed driving a train.
  The service on the train is unusable. Some time ago, we prevailed upon British Rail to introduce a trolley service—a trolley service that is run with great pride by people who take pride in their work and who seek to serve their customers. The problem is that the ride is so bad that the coffee they serve is not holdable or drinkable. That is also very sad.
  Last weekend, a group of my constituents came to my surgery to complain yet again about the standard and the quality of what passes for service on the north Kent line. My hon. Friend the Minister has seen the trains that travel from Ramsgate to Cannon Street. He knows, because he has seen them for himself, that the front four coaches on the trains are non-corridor. Travellers in the mornings are aware of that. Passengers boarding at Ramsgate board the corridor part of the train, and those joining in the Medway towns have the inconvenience of travelling in non-corridor trains, but only for a relatively short period, from Medway towns into the centre of London, albeit overcrowded.
  Coming back at night is a different case altogether. Those running for trains that may or may not be leaving on time find themselves jumping into the first four coaches of the train—the first four coaches become the last four coaches—they go in at the front and they come out at the back. That means that many of those passengers, many of whom are travelling to the Thanet towns, find themselves in non-corridor trains.
  One of my lady constituents told me last week that she was sharing a compartment with a man who was in absolute physical agony and sweating because he needed to go to the lavatory, on a train that had been sitting in a siding or on a railway track—it was delayed and doing nothing because of the signalling outside Cannon Street—for three quarters of an hour. That man had to apologise to the ladies in the compartment, and he urinated out of the window to relieve himself. That is—I hesitate to say it —the pass that we have come to. Those are the circumstances that our constituents face.
  British Rail told us at an early hour today that it had lost 7 per cent. of its customers. Is that surprising? Of course the recession has cost customers, but some of my constituents tell me that they will not travel on the railways because they are not reliable and they cannot get to work on time. Now, they drive the 70 miles to London or they use coaches instead of British Rail.
  British Rail's response to that is to say not, "We must improve our service," but, "We have suffered a 7 per cent. reduction in the number of travelling passengers, so we will cut 7 per cent. of the capacity." No thought was given to the fact that it might be possible to generate more business by improving the service. The logic of that argument is that one should cut all the passengers and all the trains. That is the downward spiral that we are now experiencing on the suburban lines.
  The quality of the transport infrastructure affects jobs in my constituency. The Government have put many millions of pounds into the dualling of the Thanet way, the main arterial road down into my constituency. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) who first committed money to that, at the same time as he was dealing with the channel tunnel legislation.

  1131
  There has been a tremendous commitment to the roads, but we need the railways as well—not only to get our constituents to work in the morning, but also because we want to create jobs in our own constituencies. I want to see north-east Kent opened up. It is an area with tremendous investment potential. However, if it is to develop, business men from London have to be able to get into Kent. We need two-way traffic, not one-way traffic. The failure of the railways is having a significant effect on the economic development of north-east Kent.
  What is the cause of all the problems that we have been having? Yesterday morning, British Rail helpfully provided us with a pie chart, showing that 12 per cent. of delays are caused by signalling equipment faults. The chairman of British Rail told us that the software for the new signalling at Cannon Street, into which millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been put, does not work. That is not a lack of investment; it is investment in the wrong product. Seventeen per cent. of delays are caused by faults in trains, which may or may not mean manning faults, and 11 per cent. are caused by civil engineering problems.
  The chairman of British Rail lays all those faults at the door of a lack of investment, but although money is being spent on signalling and on new trains on the line covering the constituency of my Friend the Member for Dartford, British Rail Engineering Ltd. apparently cannot deliver those trains either on time or to quality. We were told by the chairman of British Rail this morning that the lavatories and the lighting do not work. Again, that is not lack of investment—it is investment in the wrong product.
  Autumn leaf falls account for 6 per cent. of delays, but 6 per cent. over the narrow autumn period means a tremendous impact on passengers in that short time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Medway has said, it is time that we managed to get to grips with that problem. I am not sure what "cancellations of other trains" means, but that accounts for 5 per cent. of the delays. Another cause of delays are the "external factors outwith BR", such as the incident at the beginning of this week when an arsonist burned the signalling at London Bridge.
  We cannot and will not blame British Rail for that, nor would we wish to blame British Rail for acts of God or for the tragic attempted, and sometimes successful, suicides. Those are external factors that none of us can control. However, 28 per cent. of the sector of that pie chart deals with operations and retail staff. British Rail tells us that that means management, but not once this morning did the chairman of British Rail, for all his bluster, tell us what he was going to do about most of that.
  If a train breaks down on the north Kent line, the driver has to get out of the stopped cab, climb across live rails to the railway equivalent of an AA box and find a telephone so that he can report what has gone wrong. The chairman of British Rail has a telephone in his car because he needs one. Many hon. Members, including myself, have telephones in our cars because we regard them as an indispensable tool of modern business, but the driver of a railway train, with people behind him for whose safety he is responsible and who needs to convey information to people who are waiting on platforms to meet their relatives or to tell signalmen and others what and when something has gone wrong, is not provided with the basic tools to do his job. The train driver does not have a simple radio
  1132
  telephone. Those are matters with which British Rail can and should get to grips. If there is one thing on the line it is the reputation of the chairman of British Rail.
  I now come to investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said, the chairman of British Rail told us this morning that all his capital allowance for this year and the foreseeable future would be taken up with channel tunnel-related undertakings. When British Rail put through the channel tunnel Bill, the House was given assurances over and over again in one form or another, either direct or by innuendo, that the construction of the channel tunnel and the rail-related expenditure would not have a detrimental effect on the commuter services of Kent. It is patently clear that those undertakings were ill-founded and that that is where the money is going.
  I do not dispute with the chairman of British Rail that that is where he is spending his money but I question whether British Rail is spending all the money on the channel tunnel because it has to or whether it is spending all the money on the channel tunnel project because it is aware that it will be the poor bloody infantry—the commuters—who will bear the brunt and shout and make the Government cough up yet more money.
  There is clearly a case for more investment, and quick investment, in new rolling stock for the north Kent line. No one would dispute that. Through British Rail, the Government are already spending many millions of pounds, more than has been spent for many years, on new signalling, new stations, new platforms and in some cases new track. But we need new coaches. [Interruption.]
  I hear the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who came in late and speaks for the Opposition, intervene from a sedentary position. I am sorry that his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is not here tonight. Last week, he took the opportunity of a photo opportunity on the train to all the television audience that he had a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport saying that there would be no new investment in rolling stock for three years.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East told me that he would send me a copy of that letter, so I wrote to him that day and asked him for a copy. It has still not arrived. He also told the television station that he had a plan. His plan was that British Rail should lease for £50 million a year the necessary rolling stock. But he did not say who would pay for that rolling stock in the first place or whether that formed part of the Labour party's public expenditure plans. So I wrote and asked him to answer that question too. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East will take the message back to him that I still have not had a reply to that letter and that I would welcome a response and a copy of the Secretary of States letter which he says exists.
  Mr Peter Snape: When the hon. Gentleman has finished griping and whining, which is all he ever does about commuter services in Kent, perhaps in the interests of accuracy he might reflect on something that he has just said. He said that the Government are spending more through British Rail than they have ever done. If we are to have a debate, it must be based on some accuracy in the hon. Gentleman's statistics. His statement is not true: British Rail is borrowing more. That is why the hon. Gentleman's commuters are paying more.
  Mr. Gale: No one would dispute that, under this Government, more taxpayers' money—it is not Government or public money—has been spent, even on the lines that we criticise, than has ever been spent before.
  Mr. Snape: I dispute it, because it is not true.
  Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman came to the debate late. Perhaps he would like to listen to what I have to say. Undoubtedly he will make his own speech in a moment.
  There are certain things that my hon. Friend the Minister can do to help us. First, it is clear that the programme for the new train sets for the north Kent line must be introduced as quickly as possible. I do not know anyone who disagrees with that. I hope that it will not be too long before he can come to the House and tell us that that programme is back in the frame and on stream and that those trains will be built not only quickly and on time but to a quality that apparently has not existed in recent months.
  Secondly, I hope that my hon. Friend will ask British Rail to review the timetable of the programme. The thought of more trains being taken out and more passengers being put on to yet more overcrowded trains is not acceptable to any of our constituents. Lastly, I hope that my hon. Friend will persuade British Rail, in the light of the appalling performance that it has offered our constituents in the past few months, to make financial recompense and, above and beyond that, to guarantee reliability and quality for the future.
  1.25 am
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) on leading the debate. It is significant that at 1.25 am there are present in the House six hon. Members who represent north Kent constituencies, all of them Conservative, making the case for our railway line.
  It is also significant that, in recent months, we have had heat, but no light, and not a little language from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) making party political points on television. Here we are, in the House of Commons, where the power lies, debating the issue of service for our commuting constituents, and where is Labour's principal transport spokesman? He is at home in bed.
  Mr Snape: Presumably he is in the same place, though one hopes not literally so, as the Secretary of State, and where any sensible person would be at 1.25 in the morning—in bed.
  Mr. Arnold: The Minister is here——
  Mr. Snape: So is his opposite number.
  Mr. Arnold: Whereas the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East can be relied on always to turn up on time in the TV studios, when it is less convenient for him to turn up—in the House—to debate issues of importance, where is he? He is abed.
  My hon. Friends have emphasised the poor service that our constituents have had to suffer for a long time. But it has been getting noticeably worse in recent weeks. Like my hon. Friends, commuters have written to me. I will cite a few of them to exemplify the type of service that thousands
  1134
  of commuters in north-west Kent and elsewhere in north Kent have had to put up with. Mr Brian Sangha of Gravesend writes:
  "I have been commuting for some 20 years and during that time have noted the declining standards of service, combined with substantial fare increases and increases in government funding."
  He writes that, in the week beginning 11 November, he carried out an analysis of the performances of the trains that he uses. He reports that, for 20 per cent. of the time, the trains were cancelled, for 60 per cent. of the time they ran between 10 and 15 minutes late, and the advertised journey time was not achieved on one occasion.
  Mrs. Lewis, of Lower Shorne, in my constituency, did a similar survey earlier this month and reports:
  "Out of 20 trains, only six arrived within five minutes of their scheduled times, and of the remaining 14, seven were between 17 and 48 minutes late."
  That is for a 25-mile journey scheduled to take about 47 minutes, so what price the kind of statistics that British Rail has been issuing about the service?
  The effect that that is having on commuters at a time of difficulty over jobs can be summed up by a lady from Meopham who, having gone into similar detail as other letter writers, adds:
  "I count myself lucky to work as a secretary for a gentleman who is extremely understanding."
  Employers must indeed be understanding, given the timekeeping that my constituents have to put up with.
  Such service is not confined merely to the most northerly lines through north Kent, through Gravesend. It also applies to the line to Meopham and Sole Street in my constituency. Not only must commuters on that service suffer the bad timekeeping and lack of cleanliness which has been particularly evident on British Rail in recent months, but they must also suffer the new timetabling.
  British Rail says that the volume of commuters in north Kent has declined by about 7 per cent. of late, so it must trim costs accordingly, as any good business must do. I find it completely inexplicable that in the face of that 7 per cent. it saw fit last August, when many commuters were on holiday, to sneak out the announcement that the autumn programme would involve scrapping 100 per cent. of the services in the rush hour to and from the city on this line. All three trains up and all three trains down were scrapped. After much ado and going into some detail, British Rail somewhat grudgingly, late in the day, replaced one up train, but not one to come back.
  We should also look at the kind of cattle-truck conditions that our constituents are supposed to put up with. The carriages on the north Kent line date from the 1950s and the new Networker carriages are long overdue. We in this House know that the Government have given British Rail the largest rail investment since the Conservative Government of the 1950s. It is significant that the occasional Labour Government that we have had since then did not bring a single new carriage on to the routes serving north Kent.
  We know that the vast bulk of the Networkers are now being constructed at British Rail Engineering Ltd. and at Metro Cammel. We know that the first such unit is to be delivered next week, with weekly deliveries thereafter. We must, as north Kent Members, insist that British Rail keeps to this programme so that it properly introduces the passenger service of Networker trains early in the spring.
  We welcome our hon. Friend the Minister here tonight and we hope that he will insist that British Rail delivers

  1135
  these Networkers trains on time. The overwhelming bulk of them have been authorised and ordered and are coming in. I ask my hon. Friend to make sure that British Rail does not continue to divert its capital investment into channel tunnel services but orders the remaining tranche of 188 Networkers for the north Kent line and makes sure that the system is completely re-equipped. It is high time that we had a 20th century or even a 21st century quality service for the commuters of north Kent.
  1.31 am
  Mr. Roger Moate: I begin by agreeing with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and his proposition that most sensible people would be in bed at this time. I am delighted that he is here because he has been a consistent advocate of more investment in the railways and we should give him credit for that. I always remind him of the many very severe criticisms that he levelled at the Labour Government, most of them justified, about the lack of investment between the years 1974 and 1980.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not a new problem. In the 20 years that I and some of my hon. Friends here have been in the House, the problems of bad commuter services for north Kent have constantly been with us. There was a flashback in one of our local papers the other week to an item in the news 25 years ago when my predecessor, now Lord Boston, met a large number of very irate commuters and, according to the report, was rather surprised at their intemperate language. I think that most of us are very surprised at just how patient and forbearing many commuters have been in the most incredibly difficult travelling conditions that they have had to put up with in recent weeks.
  Terry Boston's predecessor was another Labour member, called Percy Wells, and there is a story told of him in relation to trains. As we all know, in this House we are always forgetting things. We forget where we park our cars, briefcases and papers. It is a fairly well-known characteristic. But on one particular occasion Percy Wells excelled himself. He was travelling back on the last train to Faversham, as was his normal practice, when he remembered that he had left his wife sitting in the Gallery.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) referred to the visit of Sir Bob Reid to the House this morning. We should put on record the fact that we are grateful to him for coming early in the morning, with other senior managers of Network SouthEast. It was courteous and helpful of him to do so. It was a useful meeting. While it is right to level harsh criticisms at times like this, one should also appreciate it when the effort is made. They are doing their utmost to respond. There is general recognition of the tremendous problems. Having got to that meeting at 8 o'clock this morning, here we are debating the position at nearly 2 o'clock the next morning. I feel like many of our commuters, that some of the hours put in are unreasonable.
  It should be understood how angry, frustrated and fed up so many commuters are. Journeys that should take an hour are taking two hours. Commuters get no explanations and complaints are legion. The suffering is real and the hardship is very great. I do not need to reiterate that because we all understand it and regret it very much.
  1136
  I have a bigger worry. The problems over the past: few weeks because of leaves on the lines, ice or whatever, have been dreadful, but we could be facing much worse conditions in coming weeks and months because we have not hit the hard winter. We have not had snow yet. The prospect is depressing for tens of thousands of people making the daily journey into London or desperately trying to get home.
  What is to be done? The first problem is the old rolling stock. We have had a graphic description of travelling in non-corridor trains without toilets. One can cope with that for a journey lasting an hour, but if one is there for two hours or two and half hours, as can happen, one can appreciate the sheer misery that that causes. No one in any part of the House can justify that. That has not just happened. The problem of inadequate investment goes back a long time.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East was crossing swords with my hon. Friends about who spent the most money. I could probably find some words on the record from him, but the only time there was a significant cut in railway investment was under a Labour Government. That was regrettable, but under-investment is still regrettable. Given that it is a nationalised industry, there is always a shortage of investment funds and there are always clashes of priority for extra money. So year after year after year there has been inadequate investment in that line.
  The conclusion I reach is different from that of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East. We have to find a different financial structure. It could be privatisation or it could be separating the railway into different management structures. There is no simple way of raising the billions of pounds that we need if we are to modernise the railway. The fascinating thing is that the hon. Members for West Bromwich, East and for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) realise that, even if there were a Labour Government, they would not get the necessary capital investment from their Treasury spokesman. So they have come up with the idea of leasing. The significance of that is that they know that they would not get capital funds.
  We all face that problem. The commuters are entitled to new rolling stock and somehow we have to get it. If we do not order it now, the prospects for the line are dreadful. One way or another, we have to find the resources and commit ourselves to a programme of new trains on those long distance lines. We are talking about big money —£7 billion. It cannot be conjured out of thin air but it is the first basic requirement.
  However, that is a long-term prospect and several measures should be taken immediately to help our commuters. My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) made this suggestion and it is not new, but communications could be improved and information given out quickly. It is wonderful how quickly a high-grade, high-quality letter can be produced with modern photocopiers to explain to all commuters exactly what went wrong. Most of them are very supportive of British Rail and knowledgeable about the railways, and they want information but they do not get it. That measure can be taken tomorrow. Most passengers understand the problems and are ready to make allowances for the sort of problems that occur on that rail network, but for heaven's sake, let us get on with improving matters right away.
  The next measure concerns fare increases. If the Southend line can achieve recognition of the fact that its

  1137
  service is poor and if passengers on that line have had a lower fare increase, the same should have been applied to the Kent line. If, as we are told, it is too late to reduce those prospective fare increases from 7·75 per cent. to 5 per cent., in line with inflation and comparable to the Southend line, the Government should find another way to make a concession to passengers in recognition of their suffering. One way would be to reduce fares; another would be to extend season tickets for a period. But let us do something in recognition of the serious problems.
  As soon as new rolling stock is available, may we please have more standby stock ready so that it can no longer be claimed that there is inadequate stock in the wrong place when problems occur?
  All those measures involve capital and, one way or another, we must create a larger investment programme. Frankly, I do not care whether that is done by leasing or by more Government investment, but it must be forthcoming. The leasing method is fudging the issue because it is cheaper for the Treasury to raise that money than to borrow it from the City. Unless we lease into a privately financed railway where there is genuine risk capital, it is simply Government borrowing by a different name.
  We have a long-term investment problem and a short-term winter problem, coupled with short-term management problems. Those can be dealt with, given the right approach by my hon. Friend the Minister and British Rail management. We have the exciting prospect of a White Paper to be issued shortly on the new structure of British Rail, which can offer the right solutions for our passengers in the long term. That means smaller management units and a much better responsiveness to local customers. Only in that way will the hundreds of thousands of people in the south-east get the first-class modern railway that they deserve.
  1.43 am
  Mr. Peter Snape: I apologise to the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), who initiated the debate, for missing her speech. I had expected the debate to start later, and I hope that she accepts that, although it is my responsibility to be here at the correct time, I did not deliberately miss her speech, and I meant no discourtesy to her.
  I arrived in time to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). The first phrase that I heard bemoaned the state of the railway service in his constituency, and he asked what he should tell his constituents. I understand that he is desperate for something to tell them. After all, we are approaching a general election and, as he canvasses in the snows of February or March or even in the sunshine of July—none of us know yet—they may say, "Well, after 13 years, shouldn't you have done better on those services?"
  I shall try to tell the hon. Gentleman what he should tell his constituents in a minute or two, but first I shall comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). He and I have spent the bulk of the past 18 hours in various Committees, so we have probably heard more than enough of each other. I hope
  1138
  that I shall not damage his career prospects by saying that I found his speech thoughtful, in direct contrast to some of the others that I heard this evening.
  The hon. Member for Faversham rightly spoke of the investment problems that have occurred under successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, for many years. He was right—I was critical of some of the policies of the last Labour Government. I shall probably be telling tales out of school about myself when I say that I once wrote a letter to The Guardian of all newspapers about the Labour Government's railway policies. The matter was taken seriously, because I was then a Whip. I was new to the post and professed ignorance of traditions, but I understand that neither the Ministers involved nor their civil servants were overkeen on my departure from the normal customs.
  The two senior Ministers in the Department of Transport at that time were Mr Bill Rodgers and Mr John Horam, and there was precious little socialism in the railways policies from that quarter. One of them, having spent a few fleeting years in the SDP or whatever it was called, is now running the Royal Institute of British Architects. I understand that the other former Minister has been selected as a Conservative candidate for Orpington, in Kent.
  Let us hope that if, in the far distant future, the nation is unwise enough to select another Conservative Government, Mr John Horam is not once again appointed a Transport Minister. If he is, I fear that the griping that we have heard tonight from Conservative Members about rail services will be redoubled. Mr Horam is no friend of the railways and the fact that he is a member of the Conservative party merely proves something that most of us long suspected when he was sailing under false colours.
  The hon. Member for Faversham made some relevant comments. He rightly talked of the need for British Rail to improve communications. There is nothing more annoying for passengers than to sit in trains or wait at stations without being given information. There is a management problem in British Rail. I appreciate that modern communication equipment has not yet been installed in many stations in north Kent. When it has been installed in other parts of British Rail, it is often not used properly.
  Therefore, not only is investment needed, but a little more managerial competence must be brought to bear when that investment is provided, to ensure that information is made readily available. Passengers are much more prepared to accept delays and problems if they know what is wrong and how long it is likely to take to put right. All too often, the most annoying aspect of a delayed railway journey is having to sit in trains, whether with corridors or not.
  The hon. Member for Faversham talked about new ways of raising finance. There is no magic method of financing commuter trains. If, in the unlikely event of another Conservative Government being elected, British Rail were privatised, I do not think that there would be too many bidders for the north Kent rail services, whether modernised or not. It is a simple fact of financial life anywhere in the world that running a commuter railway is not, by its very nature, a profitable business. As on any other commuter line, many of the assets on the north Kent line—which are, in these modern days, expensive—spend

  1139
  18 out of 24 hours doing very little. It is at the twin peaks —the morning and the evening—when those assets are put to full use.
  It is difficult to imagine anyone outside the railway industry rushing with cheques to purchase commuter railway lines in view of the fact that peak travel is the most expensive transport provision imaginable. I should have thought it pretty unlikely—but I am prepared to listen to Conservative Members, despite the fact that I rarely believe them on such matters—that there would be a great rush to buy their railway.
  The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) talked about the railway problems affecting his constituency, and complained about the recent reduction in capacity. Where has he been? British Rail or Network SouthEast must cut its commuter coat in accordance with its financial cloth, and it is this Government who have drawn the financial guidelines so tightly. The necessity of living within a budget has led railway managers to reduce capacity on trains, because otherwise they would run over the budget for their sector or route.
  The hon. Gentleman should talk to the Minister—publicly or privately—about the reduction and tell him that running the railway system—especially Network SouthEast—in such a parsimonious manner has caused many of the problems that he has graphically if somewhat over-dramatically outlined. No one would feel anything but anguish—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
  Mr. Snape: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He has not listened to what I said, because he was turning the other way.
  Mr. Dunn rose—
  Mr. Snape: I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said, although I understand that he had a few things to say. Let me deal first with the hon. Member for Thanet, North, who told the—admittedly sad—story of the commuter forced to urinate out of the window because of delays. Everyone can understand that, and sympathise with the person involved. One could find oneself in such circumstances on any mode of transport.
  I know that the railway system in Kent—especially in an election year—is set up to be an Aunt Sally, but if hon. Members decided to drive to and from their constituencies they would be aware of the fact that their arrival time, especially at this time of year, would be likely to fluctuate widely, depending on the traffic and the number of accidents on the trunk roads and motorway. They could end up in a traffic jam lasting an hour or an hour and a half.
  Mr. Dunn: Perhaps I could be fairer to the hon. Gentleman than I was when he was not here. I accept his apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), but he did not listen to my speech either. However, I accept his apology in the spirit in which it was given.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and I mentioned that British Rail argued that it has lost 7 per cent. of its customers because of the recession and that, consequently, it had to make cuts. Why did it have to cut 100 per cent. of the line from Chatham—in our constituencies—to Blackfriars and 60 per cent. of services
  1140
  from Dartford to Blackfriars? A 7 per cent. loss followed by cuts of 100 per cent. and 60 per cent. does not make sense.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman must accept that I am unable to give a detailed answer.
  Mr. Arnold: He is trying to justify it.
  Mr. Snape: From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Gravesham makes a fool of himself as usual. I am not trying to justify the cuts. I am agreeing with hon. Members that a great deal is wrong with the commuter services from their constituencies. I am making what I hope the Minister will accept is the relevant point—that railway finances, and especially those of Network South East, play a part in the illogical trimming of services, to use the words of the hon. Member for Dartford.
  I hope that he accepts that British Rail will say that services have been cut so that it can stay within the budget imposed by its financial straitjacket. Those cuts might be said to be unfair and to bear down unfairly on those who live on the line, but British Rail managers say that they have to make cuts somewhere because they have to live within their budgets. None of us wants cuts that affect our constituencies, but that is what has to happen.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham dripped and moaned about services from his constituency. His only consolation must be that he will not have to put up with all this much longer, because he will not be here to complain about the railway after the next election. I know that his Labour successor will do a better job than he has done to improve services from that part of the world—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is obviously obsessed by that successor, because he keeps mumbling about him. I have no doubt that, when he arrives, he will make a better fist of fighting for his constituents than the hon. Gentleman has.
  I gathered that the hon. Member for Faversham did not feel that leasing was the right way forward. As he correctly said, it is cheaper to borrow money from the Treasury than from anyone else. He fairly conceded that any Government will have spending priorities governing the borrowing of money, and what British Rail needs to borrow is likely to be beyond the capacity of the Treasury to meet in full.
  Leasing is not new. The 1970–74 Tory Government went in for quite a bit of it with British Rail. Deltic locomotives and some rolling stock were leased at that time. By leasing, British Rail can spread the burden over up to 20 years, and that means coming up with much smaller sums at the beginning.
  I hope that Conservative Members agree that something drastic must be done. The desperately needed class 465 trains for north Kent have still not been ordered, despite the pleas from Tory Members. I do not think that the Minister of State will be able to pledge that those trains will be provided. That means that British Rail will have to spend £50 million on maintaining and improving clapped-out 40-year-old rolling stock for another four or five years. Apart from the problems that that causes the constituents of Tory Members, it does not make financial sense in the long term.
  Some better way must be found. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will do something to provide the rolling stock that his hon. Friends demand. That rolling stock will bring relief to passengers, improve efficiency, relieve congestion and

  1141
  reduce maintenance costs. In the long term, not renewing rolling stock on north Kent lines will be far more expensive. It is expensive to patch up stock that ought to be in the railway equivalent of the knacker's yard.
  I hope that the Minister has good news for his hon. Friends. They need it. After all, it is not just the railways and the commuters that depend on better rolling stock and services: it is the necks and the survival of many Conservative Members with Kent constituencies that depend on them. That is the reason behind this debate and it is why these Tory Members, who have so slavishly followed the Government for 13 years, now ask them to come to their rescue. I hope that the Minister will come to the rescue of the railways. It is too late to save his hon. Friends—but I am not too worried about that.
  1.59 am
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) on initiating the debate and my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on their contributions. They have felt strongly for some time about the north Kent line, but particularly during the past three to four months, which have seen a clear deterioration in the service provided. They have made their points forcefully at this extremely late hour, and I am sure that their constituents will note that they have taken the trouble to attend the debate and speak so forcefully in it.
  On behalf of the Government, I acknowledge the problems on the north Kent line, particularly during the past few months, as does British Rail. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North for accompanying me on the 7.2 am service from Ramsgate to Cannon Street and the night before on the station platform at Herne Bay, when I talked to a number of commuters, which I found helpful. On the train, I was able to talk at some length and in some depth not only with commuters from Ramsgate but with those who joined the train at subsequent stations. My hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Faversham also travelled with me.
  My hon. Friend the member for Dartford summed the matter up accurately when he said that commuters want a reliable service. That is the most important thing. It must also be a quality service, and that is related to the age of the rolling stock. I use a station that is 90 miles from London, and the journey to London takes me one hour and five minutes. I suspect that Ramsgate is approximately 90 miles from London, but that service takes twice as long and it is a bumpy ride.
  Before I make what I hope will be regarded as some positive statements, I should say that improvements are partly up to British Rail and they are partly a function of investment. British Rail has to make the best possible use of its resources. It has to control its costs and live within the external financing limits set by the Government. On behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport, I accept responsibility for setting that limit, but British Rail must make the most productive use of those assets.
  1142
  I draw the attention of the House to a statement made by London Underground about two weeks ago on the launch of an imaginative plan to make effective use of its manpower by having fewer people but paying them more so that they provide a quality service.
  I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Medway, for Gillingham and for Faversham, particularly about information services. It surely must be elementary that prompt information is necessary not just for the people on the trains, but for the people waiting to depart and the relatives or friends waiting for trains to arrive. Such information must be prompt, audible, apologetic when that is appropriate, factual and honest.
  It costs some money to put in a proper information system, but it does not cost tens or hundreds of millions of pounds. It is a simple management procedure, and we want British Rail to follow not only my hon. Friends' advice and guidance but mine.
  Investment is clearly part of the solution. I am well aware of what is needed on the line in terms of the 471s. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North said, I went, together with his other hon. Friends to see the mock-up at Margate. It looks an attractive train.
  I am also aware of the need for the Thameslink 2000 improvements in order to widen the throat of the main London termini, and allow more trains to get in at the peak. I support Sir Bob Reid's proposals for Thameslink 2000. They are important, and when resources permit, I am sure that those proposals will proceed, as they must.
  The investment programme is large. My hon. Friend cited Sir Bob Reid's remarks this morning. The wrong impression may have been given about investment in channel tunnel services squeezing out Network SouthEast. For 1991–92—we are three quarters the way through that year—investment will be approximately £1,080 million. Channel tunnel investment will be £390 million; Network SouthEast, £290 million; and non-Network SouthEast outside London and the home counties, £400 million.
  Investment in Network SouthEast this year will include £75 million on the new turbo trains on the Chiltern lines, and on Networkers for the Kent link lines. If one wants to deliver new rolling stock, one has to put the cash up front, and that totals £610 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, the first new coach will arrive in December, and I hope that he and others of my hon. Friends will join me in examining the new rolling stock when it is tested. It will enter service in the spring.
  Much must depend on the manufacturers—BREL and GEC—delivering that new rolling stock on time. As to finance for future years—a reference was made to the £50 million investment in resignalling on the London to Tilbury and Southend line—that for resignalling in Kent will total £80 million.
  Dame Peggy Fenner: If the manufacturers do not deliver on time, will there be a forfeit in the shape of a reduced payment?
  Mr. Freeman: Yes, in certain circumstances. If production and delivery schedules are not met, British Rail would be right to withhold payment.
  In the few minutes remaining, let me sound a slightly more positive note, to try to help my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: They are desperate.
  Mr. Freeman: As to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary comment, I would respond in the same constructive and helpful way whatever the debate, and whatever the line. I would address the issues on their merits—and that is what I am doing.
  I want to make five points about the north Kent line.—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] I am taking this debate seriously, even at 2 o'clock in the morning. As to the 471 investment programme, British Rail must produce its corporate plan by 31 March 1992, and it must be consistent with the external financing limit settlement of £2 billion for 1992–93 that we announced.
  That is an increase of £1 billion; it increases the public service obligation grant to £900 million this year, and it will probably be about £1 billion next year. I assure my hon. Friends that, by 31 March, we will clarify the ordering and delivery of the 471s. The House would not expect me to make a prediction tonight. British Rail must produce its plan for the next five years, consistent with the resources that we are making available.
  In response to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North, I will ask British Rail tonight, in respect of Network SouthEast service, to review the new schedules for the north Kent lines for 1992. I appreciate that the service has reduced because of the Cannon Street works, and that there is a desire to stop trains at certain other stations in 1992, so that passengers who cannot currently avail themselves of that service will be able to do so. However, I will ask British Rail to take a fresh look at the service schedules for next year.
  The service has obviously deteriorated over the last three months. I will ask British Rail to consider as an immediate gesture the provision of some form of compensation—probably by way of rail vouchers, which is the usual practice—to passengers who have suffered disruption over the past three or four months. That would be equitable, and I am sure that British Rail will consider responding promptly and fairly.
  Fourthly, from 1 January, I shall be setting new performance standards for the Kent coastal services in 1992. If British Rail does not meet those standards, compensation will automatically be offered to season ticket holders. I shall not fix the percentage tonight, because the details have yet to be worked out. The system will give British Rail an incentive to provide a better service, and I think that passengers will consider it equitable. As we stated in the citizens charter document published in July, we intend to apply a similar system to all
  1144
  Network SouthEast lines to provide season ticket holders —who are locked into the service—with proper recompense. That will apply to annual, quarterly and monthly tickets.
  Fifthly, there is the question of future fares increases. My hon. Friend the Member for Medway asked why we could not do something about the fares increases planned for 5 January. Those increases were set in early October, and I am afraid that adjusting them now is not a practical proposition: it would cause even greater confusion. I can tell my hon. Friend, however, that, had British Rail known then what would transpire in October, November and December, the fares increases proposed for that line would undoubtedly have been different. I give her this pledge: when fares increases are next set for Network SouthEast lines, the differential—particularly in regard to the service on the north Kent line—will take into account not only the service that is prospectively on offer, but the service that is being provided.
  After Christmas, we shall be publishing a White Paper on British Rail privatisation. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is wrong to believe that we are considering only the simplistic solution of selling off the Network SouthEast lines. He knows that that would not work. The lines are currently heavily subsidised, and a much more sophisticated solution is needed to bring in the private sector. We shall unveil our plans shortly.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: When he checks British Rail's forward programme, will my hon. Friend ensure that it includes the final tranche of 465 Networkers that is required for the north Kent line?
  Mr. Freeman: I have already made it plain to the House several times that we must finish the Kent link line services —the inner Kent services—before we can turn to production of the 471 s. It would be extremely expensive to truncate production of the 465s to insert the 471s, and then come back to finish the Kent link services. I give my hon. Friend that pledge: we will complete the production programme.
  I hope that the British Rail privatisation White Paper will prove helpful. I should value my hon. Friends' comments on it; the House will undoubtedly debate it. Unlike the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, we have positive proposals to improve the quality of service on Network SouthEast. The hon. Gentleman has no policy, no money and no hope.

  Hazardous Waste
  2.13 am
  Mr. William Ross: The Minister for Public Transport said a moment ago that it was rather late. Debates such as these usually run all night; in my experience that does not do any harm, because it means that Ministers have to sit up late and answer for what has gone wrong over the years.
  Although the subject that I wish to raise relates to my constituency, I believe that it has much wider implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the whole question of the disposal of toxic and hazardous wastes once again before the House rises for the Christmas recess. Such waste arises from many sources in the manufacture of materials in widespread use. Most of the materials are so useful that they simply cannot be discarded. I see little chance of any of them being replaced. We shall work with those materials for many years.
  We also have the problem of waste that was created many years ago before people realised how dangerous it was. The injury to the health of persons who come into contact with such substances is not new. Those who used mercurous nitrate were not aware of its effects, and they were equally unaware that those effects would echo down through history in the phrase "mad as a hatter". I often wonder whether we should all have so cheerfully followed the holy grail of nuclear energy if those who made the decisions had known far earlier what we know about the subject nowadays.
  People believe the scientists and then find out, only by a slow accretion of knowledge, that scientists can get it wrong, just as the ordinary individual can. That has fuelled much of the present doubt about the claims of science today.
  I received an answer from the Department of the Environment on this side of the Irish sea in response to my request for a copy of the United Kingdom red list of dangerous compounds. It is an interesting list and one almost needs a degree in chemical engineering to understand it. One or two of the compounds are well known. The first is DDT. What a boon that insecticide was when it first appeared and what a concern its residues are to the whole world today.
  I also found on the list aldrin and dieldrin. Like the rest of the agricultural world, I embraced those new discoveries when they first came out. They appeared to be the final answer to the problems of sheep dip, because they were powerful instruments against the diseases in sheep which we were fighting at that time and which we still have to learn about. Those compounds were also used for dealing with potato pests and God knows what else. Yet we now find those compounds on the red list. It is no wonder that people today cry caution whenever they are told that some new and wonderful product has appeared on the market.
  I am principally concerned with the residues of the manufacture of man-made fibres and plastics. I am especially concerned about the proposal to build a plant to incinerate such residues and about the effect of the fallout from the plant on my constituents. However, there is a wider implication for the rest of the country. There is a world wide danger from such materials. The residues are long lived and cannot be recaptured once they are in the environment. Not all the effects are yet fully understood.
  1146
  I have taken a keen interest in the proposal since it came to my notice a year or so ago. Whenever a light is placed outside one's own front door, one starts to wonder about the strength of the light and about its effects. An article in the September edition of Chemistry in Britain was brought to my attention. The article refers to PCBs—polychlorinated biphenyls—one of the materials about which I am concerned. The article says:
  "Many of these higher chlorinated and mono-ortho-substituted PCBs produce toxic effects and have been reported to accumulate in human tissues. There are considerable species and sex differences, but the toxic effects include the loss of body weight, atrophy (wasting) of the thymus (an important organ in the development of the immune response) skin cell disorders, liver damage, decreased reproduction, diminished immune response".
  It was also pointed out that previously the potentially toxic effects of PCBs on man were so little appreciated that they were seriously considered as a substitute for the gum component in chewing gum. That illustrates best just how easily mistakes about dangerous long-lived materials can be made. Heaven knows how many other such materials exist about which we are not worried yet.
  According to the article to which I have referred, there is evidence that professional mixtures of PCBs can be carcinogenic and mutagenic when tested on laboratory animals. It is now well established that female rats are more responsive in tests than males.
  One really needs a degree in chemical engineering to read the red list, let alone understand it. However, there is enough information in plain everyday English to worry the living daylights out of me. Another article in the same issue of Chemistry in Britain states:
  "Environmental exposure to PCBs and eating PCB contaminated food can cause PCBs to accumulate in fatty tissues"—
  one of which, of course, is human breast milk.
  "PCBs can be transferred from mothers to their young during lactation. This finding prompted us to do a small survey of the individual PCBs in samples of breast milk from 10 mothers living in the Reading area. The separation of the individual PCBs by capilliary gas chromatography and their measurement by electron capture detection enabled us to estimate a mean concentration in milk of approximately 1·2 µg total PCBs ml-1, which is at least 20-fold greater than the concentration that can cause adverse effects in humans. Sixty individual PCBs were identified and—were highly chlorinated. Some of these PCBs are thought to promote carcinogenesis in laboratory animals."
  That is surely enough to worry any mother or parent for the children and for succeeding generations because these things tumble down the line.
  I read in another document:
  "EPA has calculated that the tolerable daily intake of TCDD for humans is 0·006 picograms per kg body weight per day. This level would supposedly result in a one in 1 million chance of excess cancer from TCDD. But this level is far, far below the 1 to 3 picograms per kg body weight per day that people are estimated to be actually ingesting. Other nations, using different risk assessment models, have calculated the tolerable intake level much higher. Germany uses 1 picogram, the Netherlands 4, and Canada and the World Health Organisation use 10 picograms per kg body weight per day."
  When we stop to consider the wide differences that exist in the information, it is clear that, if the scientists really understood the effects of these materials, they would long since have reached a common standard as to how much the human body can tolerate without serious adverse effects. The reality is that we do not know what we are dealing. The matter has not yet been sorted out that: must be cause for concern and for great caution.

  1147
  We should be concerned not only with the present generation, but for generations ahead of us. It is clear that experiments have thrown up nasty results, and no doubt the Minister will follow that up.
  My constituents are particularly concerned because they are down wind of the proposed incineration plant. I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), written on 7 November. The letter was written on recycled paper, which gives us some hope for the future. It said:
  "In broad terms, Northern Ireland has introduced the legislation required to implement the series of EC Directives."
  Of course, they have been broadly implemented across the rest of the United Kingdom.
  That letter went on:
  "Most requirements of this Directive were introduced here by the Pollution Control and Local Government (NI) Order 1978. In Great Britain the Directive was implemented by the existing Control of Pollution Act 1974."
  It was brought to my attention on 21 November that the European Court of Justice judged that EC Governments could be sued in their own courts for failing to implement certain EC directives. That judgment arose out of two Italian cases in which the employees were seeking to recover wages owing to them when the employers went bankrupt, leaving no assets from which the employees could recover their money. They subsequently sued the Italian Government for failing to implement a 1980 EC directive requiring member states to set up compensation funds for people in such circumstances.
  One must consider the possible implications. If there are any mistakes in carrying EC directives into domestic law, the Government, rather than the individual, should get the shivers. It could leave them open to heavy compensation claims from their own nationals. Perhaps the social charter is not quite as dead as the Prime Minister thought at Maastricht. There could be ramifications through European avenues, and they could be very costly. Let us hope that the Government have got it right. It is a serious matter. I hope that we shall try to ensure that our people who come into contact with those substances and suffer injury are properly covered.
  Another problem has arisen. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not present, because the problems arose in his constituency. Farmers found that some milk had been contaminated with dioxins. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stopped the sale of that milk—good for him—because of the danger to the individuals who might have drunk it. The farmers were left to sue the polluter. That is the answer that the hon. Member for Bolsover received from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Unfortunately, the Department of the Environment did not close the offending plant. I believe that it was the coalite plant in the area. That was not much help to the farmers. They were told by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, "You can sue the polluter." Certainly, initially, they did not receive much help from the Department of the Environment or from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to identify the polluter.
  I always remember the Hanrahan case in the Irish Republic. The farmer eventually won that case on a technicality. His entire milk herd had been wrecked. The case went on for years. It was a telling mark against how Governments deal with the problems that citizens come up
  1148
  against whenever they are injured by insidious, long-term, dangerous materials. It is not a light matter; it will continue to affect our constituents over the years unless we take action.
  I now refer to the time that it takes for dangerous materials such as dioxins to go out of an incinerator chimney stack and into the human body. Some people think that it is a long time. However, in certain circumstances, it is a very short time.
  I ask the House to consider a situation that I, as a farmer, can well understand. I do not know whether any one else present is a farmer. Let us suppose that, on a dull, quiet, overcast Friday evening, something goes wrong in the local incinerator. A dumpstack is used. When I first heard about dumpstacks, I thought that they were a sort of recycling system, but that is not the case. Whenever something goes wrong, it is dumped into the atmosphere and it flops down on to the grass over a 20-mile radius.
  If the farmers' cows are out and eat the grass, they will convert it into milk. When the farmer drives them in in the morning, he milks them and that milk goes straight into the tank. Nobody will know that there is anything wrong with it. When the farmer brings in the cows in the evening, he milks them again. Still nobody knows that there is anything wrong with it. The tanker takes the milk to the dairy next morning and within 24 or, at most, 36 hours, everyone who has bought and drunk the milk has dioxins in their body—and there they stay. It is as quick and as dangerous as that.
  There is no escape unless there is total honesty about the burning of the materials by the people operating the incinerators. I fear, however, that the polluters will often try to hide what has happened because the costs are colossal. In the scenario that I have described, the dioxin is on the herbage, the grass. I do not know about dioxins in the ground. I should like to be told whether, if there are dioxins and fluorants in the soil, the herbage that the cattle eat will absorb them and whether the pollutants can enter the human food chain by that path. We need a clear answer on that. There is far too much secrecy at present. The problem will not be solved without public debate and unless people think seriously about it.
  Facts such as those that I have described give me grave concern about the burning of those materials. As a result of my investigations, I would be the first to acknowledge that burning such things at the recommended ternperatures has, at first sight, a lot to recommend it and many advantages. It is quick and it is certainly much cheaper than any other system of cleaning up those things. But what happens if the temperature control goes wrong? If the temperature falls from the recommended 1,200 to 1,500 degrees, which is mighty hot, to 400 or 500 degrees, the result is not harmless materials.
  Incidentally, no one is sure whether the resulting materials that go up the stack really are harmless. However, if the temperature falls, dioxins are created, and out they go into the atmosphere. One knows that they are out once they have left, but there is not much that one can do about it once they are away and in the atmosphere and environment—and they will drift a long way. Parts of my constituency are still suffering from the effects of the Chernobyl explosion. and nobody is happy about that.
  Let us suppose that something goes wrong with the burning mechanism and pressures build up. The dumpstack is opened and the pollutants are dumped out into the atmosphere. I am not a technician, but it seems to

  1149
  me, as a fairly practical man, that whenever that happens, the materials bypass a large part of the process. They are probably not quenched and will therefore cool slowly, which is when the dioxins form. We could run into severe difficulties through using dumpstacks, which I understand are frequently used in the United States. This is not a matter to be treated lightly.
  The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North could not answer the long series of questions that I put to him last winter, spring and summer. The reason why the Minister could not answer was that Du Pont had not told him the outcome of the various experiments.
  One of my questions was answered only yesterday. I asked what information the Minister had about
  "pyrolysis experiments carried out by Du Pont on the waste to be incinerated at the proposed hazardous waste incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry to determine the products, at what temperatures these experiments were carried out; and what products resulted."
  His answer was:
  "The Goverment have no information on any such experiments."
  I should have thought that, before the Government could give a reasoned answer on whether the thing should be built, they would need access to such information. Even at this stage, it is not too early to ask such questions. It is long overdue that the Northern Ireland Office should have the information.
  I do not know the position of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), but I hope that Ministers at the Department of the Environment are better informed than their colleagues at the Northern Ireland Office. It might not be the fault of Ministers. Perhaps our legislation is not strong enough to extract the information from the firms involved. If it is not, we should introduce the necessary legislation. We need to know.
  The Government do not seem to have addressed the point that I made on 10 July about what the position will be if, as some firms tell us, the amount of waste is reduced by 70 per cent. by the end of the century. If the amount of waste is reduced by 70 per cent., all the economics on which the present plans are based will go out of the window. They will simply no longer make sense. I wonder exactly what is going on. The fact that it does not add up to anyone causes me concern, and I must tell the Minister that it is a concern shared by many people in Northern Ireland.
  I raised that very point on 10 July, and I did not get an answer then. I am not sure that I shall get an answer tonight, but I am putting down markers for the Government to tell them what they should examine. That has to be done. It is a serious matter. There is tremendous public anxiety in my constituency and an enormous number of objections. Hazardous waste is the one thing that unites north, south, east and west, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Sinn Fein and Democratic Unionist party in the area. I cannot think of anything that unites people so much. The farming community and the general public are involved. The latest groups to voice their anxiety are the Foyle anglers and Foyle Fisheries Commission, who are equally worried about the effect on fish in the Foyle.
  Furthermore, at Northern Ireland Question Time today, the Minister seemed unfortunately to be closing the
  1150
  door on the vital suggestion, that the producers of the waste should not be in charge of incinerating it. Financial pressures will be put on management and workers at such a plant by the owners and those who produce the waste. Those who operate the plant will be forced to take short cuts.
  In the press at the beginning of the week, I saw horrifying information which has recently surfaced about near misses in nuclear plants. They are enough to make one shiver. It worries me even more that the nuclear plants involved were the Savannah river plants in the United States, run by the very same firm, Du Pont. There were stories of melted rods and God knows what. It was terrifying. In some cases, the workers even ignored the red warning lights and signs until attention was drawn to them by other people.
  The Government should not shut their eyes to the point that I make. I have been told—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that in Germany incinerators are part Government owned and part industry owned and operate on a non-profit making basis. Such a plant must be built in Northern Ireland. That is the way forward. I wish that such plants could be built in the rest of the United Kingdom, so that financial pressures are not exerted on workers in the plant by the folk who produce and burn the material.
  If Du Pont is doing the environmental impact assessment for the plant, who will confirm that work? And what of the methodology used in the work? Many people will be interested to know the answers to those questions, for we believe that it must be checked and rechecked by independent people. It appears that, under EC rules, wastes of this type must be treated at the nearest facility. That reason alone leads one to believe that there will be one plant in Ireland for the whole island of Ireland.
  Committee D of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body issued a report in November of this year. That made it clear that the Republic would build a plant. The proposals had been received and were under consideration, and the Du Pont plan then came into view, whereupon the Irish Republic rapidly said that it would shelve its proposal. It was shelved because of the discovery that the location of such a facility in Northern Ireland would be designed to serve the whole of Ireland. I was surprised that the Irish Republic, which was apparently so far ahead in relation to the Northern Ireland facility, was so willing to drop it. In other words, the Irish Republic thought it such a hot potato that it was willing quickly to get rid of it.
  I tabled a parliamentary question on 18 November this year—it was answered on the 25th—asking the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to
  "clarify the position regarding the proposal for a toxic-hazardous waste incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry, in the light of the recent statement by the Minister for the Environment in the Republic of Ireland that the Republic would have to construct a toxic waste incinerator in the near future."
  The reply was:
  "The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has not received a planning application for a toxic-hazardous waste incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry. A planning application for a major development involving a hazardous waste incinerator would not be determined without a public inquiry held under the terms of article 31 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991".—[Official Report, 25 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 387.]

  1151
  That did not clarify matters much, and that answer is indicative of the attitude that has been taken by the Northern Ireland Minister throughout this affair; he is sitting on the fence. Perhaps he has to sit on the fence. Even so, there are many answers outstanding, and I would like to have them.
  It is clear from a reading of the report of Committee D to which I referred that the promoters of the Northern Ireland proposal
  "have now completed their feasibility study and announced their intention to proceed with the environmental impact assessment of the project. A copy of the study has been made available to the Department of the Environment and is being examined."
  It seems to me—unless there is something wrong with the language—that not only has the feasibility study been completed, but that the environmental impact assessment may also have been completed. May I be told? I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to tell me, but I hope that he will draw that, and the other matters that I have raised, to the attention of the Northern Ireland Office.
  That Committee D report also refers to the importation from the Irish Republic of 15,000 tonnes of hazardous waste and 17 tonnes of toxic waste each year into the United Kingdom for incineration or treatment. That is a fair amount of stuff. Given that there was once a plant in Northern Ireland producing acetylene gas by a known method which produced waste that has now also been found to be not quite so harmless as it was once thought to be, there is a lot of other stuff lying about in dumps in Northern Ireland. I have seen the figure of 250,000 tonnes quoted. Whether or not that is correct, it seems that a lot of material requires to be treated.
  While it may seem that much of what I have said applies only to Northern Ireland, I assure the House that that has not been my intention, for I believe that this issue has much wider implications.
  Again, the Minister at the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment wrote to me last August. In that letter, he drew my attention to the fact that a survey had been carried out of dioxins and turons of soil samples in Northern Ireland and that the results suggested that those levels were generally comparable with those found in England and Wales. He then went on to talk about the fact that there would be rigorous monitoring by the alkali and radiochemical inspectorate.
  I would like to know if the results of the those surveys are available to the general public, or to me in the House. Are the reports of the monitoring mentioned also available? I would certainly like to have a look at them, and so would some of my researchers, to see exactly what is coming out. I would also like to know the methodology that is used so that we can be assured that it is being properly done.
  The hon. Gentleman has always indicated that the COSHH regulations, that came into force on 11 July just a fortnight before that letter was written, would be relevant to the emission of substances which might affect persons on the site. It is my understanding that the COSHH regulations cover far more than persons on the site; they cover persons outside the site who have no tie-in with it at all. The Minister is indicating here that they apply only to persons who have a right to be on the site. I do not believe that that is so and I would like the Minister to comment on that.
  1152
  I would also like to know whether the Northern Ireland Minister has reached final conclusions with regard to the Environment Agency for England and Wales, because he said that that would have an effect on his thinking.
  Let us look for a moment at the pressures on chemical companies at the present time. They are very great indeed. I feel sure that the Minister will have had drawn to his attention the two articles in the Financial Times yesterday, which are quite interesting. One indicates that there is now over-capacity, that chemical groups are faced with increasing environmental expenditure and that in this country environmental spending is running at 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of all capital investment, which is a very heavy burden.
  In the second article, attention is drawn to the spending on environmental measures and the fact that Europe is estimated to be five years behind the United States in the implementation of these measures. It draws attention to the heavy fiscal instruments to discourage emissions in some countries. It draws attention to the cost in Germany and to the amount that environmental protection measures will cost the whole chemical sector in the United States and in this country over the next few years.
  That is not the end, of course. There is also the fact that some companies in the United States have been fined very heavily for illegal disposal of wastes. I read in one publication that the EPA is proposing to fine three New York companies—CWM Chemical Services, General Motors Central Foundry and CECUS International — $35·4 million for violating the Toxic Substance Control Act and illegally disposing of 50,000 tons of sludge contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls. The penalties proposed are $14·2 million against General Motors, $7 million against CWM Chemical Services and $14 million against CECUS International. That is a sign of how seriously these matters are now being treated in the United States. I think that it is only a matter of time before similar penalties are imposed on such companies worldwide.
  The position is serious not only for the general public but for the chemical companies. We need these materials. Nobody will stop using plastics and they will still be made. It is better that they be made in the west where we might be able to exercise some control over them, rather than have them hidden away in a third-world jungle where some of the local people are getting a good backhander and no one knows what is pouring out of the chimneys. We have to keep them in the civilised world. Therefore, we need to be careful about how we handle them.
  The incinerator that is to be built at Du Pont is to cost between £40 million and £50 million. If the amounts in use by the end of the century diminish by 70 per cent., the plant will be a dinosaur because it will not be needed. It may well be completely out of date before it is built. Is the money being spent wisely?
  The Chemical Recovery Association took an interest in some of the questions which I asked earlier in the year. In a letter to me in July, the chairman pointed out that its member companies
  "recover an average 450,000 tonnes per annum of contaminated oils and chemicals, a quantity of which is received from Ulster and Ireland.
  I was somewhat aggrieved by Mr. Needham's statement that 'the nature of hazardous and toxic is such that recycling is not an option'. We like to think recycling is the second

  1153
  option after waste minimisation and that advice should be sought from the industry before the final option is undertaken."
  I hope that the Minister will note that advice and consult the association about what might be done.
  We have to be more radical than that. As a country we should try to seize the initiative by seeking safe alternatives. Apparently this is not new chemical engineering; it is the oldest chemistry. As I said in July, if the chemists can find a way of zipping the materials together, there must be a way of taking them apart. I understand that it is possible to break them down into their harmless constituent parts of carbon dioxide, which may not be all that harmless, and common salt, but that it is difficult to do so.
  If the plant is built in Northern Ireland, it will be a national plant because materials will be moved backwards and forwards; certainly it will be an international plant because it will burn material from the Irish Republic. Perhaps we should consider whether it is wise to spend not just Du Pont's money but much of our taxpayers' money on it, because the taxpayer will fund half of the expenditure.
  Will the Government consider seriously setting up, preferably in the university at Coleraine, a pollution technology unit, financed properly with the help of the Dublin authorities, Du Pont and other chemical companies, to try to find a chemical means of reducing the wastes to their harmless base components? If it can be done on a small scale, albeit at great cost, surely it could be done on a larger scale. If the amount of money was poured into it that must have spent on sticking the blasted things together in the first place to get the polymers, surely we could find a way of taking, them apart thereby rendering the whole process of incineration obsolete and creating a new industry in which we would be a world leader.
  The problem will not go away. It concerns every human being not only in this country but on the whole earth. There have been too many accidents in the past and no doubt there are more in the pipeline. We should break out of the cycle of looking for the cheap, quick, easy way of disposal and try to find a real alternative which will do the job properly by getting rid of the waste once and for all in a way which does not cause hazard to the general public or to the environment in which we all have to live.
  2.54 am
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) for taking us in some detail through the problems that he and many experts see in dealing with toxic and hazardous waste.
  Naturally, the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about an incinerator that may be built in his constituency. He pointed out that, when new products come on the market, they are often treated as great blessings, and it is only after a great deal of experience and use that we learn of their dangers and downsides. It is essential, therefore, that we proceed with great caution when handling toxic and hazardous waste.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the environmental impact assessment. I expect that the Minister can reassure him that an environmental impact assessment cannot have been made properly for that incinerator yet, because an
  1154
  application does not yet appear to have been made. When an application is made, the incinerator will face a mandatory environmental impact assessment under the relevant EC directive. In addition to a highly technical assessment document, there is a duty to produce a summary that the public can read.
  Some of the important matters that the hon. Gentleman raises have been the concern of several Select Committees. In 1988–89, the second report of the Environment Select Committee was on toxic and hazardous waste. It was a savage indictment of both local and central Government for not taking their responsibilities seriously.
  At this time in the morning, I shall not go into the details of the report but will simply say that the Committee was shocked by what it found. It discovered that local government was rather lax and did not appreciate the problems of dealing with toxic and hazardous waste, and central Government were equally lax in ensuring that local government enforced laws under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. We are now more aware of those problems, and there are possibilities under the Environmental Protection Act 1990—some of which are already being followed and others which have yet to be taken up—to deal with past laxity.
  In addition to the general comments and proposals that the Environment Select Committee made about tightening up the approach to dealing with toxic and hazardous waste, it said that an environmental protection agency should be set up. The Government have belatedly agreed to do just that, and are currently in a consultation period on the matter.
  The Welsh Affairs Select Committee considered toxic waste disposal in Wales. Apart from the general problems that relate to the haphazard disposal of such waste, particularly into landfill sites where little effort is made to seal them off, in the United Kingdom as a whole the land around a third of the 100 sites studied by the Department of the Environment was contaminated.
  The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs came across a similar problem in Wales, where, in addition to the general land contamination report—most of the toxic waste has been disposed of to land—a study was also made of incineration. The infamous Rechem plant is located near Pontypool in Wales and there has been widespread concern at its operation. The Welsh Office responded positively to the Select Committee report, and an expert group is currently considering possible contamination dangers to which the public, the land, the cattle and livestock around that plant may be exposed. The result of those studies might have an impact on future incineration policy.
  There is also widespread concern in many other districts. Only a week or so ago, most, if not all, hon. Members received a Community Action Against Toxic Waste appeal from Walsall in the west midlands. At Birch coppice, a firm which I think calls itself Leigh Environmental operates some large toxic and hazardous waste sites. What is worse, beneath the landfill sites there were old mining workings. It is estimated that Leigh Environmental deposited 400 million gallons of toxic liquids into the old workings. I believe that, as the law currently stands, Leigh Environmental could surrender its site licences at Birch coppice and Stubbers green, and the residents could be forced to live with the devastation for many years.

  1155
  Will the Minister say this evening whether the Government intend to implement, if not immediately, at least in the very near future, those sections of part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that prevent the surrender of a disposal licence until a certificate of completion has been isssued by the relevant authority?
  By coincidence, the British Medical Association was represented in the House this week to report on its study of hazardous waste in the west midlands in the very same district of Walsall to which I referred. It said that its study had not discovered any conclusive evidence on the damage done to humans by low-level exposure, but it stated that the lack of information and knowledge of the effects of exposure to low doses of the chemicals over a long period had led the working party to adopt the precautionary principle that absence of evidence was not evidence of absence.
  The report stated that a study had been made of an incinerator at Bonnybridge in Scotland that suggested an increased level of twinning in cattle, and possibly in humans, that may have been linked with the emission of PCHs and other substances from the plant.
  The British Medical Association was sufficiently concerned about that evidence, and other evidence from the United States which showed that PCBs and other toxic and hazardous waste should be treated very seriously, to propose a national waste agency, because it claims that, at present, there is no central guidance and little consensus on the best form of industrial waste disposal, 90 per cent. of which is contracted out to the private sector. The BMA believes that there is an urgent need for a central waste policy to give guidance on the safest form of disposal. It also believes strongly that there should be a ban on the import of hazardous waste into the United Kingdom.
  In the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the BMA quoted figures from 1981–88. Those figures showed how the import of what is called "special" wastes —toxic and hazardous waste—had gone up. In 1981–82, 3,800 tonnes were imported, and by 1987–88 we were importing 80,000 tonnes, thereby almost becoming one of the major toxic dustbins of the world. However, I believe —perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that, in the last year for which we have the figures, the import of such waste has gone down to 44,000 tonnes, although that is still 10 times higher than in 1981–82.
  The Labour party believes that there are a number of essential approaches to toxic and hazardous waste. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East quoted the experts waste recovery association and said that the first priority should be waste minimisation. We should reduce the amount of hazardous waste that is produced when making products—often useful products—for the market. It is possible, and companies are doing it. If hazardous materials are left after minimisation, there are possibilities for recycling. After recycling, we must find the safest way in which to dispose of the waste.
  The first step is to ensure that the waste is disposed of as close to its source as possible. If it is transported over long distances, it can be dangerous. There have been accidents during transportation, which have caused serious pollution. We should also end the commercial trade in waste, except in exceptional circumstances—for example, if there has been a crisis and there is a need for waste to be disposed of somewhere else. By and large, however, we should try to ensure that waste is dealt with
  1156
  as close as possible to its source. We do not believe that the United Kingdom should import any toxic and hazardous waste.
  In the longt term, Labour would look to a steep reduction in toxic waste and to the elimination of some of the most dangerous types of waste. It is clear that, as the world becomes wealthier and other countries start to want the things that we want, there is a danger that we shall produce more and more waste. That means that the technologies of waste minimisation and alternative means of disposal are very important.
  Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East mentioned the possibility of neutralising toxic waste. Before the products were brought together, they were not necessarily dangerous.
  It just so happens that, before I came to this debate this morning, I was flicking through a pile of press cuttings when I came across one from The Journal (Newcastle upon Tyne), a north-eastern regional newspaper. What caught my eye was the headline: "Speedy Toxic Waste Ealer". The story is about a new chemical process which eats toxic waste. ICI has developed it at Billingham, and it will eliminate the need to dump waste from the manufacture of perspex into the River Tees and the North sea—one year ahead of schedule, too.
  The project was supported with £300,000 of grant from the EC Commission. ICI has found a successful way of dealing with this waste without causing any harm to the public in the form of emissions from incineration, so perhaps there is good news to come. Perhaps the incinerator will not go ahead as planned in Londonderry, East. The Minister, who has access to more information than I have and who is ably supported by his civil servants, may be able to give us more news on that front this morning.
  2.5 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The treatment and disposal of hazardous waste in the United Kingdom is an important subject, and the whole House must be grateful to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) for raising it this evening. He and the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) have made some interesting points and useful contributions on the matter.
  We must put this important subject in its proper context. There are not enormous amounts of hazardous waste either arising here or coming here from elsewhere to be disposed of in an uncontrolled manner. Since the introduction of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, this country has had a system of strategic planning and site licensing for waste management. The Act set controls in advance of much of Europe's, which were reflected in the Community's own waste management framework directive in 1975. More recently, we have amended the legislation in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which again places us in the vanguard of Europe, with additional provisions for integrated pollution control for those industrial processes with the most potential for pollution, and for a duty of care for all producers arid handlers of waste.
  It is estimated that about 80 million tonnes of industrial waste arise each year in the United Kingdom, all of which is dealt with in this country. About 2 million tonnes of that is hazardous wastes. Under the Control of Pollution

  1157
  (Special Wastes) Regulations 1980, movements of defined categories of difficult wastes in the United Kingdom are subject to at least three working days notification to local waste disposal authorities. This system is designed to provide local authorities with opportunities to satisfy themselves that the planned disposal will be satisfactory, but with the delays to industrial operations kept to a reasonable minimum.
  The Governments' primary aim is to see significant reductions in the amounts of waste requiring disposal. We are doing all we can to encourage waste minimisation. Indeed, this is built into the statutory requirements for consideration in the issue of IPC authorisations. Under these controls, what emissions are then unavoidable have to be rendered harmless. We therefore have cleaner technology as a main aim, and we see growing recognition by industry of the value of this for its economic well-being and international competitiveness.
  Next come our policies for encouraging waste recycling. This requires a comprehensive programme for the development of suitable collection systems and to ensure the creation of reliable and economically valid markets.
  However, even with complete success in encouraging waste minimisation and recycling, society will still have a number of wastes to handle. It has to be appreciated that, in a complex industrialised society such as ours, some wastes are unavoidable. We want to see such wastes dealt with to the highest possible standards in ways that are consistent with industrial economics. For any hazardous wastes, that means pre-treatment where necessary.
  Industrial waste incinerators of significant size have, in the past, been subject to control by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, acting under air pollution control legislation, with plant being required to adopt the best practical means for dealing with the materials coming into the sites. But those incinerators are now regulated under integrated pollution control procedures, and HMIP authorisations will be based upon guidelines reflecting the best available technology not entailing excessive costs.
  Incineration is the most appropriate disposal method for many wastes which can be rendered harmless only by breaking them down through the controlled use of heat. The methods used and the pollution control systems fitted are sophisticated and provide a safe and sound disposal option, subject to rigorous operational controls and inspection.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East has raised the specific problems of hazardous waste disposal in Northern Ireland, with specific reference to proposals for an incinerator at Maydown in Londonderry.
  There are currently two Northern Ireland public sector landfills suitable for the disposal of certain special wastes —Dargan road, Belfast and Culmore, Londonderry. I understand that currently about 9,000 tonnes of those wastes are dealt with annually at those sites. They consist of asbestos, vanadium grit, acids and alkalis, pharmaceutical wastes, miscellaneous chemicals and treated sludges.
  However, some wastes arise in Northern Ireland which cannot be dealt with by landfill. There are three chemical treatment plants in the Province, one of which is for in-house wastes only; so wastes required to be disposed of by high-temperature incineration have to be sent to disposal facilities outside the Province.
  1158
  Approximately 1,600 tonnes of those wastes are transported from Northern Ireland each year. Until this year, some of that waste went to Finland and the remainder to facilites elsewhere in the United Kingdom. But there will be no renewal of contracts with the Finnish installation beyond this year, and all such waste will now go to United Kingdom facilities. We expect that to continue as long as necessary.
  In Northern Ireland, special wastes are subject to the Pollution Control (Special Waste) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1981, which impose the same requirements as in Britain regarding pre-notification of movement of waste to suitable licensed disposal facilities.
  The hon. Gentleman has referred to studies by Du Pont (UK) Ltd regarding a possible hazardous waste incinerator. I understand that the company has now completed a feasibility study on such an installation and is considering the appointment of consultants to prepare an environmental impact analysis, including consideration of alternative technology. Those are essential steps in considering any such proposal.
  As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend, the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), has already announced that any formal proposal from Du Pont would be put before a public inquiry. As the hon. Member for Bridgend said, that would enable those with concerns, including the constituents of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East, to have them aired, investigated and adjudicated upon.
  As the hon. Member for Londonderry, East has recognised, one of the constraints on private sector investment in high-temperature incineration in the Province must be the relatively small volume of such waste which may not be sufficient to warrant large-scale investment. A guaranteed baseload tonnage is required for most waste treatment plants to make operations viable.
  For that reason, there is a need to consider application of the European Community's proximity principle to the use of facilities by neighbouring countries. That principle is designed to encourage waste to be disposed of at the nearest available facility. We should look closely at its appropriateness to the possible situation with regard to an incinerator proposal in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member also asked about alternative technology instead of incineration. He referred specifically to a technique developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for rendering wastes into harmless salts, which I understand is in its infancy. Apparently, the institute is considering building a pilot plant, but little is known about its proposals, and clearly we are a long way from that becoming a viable alternative to present-day technology.
  Pyrolysis—the imposition of high temperatures upon material in the absence of oxygen—is often presented as an alternative to incineration. That technique has been considered by many interested in waste management, because it achieves considerably higher volumes of reduction than incineration, and seems to offer good prospects for even better pollution control standards.
  However, it represents a number of practical operating difficulties, mainly because the process converts material rather than destroys it. That is particularly relevant when one is considering a diverse range of hazardous wastes.

  1159
  Nevertheless, as I said earlier, Du Pont proposes to ask consultants to examine alternative technology in the impact analysis of the incinerator proposal.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked about emissions from the chemical incinerator at the Coalite works. I dealt with that matter in an oral answer on 6 November.
  I am confident that Government policies provide, and will continue to provide, an appropriate basis for meeting the high expectations that society has for the future. We want waste management to play its part in the drive for sustainable development, with a high standard of environmental stewardship in the interests of future generations. That will not be easy, and there will always be areas of difficulty—some of which were usefully debated tonight.
  Of course I appreciate the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East on behalf of his constituents. I am certain that we are developing the correct framework for tackling important issues, and that we will be able to accommodate developments in new technology as they become available.

  Croatia
  3.21 am
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: No one who contemplates the brutal war that has racked Croatia over the last few months can do so without a deep feeling of sorrow and shame: sorrow that such devastation and misery should disfigure our continent in 1991, and shame that we have been unable to do anything to halt the carnage and destruction.
  It is not that the west has failed to make an attempt to do so, and I pay genuine tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who is to reply to this debate, and to the tireless efforts of Lord Carrington and, more recently, Mr. Cyrus Vance.
  However, when no real progess is made, the time comes for reassessment, and it seems to me that that time is now. Like many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, I followed with a mixture of admiration and exasperation Lord Carrington's attempts to negotiate a proper ceasefire, but watched with mounting anger the callous disregard for life and property cynically displayed by the federal forces.
  For me, the moment of realisation that something more must be done to identify the aggressor and to hold him to account came last week, when I was invited to open an exhibition of photographs at the building centre in Store street, London, of some of the Croatian buildings destroyed over the past few months. Some were great and glorious, some were humble and small—but together their destruction represents an awful catalogue of misery. Those photographs brought home to me the abomination of desolation that is Croatia now.
  In the Croatian conflict, as in any other, there is a background of distributed bitterness. I am well aware of the atrocities that some Croatians perpetrated during the second world war, and of the tensions between Serb and Croat that go back long before that, which left a legacy of hatred and fear. No one would ever suggest that President Tudjman should be awarded a Nobel prize for the tact and sensitivity with which he asserted Croatian independence.
  I know, too, that, even during these last months of conflict, acts of unjustified violence have been committed by Croats against Serbs. Only today I received a letter from Prince Tomislav of Yugoslavia listing the Orthodox churches that had been destroyed by Croats. No one can defend such actions.
  If we recognise that background, however, we must also recognise the reality, and the enormity, of what has happended in Croatia—and recognise that the great majority of acts of wanton wickedness have been perpetrated by the forces of a state that has, by all normal criteria, forfeited its right to be recognised as a sovereign independent nation. Let me suggest to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that perhaps the time has come to stop acting as an honest broker between victim and aggressor. The evidence of responsibility for the carnage and destruction is too overwhelming to be ignored.
  Many hon. Members will have received, in the past few days, a report from Amnesty International giving details of some of the atrocities that have occurred in Croatia in

  1161
  recent months. I commend that report to all hon. Members: it is a terrible indictment of the impotence of the federal Government and their inability to control their army. It is a horrifying catalogue of crime and of utter disregard for the Geneva convention.
  In September, Unesco's Director General appealed for respect for Yugoslavia's cultural heritage. He said:
  "the cities of Split and Dubrovnik are on the World Heritage List and are protected under the World Heritage Convention".
  He also pointed out that Yugoslavia was a party to the convention on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, signed at The Hague in 1954.
  That declaration was issued on 27 September; by the end of October, a document was coming out of Croatia from the Ministry of Education and Culture. I have a translation. It says that, in that short space of time, 317 historic settlements had been affected, 241 heavily or lightly, while 76 had been destroyed or burned down; 358 individual monuments registered or filed as cultural treasures, including 26 museums, seven archives and 13 library buildings, had been damaged. We have all seen, with a sense of sickening horror, the graphic television pictures of the shelling of Dubrovnik, and we all saw the appalling scene of devastation when Vukovar fell. I could go on, but I think that I can make my points simply and graphically by quoting from the documents that I have with me.
  I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) share my sense of horror and outrage. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that those feelings are translated into a more positive western attitude. Maastricht is now over; let this be a test of the new Europe's resolve. It is an important test, for impotence will not only be a poor recommendation of Community cohesion; it could make it all the more difficult to stem the tide of bloody anarchy that could so easily engulf large tracts of Europe which we recently rejoiced to see set free.
  I know that there are no easy answers, but if we do not at least attempt to act decisively, Zagreb, Dubrovnik, Vukovar and Osijek could be just the first names on a ghastly roll call resembling those unending, poignant first world war memorials that are such a feature of life all over the continent of Europe.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will seize the opportunity provided by his next meeting with his Community colleagues—which I believe will take place very shortly—to reappraise the position, and to see whether the Governments of the Community could now decide to recognise Croatia and to tell the Yugoslavian federal Government that they can no longer be recognised as the legitimate Government of former federal territory.
  Everyone says—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made the point several times—that Yugoslavia as we knew it is no more. Whether that is to be lamented or not, it is a fact. The federal Government do not exercise proper control. We in the west should be prepared to act in concert to impose sanctions, and to patrol the coast and the skies while a full conference to determine the relationship between the former Yugoslav territories is convened.
  It is important that the rights of all minorities within all the territories should be high on the agenda at the
  1162
  conference. One knows of the concern of the 11·5 per cent. Serbian minority within Croatia, but that is no excuse for what has happened and continues to happen. It is a terrible indictment of 1991 to think that such events could happen today in Europe.
  Any course of action such as I have suggested is fraught with difficulty, and everyone must recognise that. However, it is as nothing compared with the difficulties that we shall face if the generals, who have effectively staged a coup against civil authority, are allowed ultimate success. In August, the world rejoiced when the communist old guard failed in the attempted coup in Moscow. Too few people seem to have realised that the communist old guard has succeeded in a coup in Belgrade.
  There was an interesting article in The Sunday Telegraph on 1 December by Mr. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, in which he speaks about the devastation in Vukovar and what has been happening in Croatia. He ends the article with the words:
  "The officer corps of the army is the last relic of the Tito era, divided against itelf, scared of the future, without loyal troops, without strategy, without a creed that anybody, even itself, can still believe in. It is fighting to preserve its privileges and its pensions. When it meets real resistance the army will recoil and break."
  I do not know whether it will break as easily as that. Certainly it is an army that has run amok. We must recognise that and we must recognise where the aggression lies.
  When he answered questions in the House on 20 November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary showed an understandable reluctance to move towards recognition of Croatia. He made the point that that could lead to yet greater troubles in Bosnia and in Macedonia. What would guarantee such trouble is allowing the federal army to succeed in extinguishing an entire small nation state with the brutality with which it has already destroyed so much.
  I hope that a message will go out from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister when he replies for the Government. This is the first time that we have debated the subject in the House, which is a pity. I hope that a message can go out that there is a new resolve in the west and that we are determined to ensure that the killing, the destruction and the brutality stop, and that, as a new year dawns in a few days' time, it dawns with a new sense of hope for the battered, beleaguered people of Croatia.
  3.34 am
  Mr. George Robertson: I naturally commend the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on his choice of subject for debate. It is a valid subject, and the hon. Gentleman is not to blame for the procedures that the House has foisted upon itself. Having spent 13 years in this place, I still find it truly remarkable that, with regard to such important issues—Croatia is receiving perhaps its first real airing in the House since the tragedy began to unfold—we are having this debate at 3.35 am. The House should not be proud of that, and I sincerely hope that this will be the last all-night Consolidated Fund debate that we will have to put up with.
  What the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South said about the tragedy unfolding before us is right. It is shocking and horrible, and it requires a sense of irony almost to reflect on the fact that this is 1991—towards the end of the 20th century. However, on our continent, on the

  1163
  doorstep of the most civilised part of the world, we are watching human beings killing each other for no other reason than the fact that they live next door to each other.
  The waste, deaths, brutality and destruction of property beggar description. All that is happening in a beautiful country which has been the holiday destination of thousands of British people over the years. Many people who have spent their holidays in that country, as I have, shake their heads in disbelief as they watch what is happening.
  I spent a family holiday in Dubrovnik last summer. One of my memories of my holiday in that beautiful city in the Aegean is of attending a football match with my brother and our children. The match involved Dubrovnik and a team from Belgrade. Only 15 months later, the participants in that match, which, it must be said, was not full of passion, are now presumably heavily engaged in destroying each other simply because they come from two sides of a divide that dates back to the tragedies, miseries and horrors of the second world war, back to the first world war and into the deep recesses of history before that time.
  The point at issue is that what is happening is not only a tragedy of today but a portent of tomorrow. We are witnessing in Yugoslavia what happens when the cap of communism is lifted to reveal the suppressed anger that is contained. That may happen in other countries where the same situation applies. Because we are outraged by the conflict in Yugoslavia today, we should be ready for similar things to happen elsewhere in Europe unless we ensure that we set in place institutions to prevent them.
  Despite having visited the country and despite a long interest in the area, even I was not fully aware of the complexities and the depth of feeling in the various component parts of Yugoslavia until I read the quite remarkable book that Chris Cviic wrote for the Royal Institute of International Affairs only a few months ago. Despite the fact that modern history grows old within a week, I commend that book to people who want to understand what is happening in that part of the world. The replaying of historical conflict, brought to our own living room firesides by the miracles of modern technology and displaying the brutality of past years, does not reflect well on our development in Europe.
  The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South commented on the differences of view about who is to blame. There are strong feelings on both sides, as my postbag bears witness. It is now becoming clear even to those of a partisan view that the culpability of the federal army, which is no longer responsive to any of the organs of the previous state, must bear a heavy responsibility for what is happening.
  I do not want to detain the House or myself for long, but I pay tribute to the role of the European Community and to the monitors who have served with considerable bravery and tenacity during the conflict. Their presence has done much to inhibit some of the wilder excesses on both sides. Their courage in entering into the conflict and their presence of mind in circumstances in which they have been in enormous danger are a great tribute to the individuals themselves and to the institution that sent them.
  We must pay tribute also to the United Nations, which has been revitalised over the past 12 months and has started to play its part in trying to unravel and resolve the problems in Yugoslavia. The Security Council took on board some of the challenges. Mr. Cyrus Vance, who
  1164
  stepped into the breach, has made herculean efforts to establish a peace so that, eventually, a peacekeeping force might move into place. Of course, the United Nations has been engaged in the exercise of sanctions against those who perpetrate excesses.
  There are some who say that we should involve peacekeeping forces right away. However, we in this country know more than most that, unless there is a peace to keep, putting in peacekeeping forces simply places troops in danger. There are some who say that we should immediately recognise Croatia and Slovenia because they have passed a test in respect of self-standing and self-sustenance. Of course, despite claims about elections —I recently met President Tudjman and Mr. Peterle, the Prime Minister of Slovenia—enormous questions have to be answered.
  What borders would we recognise? Would they be pre-conflict borders, the borders on the map, Yugoslav internal federal borders, or the borders that exist after the conflict and the damage that took place during the capture of towns such as Osijek and Vukovar? What would be the implications for the other republics of Yugoslavia, or what used to be Yugoslavia? What of the future of Bosnia, in particular, where there is a very complicated cocktail of ethnic mixes? The problem cannot be solved by the recognition of any number of states.
  There are some, including the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who say, "Arm one side." She said that we should send arms to the Croatians. Nobody who is sensible or sane would say that we should export more arms to a country that is already awash with them, because it would do little more than increase the bloodshed that has already stained that country. There are those who even dare to say that we should intervene militarily and hope that some form of peace will come about as a result. With conflict going on inside our own borders, we cannot help the world in advising that course of action.
  Yesterday, the EC observers in the conflict areas of Yugoslavia made it clear that they were not in favour of rapid diplomatic recognition of Croatia, which they say would wreck the prospects for negotiating a settlement of the war and increase the chance of hostilities spreading to other parts of the collapsed federation. We would be wise to listen to those on the spot who have experience, because they are close to what is going on. The spokeswoman for the mission said:
  "Recognition not tied in to the negotiating process is not a sensible thing right now."
  Rinelde Steeghs said that that move
  "would so infuriate Serbia and the Yugoslav army as to spell an end to the EC peace conference chaired by Lord Carrington."
  This House and the wider world should listen to that view.
  In conclusion, I make this plea to countries such as Germany—a country for which I have the highest regard: they should be cautious about promising recognition for Croatia and Slovenia by any precise date, and about breaking ranks within the European Community. A decision on the recognition of any of the republics may be on the agenda, but that decision should be made collectively and advisedly. I hope that Germany, which has stood firmly in favour of a common foreign and security policy in the intergovernmental conferences that have just concluded and in the discussions on this week's Maastricht

  1165
  treaty, will listen to its own exhortations and ensure that, whenever the decision is taken on recognition, it is made collectively, not unilaterally.
  This is a horrifying conflict on our own doorstep. In many ways, it is a sad illustration of how little we have learnt from the past, despite the long history of our continent. We must draw careful lessons from it—about the necessity for collective action and for creating new institutions in Europe to deal with the new conflicts that may spring up in our continent. It is a sad warning, and we would be wise to recognise it as such.
  3.47 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has expressed his distaste for these early-morning debates. I share that view. We are discussing a matter of considerable importance—it is difficult to think of a matter of greater importance at the moment in central Europe—yet my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has been obliged to raise it at an hour that is inappropriate to a matter of such gravity. My hon. Friend deserves our congratulations and thanks for having raised it, but the systems and procedures of the House should not have obliged him to do so at this time—or obliged us to be here at 3.47 am to deal with a matter of such moment. Like the hon. Member for Hamilton, I wish that we would put an end to such proceedings. They do the House no good whatsoever.
  My hon. Friend has spoken with a concision and lucidity that does him credit. I am bound to say that I am not in total agreement with what he has said, but nobody could have put his points more clearly or concisely. I for one am extremely grateful to him. In his preliminary remarks, he said that he approached this issue with a sense of both sorrow and shame. I entirely agree with him about a sense of sorrow—this is indeed a tragedy—but I do not agree with his sense of shame. I am a great one for pinning blame where it can properly be pinned, and I do not believe in collective guilt. The fault lies with those who are guilty of the violence. It is not our fault that we cannot persuade them to stop. We should not be ashamed of our inability to persuade them to stop, for the fault is theirs and we have tried hard.
  My hon. Friend spoke about where the blame lies between the combatant parties. I agree with his analysis. He correctly said that the Croatians and those who say that they are fighting on the Croatian side have been guilty of various acts of atrocity and provocation. Both those statements are correct. On occasion, the Croatians have been guilty of breaches of the ceasefire. But having said that, if we are to express a view about where the fault primarily lies, I share the view of my hon. Friend that it is with the JNA and Serbian forces.
  None the less, there is fault on both sides. Perhaps it is right to say in parenthesis that genuine concern about their future is felt by Serbs in Croatia. President Tudjman was not sufficiently sensitive to those fears at an early enough stage. Certainly he did not address them in a properly positive way.
  My hon. Friend began the substantive part of his speech by calling for more positive action on the part of
  1166
  the European Community and, indeed, others. It is right that I should remind the House of some of the positive steps that the European Community has taken. It has deployed the monitors. The hon. Member for Hamilton spoke of the courage and determination shown by the monitors now operating within what was Yugoslavia. I agree with him. The monitors have been courageous and determined, and have made a considerable contribution to the maintenance of peace in some areas within Yugoslavia.
  Secondly, as my hon. Friend will have in mind, we took several measures in November designed to put express pressure on those who are in breach of the ceasefire and those who are refraining from making an effective ceasefire. Thirdly, we have brought into existence the peace conference under the chairmanship of Lord Carrington. That is a positive contribution to making peace in Yugoslavia. I shall make further reference to it shortly. Therefore, several measures have been taken which create the circumstances in which the participants to the fighting could enter into an accord or settlement if they chose to do so.
  The burden of my hon. Friend's speech was his call for the recognition of the two republics of Slovenia and Croatia. That is clearly a serious case, which needs the most serious consideration. I come to a different conclusion from my hon. Friend, but none the less I recognise that it is a case which requires serious consideration. The traditional criteria that we adopt for the recognition of states probably apply to Slovenia. They do not apply in the case Croatia in the same way, but I accept—my hon. Friend would probably make this point —that one of the reasons why the criteria do not apply to Croatia is that Croatian territory has been invaded by the JNA and Serbian irregulars.
  Rather than argue whether the traditional criteria apply, I would like to take a slightly broader perspective on the issue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it plain in the House and elsewhere that we accept the principle of recognition of the republics of Yugoslavia which wish it.
  The essential problem is that of timing and pace, and I agree with what the hon. Member for Hamilton said about the desirability of a collective approach. I hope that the EC can remain united on the issue and move together. It is desirable, if possible, that our policies should be entirely harmonious, not only between ourselves but with our friends and allies who have a direct interest in the matter.
  The first question that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South must ask himself—and that I would ask of him—is whether there is any reason to think that recognition would stop the fighting. That is the key question. Is there anything about the quality of the act of recognition that would stop the fighting? In the end, one can only give one's own opinion. I do not believe that recognition per se would stop the fighting. Indeed, the act of recognition would be likely to make fighting in Yugoslavia generally more widespread and intense, so the argument fails on the key point whether it is likely to diminish the fighting.
  I also believe that it would be likely to put an end to the peace conference. It is difficult to envisage the peace conference continuing if one or two of the parties have already had their independence recognised, so it is likely to diminish the chance of a settlement being negotiated within the peace conference.

  1167
  Next, I believe that it is likely to trigger other unilateral declarations of independence in Yugoslavia, and in that context I am particularly concerned about Bosnia, which the hon. Member for Hamilton described as an unholy cocktail. He is right. There are at least three major ethnic or religious groupings—the Croats, the Serbs and the Muslims. If Croatia were recognised as an independent republic, inevitably the president of Bosnia would have to declare independence, and that fact would be likely to trigger fighting between the ethnic and religious groupings in Bosnia. For that reason also, the fighting would be extended rather than confined by the act of recognition.
  I believe that the act of recognition would be premature and would deprive us of the leverage we need over the republics in Yugoslavia on such important questions as human, minority and legal and civil rights. Those important questions must be addressed at considerable length, because there is hardly a republic in Yugoslavia which does not have substantial ethnic minorities whose civil, legal and political rights must be addressed. In an ideal world, the act of recognition would follow accord on all the important questions that have been raised in this debate—notably questions of ethnic, civil and political rights.
  To summarise my view, although I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's remarks, I believe that the act of recognition is premature and would be damaging in its consequences. We must press on with the policy that we have in place, which is to urge an effective ceasefire on the combatants to be ready to support a United Nations deployment of peacekeeping forces when the circumstances are appropriate—I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton about the vital importance of ensuring that a ceasefire is in existance before the deployment of a peacekeeping force—and we must urge on all the parties the need to negotiate a settlement within the context of the peace conference, now under the chairmanship of Lord Carrington.

  Western Sahara
  4 am
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The subject that I wish to raise is that of the future of Western Sahara, which at the moment, I believe, hangs very much in the balance. As the United Nations plan to try to resolve the long-standing problem there is a danger of running into very serious problems indeed. I obviously welcome the opportunity to raise the matter in the House and to record some facts about the history of and background to the impasse with which the Sahrawi people are faced.
  It is a very large area of land: 110,000 sq miles, roughly equivalent to the area of the United Kingdom. It is very sparsely populated, with a population of rather less than a quarter of a million.
  The problems for the Sahrawi people have been colonial oppression over many centuries and the fact that the country is rich in some minerals, particularly phosphates, and fish in the sea off its shores. We are talking of the last colony in Africa. Western Sahara became a colony in 1884 under Spain, because the Spanish were very keen to be included in the 1885 Congress of Berlin and by their occupation of Western Sahara they were able to achieve that. Their occupation was particularly oppressive and there were many rebellions against Spanish rule.
  In the fullness of time the winds of change swept through Africa and independence was achieved for the colonies that had made up most of the continent. The mass colonisation of Africa took place mostly in the 19th century, and independence was achieved in virtually all cases in the 20th century. Morocco achieved its independence from France in 1956. Mauritania, which is germane to the area we are discussing, achieved its independence in 1961, and Algeria achieved its independence in 1962. However, during 1959, as a side-show to the war in Algeria, France gave considerable help to Spain in putting down rebellions of the Sahrawi people demanding their own independence. That conflict is well remembered.
  In all this, the problems of Western Sahara as a colony were rather forgotten. The United Nations committee on decolonisation recognised in 1966 the case for decolonisation and, indeed, a United Nations delegation visited in 1975 to try to promote a settlement. In 1975 Kurt Waldheim, who was Secretary-General of the United Nations at that time, called for a process of restraint and no disruption of decolonisation. Finally, in 1976, following the death of Franco, Spain gave up all pretence of control of Western Sahara, having some years previously withdrawn its troops to the coastal areas. From that day on, 27 February 1976 has been recognised by the Sahrawi people as their day of independence.
  Tragically, here we are in 1991 and that independence is not yet a complete reality because the vast majority of the area of Western Sahara is under the occupation of the Moroccan armed forces. In 1975, at the time when Spain gave up its claim to Western Sahara, King Hassan of Morocco personally led the "green march" into the Western Sahara area to establish, in effect, a new colony for Morocco, and the building of the sand wall which surrounds the area where the Sahrawi people were attempting to live. He created a military enclave, which he

  1169
  then attempted to settle in order that independence could be denied and this could be seen as part of greater Morocco.
  That whole process since 1975 has led to a very bloody conflict. Many lives have been lost; many human rights abuses have occurred in Morocco as a result of the dynamic of the war that has been going on within Western Sahara.
  The leaders of Western Sahara formed a government in exile based in Tindouf, in Algeria, and throughout the war there have been huge numbers of casualties. Human rights abuses have resulted in Morocco. In August this year Amnesty International produced an important statement
  in which it said that
  "it feared that hundreds of western Saharan civilians who 'disappeared' up to 15 years ago are still held in secret detention in Morocco or have died."
  Some people had been released. The statement said:
  "over 300 'disappeared' Sahrawis have been released after a royal amnesty in June, but hundreds more remain unaccounted for. The Moroccan Government has in the past persistently denied knowledge not only of those still missing but also of those recently set free."
  Amnesty said:
  "Many of the released Sahrawis suffer severe physical or mental problems after having spent up to a decade and a half in secret captivity … Some are paralysed or blind due to harsh prison conditions, others left their cells insane."
  The report continued:
  "At least 43 of their fellow inmates have died in custody since 1975, when Morocco first took control of the former colony of Spanish Sahara and began wholesale arrests of people for known or suspected links with the Polisario Front. … This year's royal amnesty is the first solid confirmation of the mass `disappearances'."
  Amnesty has produced a comprehensive report which I am sure the Minister has seen and which his officials will have examined.
  The battle for independence of Western Sahara is twofold, like all battles for independence. On the one side there is the physical fighting and the casualties that have been incurred. It has always been a one-sided battle in the sense that on one side there is great determination by the Western Saharan people, led by the Polisario, and on the other side there are sophisticated weapons and the conscript army of Morocco.
  One interesting point is the degree of international recognition of the Government in exile which has been recognised by 74 members of the United Nations. Crucially, in 1982 the Organisation of African Unity granted recognition to Western Sahara. I say "crucially" because, as the major political organisation in Africa, the OAU is important and it is always extremely reluctant —I underline that—to do anything that could be seen to upset the national borders of individual member states. In Africa the borders are all drawn by colonial powers and the possibility of change is considerable once it is prepared to go down that road. Interestingly, it is the only case that I know of where the OAU has recognised a right of independence from a different country. In other words, it supports the view taken by the rest of the world that the occupation of Western Sahara by Morocco is not only illegal but an act of colonisation.
  Agreements were reached with the United Nations, which has taken a consistent interest in the issue, that the case should be resolved peacefully. Obviously everyone wants that, although the recent actions of the Moroccan
  1170
  Government undermine their earlier declarations. In 1988, under resolution 621, the Security Council supported Perez de Cuellar's plan which would have led to the referendum. In 1991 Security Council resolution 690 was supported and later endorsed by the General Assembly. Under that resolution Morocco was to reduce its forces to 65,000 immediately and $200 million was to be voted to finance the referendum; there was to be an exchange of prisoners, and the roll for the referendum was to be based on the Spanish census of 1974. The referendum was to be held in January 1992.
  Since then, Morocco has done a great deal to undermine the whole process. Military activity has increased. Morocco has increased the number of troops who are active in the western Sahara. Very recently it has tried to add 120,000 names to the electoral roll. The numbers being added would affect the result greatly, because the people are being bussed in, given names and told to register as Sahrawis. That would clearly upset the referendum process.
  In addition, 40,000 settlers have been brought into Western Sahara by the new green march, once again led by King Hussan, and a state of siege exists in the area. His utterly cynical manoeuvres in taking people from the very poorest parts of Morocco, putting them on buses and trucks and promising them a home, a job and a bit of land if they go there, are a desperate attempt to hang on to a colony.
  Many people believed that 20 years of war and Morocco's stubborn refusal to accept an international solution to the conflict were over. The "Peace Special" of the "Western Sahara Newsletter" of May-June 1991 uses those very words. It says that the Sahrawi people are now on the verge of the victory and independence that the Polisario has struggled for 18 years to achieve. Obviously, one hopes that that is the case, but serious obstacles remain to be overcome.
  The timetable for a referendum began on 17 May last year and shows where the process has gone wrong. Stage 1 was from June to September, when Morocco and the Polisario were to agree on and implement a comprehensive ceasefire. Officials of MINURSO's Identification Commision were to arrive in Western Sahara and the commission was to update the Spanish census of 1974, which would form the basis of the referendum voting list. A preliminary list would then be presented by October.
  Stage 2 was from October to November 1991, when the MINURSO military and civilian staff were to arrive in Western Sahara and supervise the withdrawal of half the Moroccan armed forces currently occupying Western Sahara; the remaining 65,000 were to be restricted to designated areas. Armed Polisario units were to meet at established bases in pre-arranged locations. Alongside several hundred civilian personnel, MINURSO was to consist of 1,700 UN troops, rather like the system used for the development of the ceasefire in Zimbabwe in 1981.
  Stage 3 was to be carried out in the six weeks from November to December 1991—the present period—when the Sahrawi refugees were supposed to return to their homeland. The 165,000 refugees who fled the Moroccan invasion of 1975 were to be transported from their camps in Tindouf to safe locations in Western Sahara, again under UN supervision with the provision of transport, shelter and food. Voting stations were to be constructed.
  Stage 4, of which we should now be in the middle, from December 1991 to January 1992, was to consist of three

  1171
  weeks of campaigning envisaged under the rules. Stage 5 was to be the referendum, due to take place in a month's time, with voting over seven days. The outcome of that referendum was to decide the future of Western Sahara.
  It was hoped that that would be the end of a particularly brutal chapter in Africa's history and that peace could have been achieved at that time, but Morocco's more recent actions suggest that that is now extremely unlikely. There have been extremely disturbing reports which the Foreign Office has doubtless seen. In The Independent of 13 November 1991, one such report expressed concern about how some UN officials had been working against the interests of the Polisario. There was a serious allegation that they were not working evenhandedly with regard to the protagonists in the conflict.
  In November 1991, King Hussan made a speech that hardly belonged to a man who had accepted that the United Nations had a serious role to play in the matter and that the conflict was about to come to an end, announcing that a foreign flag would never fly over Western Sahara. He then commemorated the 16th anniversary of the 1975 green march by promoting a new green march.
  The peace plan is being sabotaged—it is as simple as that. This is not the first time that the Western Sahara issue has been raised in the House. More than 100 hon. Members have signed an early-day motion supporting the principles of the UN peace plan and saying that they want the referendum to go ahead. All that is now at risk. Morocco is desperate to keep its colony, despite all the agreements that it has made on many occasions.
  We want the British Government to use all their influence with the United Nations to insist that Morocco, which is shortly to become a member of the Security Council, keeps to all the agreements made. We must ensure that prisoners of war are exchanged, there are no more ceasefire violations, and the electoral roll for the referendum is accepted on the basis of the 1974 census so that the voting can go ahead as it should do in a month's time. That should allow those people who have existed in the past 18 years in refugee camps in Algeria to return home, elect their own Government, live in their own country and decide their own future democratically. They should not be denied that opportunity by the presence of the Moroccan army or Morocco's subterfuge in attempting to undermine the process undertaken by the United Nations.
  I strongly urge the British Government to use their influence to support the United Nations process and allow peace finally to return to the last colony in Africa so that we can say once and for all that the process of the colonisation of Africa—in terms of the 1885 Congress of Berlin—is over, the last colony is consigned to history and the people are granted peace.
  4.16 am
  Mr. George Robertson: With the leave of the House, may I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on his choice of subject for the debate, which is serious and rightly inspires strong feelings among hon. Members and the population in general.
  The past few years have seen remarkable changes in the world: many intractable problems finally seem capable of solution. There has been much movement in regional conflicts throughout the world and the United Nations has
  1172
  been given a new lease of life—there was co-operation against an aggressor in the Gulf, remarkable success was achieved in Namibia and progress has been achieved in Cambodia. Now we are begining to see the chance of some success over one of Africa's most intractable problems and the opportunity to bring peace to Western Sahara.
  There are also signs that the countries of the Maghreb, which for so long were divided on the future of the Western Sahara, have decided to co-operate to try to find a solution. They were encouraged in that endeavour by the European Community. The Labour party has taken a consistent line on the Western Sahara: that there should be no imposed solution and the decision on the future of that region should be made by the people themselves. It was always our strong belief that a referendum would allow the people of that district to make their own free choice only if it were conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, we were delighted when this summer, following the United Nations Security Council's unanimous endorsement of the plan, it seemed that we were on course for such a referendum in January 1992.
  However, since then we and many others have been highly disquieted by the number of allegations made about breaches in the agreed timetable and the preparatory conditions for the referendum. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, serious allegations were made in The Independent on 13 November and further allegations about breaches have been made by other organisations and people on the spot. The allegations are all the more serious because they cast doubt not only on the process that is now under way, but on the very credibility of the United Nations presence in Western Sahara.
  The anxiety was reflected in an early-day motion tabled on 5 December by the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party's foreign affairs committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). That early-day motion, on which my hon. Friend deserves congratulations, has already attracted 59 signatures.
  Our aim in relation to Western Sahara is to be as constructive as possible. Our county's influence should be used to ensure that the United Nations status and objectives there are met in full. Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions, if he is given the leave of the House to speak.
  Do the Government believe that there is a realistic prospect of the timetable set by the Security Council for a referendum in January being met? It is an important question and I am sure that the House and the wider world would like to hear the Government's estimation. If the Government do not believe in such a prospect, what conclusion can be drawn? Why is the timetable in question? Is there a lack of resources for the process, a lack of co-operation by the Moroccan Government or by the UN agency? We have heard no allegations about foot-dragging or obstruction by the Polisario who appear to have complied to the letter with the obligations that they took on. Sadly, in contrast, there have been a number of allegations directed at Morocco—the role of the military in situ, the denial of access to observers and repeated allegations of the attempted flooding of electoral rolls by large numbers of Moroccans who have moved —or been moved—into the area.
  What is the extent of the Government's support for the referendum process? We know that financial assistance has been given, but perhaps the Minister will illuminate us

  1173
  as to how much. What is the extent of the Government's commitment and how does the scale of our assistance compare with that of our European Community partners?
  In the light of the slippage of the timetable due to alleged non-compliance, is not it time for the Government to take a lead in returning the matter to the Security Council for a reorientation and redefinition of the existing mandate if that were judged to be appropriate?
  Finally, there have been repeated allegations of intimidation of electors. I put it no more strongly than that because I and my colleagues are not in a position to do other than repeat those strong allegations of intimidation of electors in the referendum process. The Minister will, of course, be aware that in previous elections hon. Members who have gone to such areas have played a valuable role. With their knowledge, they have been able to assist. Recently, hon. Members went to Bangladesh and Zambia and performed a major task there. Does the Foreign Office think that it would be right for them to do the same in this case?
  We are conscious of the success that the United Nations has had in setting up the timetable. We look forward to the people of the Western Sahara being able to make a free and fair decision on their future. We look forward, too, to the United Nations having its reputation reinvigorated by another success in another regional conflict, and we must hope, perhaps beyond hope, that some of the hiccups in the timetable will be relieved and that the people of this area will soon be able to make an historic choice in a free and fair fashion.
  4.25 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again?
  Hon. Members: Aye.
  Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that this is an important debate. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is to be congratulated on having selected this matter for discussion although, as I have already said, I do not believe that the Consolidated Fund is an appropriate means of conducting important debates of this kind.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North has set out in some detail the historical background to the problem, and I broadly agree with his recital of the facts of the case.
  The conflict over Western Sahara has lasted a long time —far too long—and a solution is clearly overdue. As a permanent member of the Security Council, we warmly enclose the plan drawn up by the United Nations Secretary-General and endorsed by the Security Council. The plan sets out a timetable for a referendum for the self-determination for the people of Western Sahara and provides for the establishment of a mission for a referendum in Western Sahara to achieve this end. That mission is being organised by the United Nations.
  The United Kingdom has contributed financially to the mission and we have provided about 15 military observers. I am afraid that I do not have to hand the extent of our
  1174
  contribution, or how it compares with that of other countries, but I will respond to the hon. Member for Hamilton on those points in writing.
  The ceasefire came into effect on 6 September, as scheduled in the plan, and so far as we are aware it is still holding.
  Mr. Corbyn: If the referendum process has to be extended, do I take it from the Minister's remarks that the British Government would be prepared to support a UN proposal for increased funding to enable the monitoring to continue? Without the monitoring and the UN presence, the referendum will not take place.
  Mr. Hogg: We are anxious that it should go ahead, but this is neither the time nor the place for me to give a positive and binding commitment of the sort that the hon. Gentleman seeks. If the Secretary-General comes up with more proposals, we shall give them serious thought.
  We have been neutral throughout this dispute. We do not recognise the Polisario or the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Nor do we accept Moroccan claims to the territory. We have consistently reaffirmed our belief in the principle of self-determination, and that has governed our policies on this matter in the UN and elsewhere.
  It is inevitable that problems will arise over efforts to resolve such a long and difficult dispute, and the hon. Member for Islington, North has identified a number of the problems that are said to have occurred.
  It is important to keep in mind that the development of the plan and its implementation are essentially matters for the United Nations Secretary-General. Therefore, questions on the deployment of the mission, the drawing up of the electoral rolls or the arrangements for the referendum are essentially matters for the Secretary-General, reporting where necessary to the Security Council.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North made a point regarding the probity of the United Nations staff. He quoted an article in The Independent. The Secretary-General has denied the truth of those allegations, so I cannot take the matter further. I think that they were the allegations concerning computer diskettes.
  If the Secretary-General decides to come forward with further proposals to the Security Council—the hon. Gentleman suggested that that was something that he might wish to do with regard to delaying the referendum —we shall consider them with our partners. The Secretary-General has not said that the referendum will be delayed, but if the date does slip we shall press for it to be held as soon as possible, subject to the important qualification that the conditions for the referendum should be right.
  It is important that the parties to the dispute co-operate fully with the Secretary-General in the implementation of the settlement plan. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's anxieties about the Moroccans' conduct is misplaced. If efforts are made to distort the result of the referendum, it will create conditions which may prevent a long-lasting settlement being effective. I listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said. I hope that what he said is wrong and that his anxieties are misplaced. These are grave matters and if the results are being distorted, that is bad news for everyone.
  The exact criteria for inclusion in the electoral roll which were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are matters

  1175
  for the United Nations identification commission. I understand that that issue is still under discussion. If the Secretary-General comes back to the Security Council with recommendations on that point, we shall consider them.
  In the end, however, we have to recognise that this is a long-standing dispute. The only game in town is that put forward by the Secretary-General, who has a particularly difficult task. We have every confidence in his impartiality. He has our support. We shall do whatever we reasonably can to help him and we, like the hon. Gentleman, hope that the dispute can be resolved.
  Mr. Corbyn: In view of the concern about the behaviour of Morocco and its armed forces, has there been any direct contact between the British Government and Morocco on that? I recognise what the Minister said about neutrality in the dispute, but neutrality would not prevent the British Government from protesting, if that was appropriate, to either side in the dispute before the referendum was held.
  Mr. Hogg: I do not know the answer to that question. I do not know whether specific representations have been made to the Secretary-General. I shall look into that point and write to the hon. Gentleman. I will go further and have the allegations investigated. If it seems appropriate to make representations to the Secretary-General—or, for that matter, to anyone else—and we have not done so, we will do so.

  Itinerants (Hampshire)
  4.33 am
  Sir David Mitchell: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting for debate a subject that is of considerable importance to my constituents, and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for remaining at this hour to hear my remarks and to respond.
  The problems that I want to mention arise from people who are variously described as itinerants, travellers, new age gipsies, hippies, and by a few other colourful descriptions not covered by parliamentary language.
  The problems fall into three categories. The first is those involving small numbers of such people, usually with caravans, who take up residence on private land or in green lanes that are public rights of way. The second is those attaching to large numbers of such people with vehicles, when they descend on parts of Hampshire—particularly in the run-up to the solstice at Stonehenge, which they are now prevented from approaching. Thirdly, there is the problem caused by large numbers of youngsters who want a noisy musical festival-cum-open-air party, and who attach themselves to the larger numbers of itinerants whom I have already described.
  In the first case, four, eight, or perhaps 10 caravans arrive and settle. They create apprehension and unease, and cause a certain amount of fright—particularly among elderly people living in the neighbourhood, who become reluctant to leave their houses. Their arrival is accompanied by an increased incidence of break-ins and thefts. Although one cannot prove who is responsible, one has fairly good suspicion. In many cases, the settlers have no sanitary arrangements, so that the garden fence becomes absolutely revolting, and the loo paper blowing in the breeze is not at all an attractive feature.
  Responses to my correspondence suggest that neighbouring householders and the landowner concerned should rely on the normal laws of trespass, but these require the landowner to seek from the county court an order for possession. If I have misunderstood, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me. The landowner can also apply for damages and costs. However, that is a slow procedure. Can my hon. Friend say how long it takes to get an action into a county court in those circumstances?
  That is also an expensive remedy, and it is laughable to assume that any damages that may be awarded will ever be received by the hapless landowner, because at some stage the itinerant will either claim that he does not have the money or will disappear.
  However, there is said to be a quick, effective route that costs the landowner nothing. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that if Hampshire county council fulfils the duty laid on it 23 years ago in the Caravan Sites Act 1968—which became operative in 1970—to provide an adequate number of permanent gipsy sites, it can apply to be designated. I understand that once the county council has done both, it becomes an offence for a gipsy to park on unoccupied land, or for a gipsy or itinerant to park on occupied land without the consent of the landowner.
  In those circumstances, I further understand that the local council—not the landowner—can apply to a

  1177
  magistrates court for an order requiring the caravan or caravans and their occupants to be moved. Thus, there is minimal delay, and no costs fall on the landowner.
  I am not suggesting that Hampshire county council has been slothful, for in the past 21 years it has provided five camp sites for 20 caravans, and a sixth is under construction. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will sympathise with the county council, recognising that it is not popular to select a site for a gipsy encampment, which inevitably arouses considerable protest from anyone who lives close by. May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister how many more sites in Hampshire need to be provided to enable it to be eligible for designation, and how long the designation procedures take? If he has not the information to hand, perhaps he will write to me. So much for the small numbers who descend on certain parts of the constituency and stay there, becoming a confounded nuisance.
  Much more worrying is the annual invasion of Hampshire, before the summer solstice ceremony at Stonehenge. In the past year, that invasion has been spearheaded by some 200 travellers with caravans, dogs and so forth. They settled on private land—National Trust land, as it happened—at Stockbridge Down. Section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 was brought into operation.
  I congratulate the Government on finding such an effective way of dealing with this aspect of the problem —a large number of itinerants on private property. It worked like a dream. The Act gives discretion to the senior police officer present to direct trespassers to leave, provided that the landowner has taken reasonable steps to ask them to do so, and provided that 12 or more caravans have been brought on to the land. A trespasser who fails to leave, or returns within three months, commits an offence and may be arrested without a warrant.
  That worked perfectly well, but now we come to the rub: where do those people move to? Last year, they moved from the private land at Stockbridge Down to Longstock, where they settled on a green lane—a track, or, as it is technically known, a boat: a bridle path open to all traffic. Here the law becomes a toothless tiger. It was designed to deal with obstruction on the highway, and it is worded in such a way that a resident can park his car—not unreasonably—in the road outside his house if there is no parking restriction in the area.
  The inadequacy of the present law will be illustrated if I explain what has happened, and is liable to happen again. The "boat" at Longstock has public rights of way, but, as a rough track, it crosses farm land. There is no exact boundary where the farmland can be said to end and the track to begin. It is as if there were no Opposition Benches in the Chamber to define where one side of the House ends and the other begins.
  The problem is that the police do not know precisely whether the travellers are on a public right of way, or on private land. Hampshire contains some 5,000 km of such green lanes. They are not fenced; there is no exact definition of where the sides start. So what do the police do? They go up to a group of people and say, "I require you to move by reason of the powers given by section 137 of the Highways Act 1980, because you are causing an obstruction."
  The chap says, "I'm not on the green lane. I'm on private property." What does the policeman then do? Does
  1178
  he say, "In that case I will not charge you under that offence, but I will find another offence for you and claim that, under section 39 of the Public Order Act, you are required to move"? The hapless policeman does not know which piece of legislation to use because he does not know which piece of land the chap is on. That is the rub of the matter.
  One law applies to one piece of land and another law applies to another. Section 39 of the Public Order Act works like a dream when the offence is committed on private land. It does not work on other land. Notice has to be given. If notice is given to travellers that they are on private land, they will go on to public land. If they are told to go from there and they go on to private land, they must still be given notice first. For those reasons, nothing effective can be done.
  I go further. If people move back on to the highway and section 137 is applied, a prosecution may be undertaken, which takes three or four weeks. In the meantime, where is the caravan going to be? Who will look after the wife, the dog and the goat while the man is waiting for his prosecution? For those reasons, it is clear that the existing law, although perfect on paper, does not work in practice.
  This year, 200 itinerants set up a stage for a pop concert to which about 4,500 people came. It rained and the whole place was a boggy mess. Thank goodness it rained. If it had been glorious sunny weather, there probably would have been double the number there. I ask the Minister to consider what it is like when 8,000 or 10,000 people assemble on a site where there are no sanitary arrangements. The damage to crops was estimated to be £5,000. The neighbourhood was terrorised, not by specific acts of terrorism, but by the sheer number, which was frightening for those who lived nearby. The pop festival created the sort of noise which is heard over and disturbs a far larger area.
  I ask my hon. Friend to consider the future of the festival. Year by year, the numbers descending on Hampshire before the solstice have been growing. Last year's wet weather saved the area from the numbers being much bigger. What will the numbers be like next year, especially if it is sunny? Shall we be able to do nothing more effective in seeking to move people on than we did this summer?
  Let us be frank. Those people will not disappear. If 8,000 or 10,000 people assemble in one spot, the police force cannot do anything effective. The time has come for my hon. Friend and some of his colleagues to think seriously about identifying suitable places where such pop festivals can be held with the minimum of disturbance. Such a site should be discreet and away from residential areas.
  I have in mind the idea that, now that the Army is contracting, it will not need so much land. It may be possible for a site on what is now military land to be made available for such activity which would enable many young people to enjoy themselves harmlessly without disturbing local people.
  Driving away from the camp down Stockbridge high street last year, I stopped and gave a lift to one of the people leaving the party. I discovered that he was returning to London and would like a lift. I gave him a lift most of the way to the station at Basingstoke. I asked him what he was doing and why he was there. He was frank and honest and why should he not be? He was a young Australian and had been earning money in Cornwall

  1179
  lifting bulbs and had heard that there was to be a huge open-air party and thought that it would be fun to join it. Thousands of young people like him thought the same. That was fine for them, but we should spare a thought for the people who live in the area.
  The problem that I have described will not go away and nor will I. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister who is to reply to the debate will consider seriously what can be done to prevent the situation from recurring. In a constructive sense, I suggest that he might like to call a meeting of officials from the Home Office, the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment, together with the local Members of Parliament who are affected in Hampshire, and have a joint discussion to explore the most effective way forward as quickly as possible.
  4.50 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) on his good fortune in securing this debate, although my congratulations would have been even more enthusiastic if he could have secured an earlier slot.
  Like my hon. Friend, I am a Hampshire Member and I understand why he is determined to seize the opportunity, even at 4.51 am, to raise a subject that causes so much distress to Hampshire residents, namely, the incursions of hippies and travelling folk in small groups and occasionally in huge convoys into quiet communities where, as my hon. Friend graphically described, they camp on public and private land and create noise and fear. They often cause damage and usually leave an unpleasant detritus in their wake when they finally move on.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West asked me several questions. He queried the speed of civil law which is obviously the first route for a member of the public who finds his land has been trespassed upon in that way. As I understand it, civil law orders are usually made and executed on those matters within three to seven days. I was interested to learn that my hon. Friend had reports suggesting that the period was considerably longer than that. As I understand it, the courts are prepared to deal with pressing matters through an accelerated procedure and it should not take much more than a week before the court order is handed down.
  My hon. Friend also referred to designation under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. He was right to do that because it provides local authorities with a key power to secure the speedy removal of traveller encampments from public and private land. From some of my hon. Friend's remarks, he seemed to believe that there was a great distinction in the law between public and private land. There is not. The only place where there is a real distinction is between highway land and other land.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will designate an area when the county council has provided sufficient official camp sites to accommodate travelling folk normally resorting to the area. Once that is done, a district council may get a speedy court order which the police must execute to remove travellers from any land where they have established an unauthorised encampment.
  The Caravan Sites Act 1968 imposed a duty on county councils to provide suitable camp sites for travellers, area
  1180
  by area. Designation is very properly available only for counties that have fulfilled that duty. It does not have to be fulfilled for the totality of the county, which may have been my hon. Friend's impression. The county may be designated area by area, according to the availability of camp sites in those areas. Certainly, it would be wrong to enable an authority to enjoy the convenience of speedy removal under the criminal law when it has not yet provided the minimum of camping sites necessary for regular travellers.
  My hon. Friend mentioned Wiltshire and the advantages that it seems to enjoy in such matters. It does so because it provides enough sites to have enabled the whole county to be designated.
  Hampshire is making progress, and a site at Peak Copse, at Dummer, which is close to my hon. Friend's constituency, if not exactly in it, is nearing completion. The exact prospects and timetable for designation are matters for my hon. Friend to take up directly with the county and the Department of the Environment. However, I will ensure that a copy of the Official Report reaches him.
  My hon. Friend also asked whether I would assemble a meeting of Hampshire Members to discuss those matters. I will certainly be willing to do so if that would be useful to my hon. Friend and our Hampshire colleagues. However, it would be sensible to make contact with the Department of the Environment and the county council first, so that the all-important question of the possibilities of designation and when it might come about can be examined beforehand, as it belongs not to my Department but to the Department of the Environment.
  As my hon. Friend has said, section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 gives the police descretionary powers to deal with aggravated trespass. I was glad to hear that he has found it of great efficacy in his part of Hampshire. That section of the 1986 Act is not designed as a substitute for the fast criminal law powers provided by designation under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. However, as my hon. Friend has found, it enables the police to respond to landowners, public or private, who complain that two or more trespassers are being abusive or insulting to the occupier, are causing damage to the property, or have brought 12 or more vehicles on to the land, and that the occupier has asked them to leave and they have not done so.
  If the police judge it right to use that power, there will be a number of factors that they will want to consider—for example, the presence of children, pregnant women, and people who are ill. An offence is committed if the travellers do not comply or return within three months.
  My hon. Friend said that a shortcoming of the law is that the police are required to give reasonable notice, as though that means that there must be a delay of an unspecified period before the power is enforceable. That is not the case. The police must make a judgment, and they must do what is reasonable. There may be certain circumstances, such as the presence of somebody who is ill, or children, which may lead them to give longer notice than they would normally give. Their power, if they judge it proper to use it, is immediately available to them.
  In respect of encampments on highways, about which my hon. Friend has expressed worries, there is plenty of opportunity for action to be taken—my hon. Friend suggested that there was too much. For example, there is summary prosecution under section 137 of the Highways

  1181
  Act 1980, the county council can sue under section 130 of the 1980 Act, there is indictment for nuisance at common law, and damages and injunction under common law.
  I do not believe that that choice confuses the police. They are well used to applying a variety of aspects of the law according to the situation. That is their job. In respect of highways, they have several choices which are appropriate to the number of people, what they are doing and the particular occasion. I accept that, at times, there may be some doubt about where highway land ends and private or public land begins, but it is not beyond the wit of competent police officers, together with county and district councils, to determine that boundary in most cases.
  There should not be any confusion about greenways. "Greenway" is not a specific legal term; it is provided to cover rights of way, of which there are many in Hampshire. If the areas are highways, the county will know and if they are not, which is often the case, the benefits of designation or section 39 apply to them as to any other public or private land. There should be few problems of the kind that my hon. Friend understands to exist. If he believes that they do exist, I should be interested to hear about the circumstance of the particular examples so that I can follow them up because I am genuinely puzzled by what he is saying.
  Sir David Mitchell: Perhaps my hon. Friend can imagine a field that rises over a quarter of a mile. Where the bottoms of two fields come together, there is a rutted track along which tractors pass. Some parts get boggy in the winter, so the tractors go up on one side, but because it is a bit drier further on, the tractors may then go up the other side. In such a case, my hon. Friend could not say that the central bit was the public right of way. He could not say that a man on the one side was standing on a public right of way, and that a man on the other side was standing on private land. That is the difficulty.
  Mr. Lloyd: There is no difficulty. My hon. Friend seems to be confusing a right of way with a highway. A right of way goes over private land. The sort of track that my hon. Friend is describing will almost invariably be on public or private land, but it will not be a highway. Highways are well known to the county council. Any competent authority will know where its public highways are. If the areas are not public highways, they must be public or private land which has a right of way over it. As I have said, section 39 or designation, if designation has been secured, will apply, but not the provisions that apply to the public highway.
  Sir David Mitchell: This is a very important point. Under the reclassification that is being carried out by the county councils, many of the green lanes are now being declared boats—or open to all traffic and four-wheeled vehicles. If my hon. Friend is saying that a boat is classed as land upon which section 39 can be applied, there is no problem, but if a different section of the law has to be applied because we are talking about a highway, there is a problem.
  Mr. Lloyd: I shall come back to my hon. Friend on this question because the highway and what constitutes a highway is less a matter for the Home Office than for the Department of Transport. However, if the county is
  1182
  specifying particular greenways as highways, the county will know that. If the county has just specified something, the designation of that particular right of way should be no surprise to the police. That which is a highway should be well known to the county council and should be easily ascertainable to the police. If the area is not a highway, it is public or private land to which the law applies, even though it is a right of way, just as it does to any other public or private land.
  My hon. Friend's third point related to large bodies of travellers and to the music festivals that have occasionally been a great problem. Large groups cause much greater problems than smaller numbers. A large body of hippies and new age travellers can converge on an area, but I do not believe that the law is insufficient to deal with that problem. The whole range of the civil and criminal law is available and covers all eventualities. The problem is for the police to be able to concentrate sufficient forces to deal with the group. That is an expensive exercise and means that, for a time, other areas will be underpoliced. Even if the police have mustered their strength, they must judge whether powerful and immediate intervention will exacerbate matters and create greater possibilities of violence and nuisance for local people than more restrained tactics. Those are questions not so much of the law and its adequacy as of police deployment and strategy, which are for the chief constable to determine.
  My hon. Friend referred particularly to parties with music and thousands in attendance. I am aware that they can create havoc. That is why the law was strengthened last year by the Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Act 1990. The Act provides that if such a party is held, for which a charge for attendance is made, without a licence or in breach of a licence from the appropriate local authority, the organisers are liable to a fine of up to £20,000, the confiscation of profits and related equipment and six months gaol. It is an effective deterrent waiting to be used.
  My hon. Friend mentioned Wiltshire rather wistfully as a county that seemed to be advantaged in dealing with the problems that he described. I explained that it was enjoying the benefits of its foresight in having itself designated. But it has also benefited from section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986, which is available to a chief officer of police. It enables him, if he believes it necessary to prevent serious public disorder, and with the agreement of the local authority and the Home Secretary, to ban a public procession such as those which have taken place at Stonehenge.
  However, it is clear that whatever problems the new age travellers and hippies bring to Hampshire—sometimes on their way to Stonehenge—the problems are not the result of anything so formal as a procession. So the powers that have been rightly available in the immediate vicinity of Stonehenge have not applied to the difficulties in Hampshire so far.
  I hope that what I have said helps to clarify the law in this vexed and vexing area, although the problems are much less vexing if the area is designated. The matter that my hon. Friend has raised is a real problem of not only law but wise and effective policing.
  Sir David Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend arrange a meeting of senior officials of the Departments involved—the Home Office, the Department of Transport and the

  1183
  Department of the Environment—together with the county council and the Members of Parliament whose constituencies are affected?
  Mr. Lloyd: I said earlier that I would ensure that my ministerial colleagues at the Department of the Environment read these exchanges. A crucial matter in the whole problem lies within their responsibility. I shall certainly discuss with them the usefulness of a meeting. I cannot commit my colleagues now to such a meeting, but I hope to be of assistance to my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for raising this important matter.

  European Funds
  5.7 am
  Mr. Derek Enright: May I first thank Mr. Speaker for choosing my name in the ballot so that I may raise the apparently intractable problem of RECHAR and other European funds.
  I begin by filling in a little of the background. The Hemsworth constituency is made up of a series of pit villages. The problem is that there is only one pit left in the constituency. When the communities lost their pits they lost their principal employment. It is no use telling the people to get on their coal tubs and go down the road. Many of them already have gone down the road. They have come down from Scotland and the north-east. Indeed, some of those who are now pensioners came from eastern Europe at the end of the war. But now there is no more road for them to travel. They have reached the absolute end of the line. It is a cul-de-sac. So they are left with a scarred environment, pit heaps rising to the sky and coal dust that has become engrained everywhere.
  During the winter, when I worked in Featherstone, I could look out on the beauty of Featherstone Alps. But it was not the beauty of the Alps of Switzerland and the air was not so pure, and once one had taken a ski run, it was coal slurry and sludge beneath one's feet.
  Terrible problems of the environment have been left with the departure of the coal. But they are villages with a proud history. Their solidarity has brought its own culture and customs, and I invite the Minister to visit Kinsley and view the historic photographs of the Kinsley evictions at the beginning of the century, when the private coal owners were in collision with the miners. The result was disaster for the miners' families. Children were cast out into the streets and wives were abandoned.
  Matters such as that are still strong in the folk memory, as are the stories of the Featherstone riots at the end of the last century, when the military were turned on striking miners, some of whom were shot dead. In a way, that is being repeated in 1991, for there is a feeling of hopelessness as the mainstay of people's employment disappears. But on this occasion the feeling of hopelessness was accompanied by a glimmer of light. It came from the European Community, which recognised the difficulties faced by coal areas. Working with areas in Spain, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, the EC set about a programme to replace the missing jobs. It was a fitting programme for what was originally the European Coal and Steel Community.
  That programme was not a solution imposed from above. It had nothing to do with what the other day were claimed to be terrible Brussels bureaucrats imposing their will on Britain. It was a co-operative effort, the local scheme having been suggested by Wakefield metropolitan district council. That suggested scheme was sensitive to the needs of the area. It had been carefully examined by the European Commission in accordance with the rules of the Council of Ministers to ensure that it accorded with EC criteria. All of that gave the area a glimmer of hope.
  Wakefield metropolitan district council has lost 14,000 mining jobs in the last nine years. For a council with a relatively small population, that has been a large loss. Due to improved productivity, the one remaining pit in my constituency, Frickley, has suffered a job reduction of from 3,000 to 900, severely affecting three or four small

  1185
  villages. The programme that is being attempted, and hoped for by the locality, involves an EC grant of over £10 million. That sum, which might start to put things right, would go on environmental improvements. Unfortunately, the programme is being blocked.
  The environmental improvements are specifically the reuse of land and buildings at six former collieries. One cannot get more specific than taking collieries that are no longer in use and attempting to bring them back into use and, over and above that, trying to take the scars away from the area. Putting these plans into action would, it is estimated by the district council, create 600 new jobs. It is not a great Toyota factory; that is not what we are asking for. We are asking for a series of small and medium-sized firms which can flourish. In this programme there will be spoil-heap reclamation and reconversion of the buildings that I have just mentioned. They will be cleared up and the whole outlook of the area will be improved. I should mention in particular the problem of subsidence from which we suffer in west Yorkshire generally. Where a pit has gone out of operation there are very specific and particular problems of subsidence which make it difficult for private operators on their own to start reconverting.
  At the same time, under the environmental improvement programme there will be a cleaning up of the village and town centres. In particular I would draw to the Minister's attention the fact that housing estates in that area—not estates built by wicked Labour councils post-1945, but estates which go back to before the war —are in a terrible condition. They are not attractive places in which to live and it is very difficult sometimes to keep tenants in them. So the use of moneys there is very important indeed.
  Secondly, we need the renovation of the social and economic infrastructure. Again, that is one of the proper headings that the Minister knows that these communities have put in. In this context, I should like to mention particularly the specific way in which pit villages are built. They tend to be ribbon development and therefore to be isolated to east and west or north and south, depending on which way the roads run. In Hemsworth in particular there is a tremendous problem of road links. We need new road links to bring us into the M62, the M1 and the A1. That is very important.
  Over and above that, however, all the other infrastructure—sewerage, and so on—has been neglected for a long time. That, too, means that it is not an attractive proposition for even small and medium-sized firms.
  Then we come to the construction of new, advance factory units and workshop premises—nothing very grand, again; we are not seeking a silicon valley or anything of that order, just small business which we can assist and maintain. Great emphasis has been placed in this programme on the creation or development of small and medium-sized enterprises. The sort of target that has been set is very reasonable—to create another 500 jobs.
  The measures which are appropriate under that programme include better access to risk capital, the provision of common services—these are seedling firms setting up—assistance with market research, business networks, innovation in industry and, in particular, the establishment of small and medium-sized enterprises which can look to the new technologies.
  1186
  The Minister should recognise that it is important in terms of planning the schemes that the district council has taken full account of the Government's central schemes. It is proposing to complement them, not to replace them, and to ensure that they fit together properly as a jigsaw.
  A small element is the promotion of tourism. I am not suggesting that the Minister should respond to an advert of the sort that reads, "Come to sunny Fitzwilliam." He might be disappointed in sunny Fitzwilliam. More appropriate, perhaps, would be the Hemsworth water park. A huge area of derelict land was refurbished and turned into a splendid water park. It is an attractive facility for the region during the summer. It is not a national asset, but in many ways it is a sub-regional asset.
  The parish council was strongly criticised when it decided to go ahead with the water park, but those who had lived for so long with muck on their doorsteps considered that it was a major achievement to get rid of it by creating a water park. Those who took the decision to go ahead with the water park were re-elected. That is the operation of local government at the lowest tier.
  I recommend the Minister to give proper consideration to subsidiarity. We are always talking about it in Brussels, so let us give it proper consideration in the context of local government.
  I have given the Minister the flavour. He has been good enough to stay up late, so I shall not go into further detail unless he has specific questions to ask.
  I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the word "additionality" and has heard it used before, but hearing is not good enough. We want action. Everything that I have read on the topic includes a statement from the Government to this effect: "We have given additionality. We have included it in our general grants all over the place. Our local government financing is so complicated that we cannot show where additionality is." At the same time, non-Government organisations working in the third world can show additionality. Germany can show additionality, and it has demonstrated it clearly. Spain and France can show additionality, but the United Kingdom Government cannot. I know that additionality constituted a problem for all member Governments up to three or four years ago, and it was then that the Commission decided that it would tighten the rules. It decided that it would do something that the Government are always urging, which is to abide by the rules. It is not some nasty Jacques the lad who is telling member states to take that course. It is our beloved Bruce Millan, a former Member of this place, who is suggesting that the rules should be obeyed. Anyone who knows Bruce Millan—I am sure that this is the view of him in Scotland—will accept that he is a thorough administrator and that he abides by the rules. He looks to the book to get things done.
  Bruce Millan gave the Government plenty of time to get their books in order, but they have not done so. So-called extra money has floated out from the Department of the Environment, but it has not gone to the coal areas, for which it was meant. On the contrary, I suggest that if extra money has left the Department, it has gone to Westminster and Wandsworth, areas in which people have not seen a pit, let alone worked down one. The money is being used to mask their poll tax. I can think of no other explanation. If Germany, Spain and France can show additionality, so can we, and so should we. We should be seeking to abide by the rules of the game.

  1187
  As the Government seem unconcerned that money that has been properly allocated and bid for has not been received, I can only conclude that they are waging a vendetta against the miners. Will the Minister assure me that that is not so? I feel certain that, were Hemsworth a marginal constituency—God forbid—we would receive the money and it would clearly be regarded as going towards the Conservative party. One has noticed that happening in Sherwood, where the robbers seem to do well by the Government.
  It is interesting, but it is appalling that, unless the Government act rapidly, the money will be lost to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom was originally awarded the biggest slice of money under RECHAR, but we shall now lose it to Germany, which has the schemes and additional moneys ready and waiting. In the same way, Germany will take the European central bank now that the Prime Minister has decided at Maastricht that we shall no longer be part of EMU. One of the reasons why the Germans are ready and efficient is that their government is less centralised and more regionalised. The next time we debate this subject, we should also debate devolution, because action should be taken at the grass roots, not at governmental, level.
  My final plea to the Minister is to show that he believes in the mining areas. The Government have done them enough harm in closing down their pits, but, now that they are closed down, the Government should ensure that we get the money straight away.
  5.27 am
  Ms. Joyce Quin: I applaud the actions of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) in introducing this debate and I am happy to endorse his comments and agree with the arguments that he put forward. I know that he feels strongly about the matter and that he held meetings on it prior to being elected to the House. It was one of the important issues that he raised during his election campaign. He was right to raise it and, throughout that campaign, his constituents expressed great concern on the matter. They are aware of the issues involved, yet it is clear that they blame the Government rather than the European Commission for holding up the money. They applaud Commissioner Bruce Millan's actions in trying to put pressure on the Government to ensure that, when the money is released, it is properly used to the additional and direct benefit of the areas concerned.
  The proper use of European funding is a long-standing interest of my hon. Friend. It is important because RECHAR and this specific scheme are the tip of a large iceberg, and the problem will get bigger rather than smaller if the Government do not act to resolve the problem at this stage.
  I shall be brief because my hon. Friend has put forward all the arguments and the hour is very late. The Minister will have an opportunity to give his views and I should like to think that I am giving him an opportunity to tell us that the matter will be sorted out very shortly. However, I have a feeling that he has a job to find a common view even among his governmental colleagues because different Departments seem to hold a variety of views.
  We have certainly gained the impression that the Department of the Environment is more flexible and more in line with the Commission's views than is the
  1188
  Department of Trade and Industry. There also seem to be differences of view between the Treasury and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. The Department of Energy is also involved in the issue. Perhaps the Minister will give us some details on the different views held in government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth was right: additionality is a vexed issue. Both he and I, as former Members of the European Parliament trying to obtain funds for use in our European constituencies, remember the discussions that we had on the subject over many years. We believe that RECHAR is being used as a test case to try to ensure that the problem of additionality can be solved. A Labour Government would discuss with the Commission ways of ensuring that European funding was much more transparent and that additionality could be demonstrably proved, which it is not now. That is the problem when we try to evaluate the Government's claims on the issue. Given the way that the Government account for their actions at present, there is no way of showing whether additionality exists. The Government's claim that they spend more in the regions than they would otherwise do because they know that they can retrieve moneys from Europe is difficult to prove one way or the other.
  We have grave suspicions about the Government's claim, as, during their period of office, spending on regional assistance has fallen dramatically, while European structural funds have dramatically increased. That seems to be a paradox, which greatly fuels our suspicion that additionality is not being respected.
  I pay tribute to the work done by the Coalfield Communities Campaign. It has produced an excellent booklet that describes the problems of additionality and how the Government prevent the money from being used as additional funds in the various districts. It describes how each local authority is
  "given a 'basic credit approval'. This determines how much it may borrow to pay for capital projects. An authority may also spend a proportion of its receipts from the sale of assets such as land and property. Together, these set a ceiling on each authority's capital spending which the government will not allow it to breach, no matter how much money is coming from Brussels."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth rightly referred to the various schemes in his district that would be able to proceed if the problem of RECHAR and additionality were solved. I know that in other regions of the country, including mine, similar schemes are ready to be implemented if that problem is solved. In my district the problem involves the RECHAR programme in the Tyne and Wear and south-east Northumberland region. The schemes being proposed there are similar to the ones that my hon. Friend outlined in his district.
  Those problems represent the tip of the iceberg. Local authorities—I think that 75 of them are involved in the RECHAR programme—are determined to get the matter sorted out. Given the guidelines under which they are forced to operate, it has been difficult for them to use not just RECHAR but other European funding in recent years. Having dealt with local authorities over the issue of European funding for a long period, my impression is that they are more disillusioned now than at any other time They are finding it more and more difficult, particularly with the Government's spending cuts, which have been forced on them, to fit European schemes into their existing guidelines. As the money does not arrive in the form of extra benefit, the process is acting as a massive

  1189
  disincentive, not an incentive, for them to carry out important economic development programmes in their districts.
  I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to say that the matter will be sorted out quickly. Perhaps he can also say when the next negotiations with the European Commission will take place. I hope that he will not take refuge in the expression that I have heard many Government spokespeople use: "This is our money coming back and we can do what we like with it." This money is not a budget rebate. If it were, the Minister would be right to argue in that way. It is not a budget rebate such as that agreed in the 1980s, so it is not central Government money with which the Treasury can do what it likes.
  RECHAR money is allocated to a specific scheme to help coalfield areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth said, the scheme was designed to help Britain. It was not designed to be British money coming back; it was a way to offset some of the negative aspects of EC budgeting. It was designed to go to specific areas, not into the central coffers. That is an important point and it is a reason why RECHAR money should be treated in the special way suggested by Commissioner Bruce Millan. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are prepared to accept the Commission's point of view and to work with the Commission and our hard-pressed local authorities to make the best possible use of this important source of money.
  5.36 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr Edward Leigh): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on obtaining this debate on the Consolidated Fund so early in his parliamentary career. The knowledge with which he spoke about his constituency is a tribute to the dedication that he clearly brings to his job as a constituency Member of Parliament. I listened to him with great care.
  I shall outline the nature of structural funds and then deal with the problem of additionality. The structural funds are established under the European Economic Community treaty with the general objective of strengthening economic and social cohesion in the Community and redressing the principal regional imbalances. They currently operate on a five-year cycle and the present cycle is due to finish at the end of 1993. The European Regional Development Fund was agreed in principle in 1972 by the European Council in order to reduce the Community's excessive concentration on agricultural policy and expenditure and to provide a more equitable balance in the United Kingdom's net contribution to the Community's budget.
  The structural funds are intended to help improve economic and social cohesion within the Community, but the treaty makes it clear that the pursuit of sound economic policies by member states is the prinicipal means by which greater cohesion within the Community can be achieved. The task of the structural funds cannot be more than to provide a considerable but secondary means of support.
  1190
  During the present cycle—from 1987–93—there is to be a doubling of the structural funds in real terms. That represents an investment by the Community in the economies of the main recipient states comparable with the aid provided under the Marshall plan for post-war reconstruction. As the second largest net contributor to the Community budget, the United Kingdom is entitled to ask whether the funds are being put to good use. In 1991, they will amount to about £10,000 million throughout the Community but mainly in the least-developed regions known as the objective 1 regions. Within the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland is designated as such a region.
  United Kingdom receipts from the funds, as a proportion of the total, amount to about 9 per cent., or £900 million. This compares with the United Kingdom's gross contribution of about double that. Two thirds of the difference is refunded through the Fountainbleau abatement, which means that this year about £300 million of taxpayers' money is being transferred by the funds from the United Kingdom to other member states.
  I think that it is very important to keep this fact in mind. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) foresaw that I might mention it; I must, as it is central to the debate. It is tempting to think of the funds as some kind of free gift from a European benefactor, but they are not that—they are what is given back to us out of our large contribution.
  The amount of our receipts is a matter for negotiation. The Government try to maximise the benefit that the United Kingdom will receive, but we have to recognise that many other member states are less well off than we are and they tend to get relatively more out of the fund. I make that point because it is necessary to keep a sense of perspective when approaching the difficulties surrounding RECHAR funds.
  As with other member states, the Government are paid the funds by the Commission. The Government then pass them on to their final recipients. They are paid as contributions alongside national expenditures on such purposes as economic infrastructure, vocational training, industrial and tourism development, environmental works, and all manner of other things, according to detailed programmes and consistent with framework documents which are drawn up and agreed between the Commission and the Government.
  The Government take a strict view about the need to control expenditure. That applies as much to expenditure financed by money from Europe as to money coming directly out of the taxpayer's pocket. Indeed, as I have already said, the money from Europe is actually our taxpayers' money in any case.
  So, for these general reasons of economic policy, much importance is attached to the need to keep a close watch on where the structural funds money is going.
  However, there is no question, as I have heard it said and as I have read in the press, of the money not going to the purposes for which it is intended. It is clear—the Commission has not claimed otherwise—that the funds do end up where they are supposed to be, in the case of RECHAR, in the mining areas. The issue is much more complex than that, and I suspect that many more people like to talk about it than actually understand it. I do not level that criticism at the hon. Gentleman, who brings great knowledge to these matters.
  The basic question that Mr. Millan has raised is whether the present system in the United Kingdom taken

  1191
  as a whole satisfactorily transmits the effective value of Community structural funds to the eligible regions. I have already mentioned that over the period 1987 to 1993 the total amount of structural funds is being doubled. I apologise now for having to spend a while on a legal document. I hope that it will be clear to the hon. Gentleman.
  Article 9 of the relevant Council regulation 4253/88 states:
  "In establishing and implementing the Community Support Frameworks, the Commission and the member states shall ensure that the increase in the appropriations for the funds provided for in article 12(2) of Regulation (EEC) 2052/88 has a genuine additional economic impact in the regions concerned"—
  I underline "concerned"
  "and results in at least an equivalent increase in the total volume of official or similar (community and national) structural aid in the member state concerned, taking into account the macro-economic circumstances in which the funding takes place."
  That is the only place where any Community legislation currently in force mentions explicitly the requirement for additionality about which the hon. Gentleman has spoken.
  The United Kingdom accepted that article when the regulation was adopted and we are bound by it. However, the Commission accepts that the doubling of funds will not benefit the United Kingdom. Receipts by the United Kingdom from the fund are expected to be lower in the current period than they were before. The evidence available to me suggests that we are the only member state in that position. The reason is that the main benefits of the increase have been concentrated on the less-developed southern member states. In those circumstances, article 9 has no practical impact in the United Kingdom. That is the legal point. Our legal position is clear. There is no doubt about it.
  However, even though we believe that we are under no legal obligation to do so—by going through the article in detail I shall have convinced the House of our strong legal position—we have made provision for additional public spending to take account of the expected receipt of the funds.
  In the case of RECHAR we had enough advance promises of the amounts of money which were likely to be involved to make provision for the grants to be used once they came through, and we did precisely that.
  Mr. Enright: Will the Minister therefore identify the amount of money that was given to Wakefield metropolitan district council which was the additional money that he anticipated? That is a relatively simple request.
  Mr. Leigh: It is not a relatively simple request, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. That is a question which he should address to an Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. If the hon. Gentleman were to do so, I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State would make it clear that additional funds have been given to local authorities in England to cover the amounts expected from RECHAR.
  Mr. Enright: But that was put into the global figure, which is precisely my point and which militates against the legal argument that the Minister cited earlier.
  Mr. Leigh: No, because the way in which the funding arrangements for local authorities are worked out for the
  1192
  hon. Gentleman's borough council, as for others, takes account of the borough council's circumstances. For example, it takes account of the amount of derelict land to which the hon. Gentleman movingly referred. So it is not simply that there is a global amount which is distributed equally throughout the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Enright: There is a specific case here for the Minister to answer. With RECHAR, the derelict land is specified—it is related to coal—whereas the grants from the Department of the Environment in regard to derelict land make no such distinction. The result is that, for example, Manchester, which is not well known as being an ex-coalfield, gets more money for its derelict land than parts of west Yorkshire which are quite well known as being ex-coalfields.
  Mr. Leigh: Although the point about derelict land was one that the hon. Gentleman made in his speech, and that is why I addressed myself to it in answer to the last question, it is a poor example for the hon. Gentleman to adduce in support of his case, because that is subject to 100 per cent grant from the Government. One of the arguments made by local authorities is that they are unable to match those funds when they are received. The hon. Gentleman cited derelict land, but that is not a good example.
  I will try to explain the difficult and elusive concept of additionality, which understandably confuses many right hon. and hon Members and those outside the House, and gives rise to many problems. In essence, it is like saying that something would not have happened in other circumstances, and it is therefore impossible to prove from a logical point of view.
  Another way of expressing it is to say that money from the structural funds should be used only to finance projects that local or national authorities would not have supported otherwise—presumably because they had higher priorities.
  The paradox is that it is necessary to argue that a project is important enough to warrant support from the structural funds, but that it is not so important that it would have been undertaken without them. I hope that I have made myself clear to the hon. Member for Hemsworth. Additionality is a complex paradox, and it is important that the House understands it.
  Another way of expressing the concept—which I have written out for myself—is that additionality means that one has done something additional to that which one would have done had one not received any money from the structural funds. It is impossible to say what one would have done if one had not received the money from the structural funds.(Laughter.] I am glad that I appear to have enlivened the House at this late hour.
  Mr. Enright: Will the Minister clarify that explanation by putting it in Latin?
  Mr. Leigh: I could certainly do so. That would be a mere bagatelle—but I would be ruled out of order.
  I am not saying that we do not take the problem very seriously. The apparent paradox that I described is why we are especially careful to ensure that all projects approved for grants from the funds offer good value for money and meet the other general criteria that ensure that the taxpayer's money is put to appropriate use.

  1193
  That condition, coupled with the global increase in public spending to take account of receipts from the structural funds, offers the best guarantee that additionality is respected, while ensuring that only worthy projects are supported.
  I have said in Department of Trade and Industry questions that it is our money, and we want it. Commissioner Millan has been quoted as saying that that was a foolish and unhelpful statement. I make no apology to him or to anybody else for calling a spade a spade. It is our money, we contributed to the Community budget, we qualify for the RECHAR grants, and Commissioner Millan is withholding them on grounds that we believe to be spurious and unjustified.
  I have received many letters from potential recipients of RECHAR money stressing how much difficulty has been caused by the Commission's refusal to release it.
  Ms. Quin: If the Minister's explanation is correct, can he explain why practically all local authorities support Commissioner Millan's case, not his?
  Mr. Leigh: Labour-controlled authorities—and they are those mainly concerned—have criticised the Government, but that is not entirely surprising. I am not sorry that Labour has chosen to make a political issue out of the matter, for that does not do it any good. We are not blocking the money. We give more to the structural funds than we receive and we want the grants to go to the regions concerned. The constituency of the hon. Member for Hemsworth would benefit from RECHAR money, and I had hoped that he and the hon. Member for Gateshead, East would use this opportunity to encourage Commissioner Millan to release it. I am sorry that neither of them has done so.
  Mr. Enright: The Minister said that the legal arguments are crystal clear. If that is so, why did Commissioner Millan not accept them? He is a very reasonable man—even when he disagrees with me.
  Mr. Leigh: I do not know why the Commissioner has not accepted our case. We have taken legal advice; our position is absolutely clear, and we are entitled to take that position. I do not know why Mr. Millan is taking his present attitude. I do not speak for him. He is a former colleague of Opposition Members, and I suggest that they ask him.
  Schemes and projects are ready to go once the money has been released, but until that happens they cannot proceed. I do not know what better evidence of additionality Mr. Millan could have. I have been made aware of some concern among local authorities that are potential recipients of RECHAR grants that they may not be in a position to spend the money when it becomes available, because they have already reached their spending limits. That point was made by both the hon. Member for Hemsworth and the hon. Member for Gateshead, East. I am unable to comment in detail on such cases, but if any hon. Member knows of particular problems in particular areas, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment would be pleased to make inquiries.
  This is really a political dispute. Of course, some local authorities complain about Government-imposed limits
  1194
  on their ability to spend. They always have, so it would be surprising if they were to keep quiet in the present dispute. These authorities are encouraging Mr. Millan to stand firm against the Government, because they see it as a way of attacking the Government's general policies on local government finance.
  Their position is in reality a false one. They are free to finance spending by a number of means, and within the limits of the law have considerable freedom to spend their resources as they decide. The hon. Member for Hemsworth mentioned a land reclamation project that one of his local councils had undertaken. It is for the local authorities themselves to decide on their priorities. That is the principle of subsidiarity to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred. The Government have made additional spending power available in expectation of receiving structural funds money. There is no exact correspondence between this, in the form of credit approvals, and actual grants, because local authorities can finance their aided expenditure by a number of means, of which borrowing against credit approvals is only one. Moreover, basic credit approvals are not hypothecated to individual projects or even particular areas of expenditure. Why? I do not believe that local authorities would welcome being tied down by the Government. That is an important point: it goes straight to the heart of subsidiarity, in which the hon. Gentleman is clearly a great believer.
  Another action that the Government have taken is the introduction of "top-slicing" credit approvals in England. This "fine-tunes" the allocation system towards European regional development fund authorities, and was intended to tackle a particular problem which might arise in particular areas where there might be genuine difficulties in utilising ERDF grant because of insufficient spending power. In taking that step, the Government demonstrated a willingness to act and take a positive approach to improving transparency.
  I am sorry that, despite the initiative that we have taken to be flexible and to introduce top-slicing—which, I note, is never mentioned by Opposition Members—Mr. Millan has not seen fit to release the money. Despite our efforts to accommodate the Commission's objections and take positive action where needed, he is sticking to his call for changes that would, in reality, involve a considerable change in the approach to central and local government financial control arrangements. That is really a case of the tail wagging the dog, and we are not convinced that such a change is necessary or desirable.
  Even more remarkable is the fact that we are not alone in having failed to convince the Commission over additionality, yet the United Kingdom is the only member state to have been singled out for this treatment by Mr. Millan. In the Commission's own very recent document entitled "Annual report on the implementation of the reform of the structural fund", it is stated that acceptable evidence—acceptable to the Commission, that is—of additionality has so far been received only from the Republic of Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Germany and Belgium: To be fair to Spain, it has submitted evidence as well, but the Commission says that it is having difficulty in interpreting it. I will spell it out. The hon. Gentleman did not appear to have his facts entirely right in his speech. In addition to Spain and the United Kingdom, the Commissioner still wanted to be convinced of additionality by Denmark, by France, by Italy, by Luxembourg and by the Netherlands.
  Mr. Enright: I mentioned only three countries. The Minister will discover that what the Commissioner said was that France was making substantial efforts to move towards additionality. There were and always have been difficulties.
  Mr. Leigh: We are making substantial efforts. The hon. Gentleman seems to accept that we are not alone. Why is it that, having made substantial efforts and despite the fact that we are not alone, we are being picked on? The answer is not clear to me. The hon. Gentleman should address that question to Commissioner Millan.
  I have explained the position. We sincerely want RECHAR money to be released by the Commission so that it can be put to good use in constituencies such as Hemsworth. Mr. Millan has had his day in court. We have bent over backwards to try to accommodate his unreasonable views, but one can bend only so far. It is a about time that Mr. Millan showed some flexibility. We have shown flexibility. I hope that he can still be persuaded that it takes two to agree. I urge hon. Members who may have influence with him to try to bring him round.

  Shops Act 1950
  6 am
  Mr. Ray Powell: A very good morning to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish that I looked as bright as you look.
  This important and contentious debate deals with the emotive subject of the operation of the Shops Act 1950. I know that the Minister is well informed about the Act and about our debates on the Act over the years, especially since 1986. There have been no fewer than nine attempts to amend the Shops Act 1950 since the great debate in 1986. There have been ten-minute Bills, and I presented a Bill myself. Some of the Bills have had little support and have been defeated on their introduction. Sometimes Ministers have taken a blatantly arrogant attitude in attempts to amend the anomalous Act.
  The most recent Government attempt to introduce legislation on the subject—the Shops Bill—was rejected on Second Reading, having successfully started its progress in the Lords where it had a protracted and controversial passage. On 14 April 1986, as I remember only too well, I had the great pleasure of announcing the result for the Opposition as the Teller in the defeat of a Bill that the Government led by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) earnestly wanted to be introduced. The Government were defeated by just 14 votes, despite their built-in majority of 170. I well recall the result. It was 282 in the Aye Lobby and 296 in the No Lobby. Standing by my side was my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes)—I should say hon. Friend, but he deserves to be a right hon. Gentleman because of his activities in the House. He stood beside me as the result of the Division was announced. He was as exalted as I was that we had defeated the Government despite their majority. The result was undoubtedly due to the enormous efforts of a great colleague and friend of mine who was at the time deputy general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers which sponsors me.
  If I could find the quote from Hansard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I would refer to it because it is relevant, but, as I cannot find it, I will not quote my right hon. Friend. However, the Minister would find it worth while to read what my right hon. Friend said. He asked the Leader of the House whether the Government intended to proceed further with the Bill. The reply was that the Government had no intention of introducing any such legislation on that very emotive subject.
  I recommend that the Minister reads the penultimate paragraph of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) of 14 April 1986 in which he called for a conference of all interested parties. He said that the representatives should not be called to the Minister's office for consultations; instead, there should be a collective conference and the Government should use their tempering powers to accommodate and reconcile clashing and conflicting convictions. [Interruption.] If the Minister is not listening, I will not refer to this point, but I believe that it is important and the Government should bear it in mind. If the Minister had acted on the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, and had implemented that recommendation and request, we might not be in the position that we are in today.

  1197
  Today large retailers and small shops are clamouring blatantly to flout the law. The Prime Minister has claimed that the law is bizarre and he has allowed the position to become worse by making no positive attempt to rectify the position after the statement by the Attorney-General of 27 November. The present position is bizarre when the large retailers open on Sunday, using the recession as their excuse and claiming that it has caused sales to be at their lowest levels. They are offering 20 per cent. off all goods to boost their Christmas turnover. However, the traditional January sales will be a universal flop when people cannot afford to buy for Christmas despite 20 per cent. off and Sunday opening which will mean further costs for the retailers and eventually the shoppers.
  The Minister's statement to the House following the Attorney-General's response to a private notice question clearly shows that, having burnt their fingers once, the Government have no real intention of trying to solve the problem. On 27 November, the Minister stated that the Government would
  "consider measures which fall short of total deregulation of the Sunday trading laws".—[Official Report, 27 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 919.]
  That was a great step forward compared with what was said in 1986, but it took five years of constant lobbying by Keep Sunday Special, by USDAW and by several other organisations before that conclusion was finally reached.
  Therefore, I look forward to the Minister's support on 22 January, when I shall propose my Bill further to attempt to change the Shops Act 1950, especially as the Act leaves unprotected shop workers who are called to work illegally in shops that should be closed on Sundays during the run-up to Christmas.
  The last paragraph of the Minister's statement referred to Community law and awaiting the interpretation of the legal position. I have received many letters expressing deep concern about Sunday trading and law breaking, and the Government's attempt to blame Europe for the mess that they are in because of their inactivity. The evidence presented to me suggests otherwise. I ask the Minister to answer my question of 27 November, reported in column 923 of Hansard. If one of my constituents or anyone else takes a packet of biscuits and forgets to pay for it in a store that is illegally trading on Sunday, will that person expect to be prosecuted?
  I now wish to refer to Sunday trading and European law. A lengthy document on that matter states:
  "The Attorney's Statement on 27th November confirmed that a reference to the European Court of Justice does not suspend UK law. (Hansard Col. 913, 27th November 1991). Therefore the contrary proposition put forward by the law-breaking retailers is seen for what it is—deliberate and planned flouting of the criminal law for profit.
  The European Court at any time has hundreds of references from the 12 Member States. It is an absurdity to argue that a mere reference 'neutralizes' the laws of a country pending the Court's decision. If that were reality, there would be legal chaos across Europe.
  There have been three cases already brought to the European Court to test whether Sunday laws are contrary to the treaty of Rome. These came from France, Belgium and Britain. In all three cases the court ruled that countries are entitled to make their own Sunday laws and none is in conflict with the Treaty of Rome.
  Eleven out of twelve countries in the EC have laws which restrain Sunday Trading or Sunday employment to a greater.
  1198
  or lesser extent. Clearly there is a conscensus in the EC that to restrain Sunday trading is in the interests of the working population and has wider social benefits for family life.
  Against this background for law-breaking retailers to appeal to Europe as a defence for their actions is totally indefensible.
  The reason why the Shops Act is currently unenforceable is due to another decision by the Court of Appeal which requires local authorities to give a cross-undertaking for lost profits when seeking injunctions to uphold the Act."
  Regrettably, the Attorney-General has refused to provide the local authorities with the necessary support to make enforcement feasible under those conditions. That is especially embarrassing for a Conservative Government who seek shortly to offer themselves to the electorate as the party of law and order.
  To demonstrate even more clearly that the Government have made a highly electorally damaging decision, one of the 10 million leaflets that have been produced by Marks and Spencer, which is one of several household names that has decided to put truth and integrity before profit, states:
  "it continues to be our firm belief that it is not in the interests of our customers, our staff or our shareholders, for us to compromise our integrity by breaking the law."
  There is still time for Parliament to rectify matters, and I should like to suggest several ways in which the Minister could act. She should urge the Attorney-General to take up the matter again. He has the power to seek a nationwide injunction against the multiple retailers. It would require only one court appearance per national chain and, in all probability, the matter could be joined. That appears to be the most sensible mechanism for enforcing the Shops Act. The Attorney-General also has residual powers in the Criminal Law Act 1977, relating to conspiracy to undermine the public law. There is also a common law offence of incitement to breach the criminal law.
  At present, local authorities that enforce the law risk huge costs if the European Court decision goes against them, while public limited companies that break the law face no risks if the court decides, as expected, for the validity of the Shops Act. That is obviously unfair.
  However, section 71(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 empowers a magistrates court to make a confiscation order against an offender if it is satisfied that he has benefited from the offence. A person benefits from an offence if he obtains property as a result of or in connection with its commission. His benefit is the value of the property so obtained. The powers are limited to the offences that are specified under schedule 4 and do not at present include offences under section 47 of the Shops Act. However, other offences may be added by statutory instrument. Thus, all that is required is for the Home Secretary to make the appropriate order. Is he willing to do so? If not, why not?
  I should like to the Minister to request the Government to apply a series of moral sanctions. Law breakers should be denied public recognition whenever possible, such as the Queen's awards, development grants and local authority assistance. Official bodies should eschew anything other than formal involvement with law breakers. Executives involved in illegality should be denied public office, positions of influence and invitations to public functions. Those already honoured should be told that they are placing their honour in jeopardy.
  Despite all the hype in the popular press and the media, the Tesco-led assault on the law has had nothing like the commercial success that has been claimed for it. Local press opinion polls and surveys throughout the country

  1199
  have come out strongly against a Sunday trade free-for-all. Evidence of unacceptable pressure and duress on shop staff, supervisors and managers is steadily increasing. The only day that many families will have been able to share together since 1 December will be Christmas day. Does that help to stem the breakdown of family life and relationships?
  Respected market research by A. G. Neilson Ltd. shows that only about one in 20 households went grocery shopping last Sunday. That means that 19 out of 20 households did not. Is it right to stand idly by and allow a small group of directors of retail companies to dictate a fundamental change to our way of life for their benefit and that of fewer than 5 per cent. of the population? Immediate enforcement action and reform of the law is needed, and I trust that the Minister will respond to that request.
  My interests in the matter include being the senior Member of Parliament sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. My views on this emotive subject, especially on the protection of workers' rights, conditions of employment and rates of pay and enhanced payments for overtime, have been put on record on numerous occasions. Perhaps those conditions should apply to Members of Parliament too, especially when we are up all night until 6.20 in the morning.
  On Monday 25 November Durham university business school, one of the most prestigious in the country, presented in the Jubilee Room its report and findings of a six-month study of women and work. It examined the family attitudes and position of women employees, and the possible consequences of working unsocial hours, especially Sundays. I acted as host and the event was sponsored by the Keep Sunday Special campaign and organised by the operations director, Mr. David Blackmore. We discussed in detail the reform of the Shops Act 1950.
  The study concluded that women employees in retailing do not want to work on Sundays. If they are compelled to, they would prefer to work on Saturdays, and to work non-standard hours on weekdays. The report claims that women are not in a strong position to negotiate with employers, most of them being part-time employees. The report also concluded that employee protection was not likely to be effective, whether or not women were members of a trade union.
  The report further concluded:
  "any reform of the Shops Act 1950 needs to take into consideration
  —the needs of the consumer
  —the needs of the shopworker and
  —the general trend towards the reduction in the hours of working which means more time for shopping will be available during the week".
  The overall conclusion is that
  "Sunday work should be kept to a minimum and the Shops Act should be reformed but should not permit any major extension of Sunday trading".
  That report on women at work is well worth reading. I trust that the Minister has a copy. If not, I can provide her with one.
  I have referred to the Keep Sunday Special campaign. Indeed, I presented, with the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), an all-party early-day motion on Sunday trading. The motion has already been signed, without any undue canvassing, by 101 Members from both sides of the House. Had names been canvassed, in all probability more than 200 would have
  1200
  signed by now, and I have no doubt that before 22 January, when I present a ten-minute Bill on the reform of the Shops Act 1950, that number will have been exceeded.
  Having referred to the REST proposals put forward by Keep Sunday Special, it might be helpful—especially as those proposals are mentioned in the early-day motion —if I put on the record what the proposals are. The principles behind the proposals are to ensure that consumers' reasonable needs are met; that friends and family spend quality time together; that the freedoms of shopworkers, owners and residents are safeguarded; and that Sunday is kept a special day, as in the rest of Europe.
  The REST proposals claim that exemption from basic closing should be based on the type of shop, not on lists of goods, and that exempt shops should be able to sell all their goods, that "type of shop" approach being used in Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Special provisions should apply to small food and general stores, registration should be administered by local authorities, enforcement should be made simple and cost effective, and there should be full employment protection rights.
  Under the REST proposals, shops similar in type to 'those already legally trading should be allowed to open. They would be sports centre outlets, historic house outlets, newsagents, garden centres, florists and video hire shops. They would come under recreation outlets. In emergencies, allowed shops would be chemists and small food shops. For social gatherings, restaurants, take-aways and off-licences would be included, as would petrol stations, motor spares shops and travel kiosks under the general travel heading.
  I referred to the report on women. USDAW, with a membership of 400,000—mostly women shopworkers—would, I am sure, support the findings that I listed earlier from that report on women workers. Assurances about protection are requested whenever any attempt is made to change the Shops Act. My union is worried about any change in the law that might not include negotiated protection for its members. It points out that during 12 years of Conservative rule it has seen the systematic demolishing of employment and wages legislation, the end of wages councils and the introduction of numerous anti-trade union laws, all depriving its members of protection.
  Whatever legislation amends or replaces the Shops Act 1950, shopworkers must be given protection for their rights, working conditions and contracts of employment, and if Sunday trading in a limited sense is introduced, employees must be free to refuse to work on Sunday. That right must be paramount in the consideration of, and clearly defined in, the legislation.
  A recent ruling of a tribunal in Suffolk has substantiated USDAW's stance against unlimited Sunday trading, when shopworkers would be forced to turn up for work, whatever their wishes. Indeed, in the USDAW journal Today it is reported that
  "The tribunal ruled that the seed packer Robert George's dismissal for refusing to work Sundays was unreasonable. He had told his employers he wanted to attend church and spend Sundays with his family.
  Mr. George had been told that during the harvest season he was required to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week. He requested Sundays off but the company, Plant Breeding International, said it would not allow less than a seven-day working week.
  Mr. George said: To dismiss me after 16 years was atrocious. I had offered to work 14 hours a day, six days a week, instead.

  1201
  'What I did was for the sake of family life, and to get a rest.'
  Expert advice on the importance of Sundays to family life was given to the tribunal by Malcolm Wickes, director of the Family Policy Study Centre. And Paul Diamond of the Keep Sunday Special campaign described the decision as unique and historic.
  This is a major victory for the principle of Sunday rest,' he said."
  I hope that by my remarks in the early hours of this morning I have convinced the Minister that there is need for a revision of the Shops Act 1950 or, indeed, for a new Act. Perhaps my proposal, to be presented to the House on 22 January, if it is supported by the Government, will be a move in the direction of overcoming the dilemma that the Government, retailers, consumers and everybody else are in at the present time, when people are blatantly flouting the law. I hope that every effort will be made to alter the situation as early as possible.
  6.31 am
  Mr. Stuart Randall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on his success in the ballot. I believe that it is a success because there has been an opportunity here to get the Sunday trading case debated in the House of Commons, although it is very early in the morning and we all have difficulty in stringing our sentences together. I am glad that my hon. Friend has given us that opportunity. He has been a consistent advocate of ensuring that the law of the land is adhered to. I know that he feels great distress at what is happening as a result of Government inaction on this matter.
  My hon. Friend referred to the opportunity that he had of presenting the result of the vote on the 1986 Bill. I recall that occasion, too. I remember in particular the huge smile that he had on his face when the Government were defeated in a way which can be described in parliamentary terms as nothing short of absolutely remarkable. The Government were defeated despite their huge majority of 130 or 140 votes. The reason why the Bill failed was that the Government were, I think, contemptuous of the House. They had this very unhealthy large majority and they put before the House a Bill which offered total deregulation of shopping hours and to all intents and purposes stripped out nearly all the employment protection which has been a hallmark of Sunday trading legislation, certainly for the past century.
  The essence of Sunday trading legislation has always been to protect shop workers, who traditionally have always been abused. The House might recall the Auld report, which referred to our 2.2 million shop workers as people who have been generally abused in terms of their long working hours and poor wages.
  Surely the House acted wisely when hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber threw out the Shops Bill, which I considered to be a disgraceful piece of legislation. It deserved nothing short of the wastepaper basket.
  In the meantime, the Government have attempted to pull together a solution to the dilemma that arises as a result of the different views that are held by various groups. Some organisations stand for total deregulation while others emphasise the consumer. There are others that wish to retain the feel, as it were, of Sunday, and there is the Christian element.
  1202
  The Government's attempt to produce a solution has failed. I regret the approach of the Minister of State, Home Office. The right hon. Lady has seen the various groups to which I have referred, and I accept that the list is a long one, but she did not bring them together collectively to discuss a consensus. I am convinced, having talked to the groups, that a consensus could have been reached. A solution—[Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) is making comments from a sedentary position. Is he asking me what the solution is?
  Mr. Irvine Patnick(Lords Commissioner of the Treasury): No, I am not.
  Mr. Randall: It is unusual for a Whip to comment. Perhaps I should refrain from responding to the hon. Gentleman and continue with my speech.
  I have had discussions with the various groups and I am convinced that a solution could have been arrived at if the Minister had arranged for collective discussions to take place. Now that we have moved into what is essentially a total deregulation mode, I think that the opportunity has been lost for ever.
  I am sure that the House is distressed that the Minister has failed to make a proper statement. The right hon. Lady made an apology of a statement a week or so ago. I believe that she did so because a private notice question had already been accepted by Mr. Speaker. That statement told us nothing. It was made to save the Government some embarrassment.
  What the Attorney-General—not so much the Minister of State—had to say in response to the private notice question was tragic. He decided to take no action. I think that most of us recall the way in which the Attorney-General seemed to expect that no comments would be thrown at him. It was disgraceful. I think—I measure my words carefully—that the Attorney-Generally behaved politically, in party-political terms, before he carried out his responsibility of ensuring that the law of the land is enforced. That is a disgraceful thing for an Attorney-General to have done. The House and the country will have noted—
  Mr. Patnick: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that.
  Mr. Randall: The Government Whip is again making comments.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): It is important that I should ask the hon. Gentleman carefully to consider what he has just said about my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who set out the legal position as a Law Officer. As the Attorney-General—not as the Government—he took a stand and put his point to the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear that he has accepted that point.
  Mr. Randall: I do not accept that point. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my comments were not out of order or tasteless, but I shall rephrase them. It is a matter of concern throughout the country that the Attorney-General has not used his powers to ensure that the law of the land—the Shops Act 1950—is enforced. He has the

  1203
  power to introduce an injunction on a company-by-company basis. As the number of companies leading the law-breaking campaign is small, he has a viable means of enforcing the law but he refused to do so—(Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Does the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) seek to intervene so that his interjections may be properly recorded?
  Mr. Randall: I am prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he continues to interrupt from a sedentary position, irrespective of your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Hull city council, which Ministers accept is a good, efficiently run council, wanted to enforce the law, but, in practice, it cannot be enforced. Two courses of action are open to a local authority. First, it can take a company through the magistrates courts in the normal way with the aim of securing a prosecution. These days, that cannot happen because the case is unlikely to be listed and, if it is listed, it will be adjourned, so a local authority has no means of carrying out its responsibilities. Secondly, it can apply for an injunction. My city council did that against B & Q and had to pay a cross-undertaking of £1.2 million. That was for just one company.
  I am not sure how the law-breaking campaign is working or whether other companies would have joined B & Q, but the chief executive of my council felt that he was not in a position to commit the poll tax payers of Hull to what could have amounted to several million pounds, and a deal was finally struck that Hull city council would refrain from taking out an injunction and the cross-undertaking was therefore withdrawn.
  That is what councils are confronted with in practice. My remarks about the Attorney-General were strong because he has not faced up to his responsibility to enforce the law. He has copped out of his responsibilities. How would the Minister advise Hull city council to go about enforcing the law, bearing in mind that it cannot go through the magistrates courts because of the cross-undertakings required? She is bound to answer that there is no possible action and that the Shops Act 1950 is an unenforceable law. That is what is causing so much distress on both sides of the House.
  The Government do not support law and order. There is a record level of chronic law breaking throughout the country and they are prepared to allow companies to break the law for profit. That is nothing short of irresponsibility, and inflicts severe damage on our democracy.
  The upshot is that—
  Mr. Patnick: What is the hon. Gentleman's solution?
  Mr. Randall: The Whip is interrupting and asking for my solution. If he will be quiet I shall tell him what the Labour party proposes to do.
  The Government have allowed law-breaking to continue. They have not used their powers and there is now total deregulation in this country. Any company can do whatever it wishes—it is easy. The various lawyers acting for the pressure groups that advocate the law breaking are saying that the Shops Act 1950 is not extant and that the referral to the European Court of Justice implies that the 1950 Act is suspended. That is nothing short of stupidity. If that were to happen every time there
  1204
  were a referral to the European Court the laws, not just of this country but of all other members of the EC, would be in chaos. A number of test cases on Sunday trading and the possible conflict with the treaty of Rome have already come before the European Court and all have been referred back to the various countries involved.
  The defences that have been used to justify the campaign of law breaking are disgraceful. At the general election we shall be justified in saying that the Conservative party cannot again claim to be the party of law and order. Its credibility has been severely damaged and its attempts to find a solution to the problem have resulted in abject failure.
  The fact that there is now total deregulation will have a serious effect on small shops. The advice that I have received from those who understand the issue better than I is that it will drive many small convenience stores out of business. Those little shops are loved by the British people because they are conveniently located just around the corner. People can use them to buy their newspapers on Sunday morning and are often prepared to pay more to use those stores because they are convenient.
  I know that the Minister likes small stores, because she referred to them. in her speech on 14 October. I agreed with her and thought that her comments were eminently sensible. She said:
  "They provide help to those who are unable always to go shopping on weekdays and Saturdays. They are small corner shops. We all acknoweldge that they provide an important service, especially for the elderly and those less able to get to the larger stores during the week." —[0fficia/ Report, 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 129.]
  We all agree that small stores are important, but they can remain viable only if they can carry out their trading on Sundays. One must recognise that Sunday business can account for about 25 per cent. of the turnover of those small shops. If one adds late-night opening, it can account for about 40 per cent. of total trade. The decision by Tesco and other groups campaigning to break the law to get their own way—which they have largely done as a result of the Government's co-operation and collaboration—has made a serious dent in the turnover and profit of the stores that are already struggling.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the small corner shops which have been trading on Sundays—in many cases, outside the Shops Act 1950—-provide a useful service to some people in our communities. However, I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question. He has asserted that the Government have been unable to find a solution and has alluded to one anomaly, but will he state categorically what legislation the Opposition would introduce to resolve the difficulty?
  Mr. Randall: I shall certainly answer the question, because we have a policy to which I alluded as a result of an interruption made by the Government Whip.
  One of the reasons for the Government's failure has been the fact that they did not bring together all the groups involved. Until things collapsed. I had planned to hold a conference in either the last week in January or the first week in February because, as a result of discussions with the Shopping Hours Reform Council, SOS, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the Keep Sunday Special campaign, the consumers and other groups, I am confident
  —
  Mrs. Rumbold Mrs. Rumbold rose—
  Mr. Randall: I shall finish the point and then I shall give way. From the discussions that I have had with those groups and from some statements that I have received—I do not want to go into detail because they were confidential—I am confident that a solution could have been found which would have formed a reasoned consensus for those groups, for the interests that they represent and for the House. The Government have blown it. They should have held a joint conference. There is no question but that it would have involved tough chairmanship and I am convinced that the Minister —whom I should have expected to chair the conference—would have had to hit a few heads together. However, the parties involved were prepared to have their heads hit together to arrive at a solution.
  As the basis of its policy, the Labour party has advocated such a conference. When we form the Government—whether it is in April or May, we do not yet know—we shall hold the conference to reach the consensus, the potential for which already exists. However, the Government unfortunately failed to bring the people together. The Minister held a number of meetings and I know what went on, but the opportunity was lost.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am interested to learn that the hon. Gentleman believes that a conference will be the panacea to all the ills connected with Sunday trading. Would that it were so. The absolute naivety of his suggestion knocks me out. Whatever people say to him in confidence and whatever they may say in twos or threes, if he had been here when the issue was raised on the Floor of the House only a week or so ago he would have realised—indeed he was here so he should have realised this instantly—that the leaders of the groups might come to an—
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: He was at the Dispatch Box.
  Mrs. Rumbold: Indeed he was. The hon. Member should have observed, at that debate, the variety of views held by hon. Members. The leaders of the groups that he mentions might well come to some sort of compromise —I might have achieved that—but I would not be able to command a majority of Members, who have other ideas. How would the hon. Gentleman solve that?
  Mr. Randall: I am confident from the discussions that I have had that we could have found the basis for an agreement. In the Minister's position, I would have hit heads together, stated what I believed would be ultimately acceptable to the House of Commons, and had the courage to put the case to the House. Instead of doing that, the Minister kicked the ball into the long grass. She has been pressurised by the big companies that contribute to the Conservative party and been forced to deliver what they want.
  That is why we are in this trouble, and why the Government have been grossly irresponsible. The Minister should have started with an agreement on terms and conditions relating to employment protection and dealt with the other aspects afterwards. That would have got her 80 per cent. of the way to her goal; but, as a Minister on the right of the Conservative party under political pressures, she could not do it. The next Labour Government will do it; we will have the guts to come to the House with a solution that we think will be in the interests
  1206
  of the consumers, those who want to retain the special nature of Sunday, those who work in the industry and all the other interested groups.
  This Minister will go down in history as the Minister who killed off small shops in Britain. The trend already has been remarkable: we used to have 140,000 village shops in the 1960s. Only 39,000 remain. People representing those shops tell me that the latest move by Tesco and the others that are breaking the law could sound the death knell for some of the vulnerable stores.
  The Opposition feel strongly about this. We are told that the people of Britain want to shop on Sundays. Well, let us put the case to the House and vote on it. The opinion polls do not reflect the true opinions of the British public. They do not want their small stores destroyed and put out of business. They have a great deal of love and affection for the small stores, and the Minister will go down in history as the woman who wrecked them.
  As a result of the opening on 8 December, small shops' trade for the day in the south midlands fell by 15 per cent. In Bristol, a group of shops affected by trading on 8 December saw their incomes drop from about £4,000 to less than £3,000, a drop of about 25 per cent. That is serious. It means that those shops are no longer viable and we condemn the Government's inaction on the reform of the Shops Act 1950.
  6.59 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) made a good point at the beginning of the debate when he said that there have been considerable difficulties in redesigning the Shops Act 1950 to meet the requirements of the 1990s.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I well recall the Second Reading debate of the Shops Bill 1986 which followed upon the discussions and deliberations of the Auld committee which, since as long ago as 1985, had been engaged in a series of debates about Sunday trading. After considerable deliberations, a great deal of attention, many discussions with the various parties concerned—no doubt the kind of conference which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) so naively believes will produce a solution—the committee came forward with the only viable solution, total deregulation of Sunday trading. As a result, the Government introduced the 1986 Bill.
  As hon. Members may or may not recall, Conservative Members had a free vote, a conscience vote, because the Bill was regarded as being of sufficient importance to require people to make up their own minds. On that occasion, the Government's proposals were not accepted by the House. I freely admit that, following that, the Government have been unwilling to introduce other proposals because they feel that they would have to be enforceable, workable and acceptable to a majority of hon. Members.
  It is a wonderful notion that we could have a conference of the main spokesmen for the different organisations—
  Mr. Randall: They have agreed to that.
  Mrs. Rumbold: Of course they have. Of course they will come together and discuss the matter. Of course it is believed that some will give way to others. I have had

  1207
  discussions with those people, collectively and individually, but even were the leaders prepared to make some concessions, the strongly held views of people at both ends of the spectrum are such that it would be exceedingly difficult to introduce a proposal to the House which hon. Members would accept could form the basis for coherent, workable and enforceable legislation.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is the evidence for that?
  Mrs. Rumbold: I have been sufficiently foolhardy to raise the issue from time to time with small groups of individuals who put their point of view to me when it is easy to be civilised and who propose arrangements whereby Sunday trading could be limited to certain times, to shops of a particular size, to the selling of particular goods or to certain types of shop. If groups of, say, 50 to 100 people were to be asked how many of them would like to see some deregulation on Sunday, only about half would put up their hands; the other half would want to keep Sunday special. That is what would happen if the matter were put to the House, but the Opposition seem to think that the matter could be resolved overnight.
  As I explained in my statement on 27 November, I have undertaken intensive discussions with a wide range of major and conflicting interest groups on possible ways of reforming the Sunday trading laws for England and Wales, and they will continue next year. I am willing to talk to anyone who comes to me with a proposed solution that they believe the House would accept—including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and other Labour Members. However, it is unclear to me at this time what recommendations one could put in the form of legislation to be put before the House that would command the majority needed to make sensible legislation, to allow the country to move forward in the 1990s.
  Neither the Government nor Parliament can decide with confidence on the options for reform until questions about the compatibility of the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950 with article 30 of the treaty of Rome, which deals with free trade, are answered. I remind Labour Members that that article, which was signed in 1972, was referred by another place to the European Court of Justice, and that question of compatibility must be resolved.
  Many of the proposed options, particularly those advanced by the Keep Sunday Special campaign, would continue to restrict Sunday trading by a class or list of goods. Whether or not agreement could be reached, it would not be sensible to settle policy on the merits of any proposals until their compatibility with Community law could be determined. There is nothing new in that concept.
  This week, Labour Members announced that they are total Europeans, believe 100 per cent. in Europe, and that theirs is the party of Europe. I am therefore surprised to hear the hon. Member for Ogmore express concern at our reluctance to reach a decision until the European Court of Justice makes its pronouncement. I thought that the hon. Member for Ogmore and other Labour Members would be anxious to await that judgment.
  When we joined the European Community some 20 years ago, Parliament decided that our own courts should refer questions of international compatibility in law to the
  1208
  European Court. I made it clear on 27 November that we intend to bring forward proposals for Sunday trading once the legal position is clear.
  Mr. Randall: The right hon. Lady is skating on thin ice.
  Mrs. Rumbold: Not at all. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong about that. I am convinced that if the hon. Gentleman were ever in a position of responsibility in the House—the likelihood of which is becoming increasingly remote—he would also find himself advised that it would be foolish to put before the House proposals which in a few weeks or months might fall outside the law.
  I point out to the hon. Member for Ogmore that the Sunday trading laws could be suspended only by primary legislation. It would be neither right in principle nor practicable to introduce such a Bill. An order made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department under section 43(1) of the Shops Act 1950 would only lift the requirement for shops to close ordinarily by 8 pm on Sundays. It would not affect the suspension of the Sunday trading provisions of the 1950 Act.
  I was asked why we cannot suspend the law, and I have explained why that would not be possible. I have also been asked whether it would be possible to make partial exemption orders under section 48(1) of the Shops Act. That, too, would not meet the purpose: such orders require protracted and elaborate consultation on the part of local authorities with local traders. Except in emergencies, the orders allow only for the sale of additional grocery provisions such as bread, flour, fish and confectionery until 10 pm on Sundays.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore said that the opinion polls demonstrated that only a limited number of people would be interested in total deregulation. Other polls have been published in the newspapers, however, and the issue has gained a good deal of attention over the past few weeks. I have experienced some of it personally. People from the newspapers foolishly park outside my home on Sundays, I suspect to see either whether I go shopping or whether I go to church. As they are parked outside in their cars, I do neither: I find it quite irritating to have my Sundays plotted. I dig the garden, or wrap my Christmas presents. That seems to me a better way of spending Sundays—among my family. Opinion polls always give different answers depending on the questions that have been asked, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should not place too much emphasis on the outcome.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to another issue in which I take a good deal of interest—women and work. I am very concerned about women, their rights and how they are looked after and protected at work. I am keen for them to have a greater opportunity to develop both their working and their family lives. I place equal emphasis on both aspects. The majority of women—and, indeed, the majority of men—are feeling that they must start protecting family life.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that women might feel that they were under considerable pressure to work on Sundays. I understand his point, but many women have written to me asking us specifically not to prevent them from working on Sundays. Many said that they welcomed the opportunity to work, and were not able to do so during the week because there was no one look after their children. They therefore chose to look after their children

  1209
  during the week, and to allow their husbands to do so while they went to work on Sundays. That is a matter of choice, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to deny people the opportunity of employment.
  One of the common threads that have emerged from my discussions has been the necessity, when considering how the law might be reformed, of tackling the question of protecting employees from being obliged by their employers to work on Sundays, against their wishes, or incurring any penalty for not doing so. It is a matter of great concern that employees should receive proper rewards for working on Sundays. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) assumes that I have been sitting drinking cups of coffee and not talking to people about the issues. That is foolish of him, because we have discovered that there is agreement more or less across the spectrum.
  The Government generally take the view that matters of pay and hours are better left to negotiation between employers and employees, or by their representatives, and that they should certainly not be dealt with in legislation or in codes of practice provided for in statute. Employees aggrieved by the actions of their employers may seek redress through the courts or at an industrial tribunal.
  The Government recognise the importance of personal conscience in this context and included a measure of protection for existing shop workers against being made to work on Sundays in the Shops Bill which was debated by the House in 1986. I assure hon. Members that we readily acknowledge the strength of feeling about that aspect of Sunday trading and will take it fully into account when we draw up proposals for the reform of the law. I shall be more than happy to comply with that undertaking.
  The Member for Ogmore also asked me to consider the question of enforcement. As he and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in his personal capacity as Law Officer of the Crown and not as a Minister, came to the House to inform it how he intended to proceed. He made clear on 27 November what he felt was the best action for him to take in his capacity as a Law Officer. I deprecate the rather ungracious and ill-considered words of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West in referring to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. That was unnecessary and completely wrong. The Attorney-General has made clear to the House the position under the law and it is important that the House should recognise that.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore also raised the question of the Robert George case. Contrary to press reports, Sunday working was not the central issue in that case. The crux of the matter was the overall length and organisation of working hours during a peak session and their impact on the employee and his particular family circumstances. The industrial tribunal that heard that case accepted that it was undesirable for employees to be prevented from taking time off with their families, although there were other issues involved. In that case, Sunday was the only day on which such time off with the family was possible. That would not necessarily apply to all cases,
  The hon. Gentleman must remember that many people are willing to work overtime, including Sundays, at peak periods. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that many
  1210
  people work on Sundays to deliver our emergency services. Many do that by choice. The men and women in the national health service go into our hospitals and work exceedingly hard, not necessarily by choice, but because it is part of the work that they undertake to do. The same is true of the police and the law enforcement officers generally, and of many people who man the emergency services, such as the fire service.
  Mr. Powell: I was not referring to a press report of the Robert George case. I listened to Robert George at a conference at which he gave chapter and verse of the detail of his case. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) was present at the conference when Robert George was on the platform. I was referring not to press reports, but to my conversation with the gentleman concerned. His statement to the conference and to me personally was that it was a Sunday issue. The fact was that he did not want to work on Sunday. He had worked for the same firm for 16 years without working on a Sunday because of his objection to working on a Sunday and his wish to stay at home and then to go to church.
  Mrs. Rumbold: As I said, the industrial tribunal accepted that employees should be able to take time off with their families. He wanted to take Sunday off and spend it with his family. However, the principle of Sunday trading was not at the heart of the judgment.
  I am sure that this will not be the last occasion on which we shall debate this issue. There are many difficulties involved, not least with regard to the application of the law, given that we must wait for the judgment of the European Court of Justice. No doubt we will hear the views of the hon. Member for Ogmore once that judgment is made. I understand that he is likely to bring forward proposals in a ten-minute Bill in the not-too-distant future and I will listen to that debate with great interest. I am here to listen to all my colleagues and to all hon. Members and anyone else who wishes to make representations to me. I am interested in possible solutions. If the solutions of the hon. Member for Ogmore command great support, we will consider them with great interest.
  I am convinced that it would be foolish for the Government to formulate policy until we are clear, from the European Court, what that policy should avoid so as not to become entangled in the law. I can assure the hon. Member for Ogmore that once the legislative procedure is clarified, the Government will be more than anxious to end the anomalies and the present situation in which people are unclear and therefore feel free to take the law into their own hands. We are not anxious to see the situation evolve. We want to take control of the situation, but it is no use hon. Members like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West telling me that we should have a conference and then table a Bill and that would be the end of the matter. Were it that easy, we would have done that three or four years ago. It is not that easy. People must understand that the issue is difficult and needs a great deal of give and take. They must also understand that the issue is very important for the people of this country.
  At the end of the day, I hope that there will be a general recognition that Sunday is different and that we all, from time to time, need a breathing space during the working week. The legislation that we intend to introduce will have

  1211
  to have the support of the House and the different interests will have to be brought together before such legislation can be introduced.

  Iraq
  7.22 am
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to raise this issue and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is present, because I know that he will listen with his usual thoughtfulness, great knowledge and understanding of the problems that I will enunciate. I am glad that he is to reply, because I am confident about his knowledge of this large subject.
  Although this place has heard tales of much horror and beastliness over the many generations that hon. Members have spoken about the plight of victims throughout the history of this place, I suggest that the plight of the people whose human rights we will discuss this morning transcends almost every other horror that we have heard here.
  Genocide is a very heavy word. It is a word which is mostly only used when we discuss Hitler's treatment of the Jews or when we consider Cambodia. Some appalling things have happened to those poor people, but the plight of the Shias in the south of Iraq matches, and possibly even surpasses, the horrors that those poor people suffered. It is difficult to think of that. I visited Auschwitz last year. It is impossible to get it out of one's mind once one has been there. Indeed, having been brought up after the war and having heard of the plight of those poor people, one has never forgotten it in any case.
  Of course, that left me with a large question—how could people ignore what happened to the Jews? How could people turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to the horrors that they suffered? Having seen the Shias in the refugee camps in south Iran and in south-east Iraq, I can understand at last how it is possible to ignore such appalling things. The reason is that when the reality is so truly appalling, it transcends everyone's imagination. One cannot absorb it and one just turns off.
  Perhaps the way not to turn off is to think of individuals. Mr. Al Sultan is a primary school teacher of about 45, a civilian, not a man who joined the army—he is an educated man, a graduate. He taught in a primary school near Basra. Mr. Al Sultan is now a shrivelled, blackened person. His poor hands are black claws with burns from napalm bombing. He has no eyelids. He cannot sleep. His eyelids have been burnt off. He puts a scarf around his head to try to sleep. He has 90 per cent. burns all over his poor body. He is damaged beyond repair. He will never be able to write because he will not be able to use his hands. His pain is unending.
  Perhaps the worst victim—if there can be a worst victim—is little Amar, the youngest and worst napalm victim to have survived. He is a boy of 10. Amar cannot sleep, either, but he cannot sleep because he cannot forget. His whole family, save a sister, were destroyed in March. His sister is still living, because she is in a hospital next door. The doctors fear that if they tell him that she is alive and she dies, the psychological trauma will be so enormous that he will give up completely.
  Little Amar does not have a face any more. His face looks like a Halloween mask—fixed and rigid; a shiny mask all over his face. His neck cannot move; it is fused rigid. If he takes his clothes off, which he does not do very easily because it hurts so much, one sees open wounds

  1213
  from the top of his chest down to his toes. Amar cannot smile, he cannot cry, he cannot laugh—he cannot do anything because he has no muscles in his face, no nerves, no nothing. He has no ability to move anything at all. I am raising money for him at the moment. Kind surgeons have offered to operate on him, if only we can get him over here. But nothing will ever make up for Amar for the total loss of mother, father, entire family, house and everything.
  One could say that Amar and Mr. Al Sultan are lucky. Despite their pain and suffering, they have got out—they have got away. They have been taken across the border—illegally. They have been smuggled out—out of Basra, out of their village, into the safe haven of Iran. Let us think for a moment about some of those who have been left behind.
  There is an underground prison outside Basra. There, 700 men are said to have been imprisoned underground, without daylight, for 11 years. It is said that the stench is so appalling that no one can go near them now. They have long hair and long nails and, not unnaturally, a white pallor, and very little to eat. God knows how they are still alive.
  Another one who got out is a doctor who translated for me. He went back into Iraq, in the marshes, at great personal danger to himself and translated for me when we met some Shias. He is a well-educated and articulate man. It is appalling to hear a doctor describe, with the detailed anatomical knowledge that only a doctor can have, exactly what happened to his poor body when he was tortured ceaselessly, unendingly, with just short gaps to let him regain consciousness, for weeks on end. That went on intermittently, sometimes for weeks at a time, for nine years. That poor man also finds it difficult to sleep.
  Our short time for debate this morning should be given to those victims. A woman in a refugee camp outside the city of Ahwaz in the south of Iran said, "Take my voice to the world. Let the world hear my voice." That is what I want to do this morning. Those people have no voice themselves. That is the point about victims throughout the world—someone has to speak for them. But it is difficult to get there and to find people being tortured; it is such a horrible activity that it is done in secret. It is difficult to find people who have been tortured—so many of them are still in prison or have died.
  The fate of those who are still living and of the hostages who are now being held by the regime in Iraq is not being decided by a beneficent Government. We have our wrangles in this place, but essentially we have a beneficent democracy. Most of us believe that we are here to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. That is what drives us on. We differ on detail and sometimes on deep philosophical attitudes and questions, but none the less, our differences pale into nothing if we compare our beneficent democracy—which we have inherited, not created ourselves—with the wicked rule in Iraq and some other countries.
  The fate of those people is being decided far away from where they are. It is being decided in Washington—perhaps by people in the Pentagon; perhaps by George Bush. If only we could persuade George Bush to look back at Iraq to see what has been left behind. Their fate is being decided in the United Nations, by the committees which endlessly discuss and debate and churn out pieces of paper
  1214
  that nobody seems to read. Even the United Nations Security Council, which has given thought and time to the plight of those troubled people, the Kurds, does not appear to have given any thought or time to the plight of the people in the south of Iraq, the Shia.
  Their fate is being decided in the Hague, where a great man, a former Foreign Minister of the Netherlands Government, Mr. Van der Stoel, published his interim report as special rapporteur on Iraq and human rights on 17 November. His final report comes out in February.
  Their fate is being decided in Geneva where, to my great sadness, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan resigned last week from his post as special United Nations high commissioner for refugees in Iraq because he had spent the previous 10 days in Baghdad, trying to persuade Saddam Hussein to ease the plight of his people.
  Their fate is also being decided here in London, where our Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our Minister for Overseas Development, with whom I have had many talks on this large subject are doing all that they can to help.
  I pay a special tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. During the summer and early autumn she helped me with Government aid and guided me in the direction of private aid. She helped me with advice, support and encouragement to bring humanitarian aid to the Shias who have escaped and are in the camps in south Iran. That has been monumental help, but it has not been just practical help.
  With about £0.5 million that I have collected, a large sum of it from the Minister and other sums from other places, I went and bought, and watched the purchase, delivery, consumption and use of the simple bare necessities of people in the camps. Those necessities are sacks of flour and sacks of rice, although I am glad to say that the Iranian Government are now providing flour for every refugee within their borders, and certainly for the Shias. That is no mean undertaking, because Iran has 3.5 million refugees within its borders, the largest number of any member nation of the United Nations. The Red Crescent has the most work to do of any member of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
  The aid, including children's shoes and cooking oil—the simple, basic things—has been of large benefit to many thousands of refugees in Iran. Their plight is indeed a miserable one, but, as they say, they do not want charity. They want to be back at home. They want to be in a free and democratic Iraq where they can vote for their leaders and have a democratically accountable Parliament.
  I say a warm thanks on behalf of those refugees to the Minister for Overseas Development, whose help has been inestimable, whose competence is great and known to us all and whose officials work with such commitment, concern and effectiveness—I can vouch for that. I know that my right hon. Friend will continue to do everything that she can, and that is a great deal.
  When one is in the refugee camps, Mr. Speaker, people crowd around. You and I have been to many refugee camps in many parts of the world. I am aware that you know some of the most difficult parts of the world, such as Pakistan, where you have seen things of great importance and many suffering people. You might have seen refugees out of Afghanistan there. It is impossible to compare one person's suffering with that of another. Why should one

  1215
  victim be any more important or any more identified here than another victim? Surely, human suffering is all of a piece.
  I suggest that there is something particularly inhuman and unbearable about the deliberate wiping out of a section of the population. I always thought that apartheid was one of the worst possible sins because it identifies someone and goes for them on the basis of the colour of their skin. The extermination being carried out in Iraq is of that order and type. If one is a Shia, one will be killed.
  It is not an easy death. The kind of deaths that Saddam Hussein and his people pursue include a method of execution which involves simply lining people up in rows and running tanks over them. It includes pushing people out of helicopters in full flight. It includes killing babies in front of mothers. I have seen the evidence. It includes horrific torture of defenceless human bodies. You can see the arms, the legs, the faces, the bodies. You can see the marks and the twisted limbs bent beyond repair for ever. You hear what the people tell you.
  Of course, when we left Kuwait, we knew that we had done a good job of work. We had brought Kuwait back to have its own rulers. We believed it to be right and proper to honour the sovereign borders of Iraq, and we withdrew. Perhaps we did not foresee—although perhaps people in the Foreign Office did—that Saddam Hussein would turn against his own people and that the brave Kurds and Shias would rise up against him, but would fail.
  Since then, we have witnessed the genocidal attack on the people in the north and south who opposed him. Those people are on our side. They want democracy and freedom of speech. Not only is there no freedom of speech in Iraq, there is no freedom of listening. If one is caught with a radio, it is assumed that one has been listening to the BBC World Service and one is killed, as an old lady of 85 was the other day, when I was there.
  The position is even worse if one is caught even on suspicion of not wanting to hurt other people. One can be hounded to death for that. Such a story was told by a man in a refugee camp near the border who has just got out. His brother was a general in Hussein's army until last month. He could take no more of the killing and somehow he must have indicated that, by some sign or language or something he said or did not say. Or perhaps it was simply that he did not rush fast enough to kill people. Saddam ordered his brother officers to get petrol, to pour it down the man's throat and to puncture a hole in his stomach and set light to him. His brother watched him burn. He did not tell anyone that he was his brother. He decided to come out and tell the tale.
  Then there is the women who watched her husband being executed. She was one of 700 women who were lined up to watch their husbands being run over by tanks. The stories are endless and the appalling fact is that they are true. It is not easy to get there, to speak to people and to gain their confidence so that they will talk.
  I respect and admire the part that the Iranian Government and people have played in keeping their borders open and in offering hospitality to their many hundreds of thousands of unwanted guests. I have a large respect for the Iranians, who have been my hosts on visits, and I hope that they will be my hosts on future visits. We seem content to let Iran get on with it. Is that because it is far away or that they had a triumphant war? Is it because we feel that those people, after all, are not us and do not pass the language, cricket or some other test? Does our
  1216
  insularity make us say that we are part of Europe, but we go no further than that? Are we a people of such narrow imagination that we discard our past and understanding of those places?
  Shall we respond to the people in the camps and marshes who say, "We trust the British. They have had several hundred years of knowledge of us and we know that they will not let us down. Thank God for the British"? I do not think we have that short a memory. But if we let those people suffer, we shall be as ashamed of ourselves as many people must have felt about deliberately not listening to the plight of the Jews in Europe in the second world war.
  If we ignore those people, let us do so in the knowledge of the suffering on which we are deliberately turning our backs. I know that we in the United Kingdom do not take that point of view. We have a Foreign Office which is full of knowledge and understanding, as is our chargé-d'affaires in Tehran. As I said, our Minister dealing with aid matters extends herself beyond the capacity of everything that could be asked of her, as does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who is to reply to the debate.
  Can we not somehow bring alive again the other major players in this most devilish of games, the sacrifice of human rights in Iraq? Can we not get them to do something and not respond and succumb to the continuing blandishments of Saddam Hussein?
  7.45 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): Clearly there are other hon. Members who wish to get in, but I am afraid that the debate started later than was anticipated.
  Saddam Hussein's blatant disregard of internationally accepted norms of behaviour is certainly beyond dispute. The human rights record of the Iraqi Government is appalling and has been graphically added to in the catalogue of further horrors that have been perpetrated, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson).
  The abuses inflicted by the Iraqi dictatorship include also the use of chemical weapons against its own unarmed people in 1988, appalling atrocities committed during the occupation of Kuwait, the mistreatment of western hostages and prisoners and, most recently, as alluded to by my hon. Friend, the brutal suppression of uprisings and the denial of human rights and torture of the civilian population in Iraq. All this has been well documented and in the spine-chilling descriptions that my hon. Friend has produced in these early hours we have further information to alarm and depress us.
  In addition to all these specific cruelties, the Iraqi regime continues to show complete disregard of the welfare of its own citizens. I will touch in rather more general terms than did my hon. Friend on the situation in Iraq in that regard.
  The United Nations and the other international agencies have done what they can to protect the Iraqi people from the worst of these excesses and to provide basic shelter, food and medicine. We and our coalition partners have also made a considerable contribution. Thanks to the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, safe havens were established in northern Iraq and an enormous international relief effort was mounted

  1217
  to sustain the civil population there. The coalition deterrent force which we maintain in southern Turkey continues to provide valuable reassurance to all Iraqis and to deter further repression by the regime. Iraq must now take advantage of the mechanism provided by the United Naitons to sell oil to finance humanitarian supplies. The Iraqi authorities now have in their own hands the opportunity to alleviate the suffering of their own people.
  Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if I gave a brief description of the situation in the north and in the south of the country. If the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) wishes to intervene I will accept an intervention from her. I am sorry that I could not enable her to speak.
  We are concerned, of course, by reports of a blockade by the Iraqi authorities on the Kurdish north and by limited clashes in the area. We have made our concerns known to the Iraqis on many occasions and as recently as 9 December. The Iraqi authorities and the Kurds now seem to have agreed a series of measures which will allow the situation in the north to return to normal. We expect those measures to be implemented.
  The United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights has reported that the winterisation programme in the north is now complete. We are also informed that he can cope with the recently reported increase in the number of displaces Kurds. We remain in close touch with him and have confirmed our willingness to provide further help if needed.
  We have made it clear many times to the Iraqi authorities that we expect them to co-operate with the United Nations and the international relief agencies. We have also warned that further oppression and violations of Security Council resolution 688 will have serious consequences.
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Minister claims that there is an agreement between the Kurds and the Iraqi authorities. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was in the area a short time ago, and my understanding of events is entirely different. There is an economic blockade; negotiations have taken place to try to lift it, but the blockade continues. There are people on hunger strike, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in Sulaymaniyah. They are protesting against the economic blockade, which is causing fuel and food shortages. The administrators of major cities are no longer being paid by the Iraqi authorities.
  The Minister said that the winterisation programme is complete. I understand that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued a press release three weeks ago that stated that tents were a rare sight in northern Iraq and the winterisation programme had gone on apace. The commissioner has revised that statement and now claims that up to 400,000 refugees will need additional cover and that the winterisation programme will be extended. He agrees with many observers that the plight of the Kurds, as the winter approaches, is extreme. The means are not available at present to provide protection against a severe winter, food shortages and medical supply shortages. I ask the Minister to reconsider these matters.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she has said. The winterisation programme is a moving target to some extent. We have been given the
  1218
  assurances that I reported to the House. The existing programme will meet the needs of about half a million people during the winter months. It will lead to the repairing and upgrading of hospitals and will provide shelter and water supplies. Thousands of kerosene stoves, blankets and tents are being distributed. The hon. Lady will know that the United Kingdom's contribution to the international relief effort since April amounts to about £44 million.
  Perhaps it will be of help to the House if I commented on the situation in the south. I shall then have to move on fairly rapidly to conclude my remarks.
  The United Nations has a humanitarian centre at Basra. It has been pressing the Iraqis to permit the establishment of a further humanitarian centre at Nasariya, which is close to the marshes. The Iraqis have refused so far. We strongly support an expansion of the United Nations presence in the south. We have raised our concern about the south directly with the Iraqis, with the United Nations and with Mr. Van der Stoel, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West referred, who is the United Nations rapporteur on human rights in Iraq. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has met representatives of the Shia community to hear from them about the situation at first hand.
  Since September, we have given £1 million to UNICEF for medicines, water and sanitation in the south, £78,000 to the Save the Children Fund for water and sanitation in the south, and almost £700,000 to organisations that are working to help refugees from southern Iraq and south-west Iran.
  I made some brief comments about the winterisation programme. I shall not proceed further in that direction.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister says that violations of resolution 688 will have serious consequences. That statement has been made repeatedly from the Government Dispatch Box over the past six months. Will the Minister tell us what the serious consequences will be?
  The Minister talked about the Iraqi Government resisting the arrangements to which he referred in the south. Is it not true that under resolution 688 the Iraqi Government are required to comply with United Nations requirements on aid and humanitarian assistance. Why do we not enforce that resolution?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I shall not spell out or make policies at the Dispatch Box in the early hours of the morning on precisely what measures may be being considered and might be implemented. He has heard the position and I cannot add to it.
  There is a great deal of concern in the country—I receive a lot of correspondence—about the effect of the sanctions regime on the civilian population. Our quarrel is with the regime, not with the long-suffering Iraqi people, but it must be recognised that Saddam Hussein's misguided policies have brought Iraq to its present position. He continues to inflict suffering on his people by his stubborn refusal to implement Security Council resolutions in full. We want all the Iraqi people to be able to receive food, medicine and humanitarian supplies, which is why we have contributed more than £44 million to the international relief effort since April this year.

  1219
  A mechanism exists to enable Iraq to import all the humanitarian supplies that it needs. It was set out in Security Council resolutions 706 and 712, which allow Iraq to export $1.6 billion worth—although the total is subject to review—of oil over six months, to finance the purchase of essential humanitarian supplies. Those resolutions are mandatory. We expect Iraq to co-operate in implementing them.
  Iraq is now discussing the arrangements with the United Nations, but the Iraqi regime's failure to implement the scheme promptly is preventing the Iraqi people from receiving humanitarian assistance. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein bears full responsibility for that—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) keeps interrupting from a sedentary position. If he will forgive me, I shall make my own speech in my own way.
  In spite of all the efforts of the international community, many Iraqis are still living in desperate fear of the regime. The achievement of Prince Sadruddin, the UN Secretary General's executive delegate, in securing an extension of the agreement covering UN operations in Iraq, including the UN guards, will have given some reassurance to the civilian population, but continued international pressure is necessary to prevent further excesses occurring and to ensure that all the people of Iraq can live without fear of intimidation, repression or attack. We shall maintain sanctions until Iraq has implemented UN Security Council resolutions in full. Only when the Iraqi people have the freedom to choose their leadership openly and democratrically will they be able to enjoy the human rights to which they are justly entitled.
  7.58 am
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: That is a most unsatisfactory reply to a serious and deteriorating problem in Iraq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on her moving speech. She has taken a particular interest in the plight of the Shias, and I have taken a particular interest in the plight of the Kurds and in human rights in Iraq over a very long time.
  1220
  I am deeply worried about the bad situation. Western television crews are now going to Iraq. They will again see Kurds dying on the mountainsides this winter, the Shias continuing to die in the marshes of southern Iraq, and people continuing to be rounded up by Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. People were tortured in Iraq prisons for many years before the Government recognised the violation of human rights that was going on in Iraq, about which some of us have been concerned for many years.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Clwyd: No, I am not giving way.
  The Government must deal with the plight of the Iraqis. They have promised so much to the Kurds. The safe haven was looked on as something which would continue to ensure that the Kurds would be safe. They have been let down, and feel that they have been let down. An old Kurdish man who had fled for the third time told me just the other week, "John Major promised us a hammer—where is the hammer?" That is what people are asking over and over again.
  People are on hunger strike in Sulaymaniyah: one person has died and others undoubtedly will die soon. They are trying to draw the attention of the world, the allies, the Prime Minister of this country and the President of the United States to the promises that they and others made. All the United Nations resolutions are in place; they are supposed to protect—
  It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  ENVIRONMENT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Barry Field be added to the Environment Committee. —[Mr. Don Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection].

  EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ARTS
  Ordered,
  That Mrs. Sylvia Heal be discharged from the Education, Science and Arts Committee and Mildred Gordon and Mr. Edward O'Hara be added to the Committee. —[Mr. Don Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection].

  EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ARTS

    PC Tony Salt
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
    8 am
    Mr. Chris Mullin: The matter that I wish to raise has been described by the chairman of the Bar Council, Tony Scrivener QC, as a landmark case and it will be of particular interest to members of the royal commission who are considering under what circumstances confession evidence should be admitted.
    The case demonstrates that, despite the safeguards provided by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, West Midlands police officers are still able to persuade people to confess to crimes that they did not commit and even to tape-record those false confessions. It demonstrates that all the bland assurances—we may hear more of them later—that everything has been fine since PACE are nonsense.
    The case also shows that, even when West Midlands police officers have been caught fabricating confessions and attempting to pervert the course of justice, they can rely on their superiors, up to the chief constable himself, to make sure that the truth is covered up. They can rely on the Crown prosecution service to connive in the disappearance of inconvenient evidence. They can rely on the silence of the police authority to whom the chief constable is supposed to account. Finally, they can rely on the Home Office to block any inquiries from inquisitive Members of Parliament.
    They can rely, too, on the silence of the local media. It is a feature of almost all the great scandals in the west midlands that new information rarely, if ever, emerges as a result of the efforts of the Birmingham-based media. In this case, once again the truth has emerged only due to the diligence of local solicitors and the Granada television programme, "World in Action." Once again, the local media come limping along behind and, once again, they can be relied upon to drop the subject within a few days as soon as the outsiders have departed.
    We shall be told in a moment to relax, as the matter is being examined by the West Yorkshire police. Why should we have the slightest confidence in the ability of the West Yorkshire police to get at the truth? They have just completed, at enormous cost to the taxpayer, a lengthy inquiry into the activities of the West Midlands serious crime squad. I have read their report. In many respects it is a thorough document and makes sensible recommendations, but it has one central flaw. Nowhere can the West Yorkshire officers bring themselves to state what everyone knows to be the truth: that West Midlands detectives have, over a long period, been fabricating confessions. Instead, the report talks coyly about entries in pocket books that are "less than satisfactory" and
    "working practices that give cause for concern".
    There have been the usual handful of retirements on grounds of ill health, but most of the officers involved are now back on duty. No one, as far as I am aware, has been properly held to account for anything and I will be amazed if anyone ever is. In the circumstances, I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I do not take too seriously any claim that the West Yorkshire police can be relied upon to get to the truth.
    I shall now set out the facts surrounding the death of PC Tony Salt. On the evening of Saturday 16 April 1989,
    1222
    PC Salt and his colleague PC Mark Berry were assigned to keep watch on an illegal night club in the Small Heath district of Birmingham. They were to keep watch from a private flat in Whitehall road. They were in plain clothes and their job was to remain in hiding, logging people and cars as they arrived at the club.
    Unfortunately, however, by 9 pm Messrs Salt and Berry had abandoned their observation post and commenced a drinking spree at a local pub, the Grapes in Green lane. At 11 pm, somewhat the worse for wear, they returned to duty, but at about 1 am they returned to the pub for a bout of after-hours drinking. PC Berry later admitted that by the time they left the pub for the second time they had each consumed seven or eight pints of beer, one short and half a can of super-strength lager. Witnesses say that they had difficulty in standing and one gives an account of a fierce argument between them when Berry suggested that they return to their post and Salt wanted to remain for another drink. Apparently, someone had to come between them to prevent a fight.
    They left the pub again at about 2 am and Berry returned to the observation post. Salt, however, wandered down the alleyway that they were supposed to be observing, in the direction of the illegal party. About 20 minutes later, Berry saw Salt collapse at the mouth of the alley. He was dead on arrival at hospital.
    The next day, Assistant Chief Constable Tom Meffen, held a press conference at which he gave a version of PC Salt's death which was loyally reported by the local media for many months. I am acquainted with Mr. Meffen, as he was the officer who in September 1986 was summoned to the Home Office—dragged by the scruff of the neck, as he put it—to interview me about my claim that the people convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings were innocent. In this case, as in that of the pub bombings, Mr. Meffen has a few questions to answer.
    At the press conference, Mr. Meffen asserted that PC Salt had broken cover to check a suspect car and was set upon by a person or persons with martial arts skills, dragged into the alley and beaten to death. That was nonsense. In fact, there never was a suspect car and Salt never broke cover—he was on his way back from trying to get into the party. I understand that the West Midlands police now say that Mr. Meffen has no clear idea of where he got the information but that he thinks it was from a private conversation with PC Berry. That is odd, because, although Mr. Berry has given many different accounts of what happened that night, none corresponds with Mr. Meffen's.
    Four statements given by PC Berry have so far been disclosed, the last apparently obtained after he had been interviewed under hypnosis. In addition, there is at least one other known interview, the notes of which have not been disclosed; nor has the record of the interview under hypnosis which was videoed and which would be of great interest as the statement based on that interview is still some distance from the whole truth.
    According to a statement by a colleague who was called to the scene, PC Berry at first said that he thought that PC Salt had had a fit. He made no mention of an attack. In his first formal statement, Berry said that he saw a West Indian leave the alleyway three or four minutes before Salt staggered out. There was no one else in sight and he went to Salt's aid immediately.
    Mr. Berry's statement says that Salt was followed out of the alley by a West Indian who

    1223
    "appeared to be involved in PC Salt's collapse"
    and stole from his body. Berry maintains in this version that he went immediately to Salt's aid.
    Mr. Berry's third statement—it is not every day that there are four statements from the same police officer, all differing so substantially—contains two West Indians, one with dreadlocks, who appeared to push Salt from the alleyway. This time Berry says that he was too scared to get involved straight away.
    By the fourth and final statement, Mr. Berry claims for the first time to have seen Salt stumbling into the alley in the direction of the illegal nightclub two or three minutes before stumbling out again and collapsing. He now remembers a detailed description of the West Indian said to have robbed Mr. Salt. It therefore became urgent—especially in the light of Mr. Meffen's statement—to find someone to take responsibility for Mr. Salt's death. In due course, three West Indians were arrested and what happened to them will be of interest to anyone who believes that tape or video recording is the answer to the problem of statements in police custody.
    The three were at first told that they were being asked to assist with inquiries by identifying from photographs people who had attended the party. That was false. It is clear from questions put earlier to PC Berry that they were already suspects. The arrested men were Peter Gibbs, Mark Samuels and Tony Francis. None fitted the description given by PC Berry in his second statement of an assailant with dreadlocks. Indeed, no more was ever heard about the man with dreadlocks.
    Gibbs was taken to Queen's road police station where several of the Birmingham Six were persuaded to sign confessions that later proved false. No custody record exists of Gibbs' visit. There he was interviewed by DC 9669 Gerald Harris and DC 7782 Gerald Doyle. This is Gibbs' version of what happened:
    "They were saying you can either do it peacefully or we can do it rough. I've been beaten up before in police stations and its not very nice. I wasn't prepared to go through all that again."
    Eventually, he agreed to admit to stealing PC Salt's wallet and a martial arts weapon called a cubiton that Salt was thought to be carrying.
    Mr. Gibbs then describes how, once he had agreed to admit the thefts, he was carefully rehearsed in what he was to say once the recorder was switched on:
    "They started going over the story with me, over and over again, so I could get it correct, so that it could fit in with everything else. They planned everything out before I went into the interview room."
    He was then taken to Belgrave road where his statement was taped. The custody record commences only with his arrival at Belgrave road.
    Mark Samuels and Tony Francis were taken to Sparkhill police station. Again, there is no custody record of the dress rehearsal. Samuels was interviewed by DS 7263 Alan Shakespeare and DS 7253 Richard Davies. This is Mr. Samuels' account of the interview:
    "I was there in Sparkhill for nine and half hours, with nothing on half the time and they try telling me 'you're going to get done for murder if you don't own up to this theft'. I just took the easy way out."
    Samuels was then taken to Belgrave road where the custody record commences, and in due course he confessed on tape to stealing PC Salt's wallet and cubiton.
    Tony Francis was the doorman at the party which Salt and Berry were supposed to be observing. He was also taken to Sparkhill police station and questioned for most
    1224
    of the day, although there is no record of his presence there. He was interviewed by DS 2487 Richard Leary and DC 2344 Michael Howkins, both members of the now disbanded serious crimes squad. He describes what happened:
    "I was intimidated, slapped around. Threats were made against my family."
    Mr. Francis says that he agreed to make a statement because he was told that, if he did not, drugs would be found in his house which would have led to a gaol sentence for his girlfriend and the loss of his children. On tape he agreed that Tony Salt had tried to gain entrance to the party and that he had prevented him. All three were then charged with murder. Gibbs and Samuels, who had only been persuaded to confess to stealing, say that the police officers laughed as they revealed that they were being charged with murder and not theft.
    Meanwhile, there was another witness to be squared. Seventeen-year-old Simone Armstrong had originally told police that Samuels and Gibbs had left the party well before PC Salt's death. She was persuaded to make a second statement saying that she had seen Francis hit Salt and had also seen Gibbs and Samuels rob him. She describes how this was achieved:
    "There were more than five men and one woman in the room with me. They were all shouting and I was crying. They were saying, 'You did see it' and putting things into my head … I just couldn't take no more so I said to them, 'Just write down what you want to write down, okay?'"
    The officer to whom Simone Armstrong's second statement was dictated was DS Michael Swinnerton. Students of the West Midlands serious crimes squad will recall that he was also the officer who achieved the remarkable feat of noting down, by torchlight, a lengthy confession from Hassan Khan in a police car travelling at high speed. His evidence was disbelieved by the Court of Appeal and Mr. Khan's conviction was quashed.
    No sooner had the men been charged than things began to go wrong. A taxi driver was found who said that he had taken Gibbs and Samuels from the party some time before PC Salt died. Two pathologists said that, even if Francis had hit Salt at the entrance to the party, the blow could not have killed him. Nor did they believe that his injury—a blow to the neck which ruptured a blood vessel and caused a brain haemorrhage—had been inflicted at the entrance to the party, since he could not have staggered 120 ft back to the street. The pathologists believed that the most likely explanation for his death was that, in his drunken state, Mr. Salt had fallen and hit his head on the bucket of a JCB digger parked nearby. Most damaging of all, PC Salt's widow made a statement saying that she had found the missing cubiton—the one the two defendants had confessed for stealing—on the floor of the family car. That was very embarrassing. The defendants had also confessed to stealing £30 from PC Salt's wallet, but in her statement Mrs. Salt says that her husband had only £5 on him that evening.
    The fate of Mrs. Salt's statement is of particular interest. It was not among the documents later disclosed to the defence by the Crown prosecution service. Its absence was noticed only because there were gaps in the numbered pages of the evidence that was disclosed.
    There is a long history of inconvenient evidence being suppressed by the police and by the Crown. This is a classic case. I have written to the Attorney-General asking for an

    1225
    explanation. I understand that the official responsible for the case at the west midlands office of the CPS was a Mr. R. J. Millard.
    Despite the evident collapse of the case, it took a year for the charges to be dropped. Many prominent people played a part in covering up the truth. The coroner closed the inquest without hearing the full evidence.
    Remarkably, PC Berry was allowed to retire on health grounds, his pension intact. There have been a lot of retirements on health grounds in the West Midlands police lately. I assume that the decision not to press any criminal or disciplinary charges against Mr. Berry was taken at a high level.
    A memorial service was held in September 1989, six months after PC Salt's death. By that time many people in high places knew or had a good idea of the truth, but no one let on. The chief constable, Mr. Geoffrey Dear, attended the memorial service and spoke warmly of the deceased.
    This case is yet another scandal for which Mr. Dear, as the then chief constable, must take ultimate responsibility. Incredible though it may seem, he has since been promoted to Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary and is now responsible for enforcing standards throughout the region.
    So far as I am aware—perhaps the Minister will tell us otherwise—none of the police officers responsible for extracting the fraudulent confessions or losing Mrs. Salt's statement has suffered the merest inconvenience. Most of the officers involved continue to maintain the rule of law in the west midlands in the manner to which we have become accustomed.
    The Home Office, too, I am afraid to say, has behaved true to form. I asked the Minister last month whether he would call for a report on the case from the chief constable of the west midlands. He answered no. I cannot say that I am surprised. We had a similar experience with the Birmingham pub bombing case some years ago.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) wrote to the new chief constable, Mr. Hadfield, and received a reply confirming that an inquiry was under way, prompted, presumably, by the television programme rather than a burning desire to get at the truth. He also said that Mr. Berry had been diagnosed as suffering from high anxiety—I bet he was—and had been allowed to retire.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) wrote to the chairman of the West Midlands policy authority and received an identical reply, about a page long in both cases. It would appear that the chairman of the police authority allows the chief constable to draft his letters for him. So much for accountability. One of the most remarkable features in the long series of scandals that have engulfed what is surely the most corrupt police force in the country has been the lack of any initiative from the police authority.
    Finally, the Police Federation has added PC Salt to its roll of honour of officers killed on active duty. He remains there to this day.
    As I say, this is only the latest in a long series of scandals. It demonstrates that no lessons have been learnt from what has gone before. How can we hope to restore
    1226
    public confidence in our police and judicial system if those responsible for maintaining its integrity appear not to care?
    8.18 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): As usual, I have listened to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) with interest. The hon. Gentleman courteously informed me yesterday that he wished to take most of the time in this debate to set out his characteristically full case on the sad death of PC Salt and the related circumstances and aftermath. As he and the House will know, it would be wrong for me to comment on those matters in any detail. However, I shall say something briefly on the more general points that he raises about the inquiries taking place.
    The hon. Gentleman opened his speech with a swingeing and quite unjustified criticism of the bona fides of several police forces, the Crown prosecution service and the Home Office. I will not repeat here the numerous explanations that have been given to the House emphasising the thoroughness and independence of the investigation that has just been completed into the activities of the West Midlands serious crime squad, because, clearly, the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to acknowledge its truth.
    I cannot comment on the behaviour of members of the former West Midlands serious crime squad while all those cases—I emphasise the word "all"—are under consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Even so, I place on record that care has been exercised at all stages to ensure that nothing that might have gone amiss would be covered up or glossed over.
    The chief constable of the West Midlands force promptly transferred a large number of his officers to non-operational duties, despite his awareness that that would cause many of them great distress and hardship. At the same time, he called in a distinguished officer from another force to lead a thorough investigation and arranged for that investigation to be supervised by the Police Complaints Authority.
    That having been done, all the reports have now been passed for a second stage of independent assessment to the Crown prosecution service, whose business it is to bring any criminal charges that may be in the public interest and for which there is evidence. There is absolutely no cover-up here.
    Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Lloyd: No.
    The hon. Gentleman used most of his speech to recount a number of alleged instances of unacceptably low standards of police behaviour. The hon. Gentleman indicated that PC Salt was drunk at the time that he died, and said that various other police officers made false statements or harassed, or worse, Messrs. Samuels, Francis and Gibbs, and other witnesses. Such behaviour, if true, must be dealt with appropriately—but, again, that is not something on which the hon. Gentleman can expect me to comment.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is the final appellate authority for the police disciplinary process. If any of the officers were to be disciplined, in time it might fall to my right hon. Friend to

    1227
    decide any appeal that they might make about any finding of guilt that might be made. My right hon. Friend could not properly do so were he to form an opinion before seeing the case papers, and therefore we exercise some care to avoid involvement in such matters at any earlier date. It would be improper for us to do so.
    The chief constable is the disciplinary authority for his force. I can confirm that the chief constable of the West Midlands force wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions on Tuesday 5 November—the day after the "World in Action" programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred—asking that the assistant chief constable of West Yorkshire, Mr. Donald Shaw, be asked to re-examine the issues raised and to report further on any matters not specifically or precisely covered in his earlier
    1228
    report. I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions agreed, and that Mr. Shaw is currently undertaking the re-examination.
    I need hardly say that police officers are not above the law, and if any are detected of any criminal offence the Director of Public Prosecutions has no hesitation in bringing charges.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, South on securing this debate and on packing so much into it. I am sure that his remarks will be carefully read by those whom he wants to read them.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eight o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Courts (Sunday Working)
  Courts (Sunday Working)
  Radioactive Substances
  Radioactive Substances
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Maxwell Companies (Pension Funds)
  Maxwell Companies (Pension Funds)
  Volunteer Drivers
  Volunteer Drivers
  Voluntary Tax Contributions
  Voluntary Tax Contributions
  Council Tax
  Council Tax
  Early Retirement
  Early Retirement
  Car Tax
  Car Tax
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
PRIME MINISTER
  East Timor
  East Timor
  Arms Control
  Arms Control
  Prime Minister's Office (Report)
  Prime Minister's Office (Report)
  Iraq (Petrochemical Programme)
  Iraq (Petrochemical Programme)
  Engagements
  Engagements
HEALTH
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Executive Agencies
  Executive Agencies
  Schizophrenia
  Schizophrenia
  Hospitals (Parking)
  Hospitals (Parking)
  Dead Foetuses (Disposal)
  Dead Foetuses (Disposal)
  National Disability Information Project
  National Disability Information Project
  Medical Radiation
  Medical Radiation
  Resource Allocation Working Party
  Resource Allocation Working Party
  Medicines Control Agency
  Medicines Control Agency
ENVIRONMENT
  Right to Buy
  Right to Buy
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Dangerous Compounds
  Dangerous Compounds
  Cryptosporidium
  Cryptosporidium
  Reading Borough Council
  Reading Borough Council
  HIP Allocations (Durham)
  HIP Allocations (Durham)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Climate Change
  Climate Change
  CITES
  CITES
  Local Government Expenditure (Northamptonshire)
  Local Government Expenditure (Northamptonshire)
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Business Rates
  Business Rates
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Sports Clubs (Rate Relief)
  Sports Clubs (Rate Relief)
  Green Alliance
  Green Alliance
  Radioactive Substances
  Radioactive Substances
  Council Tax
  Council Tax
  Government Land
  Government Land
  Development Rights
  Development Rights
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Africa
  Africa
  Southern Lebanon
  Southern Lebanon
  Arms Control
  Arms Control
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Cuba
  Cuba
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Arms Transfers
  Arms Transfers
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Business Transactions (Liechtenstein and Switzerland)
  Business Transactions (Liechtenstein and Switzerland)
  Whitbread (Isle of Wight)
  Whitbread (Isle of Wight)
  IMRO
  IMRO
  Iraq
  Iraq
  GAIT
  GAIT
  Extortionate Credit Bargains
  Extortionate Credit Bargains
SCOTLAND
  Lead Plumbing
  Lead Plumbing
  Crafts Industry
  Crafts Industry
  Radiation, Holy Loch
  Radiation, Holy Loch
  Voluntary Sector
  Voluntary Sector
  Shipping Subsidies
  Shipping Subsidies
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Wandsworth Prison
  Wandsworth Prison
  Confiscation Orders
  Confiscation Orders
  Bail Hostels
  Bail Hostels
  Custody Costs
  Custody Costs
  Bail (Private Placements)
  Bail (Private Placements)
  Civilianisation
  Civilianisation
  Knives
  Knives
  Police Manpower
  Police Manpower
  Foreign Lottery Tickets
  Foreign Lottery Tickets
  Gambling
  Gambling
  Au Pairs
  Au Pairs
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal
  Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal
  Index of Prostitutes
  Index of Prostitutes
  Belmarsh Prison
  Belmarsh Prison
  National Lottery
  National Lottery
  Immigration (Domestic Workers)
  Immigration (Domestic Workers)
  Drugs Prevention Initiative
  Drugs Prevention Initiative
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Special Educational Needs
  Special Educational Needs
  Schools Reorganisation, Plymouth
  Schools Reorganisation, Plymouth
  Sport Review
  Sport Review
  St. Anne's Primary School, Birkenhead
  St. Anne's Primary School, Birkenhead
TRANSPORT
  Marchioness Disaster
  Marchioness Disaster
  M25
  M25
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  EC Development Council
  EC Development Council
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Kingfisher Chips
  Kingfisher Chips
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Student Loans
  Student Loans
  Political Initiatives
  Political Initiatives
  Employment
  Employment
  Intergovernmental Talks
  Intergovernmental Talks
  Security
  Security
  Electricity Industry
  Electricity Industry
  Royal Family (Portraits)
  Royal Family (Portraits)
  Spearhead Battalion
  Spearhead Battalion
  Northern Ireland International Airport
  Northern Ireland International Airport
  Public Spending
  Public Spending
  Road Deaths
  Road Deaths
  Border Poll
  Border Poll
  Governance
  Governance
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Dyslexia
  Dyslexia
  Suckler Calves
  Suckler Calves
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Pupil Selection
  Pupil Selection
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
  Disabled Drivers (Parking)
  Disabled Drivers (Parking)
  Crawfordsburn
  Crawfordsburn
  Rathgael Training School
  Rathgael Training School
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Benefit Fraud
  Benefit Fraud
  Hearing Therapists
  Hearing Therapists
  Freshwater Fish
  Freshwater Fish
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Benefit Offices
  Benefit Offices
  Household Incomes
  Household Incomes
  Terrorists (Compensation Claims)
  Terrorists (Compensation Claims)
  EC Pension Levels
  EC Pension Levels
  Low-income Families
  Low-income Families
  Earnings Disregard
  Earnings Disregard
  Women Claimants
  Women Claimants
  Child Support Agency
  Child Support Agency
  Pension Funds
  Pension Funds
EMPLOYMENT
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Wages Council Legislation
  Wages Council Legislation
  Offshore Installations
  Offshore Installations
  Industrial Safety Reports
  Industrial Safety Reports
WALES
  Appointments
  Appointments
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Schools Inspectorate
  Schools Inspectorate
  Sports Clubs (Rate Relief)
  Sports Clubs (Rate Relief)
  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  South Glamorgan TEC
  South Glamorgan TEC
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
  Housing for Wales
  Housing for Wales
ENERGY
  Electricity (Theft)
  Electricity (Theft)
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Facilities (Decommissioning)
  Nuclear Facilities (Decommissioning)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
DEFENCE
  Truck Cargo Vehicles
  Truck Cargo Vehicles
  Military Nuclear Programme
  Military Nuclear Programme
  Nuclear Weapons Safety
  Nuclear Weapons Safety
  M25 (Incident)
  M25 (Incident)
  Atomic Co-ordinating Office, Washington
  Atomic Co-ordinating Office, Washington
  Nuclear Submarines
  Nuclear Submarines
  Aldermaston
  Aldermaston
  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Army Units (Operating Costs)
  Army Units (Operating Costs)
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Armoured Vehicles
  Armoured Vehicles
  Defence Budget
  Defence Budget
  Housing
  Housing
  Equipment Deployment
  Equipment Deployment
  Quality Assurance Unit
  Quality Assurance Unit
  "Options for Change"
  "Options for Change"
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Regional Administration
  Regional Administration
  Set-aside
  Set-aside
  Ozone Depletion
  Ozone Depletion
  Environmental Protection
  Environmental Protection
  Badgers Act 1991
  Badgers Act 1991
  Seafood
  Seafood
  Pollution Research
  Pollution Research
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Juveniles: Prison Remands
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to legislate to end the imprisonment of juveniles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the Criminal Justice Act 1991 abolishes detention in a young offender institution for 14 year-old boys and provides for the ending of prison remands for juveniles under 17. The Act also tightens the restrictions on the use of custodial sentences for young offenders.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, I asked whether the Government intended to abolish legislation whereby juveniles up to the age of 17 and young people between 17 and 21, when on remand, can be kept in prisons. Some of them commit suicide and some are appallingly handled. Governors and indeed the Inspector General of Prisons condemned the system and described it as abhorrent. Voluntary organisations agree and feel frustrated that nothing is being done.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is a sad fact that some juveniles commit serious or dangerous offences for which custody must remain an option. The Government believe that custodial sentences should be used as a last resort. Most juvenile offenders can be dealt with under constructive and demanding sentences that lie in the community.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Bottomley Report of 1988, sponsored by the Children's Society, showed a high proportion of reoffenders among the juveniles in prison? Has the noble Earl any recent figures for re-offending since the change in the law? Furthermore, has he any figures of the number of juveniles who, in the past 12 months, committed suicide while in custody?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in answer to the first question of the right reverend Prelate, around 80 per cent. of juveniles are reconvicted of a further offence within two years of release from a custodial sentence. Reconviction rates following community sentences tend to be better. That is one of the reasons the emphasis is on using community sentences for juveniles wherever possible. I can say also that until the end of November this year there were four suicides by prisoners under 21. That is comparable to 10 last year.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the considerable success rates recorded by various juvenile justice systems in many parts of the country? Young people are successfully diverted from criminal activities in which they had become involved and engage in legitimate activities which attract their attention and challenge their initiative.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, anything that can be done to alleviate juvenile crime is worthy. It is a matter of education by schools and also by parents.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the methods referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, led to a dramatic reduction in the use of custody for young offenders? Those methods should now be increasingly applied to young adults in order to achieve the same result.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Question refers to juvenile crimes, but I shall carefully note my noble friend's comments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the recent tragic case in which a nurse was killed in a crash caused by an under-age driver who had absconded from a social service home in the community which was unable to hold him? Is he aware that there is a shortage of secure places in the community for some young people who are dangerous?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not aware of the specific instance to which the noble Baroness refers. However, we estimate that at least 30 to 35 new secure places will be required by 1995.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there has been any change in the law since the youngest member of the Maguire family, aged 13 on arrest, spent three years in prison? Everyone knows that that was a scandalous miscarriage of justice. Has the law been changed since then?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not aware of the specific instance to which the noble Earl refers. The only juveniles who may be remanded in prison are 15 and 16 year-old boys. Prison remands are not available for girls under 16 or boys under 15. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 prison remands will remain available for 15 and 16 year-old boys until sufficient local authority secure accommodation is available. They will then be abolished.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is the conditions in which these boys are kept that is the scandal? Is he aware also that it was 10 years ago that the all-party Penal Affairs Group recommended to the Government that the scandal should be brought to an end forthwith? Is it not an indictment of the inhumanity and snail-pace procedures of the Government that the scandal still obtains? Will he now have the courage to fix a date on which the practice is brought to an end once and for all?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not accept that the conditions are as scandalous and irresponsible as

867
the noble Lord makes out. Once again, I say that there must be adequate protection for the public. We can only end prison remand for juveniles when adequate alternative arrangements are available. The Criminal Justice Act, most of which comes into operation in October of next year, gives courts the power to remand 15 and 16 year-olds to local authority secure accommodation instead of to prisons. The noble Lord asks whether we cannot speed up the procedure. I remind him that the timescale is realistic bearing in mind the need to plan, design and tender for building what is a specialist resource. At the same time, careful planning is essential to ensure that local needs are met and that the right number of places are provided where they are needed.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the problem relates not only to young boys but also to young girls? They are being kept in prison with adult offenders. One junior Minister recently said:
"In England and Wales experience has shown that the mixing of adult and juvenile girls in custody can be mutually beneficial".
Will the Minister reject that statement and do something so that at least girls are treated equally with boys?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that question is in a somewhat different context to the one which lies on the Order Paper.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is almost 10 months to the day since the Home Secretary made the encouraging speech acknowledging that many juveniles being placed in prisons were almost apprenticed to crime and criminology? He felt that that should stop, and any sane person would agree. Can the Minister say whether there is a chance of the whole matter being investigated and procedures speeded up? If those who enter penal establishments—perhaps due to having committed a civil crime, not necessarily a bad crime—are there for a number of years, they meet with hardened criminals and become as hardened as those they meet. Most of the voluntary organisations believe that should be stopped.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of course we are aware of the urgency of the situation. We are trying to do everything to remedy it as quickly as possible.

Defence Policy
3.10 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont: asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans for a further review of defence policy.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government have undertaken a detailed analysis of the implications for British defence policy as a result of recent changes in the international security environment, in full consultation with our NATO allies. The reduced threat allows us to meet the United Kingdom's defence commitments with lower levels of forces. We keep our plans under continual review.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. The discussions at Maastricht seem to indicate that European and Western defence issues are not yet fully resolved either as to their logistics or strategy. Does the Minister agree that, when those matters are resolved and we know what role NATO and the Western European Union will play in these affairs, it would be a good idea to review our own defence policy to see whether it fits into that scenario and therefore give our defence policy the strategic coherence which it seems to lack at the moment?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, as I said in my Answer to the original Question, that we keep our plans under continual review. The agreement at Maastricht is a good outcome for the alliance and for us. The Maastricht agreement will provide the right framework for European security in the 1990s. Indeed that framework reflects the approach that we set out with our Italian colleagues in our joint paper in October. We made it clear throughout the negotiations that any new arrangements had to be compatible with NATO.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is one to understand from the reply of the noble Earl that in the Government's view the defence agreement at Maastricht need lead to no change in the size, structure or deployment of British forces?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, what happened at Maastricht is being considered very carefully at the moment. As I have already said, the agreement at Maastricht is regarded as a good outcome for this country and the alliance, with NATO still in supremacy.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is a widespread feeling that what was appropriate when there were two superpowers can hardly be appropriate now that there is only one? Does the noble Earl agree that the Government's current practice of reviewing defence policy is taking place in insufficient depth or over a large enough area in view of the profound changes which have taken place in the international situation?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is because of the very profound changes that have taken place in the past few years that we have taken an extremely profound and intense look at our defence requirements across the world, in Northern Ireland and in this country.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is not a question of the past few years, weeks or days. Is the noble Earl aware that the Soviet Union has apparently broken up and that we now have several separate republics, all with their own separate armed forces? Is it the case that NATO defence Ministers are meeting in Brussels today to determine the validity of the Soviet Union's acceptance of the CFE and START treaties? If that acceptance is invalid, can the Minister say what the Government will do?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is correct that the Ministers are meeting today. The break-up of the Soviet Union creates an extremely serious position. As I have made clear in your Lordships' House before, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised this matter on his visit to Moscow immediately after the failed coup. We have repeatedly emphasised to Soviet authorities that they must ensure nuclear security by making whatever arrangements are necessary with the republics where the weapons are based. The Minsk declaration of 8th December gave an assurance of maintained unified control. We have no evidence of any lapse of that control. There is no evidence that any of the republics would be able to make use of any nuclear weapon in defiance of the central authorities.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Earl, but will he answer my question about the CFE treaty? We are dealing not only with nuclear forces but also with conventional forces of the republics.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, everything, including the CFE treaty, is constantly under review.
Lord Cheshire: My Lords, in all these reviews, are the Government taking into account the new threat that I mentioned in my first two speeches? I refer not to the military threat but to the fact that the breakdown of the Soviet Union is making available to third party nations the possibility of nuclear devices and military expertise. Is the noble Earl aware that, although they need not be used for a military attack, they could be brought in by some other means? For instance, they may be used by a suicide group on a civilian airliner. It seems that an entirely new type of threat faces us. Can the noble Earl tell the House whether that is being taken into account?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it would be an irresponsible government that did not take every such consideration into very careful account indeed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl assure the House that he will keep under continuous review the number of times that the Government are forced to use the anodyne term "continuous review"?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should have thought that it was a rather sensible phrase to use at all times.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, at the risk of unduly prolonging this exchange, can the noble Earl say whether he really means that the Government are convinced of the ability at the centre of the Soviet Union to control all nuclear weapons or is he merely talking about strategic systems? Does the noble Earl agree that it surely must be clear that sub-strategic and tactical nuclear systems can very easily be handled, transferred and indeed fired by almost any military commander?
The Earl of Arran: My Lord, I take very serious note of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said on the matter. We have left the relevant republics in no
870
doubt that if they wish to secede they must accede to the non-proliferation treaty as non-nuclear weapon states as soon as possible.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that in our defence policy it is our intelligence services which need reinforcement rather than conventional or nuclear weapons?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the intelligence service is an extremely important part of the whole makeup of successful security.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while the fabric of the alliance is of supreme importance, the restructuring of the WEU entails a restructuring of the Atlantic alliance in order to allow the WEU to operate efficiently and not, for example, a doubling up of the staff, in NATO and the WEU?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is important that the WEU should deal with defence issues and that it should be independent. The separate WEU declaration agreed at Maastricht underlines that very independence.

Kurds: Western Assistance
3.18 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will urge the Security Council of the United Nations to ensure that the Kurdish people of Iraq are enabled peacefully to rebuild and reoccupy their homes in that country without being further molested or prevented by the Iraqi Government or armed forces.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, Security Council Resolution 688, adopted on 5th April, demanded an immediate end to Iraq's repression of its civilian population and called for respect of the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens. We shall continue to do all that we can to ensure that Iraq complies with it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting reply. Is he aware that that Security Council resolution is not being observed by the Iraqi Government? Does my noble friend recollect that a week ago we were told by my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness that the Security Council would be meeting this month to consider the matter? Can the Minister say when that will be? Can the Security Council be told that although the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been sending building materials for the rehousing of 350,000 people in northern Iraq, those materials are not being used because the Iraqi Government are preventing the houses from being built?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the last point, the information we have is that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees winterisation programme, which meets the needs of some 500,000

871
people during the winter months, including shelter, repair and upgrading of hospitals and water supplies, is on schedule and being met.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the UNHCR has reported over the past few days that 200,000 Kurds have had to flee from their homes because of Iraqi shelling? Furthermore, can he confirm whether the air cover currently provided from Turkey by the United Kingdom and the United States is to continue or is it to finish on the 28th December? Is he aware that to terminate that cover at this time would be quite wrong? Can he give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are giving very careful thought to that in consultation with the United States Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question yes, we are aware of the additional problem of the 200,000 Kurds. In answer to the second question, I am sure the whole House would like to express its gratitude to the Turkish Government for hosting the coalition forces. Without the coalition forces, the Kurds could not live in the security that they do at present. The agreement comes to an end at the end of this month, and we are working with the Americans as to the future.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, what it all adds up to, and cutting out all the jargon, is that it is a fact that all the time Saddam Hussein is there, nothing will change. The Kurds will still be in trouble, and the people living in Kuwait will be in trouble. How long is this wretched man going to stay in office?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Kurds are in considerably less trouble as a result of the action taken by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the safe haven operation. Without that, there would have been a very much worse situation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are in favour of continuing the air cover after 28th December?
The Earl of Caithness: Of course I can, my Lords.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can the Minister confirm the press report that Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan resigned his office as the representative of the High Commissioner for refugees in Iraq on account of the political interference with his humanitarian activities? If that report is correct, has the Prince be replaced? Who now is responsible for the United Nations humanitarian activities in Iraq?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am able to confirm that Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan announced his resignation on 3rd December, but I cannot confirm what my noble friend has said about the reasons for that. The question of what happens to the office of the executive delegate is now a matter for the United Nations Secretary-General. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan. He has done a very good job.
Lord Tordoff: My Lord, I thoroughly endorse what the noble Earl has just said. I should like to return to a reply he gave earlier this afternoon about the people who are not yet housed. He said that the relief programme is on course. But how many people are exposed to the elements in the Kurdish mountains at the moment? When will they be given warmth, shelter and fresh water?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the UNHCR is doing all it can in order to meet the difficult situation. As I said, the programme in hand is on course to cover 500,000 people.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend please answer the question I put to him? When the Security Council meets this month—as we have been told it will—in order to consider this matter, will Her Majesty's Government make representations to it conveying the thoughts that have been expressed by your Lordships this afternoon?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we always take into account what your Lordships say. Points were most forcefully put forward in the meeting of the UN which was in the recent past. The meeting decided that the sanctions should not be lifted.

Youth Training: Placements
3.26 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their reasons for believing that a youth training place is guaranteed to every 16 and 17 year-old who registers for one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government are fully committed to the YT guarantee. It is top priority for the Training and Enterprise Councils. It is the job of the TECs, supported by local careers service, to find the placements needed among the business community. TECs will have the resources they need, and all the help which Government can provide in other ways will be at their disposal.
Earl Russell: My Lords, with respect, my Question was what are the Government's reasons for believing that their guarantee is effective? The Minister has not given me any reasons. May I take it that he does not have any?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. That would be an entirely wrong assumption. If anyone thinks that a programme which is delivering more than 270,000 training places in England and Wales at the moment is not the delivery of a guarantee, I should like to know what is.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to recent figures, the number of young people claiming and receiving bridging allowances has gone up considerably in the past year? For example, in the South-East the increase has been of the order of 129 per cent., and in the Midlands 50 per cent. over the same period for the

873
previous year. That is an indication that these young people are not getting places because that is what the bridging allowance is for. The allowance is only payable for eight weeks. What happens to those young people after eight weeks?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course we accept that it is clear that there are certain times—and this is one of them—when it may be difficult to accommodate everybody who wants a YT place. However, in recent months we have been in close touch with each TEC about the position in its area, and we have always said that no TEC would be prevented by lack of resources from meeting the guarantee. The noble Baroness draws attention to the bridging allowance. She says, quite rightly, it is only for a limited space of time. Any individual who experiences undue difficulty in securing a YT place, should immediately contact their local TEC. That is required by contract to investigate the circumstances as a matter of top priority.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the places are there? The trouble is that a number of young people drop out because the training offered is not the training they want. A boy who wants to be a bricklayer came to see me the other day. He had been told that he could only be a plasterer. I think the reason why a number of young people drop out is because there is no course that they particularly want.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there is a certain amount of mis-match. That is inevitable in such a huge programme. Whereas all efforts are made to provide the programmes that young people want, it is inevitable that on occasions there will not be the opportunities for them to take on the courses that they want. That accentuates the fact that there may be a waiting list for those who decide to wait for a place to become bricklayer if they are only offered a place as a plasterer at the moment.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in my own county there are plenty of opportunities and places for 16 and 17 year-olds who want placement? Can the Minister say what pressure is being brought to bear on the 5 per cent. of youngsters who are reluctant to apply for a place?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is a voluntary programme. We very much encourage young people to take on YT training because that will give them a qualification which they may well need before entering into a job. Entry into jobs through YT is one of its great successes.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister accept this? It would balance the books a little if we were also to inquire about all those young people who would dearly like to take up TEC place and who find themselves under such pressure because of the huge unemployment in areas such as my own in West Wales that they have to leave their home district and cannot take advantage of programmes anywhere?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord would appear to indicate that there are no options available to young people.
Lord Parry: Exactly, my Lords.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the option he does not include is they could remain at school and learn further from school before they try to enter the world of work.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I will not enter into debate with the noble Viscount except to say that if a young person's family does not support him, then the pressures on him are absolute and he has no option but to leave school and go elsewhere to try and find support.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the family is supported by child benefit and therefore there is no requirement for him to leave home.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that TECs are increasingly reporting difficulty in finding placements for young people because employers are not taking them on? Several large companies have withdrawn from the TEC schemes. Can the Minister say what is going to happen to young people who cannot, however willing, find a placement and find themselves with no money?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government stand behind their guarantee that they will make certain that all young people who register and wish to take up a place will be offered a place. Certainly we understand that there are problems in finding a number of places in each TEC area or in a number of TEC areas. My noble friend has indicated that there is no problem in Cleveland. We look at each TEC area very carefully with the department to make certain that all the options are canvassed in order to secure the places for these young people.

Business
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Further and Higher Education Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Report and Third Reading of the Offshore Safety Bill will be taken. It is a matter of regret that today, again, the digital clocks are not working, but I can assure your Lordships that as I speak heroic efforts are taking place to attempt to get them operational as soon as possible.

City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.
Strathclyde Regional Council Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 20 [Constitution of corporation and conduct of the institution]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 16, line 25, after ("Act") insert ("subject to the inclusion of student representatives on the corporation").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with student representation on the new corporations for further education colleges. Primarily what we are talking about here is having some form of representation for those who are consumers of education courses. It is ridiculous that those who are actually experiencing the courses should be denied representation among those who are organising the courses and the types of education available to them.
The Government have in the past stated that they are not opposed to any form of student representation. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science said in another place on 17th November 1987:
"The Government have no wish to diminish the role that student governors can play … We recognise … the value of student participation in governing bodies … we believe that it is of benefit both to the institution, by directly involving the students, and to the students themselves, for whom it is good training".—(Official Report, Commons, 17/11/87; cols. 1028–29.)
Has this attitude changed? Perhaps we may at least be able to glean that from the Government. What on earth can the Government gain by not having this representation? Students know what is going on from their point of view as consumers of courses. In few other areas of society is the customer ignored. We must make sure that these young adults are not ignored—they are young adults in many cases. A high percentage even in further education colleges are over 18. If they are ignored the colleges will be denied an important source of information which could improve the quality of the courses and enable the colleges to deliver what is required. Bearing those points in mind, I believe that the Government would improve the Bill if they accepted the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 174 to 176A. This is an important and indeed potentially explosive group of amendments. Rightly or wrongly, a wide range of people and organisations—local authorities, universities and students throughout the country—are concerned about this question. It is widely believed, rightly or wrongly, that the clause is designed to make it as difficult as possible for students to get proper representation on these governing bodies. The National Union of Students has just held its winter annual conference in Blackpool. Delegates from colleges all over the United Kingdom have expressed the deepest concern at the lack of any form of guarantee in the Bill as regards student representation.
In the past the Government have committed themselves wholeheartedly, openly, publicly and repeatedly to the principle of student representation on and participation in governing bodies. I refer to the words of Mr. Chris Patten when Minister of State for Education. He said:
"We recognise that student participation on governing bodies is a recognised and valued feature of college life".
Similarly, Mr. Robert Jackson, when Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for higher education, said in November 1987:
"We recognise … the value of student participation in governing bodies … we believe that it is of benefit both to the institution, by directly involving the students, and to the students themselves, for whom it is good training". —[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/87; cols. 1028–29.]
Fine words, but in practice the commitment has not been so conspicuously generous.
The issue of student representation on governing bodies came to the fore once again at the time of the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988. The Government then pushed through changes to the make-up of polytechnics and college governing bodies to allow for only one full-time student representative. Other changes were made at the same time to ensure that business people had a built-in majority on governing bodies.
I remind the Committee that the matter was debated during the Committee stage of the Education Reform Bill on 16th May 1988. Concern was expressed from all sides of the Chamber that student representation should normally be by two students, and not one. The point was made and made repeatedly. It was said that students remain in college for a period of three years or so; that they were not likely to be appointed to such a body during their first year which meant that even if they came in during their second year they would have only two years in which they could represent the students in that institution, which would not give them much opportunity to gain confidence. If one looks at most of the student representation in universities and similar places one finds that normally one student is senior to another. To put it another way, one student comes on board and serves for perhaps two years. There is then an overlap which allows accumulated experience to give the student that continuity of representation and of viewpoint.

877
Universities have quite long experience of students on governing bodies and they sing with one voice. One noble Lord said in the debate on 16th May 1988:
"If one looks at the charter and statutes of almost every university in the country, one will find that there are at least two student representatives, never just one".—[Official Report, 16/5/88; col. 109]
Experience has shown that it is much the best and most efficient way of having student representation.
Most student representatives do not lack a certain confidence when they attend council or court meetings. How deep that confidence goes will vary from case to case. But they may lack confidence when facing their own constituency—that is, the student members—in what may be difficult and trying circumstances. I invite Members of the Committee to consider the fact that it is comparatively rare to find a student or a vice-chancellor who is equally at ease and an expert at each end of the spectrum: at one end the university council and at the other end a general meeting of a student union.
Surely the general case is unanswerable. Students are intelligent adults who develop their own systems of democracy and representation. As an interest group students gain a collective view which ought to be represented to college decision-making authorities. After all, they are the contributors and the consumers of the educational process and, although they may have very broad interests, they are generally concerned, for the most part, with the nature of their course, its usefulness for their career prospects, the quality and the quantity of the delivery, teacher and student ratios and the quality of teaching. Surely that must be represented on these governing bodies. It is a matter of fundamental concern.
On the whole question of the constitution of these bodies, whether it concerns students or adults, I must repeat that there is a ferment of concern. I recently heard from one old dinosaur of the university system, now poking his nose into situations among these colleges, the comment, "Thank God! We shall soon be able to keep students off these particular bodies." He said that with some relish.
I have worked with students on governing bodies in universities for more than 25 years. I remember what it was like without them. In the early years of student representation there was indeed suspicion, excessive reaction and disharmony. But those days are long gone; indeed, 20 years gone. In my experience, one of the most notable characteristics of students on governing bodies is that when they have nothing to say, they say nothing. Many professors, and some of us, could profit by that example.
I trust that the Minister will give us an unambiguous assurance today that the Government's policy on student representation remains and will continue to remain unchanged.
3.45 p.m
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I should like to support the plea put forward by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris. He has so much more experience than I in this world that I hardly dare to speak in his presence. But, as someone who has to preside at courts of governors and the council, I find the presence of
878
student representatives exceedingly helpful. It serves a number of positive functions. One that I would not exclude is that it demonstrates to the students how such a body works. Without being patronising, it helps to educate them in matters of administration. They can begin to see some of the difficulties with which university councils are faced. They can also see some of the problems with which they are confronted and why they cannot solve all of them.
I very much agree with my noble friend that students speak only when they know what they are talking about. That is more than some of us can say on some occasions. I say that because they speak from their own experience. I remember one of the student representatives who appeared on our council. He had long hair, half of which was coloured green and the other half pineapple. I must say that I viewed him with a certain amount of distaste. However, after the meeting I thought that I would go and speak to this strange creature to see what he was like. I found him to be a most eminently sensible young man. He had said nothing during the course of the meeting, which of course commended him to the chairman. I sat down to talk to him. At the end of the conversation we had got on so well that I asked him, "For heaven's sake, why on earth have you dyed your hair in those colours?" He said, "Frankly, it was the best way to call attention to myself and get myself elected." Having got himself elected, I found out later that his hair reverted to its natural colour and that he had become a most useful member of our council.
As I said, I very much support the remarks made by my noble friend. But basically I rise to call attention to the group of amendments relating to the position of local authorities. I believe that the Government are cutting themselves off from a very useful source of information which is especially relevant to the institutes and colleges of higher education.
Perhaps I ought to tell Members of the Committee that last Friday I had the honour of being awarded an honorary fellowship. I am now an honorary fellow —I hope that that fact will be appreciated—of the Cardiff Institute of Higher Education. I have accumulated a number of these fellowships and also some degrees, none of which, I am bound to admit, have I earned. But, never mind, I am there and so I see something of what is going on.
The chairman at the function last week was on the education committee of the South Glamorgan local authority. Councillor Peter Perkins is an excellent chairman, one who has himself benefited from a college of higher education of a further education authority and did not have any of the natural advantages of those who went to university. I have a great deal of empathy with him. There were other people present on that occasion—for example, local businessmen, members of trade unions and people working in all sorts of capacities—but they had made him chairman. He is chairman because of his ability.
I must tell the Government that they will really be doing a great disservice if they do not have a representative of a local authority on these bodies. For one thing, taking the Cardiff Institute as an example, most of the students are part-time students. They are

879
resident and work in the area covered by the local authority. They far outnumber the number of full-time students. Therefore, the local authority councillors, with their local knowledge, have a particular connection with these part-time students who are resident in their area.
I hope it is not the irrational dislike of local authorities which has characterised the prejudices of the administration over the past 10 years that has resulted in local authorities being omitted as a statutory body from the corporations which are to be set up. I am sure that it is in the best interests of those corporations that local authorities should be represented on them as a matter of right. I am certain that nothing but good could come from it. As I said, I strongly support my noble friend's plea and urge that local authorities should be included in these bodies.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to express my support for the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Callaghan and Lord Morris of Castle Morris with respect to both students and local authorities. I should also like to say a few words about two other groups which we on this side of the Committee think should be included in the governing bodies of these new corporations. From my own experience—admittedly, running a higher education institution rather than a further education institution; although from that point of view I really do not think that there is a great difference between them—it seems to me to be absolutely inconceivable that students should be left off governing bodies. It is enormously valuable and helpful to involve students in the decision-making processes of educational institutions for people who are no longer children but young adults. I very much hope that the Government will think again on the matter.
I turn now to the subject of local education authorities. I should like to reinforce the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Callaghan. We shall see a split between the further education funding councils and the local authorities in terms of responsibilities for the education of 16 to 19 year-olds. It is vitally important that we should avoid duplication and that we should have sensible co-operation between the local authorities on the one hand and the new corporations (the further education colleges) on the other.
There will be many areas where co-operation will be required. For example, we may want to make it possible for students who are actually attending full time in sixth forms to go to the further education college for a particular course, so as to benefit from facilities that the FE colleges have but which the smaller school sixth forms cannot possibly provide. I could give countless other examples; for example, there is careers advice. It may be that there can be more specialist advice in the FE colleges which have larger numbers of young people in that age group than in a small sixth form. Surely it would be sensible for a member of the local education authority who has responsibility for the running of good sixth forms to be on the governing body of the local further
880
education college. Indeed, there should be an elected member from the authority on each college board in that authority's area.
I can see no reason why the Government should oppose that and why they do not accept that there should be statutory rather than co-opted representation. Moreover, I add that there are people with many years' experience on local education authorities who have a great deal of knowledge and expertise and a lot to offer the new corporations. From that point of view also, it is important.
Those are not the only two groups. Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 refer also to the representation of staff on governing bodies, the representation of TECs and someone with knowledge of the needs of persons with learning difficulties. I cannot conceive of being able to run a higher education institution sensibly and properly without having some staff representation on the governing body. Again, that is extremely important from the point of view of involving staff in decision making and from the point of view of communicating effectively with them. Their exclusion could only lead to greater problems and difficulties in the governance—I use that rather ugly word —of an institution.
Earlier in this Committee stage we heard a great deal about the importance of not excluding those students who have special needs and learning difficulties. That area can be rather esoteric. Many people who teach in further education and who have positions of special responsibility in further education are rather unfamiliar with the needs of that particular category of disadvantaged student. For that reason alone it would be extremely desirable if just one member of the governing body of the new corporations could have that particular and special knowledge.
Finally, Amendment No. 176 suggests that there should also be somebody from the local training and enterprise council on an FE college governing body. Again, that seems to me to be only sensible in terms of developing and maintaining the vitally important links with the work of the TECs in work based training as well as in college-based training.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to give an explanation for that change. It is not comprehensible to the people whom it most affects in the educational world.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment and speak also to Amendment No. 176 with particular reference to TECs. The importance of TECs is that the value of the exchange works both ways. When I was chairman of an area manpower board, we found that some colleges had a good understanding of what modern industry really needed, but some had no understanding at all. The representation of TECs on these bodies could have a very educative effect on colleges as well as the other way round. Therefore, that representation is extremely important.
Although the amendment refers to one representative of students and one representative of the various categories—and at this point I cannot suggest an amendment—I do not believe that one representative is a good idea. It puts a tremendously heavy burden

881
particularly on a student representative who may have to agree to matters which are sensible but not popular. If a student has to be the sole representative, he can be absolutely pilloried by other students. He needs the support of one of his own kind. I see the other academics nodding. We have all observed that situation happen. That may not apply to the other categories but I am certain that it applies to students, and I ask that the limitation should not be to one representative.
Baroness Young: This is clearly a very important group of amendments. All Members of the Committee who have taken part in discussions on the Bill recognise the importance of the composition of the new institutions' governing bodies. I have listened carefully to the preceding speeches supporting these amendments. As I understand it, it is proposed that there should be at least one, if not two, student representatives, staff and academic representatives, representatives of the local authorities from the TECs and someone to represent those students who have learning difficulties.
I shall not discuss the whole list in detail, but my difficulty on this is that the Bill proposes something quite unlike that which was formerly something like a much larger governing court or governing body which included, as of right, representatives of different groups. One can see the reasons for that. Many people who have had experience in these matters will recognise that what is wanted in this new organisation is something rather unlike a representative body where those who are representatives come to it plead their own particular causes. What is being looked for is a group of people who will work together for the good of the organisation.
Many of the problems which have been identified —I am sure that the Minister will tell us whether this is what the Government have in mind—could have been overcome because those who are nominated to the boards could include among them those who have the particular qualifications. It is not exclusive. However, it is not necessary to write that on the face of the Bill.
I have some sympathy as regards the question of local authority representation because it will be very important that the links between the local authority and the colleges of further education are maintained. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says about that. However, I cannot support this series of amendments because it seems to me that it is a kind of carry over from what has happened before. In fact in this Bill we are seeking the establishment of new bodies.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps the key amendment is Amendment No. 175. With the greatest respect, is that not an attempt to reinstate the old governing bodies which gave a kind of majority representation to the local authorities? That inevitably involved certain trade unions who represented varieties of staff.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I wonder whether I can help the noble Lord. Amendment No. 175 suggests that there should be two local education authority representatives. They could not possibly constitute a majority.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect, I do not believe that the noble Baroness quite understands what I am putting forward. I suggest that this is an attempt to reinstate the old structure and, by so doing, to carry with it the trade union representation of three types of interest that did not always work for harmony. One was the manual interest, another was the staff interest and another administration.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not accept Amendment No. 175. Equally, I hope that he will not accept Amendment No. 173 where again the conduct and activities of students of all ages over the past few years have not given rise to tremendous confidence. Under a new structure it is far better, using the words of my noble friend Lady Young, to have a group of people who would apparently work well together. Again, I mentioned certain trade union activities on the extreme left that have affected the conduct of students.
I think that Amendment No. 174 is about right, but that is only a personal view. I hope that the Minister will consider it with an open mind but there may be some reason that I do not understand which would render it objectionable to the Government. I can see none.
Baroness Lockwood: I support this series of amendments, in particular those which refer to local authority representation. During the course of the Committee proceedings I have mentioned the Bradford and Ilkley Community College, one of the largest colleges in the country. My association with the college is not directly as a member of it but through my membership of the council of Bradford University which is next door and which has a close working relationship with the college.
The college has 26,000 full-time equivalent students. It also has 10,000 adult education students. That means that most of the 26,000 full-time equivalent students will come under the umbrella of the new funding council, but the 10,000 adult education students are likely to come under the control of the local authority.
The governing body of the college will have a dual responsibility to both the local authority and the funding council. Therefore, I believe it is essential that there should be representation from the local authorities on colleges such as this.
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who said that what is wanted is people working together for the good of the organisation. Perhaps I may quote from a communication that I received from the Bradford and Ilkley Community College:
"Its success has been built on systematic response to local needs, an effective and supportive relationship with its Local Authority and a close academic association with its Local University.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I wish to make a brief intervention with reference to Amendment No. 176 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Blackstone. The final provision is that there shall be included,
"a person with knowledge of the needs of persons having learning difficulties".
There should be included someone with knowledge of their difficulties although it does not mean at all that he or she has to be disabled. It is immensely helpful to have a person with that qualification on the board although the provision could he incidental to other reasons for someone coming on the board. I sincerely hope that that will not be forgotten.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I have a great deal of sympathy with what has just been said, although I do not see why the person appointed should be a representative. He should surely be someone who has knowledge of the subject. The only point on which I desire to trouble the Committee is the use practically throughout these amendments of the word "representative". I am all in favour of the appointment of students. Apart from anything else, it is extremely good for them. But why should they be appointed as representatives of students? Why indeed should the other people mentioned in Amendment No. 175 have to be representative of these various bodies?
If a person is appointed to a body to represent some other body or outside organisation, he naturally feels it his duty to press that body's views and interests. However, what we want on these bodies is a number of people with wide experience who use that experience to carry out sensible policies for the education of the young people concerned.
If we line up on such a body people who are inclined to think that their first duty is to represent the interests of some other body, I suggest that we will not get a smoothly working organisation. Therefore, while there is an enormous amount to be said for the appointment of various people with the qualifications mentioned in the amendments, I suggest that it would be a mistake for them to be appointed as representatives of the outside bodies.
I hope that my noble friend will say that the Government will be likely to appoint people with these kinds of qualifications—most of them fairly obvious —and that they will make it clear that they will be appointed as the persons most suitable to do the job and not as representatives of some other organisations.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may say something in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because I do not believe that he heard—or perhaps he did not understand—the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I restrict myself solely to students. The essence of the position with respect to students is as follows. One possibility is that there would he no students on the body. I cannot believe that anyone would rationally argue that at all. Secondly, the council itself or governing body would choose the students. Nothing could be more damaging. Anyone with any experience of higher education institutions will know that nothing could be more damaging than that
884
students should somehow be chosen by this other body of people, the grown up people. As the noble Baroness said, the main problem is to sell hard decisions to the student body.
I might add that the student representing the student body —to which I shall come later—does not represent another group of people. These institutions exist for the student body; there is no separation. But it is because, especially in these harsh times, many of the decisions are harsh that we need on these bodies students in whom the students themselves have faith. There can be no doubt whatever about that. That was the point made by the noble Baroness.
I speak from a great many years' experience, but there are other academics present. The only people in whom the student body will have faith are its own people. It will not accept people appointed by me as a head of department or by vice-chancellors. It will accept people whom it has chosen as its representatives.
My noble friend Lord Callaghan makes the point that such students are immensely helpful. They do not act to split the group; they act to co-operate and they are sensible. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has any experience in the matter. I shall not discuss the other representation questions because I know that there are two sides, but on that subject students not only ought to be but must be representative if they are to have any use whatever.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I must reply as the noble Lord has attacked me. He has not answered or even attempted to answer the point that I made. When we appoint students to this body, the question is whether we want them to come on as representing the other body of students in this case and with the prime obligation to support its interests and views, rather than to contribute to a useful discussion of the whole conduct of the organisation. That is the point. If the noble Lord suggests that I have little experience of this, I can tell him that I am a former president of the Oxford Union.
Lord Peston: I think that confirms exactly what I said. My point is precisely that there is no division here. I do not believe that the noble Lord has understood the logical point. It is not like the local authority case about which one could argue, although I support my noble friend's view. In the case of the students it is vital that they should be represented. They are not representing something outside the institution. The institution is the students, plus, I hope, the academic staff—the teachers. The students are not an alien body. The students are the reason for the institution. I cannot see the point of the institution without them.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I hope I may clarify the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, may be missing a distinction here. It may be appropriate for the students who would sit on such a body to be elected by the students. However, that does not necessarily make them representatives in the sense in which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was speaking. Students themselves would certainly

885
understand the distinction between mandated persons who have to represent a policy of an organisation and, on the other hand, students who are freely chosen. The latter students will then speak, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested, as members of the body and will not feel obliged—mandated delegates would have an obligation—to carry out some line. There is a distinction there that ought to be observed.
Lord McCarthy: There might be a distinction here if the amendment contained a reference to a mandate. However, we are not talking about a mandate. We have gone so far in terms of individualising almost everything that we cannot recognise representation as a function. Each Member down the other end of the Corridor is a representative. Each Member represents his constituents. Scottish Members represent Scotland. No one suggests that those representatives are mandated to do precisely and absolutely what their constituents say. Nevertheless the Members are representatives. What we want on the bodies we are discussing are, certainly, people who have personal capabilities, but we also want people who are considered by the other members on the body to be representative in the sense that they know how the students feel and what the students want. When they report back to the students on what has happened at meetings, they will be listened to, in exactly the same way as Members of Parliament are supposed to be listened to.
Lord Beloff: Listening to this debate, I once again realise how unsuited this assembly is to discuss matter; of this kind. We are, after all, a body of the elderly unemployed. I doubt whether there are many Members of the Committee who are in full-time employment, although there may be a few more who are in part-time employment. Generally, however, we are unemployed. That means we consider that our time is disposable. If one of us were asked to sit on a governing body of an institution, we would not find it difficult to attend. But the real difficulty in creating bodies for the governance of institutions at any level —this applies to schools, institutions of further education and universities —is to find people who are competent in these matters and have time and energy to devote to them. That is one of the great problems with the Government's belief that businessmen are very suited to such duties. Anyone who has had experience of a body such as a charitable trust or a university council knows that until the last moment one cannot tell whether a businessman will turn up because he is bound to give priority to other matters. I shall not discuss in detail what such a businessman is bound to give priority to at the moment. However, such a businessman has other priorities.
Therefore we need the Government to reassure us that the kind of people on the governing body of an institution will be able to attend meetings. One of the arguments used in favour of student representation is that, on the whole, students are likely to attend meetings If the students have been elected to their positions, they are even more likely to attend, as otherwisc their conduct would be called into question. That argument could probably be used as regards the
886
staff representation because they have a direct interest in this matter. It may well be that those who have served on local authority education committees have also arranged their time and interests in such a way as to give full service to a body. It is much more important to rely on regular attendance, including the reading of agendas, than on any other aspect as regards the government of a body.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I wish to speak on this matter as I am probably the most recent student in this Chamber, having left higher education three years ago. I am surprised at the use of the word "representation" in this debate. We are talking about institutions that students attend. We are not discussing boards that governors attend. Students have a direct interest in student representation because it involves issues that affect them such as housing; benefits; where they will have their meals; and how their courses will be run. Those are the important issues for students.
There must be student representation in further or in higher education because it is the students who attend those institutions who are aware of the institutions' problems. People from outside will not be aware of the problems in an institution. I realise the Bill is concerned with further education. Newcastle University plans to increase its number of students. That is a good idea; but the housing stock is finite. Where will the new students be housed? Those are the kind of issues that concern students. Those are the issues students know about. If students do not become representatives on these bodies, one will have a system that alienates the consumers as it were. I use the word "consumer" as that is part of the Government's language.
In listening to this debate, one has the impression that students are a by-product of further education, whereas they are the product. They attend institutions to receive education. If they are alienated from the institutions they attend, they may take extreme action. There are destructive aspects of such action, for example, sit-ins and student marches. Such behaviour may return if students do not consider their views are listened to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I wish to say a few words, in part to assure the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that not everyone in this Chamber is semi-retired. Those of us who are in full-time, paid employment have some difficulty in attending this Chamber because of our other duties. However, that is not the main point of my contribution. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for making an important distinction in his speech. I for one am not unhappy with the word "representative". These people—I think particularly of students and of the local education authorities—need representatives, but not delegates. I hope we are clear about that. They are chosen by the bodies they represent and they are a vital link in the management of an institution.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said the governing bodies should not follow the same old traditions in terms of representation. However, the

887
clause states the bodies are to have responsibility for the conduct of the institution concerned. One cannot give responsibility to a body for the conduct of an institution and exclude the students who have the main personal interest in the institution as a whole. My own limited experience of student representatives on governing bodies has been that they are an enormous asset. Having experienced their presence on such bodies, I could not adopt a system where they were not present. They make vital contributions to discussions. Taking part in such discussions is an educational experience for them and for the older members of the body, too—even those who are retired.
My only difficulty with these amendments is that by the time representatives have been secured from all the interested bodies, there is not much room left for anyone else unless one is to turn the corporation into a public meeting. I appreciate there is a difficulty here, but I hope we shall not do anything which would make it difficult for students to be represented on these bodies.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I have no direct experience of this matter. However, speaking as one of the businessmen who is still in full-time employ, perhaps I may remind my noble friend Lord Beloff that one of the reasons why businessmen find it so difficult to attend the meetings to which he referred is that they are making the profits which pay the taxes to pay for the whole system.
My experience at second hand comes from a number of polytechnic directors. At the time of the passing of the 1988 Act they were somewhat nervous at the prospect of the inclusion of union representatives on governing bodies—which is what Amendment No. 175 would provide. I understand from talking to a number of polytechnic directors that that nervousness has been confirmed in practice. Although in running an institution of that kind one must refer to the students and talk to them and understand their needs, the best way to do that is not to have union representatives on the governing body or council. I suggest that the experience of the polytechnic sector, which is perhaps more senior than the sector we are discussing, indicates that we should not accept the amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to all the arguments that we have heard from both sides of the Chamber. I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the arguments which have been put forward. However, surely the important point is not whether or not individual representation is useful to a governing body but that we do not seek to place any restrictions on the membership of the governing body on the face of the Bill.
Members of the Committee will remember that a great deal of detail concerning the constitution of polytechnic governing bodies was included on the face of the 1988 Act. This Bill loosens that very restrictive nature of the polytechnic governing bodies. I should be very reluctant to see a further restriction put on to
888
the face of this Bill so that there was no freedom for individual institutions to choose for themselves the exact nature of their governing bodies. Some will need more than one local authority representative because of their geographical location. Some may wish to have larger and different representation from staff and students. The point is not whether it is a good thing or a bad thing to have such representation on governing bodies but whether it is a good or bad thing to have it on the face of the Bill. I would urge very strongly that it is not put on to the face of the Bill.
Baroness David: There is one amendment in the group of amendments which has not yet been spoken to—my own amendment, Amendment No. 176A. Before I speak to that amendment, I should like to comment on some aspects of the debate. Having listened to the debate, I have the feeling that perhaps the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, have never served on governing bodies of further education colleges. I can claim to have had that experience. It was invaluable to have a student representative, a teacher representative and a representative from the academic board. The rest of the governors want to be well informed about what is happening in the college they govern. The only way to achieve that is to include somebody from the teaching body and from the academic board to inform them, otherwise the governors will be extremely ill-informed. There will be no local authority officers to help them understand the position. Local authority representatives who have such knowledge and who have perhaps served on the governing body previously, would be extremely helpful to the governors.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will the noble Baroness accept that, speaking for myself and for my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, we do not object to students? In fact, I regard myself as still a student. That is not the issue. The issue is the quality of their relationship and whether they are delegates and act in that way and also whether, as seems so often to be the case, they are mandated by union representation. That is what one objects to. We do not object to students being present. We must not be misunderstood on that point, we do not object to students at all.
Baroness David: That is a great relief. We agree on something. Those are not trades union representatives. The students would be elected by the student body of the institution. The teacher representative would be elected by the teachers, and the academic representative would be elected by the academic board. That is my experience of what happens. They are certainly not trades union representatives, and they are not mandated. As the right reverend Prelate said, they are not delegates.
Having put a few misapprehensions out of the way, I should now like to speak to my own amendment, Amendment No. 176A, which tackles a slightly different aspect. The amendment would ensure that college governing bodies have in their membership at least one person representing the funding council or regional committee, as the case may be, who may be

889
examined about the policies and practices of the council committee and who may act as a conduit for representation in either direction.
Some 550 colleges in England and Wales are to be grant-aided by two councils, advised by a number of regional committees in England—and we do not know how many. There is therefore considerable risk of a bureaucratic distance developing between colleges and councils and regional committees. The amendment would put councils or regional committees under a greater obligation to explain their policies and practices directly to governing bodies, thus improving colleges' understanding of the grant processes. I consider that regional committees would be much more sensible. The limited membership of the funding councils could hardly attend meetings of the huge number of further education colleges. However, it should easily be possible to have representation from the regional committee. That would achieve cross fertilisation and provide direct feedback in both directions. That must be extremely helpful.
Lord Hunt: Perhaps I may say a few brief words based on personal experience in this field. That relates to higher education but it must apply equally to the further education institutions.
I was elected to serve for three years as Rector of Aberdeen University. I believe that my noble friend Lord Grimond would echo the sentiments which I am about to express. As everyone knows, the purpose of the rector in Scottish universities is to represent the interests of the students. It was obvious to me when I took up the post, coming from the opposite end of the United Kingdom, that I was inadequately qualified for that task. It was during my time as rector that the university court decided to invite two student representatives on to the court of Aberdeen University. It was a measure of my inadequacy that that was done, but I was convinced that that necessary and it proved a complete success.
Lord Annan: It seems to me that in this debate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry said, what we are really arguing about is whether or not the proposal appears on the face of the Bill. I agree with everything that has. been said about student representation by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Of course, he is right. One is bound to have students on governing bodies these days and almost certainly they will be elected by the student union. How they behave is another matter. If they are good representatives they go along with a reasonably open mind and listen to the arguments. No doubt they put the case from their constituents, but if they are good they understand that those views may not always be acceptable to the council as a whole. If they are bad representatives, they may say, characteristically, that they are mandated and can agree to nothing but what they have been mandated to accept.
Nor is there any doubt that the other groups which it has been suggested should be represented on the council are admirable people. The question is whether councils will be forced to include those people. Once one begins to multiply the numbers of people who represent this interest or that interest the council
890
grows and grows in size. What happens next? The only way that you can govern the institution is then to appoint a general purposes committee or an executive committee, or whatever you like to call it. That is the body which will have the power.
However, in one way, the larger the council becomes, the easier it is for the executive committee because, if you have a large council, it can do very little. If you want an efficient council, you must restrict the numbers. That is why I am a little alarmed at the multiplication of places for specific interests earmarked on those bodies. I should much prefer the matter to be left to the good sense of those who run the institutions. They are not cretins. Of course, the bodies will have students and members of staff on them. I should not like to restrict them in numbers, but let us leave things to the people who are running the show.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I cannot resist pointing out to the noble Lord, who believes that all those people should be on the body, that only in the case of the local authority is there more than one representative. We must at least have the same number, minus one, that is down here if we are to comply with what he wants. You cannot have a number smaller than one.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I do not know how we shall vote on these issues, but I hope that we can vote separately on some of the amendments. There is an overwhelming case for the local authorities, which have hitherto been responsible for those bodies and which have a deep personal interest in them, to be represented on the board as of right. I notice that the noble Lord did not refer to Amendment No. 174 which provides for that. I therefore hope that we can take decisions on these matters separately.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to make a couple of points in response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Even if every one of those groups that we have discussed this afternoon were to be represented on FE college governing bodies, that would give a total of nine people. Assuming that those governing bodies will have between 18 and 20 representatives on them, that gives plenty of scope for the new instruments. That does not seem a particularly large size to me; again, from my experience, you can manage a governing body rather larger than that perfectly well as there will always be a few people who cannot attend. The Government have provided for a wide range of other people, including a number of businessmen, so I cannot accept that what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, is logical from that point of view. But if, in any case, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, he thinks it is desirable for those people to be included, there will be about nine such people. There is a lack of logic in what he said.
The other point that I should like to make is that, although the noble Lord is right to say that most of those organisations and those who head them will not be cretinous, it is important that we should ensure that the bad college which is not well run and which

891
decides to exclude members of its staff or its students should not be able to do so. If we think that that is a good thing and highly desirable, we should make sure that the provision is enforced. It should therefore be in the Bill.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I have listened with care to the distinguished contributions from many noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate.
Clause 20 requires each further education corporation to have an instrument of government and articles of government. Schedule 4 provides that the instrument of government shall provide for the number of members of the corporation, the eligibility of persons for membership and the appointment of members.
The amendments require the Bill to specify that the instrument of government for each further education corporation shall provide for the membership of the corporations to include specific categories of people. At present, the instruments of government for further education colleges generally provide for the governing body membership to include representatives of the local authority and of staff and students. Some of them provide for representatives of the local training and enterprise council.
Under the Bill, further education colleges, county and voluntary controlled sixth form colleges, will transfer to the new further education sector and will become further education corporations. LEAs will no longer be responsible for those institutions and will no longer provide financial support to them. There will therefore be no need for formal LEA representation on governing bodies of further education corporations. That is not to say that local education authorities will lack any opportunity to make their views known.
In practice, we envisage that the regional committees will liaise closely with the local education authorities and with the TECs about educational provision and the needs of students and employers in their region. There is no question of cutting off local authorities, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. We expect there to be sensible cooperation, as the noble Baroness said.
The majority of members of the governing body of further education will be appointed in a personal and not in a representative capacity. To that extent, I share the views of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Perhaps I may correct him. As I understood it, he suggested that the Government would make those appointments. But the corporations will in fact make them.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, indeed.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I apologise to my noble friend. I thought that he said that the Government would make the appointments.
Governing bodies will be able to co-opt local authority employees or members in a personal capacity. Co-opted members have votes. We are sure that governing bodies will take the opportunity to retain those individuals whose presence they value.
892
But the decision must be one for the governing body. It would be wrong to insist that the membership must include representatives of the local education authority.
There are no proposals to change—
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: Will the noble Lord please tell us why he thinks that it would be wrong to include representatives of local education authorities?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I have touched on that point. The position has changed in that local education authorities no longer have responsibility for running and financing those bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, put the point forcefully. I am giving the reason why the Government take that view; namely, the shift in responsibility for managing and financing.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. He is no doubt following the instructions of his Minister. Has he any discretion to take the matter back in view of the arguments that have been advanced and to ask for it to be reconsidered?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The noble Lord will have an opportunity to intervene if he thinks that I have not taken the matter further in the course of the debate.
There are no proposals to change the present position in relation to staff and student representatives. There is certainly no intention to make it difficult for students to contribute, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. Further education corporations will be free to include staff and student representatives in their membership; and, like other noble Lords, I would be amazed if they did not.
To respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, we intend that the membership of each further education corporation will include a person nominated by the local training and enterprise council. That is in recognition of the special relationship between the education service and the TECs by virtue of the core funding that they provide to colleges in the form of money for work-related further education.
As to representatives appointed by the relevant council or regional committee, there will be over 500 further education corporations. It would not be practical to insist that the membership of each corporation should include at least one representative appointed by the funding council or by the regional committee. It would not be reasonable to expect either the funding councils or the regional committees to put in place procedures for selecting representatives for the membership of every further education corporation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, spoke of students with special needs. It is still open to colleges to have persons with a knowledge of students with learning difficulties on governing bodies, and many already do. No changes are expected in that area.
My noble friend Lady Young was quite right in her description of the kind of body that we require—she

893
described it very well—and was right in saying that the bodies should not be representative. I thought that the contribution from my noble friend Lady Perry was very important. Part of the reason that we do not want to specify these bodies is that we want to retain that very flexibility, and in some areas a different mix will be needed.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. It is a point which I would like him to clarify. Flexibility means the ability not to include the kinds of people about whom we are talking. That can be the only meaning of flexibility can it not? Is the answer yes or no? Are the Government saying that they would be happy if that flexibility were exercised in that way? That is the essence of the debate that we have just had. We d 3 not believe that there should be such flexibility; the Minister says that, yes, there should be. Let me ask him indirectly. The Government would be happy if students, local authorities and all kinds of people were not included. The Government have no view on the matter, as it were. Is that right?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My noble friend Lady Perry was right when she said that in certain areas there could be a greater need for local authority representatives, perhaps to take over from somebody else. However, the point has been made by a number of noble Lords that there are limits on how big that body can he. Does the noble Baroness wish to speak? I should like to finish my sentences occasionally.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again but the fact is that we propose a basic number of two local education authority representatives. Any corporation which wishes to have more may do so. The flexibility is still there. Can the Minister at least agree with that?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I believe that the institutions, through the good sense that was talked about, are better placed than the noble Baroness to make that decision. It is a difference of view. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, may shake his head, but that is the view that we hold; namely, that it should be at their discretion.
Lord Beloff: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I should like to ask a question for information. Both he and my noble friend Lady Perry said that the institution would make those decisions. Who is the institution before the governing body has been created'?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My noble friend raises rather a good point. Perhaps I may, first, comment on some of the contributions that he made earlier. He put a slight slur on people in business whom he claimed to be unreliable. I have spoken about people with personal qualities. I do not believe that businessmen with high personal qualities are people who will skip important meetings. That is the essence. It must be well known to my noble friend, as to other noble Lords, that there are people from the business communities who give enormous service, as do people from other areas, whether or not they are employed.
Lord Annan: Perhaps I may help the Minister in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Is it not a fact that when the new universities were set up, it was the Privy Council which appointed the first council of the university, and hence in this case it would be the department.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am grateful to the noble Lord. The answer to the noble Lord is that the corporation is the existing body less the LEA representatives. So there is a corporation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised a point with which I have some sympathy, about the number of students being limited to one. We always come up against the problem of overall size, despite what the noble Baroness said, because we shall have more people of different qualities contributing. The other categories are also limited. There is one teaching and one non-teaching member of staff plus the principal plus one other.
I must tell the noble Baroness that we believe that the bodies must be kept small. That point was made by a number of Members of the Committee. For that reason we do not favour allowing more than one student representative although, as I said, I understand her point. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that smallness and manageability will be an important feature of the process.
There were a number of exchanges about the nature of the representation. If the right reverend Prelate had not mentioned it, I should have said that what we are getting away from is the word "delegate". That is the key word. It is bound to have a slightly different flavour. However, I do not believe that one can escape from the fact that, where there are students on the body, they will be elected by the student bodies, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said.
Baroness Seear: If we are to get away from the word "delegate", we are in agreement, are we not? It does not say "delegate" on the paper; it mentions "representative". We all seem to be agreed, do we not? The Minister said that he wanted to get away from "delegate". It is not "delegate"; it is "representative".
Lord Cavendish of Furness: There is a difference of interpretation. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, put it better than I could. As part of the organisation the student is in a slightly different position from an LEA representative. Even the noble Lord would admit that the LEA representative has nothing to do with the institution. These are rather abstruse points but the right reverend Prelate picked up the flavour of the matter when he talked about "representative" and not "delegation".
The Bill provides for instruments of government to be prescribed in regulations. Those regulations will set out the composition of the membership of further education corporations. The draft regulations will be the subject of consultation in the New Year. Further education corporations will be able to propose changes to the composition of their membership to

895
suit their individual needs. I do not feel that it would be appropriate for membership of the corporations to be prescribed on the face of the Bill.
After such a long debate and in the light of what I have said, I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I regret having to hold up the Committee but I want to return to this point. The noble Lord was kind enough to tell us that the composition of the new bodies will emerge from the existing bodies less the local authority representatives. He gave the Committee that fact. Can he please tell us why existing members of local authorities serving on those committees should be excluded from helping to decide who will be their successors? I am sure he must realise, when he pauses to think, that the local authority representatives are the people who are most closely associated with those who will be attending the institutions. They are local students drawn from the community.
It is a slur upon people—a number of whom he must know and certainly I know some of them—who are devoted to those institutions. Some of them regret that they are being removed, but that is another matter. That is a point of principle which I shall not take up. But those people care about these matters and surely they ought to be allowed the dignity of having a hand in deciding their successors. Again, this is one of those irrational prejudices which excludes any local authority representative from a committee of that kind. It is saying: "You are second class. You may not, in company with your business associates and the rest of the people sitting here, decide who is going to set up this new institution". I beg the Minister to think again about this matter.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I believe that no slur is intended upon the LEA representatives. The difference is that they are on the eve of that association becoming radically different from what it has been hitherto. That is the argument. I accept that I shall not persuade the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, of the rightness of that approach, but that is the answer.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Perhaps the noble Lord would explain one matter to me. If I heard him aright, he said that the local education authority would have nothing to do with the further education colleges. In any funding and ownership in the sense of control, that is undoubtedly true. However, as I understand the matter, the further education colleges and the local authorities will each have responsibility for adult education. It is vitally important that that responsibility should be properly interlinked in order that the whole provision is managed and that there is strategic planning. Is it not on those grounds, among others, that the local education authority has a vital part to play in the management of the further education colleges?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I hope I did not mislead by any of my subsequent answers, but in the body of my speech I said that under this Bill further education colleges, county and voluntary controlled sixth form
896
colleges will transfer to the new further education sector and will become further education corporations. LEAs will no longer be responsible for those institutions and will no longer provide financial support. The right reverend Prelate will say that, everything else being equal, we should expect not only that LEA people through their own personal qualities will join those corporations but that the two bodies will be in constant touch, the LEAs giving their views on local needs.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will the regulations be subject to affirmative resolution? That might go some way to meet the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: No, that is not the case.
Baroness Blackstone: I regret to say that the Minister missed the right reverend Prelate's point. Adult education is now to be a divided responsibility. The local education authorities are to provide adult education with respect to so called leisure classes; and the new corporations are to provide adult education with respect to vocational courses, academic courses, basic skills courses and so on. However, as has been said on a number of occasions in the Chamber, there will be difficult distinctions to be made. Again there must be much involvement between the new corporations and the local authorities in making sure that the important provision for adults in our community is in no way diminished by those administrative changes. Surely having a local education authority representative on the new corporations' governing bodies will help to ensure that that does not occur. Will the Minister please answer the right reverend Prelate in that respect? He did not do so in his previous response.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I acknowledged the link. However, I stated also that the arrangements that we anticipate will he adequate for the purposes. I do not believe that I can go further.
Lord Addington: The Government have rejected each amendment saying, "Of course such representatives will be included. It is inconceivable that they will not. Of course they should be included". The roads to hell are generally regarded as being paved with good intentions. If we do not put the requirement on the face of the Bill, such representation will not occur.
Amendment No. 173 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. Students are a college. Without students a college means nothing; it is a collection of desks in empty classrooms. Students are consumers; they are not the product of a college. If we regard people as the product of any institution, we go down a very slippery slope. We have to consider their input in the colleges. It is inconceivable that they should not have a voice in running the colleges. It is also inconceivable that such a requirement should not be written in the Bill. If the Government are not prepared to do that, I have no option but to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.53
On question, whether the said amendment (No 173) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93;Not-contents,120

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hunt, L.

Adrian, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kagan, L.

Beloff. L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Braye, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Clinton -Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dainton, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northbourne, L.

Desai, L.

Parry, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Richard, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Flowers. L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Glasgow, E.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson. L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Grimond, L.

Thurlow, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wharton, B.

Hooson, L.

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wigoder, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Aldington, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Ampthill, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Annan, L.

Cockfield, L.

Arran, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Astor, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Belhoven and Stanton, L.

Cox, B.

Belstead, L.

Cross, V.

Bessborough, E.

Davidson, V.[Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elles, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Ferrers, E.

Brookes, L.

Flather, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Butterworth, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Caithness, E.

Geddes, L.

Caldecote, V.

Gisborough, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Goold, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carnock, L.

898

Harmsworth, L.

Pender, L.

Harvington, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hemphill, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Henley, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hives, L.

Porritt, L.

Hood, V.

Quinton, L.

Hooper, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Howe, E.

Reay, L.

Kimball, L.

Renton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Renwick, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Long, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandford, L.

Lyell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lytton, E.

Selsdon, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Shannon, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mancroft, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Marlesford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Marsh, L.

Stockton, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Meston, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Monson, L.

Terrington, L.

Morris, L.

Teviot, L.

Mottistone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mountevans, L.

Trumpington, B.

Munster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nelson, E.

Vivian, L.

Newall, L.

Waddington, L.

Orkney, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wise, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Young, B.

Pearson of Rannoch. L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.1 p.m.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Instruments and articles of government for further education corporations]:
[Amendments Nos. 174 to 176A not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 176AA:
Page 69, line 14, at end insert:
("8A. The accounts shall be audited by persons appointed in respect of each financial year by the Corporation.
8B. The Corporation shall consult and take into account any advice given by the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales before appointing any auditor under paragraph 8A above in respect of their first financial year.
8C. No person shall be qualified to be appointed auditor under that sub-section except—

(a) an individual, or firm, eligible for appointment as a company auditor under section 25 of the Companies Act 1989;

(b) a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy; or

(c) a firm each of the members of which is a member of that Institute.

8D. In this Schedule in relation to a corporation—
"the first financial year" means the period commencing with the date on which the Corporation is established and ending with the second 31st March following that date; and
"financial year" means that period and each successive period of 12 months.").
The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee will not be surprised to learn that I did not invent the

899
amendment. It was given to me by an admirable institution; that is, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. It has written to other Members of the Committee about the matter. This is a technical amendment of some importance. Although it was tabled only a short time ago I hope that the Government have reflected on it and will respond positively to it.
There appears to be an absence in the Bill of provisions for qualified auditors to audit the accounts of the further education corporations. The Bill provides for the establishment of the corporations, for the instruments and articles of government and for the initial and subsequent instruments and articles. However, no explicit mention is made of audit of the accounts. That is in contrast to the higher education corporations because provision is made in Clause 67 by an addition to Section 124 of the Education Reform Act 1988 for the accounts of higher education corporations to be appropriately audited.
It is the view of CIPFA that it would be advantageous to all concerned if a similar provision to that relating to higher education were made for further education in respect of audits. Clause 20 requires compliance with Schedule 4. Amendment No. 176AA suggests that a requirement to the like effect relating to audit is placed on the face of the Bill.
I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to one further matter and I hope that it will meet with approval. The list of persons who would be regarded as eligible to be appointed auditors should include members of CIPFA. I appreciate that that is a slightly biased view but CIPFA is an admirable body. It is worth mentioning its members as being specifically valuable in addition to the other persons who would be valuable in the audit field. I know that in the present circumstances I do not need to emphasise to anyone the enormous importance of audit more generally. This matter is rather more technical compared with the long debate that we have just had. However, I hope that the Government are persuaded of the usefulness of the amendment in this form or, if not, will bring forward their own amendment in another form.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward this amendment which is intended to improve the Bill. It would place on the face of the Bill specific provisions in respect of the audit of colleges. I do not believe that there is any argument between us about the principle of audit of colleges. Clear requirements must be set out about the arrangements for the audit of colleges when they become independent bodies. The Government attach much importance to that.
Clause 20 makes clear that the further education corporations will be conducted in accordance with instruments and articles. The initial instrument and articles will be such as are prescribed by regulation or order under Clause 21. Schedule 4 sets out the broad framework for instruments and articles and the broader areas that must be covered in those important documents. In accordance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 the instruments prescribed in the
900
regulations will require the further education corporations to keep proper accounts and records. They will also set out the detailed requirements in respect of the annual audit of the accounts.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is to consult on these regulations when in draft. Members of the Committee and associations with a professional interest in audit requirements will have an opportunity to comment on them at that stage. I assure the noble Lord that colleges will be subject to the requirements in respect of audit. I hope that in the light of my comments and the fact that the amendment was tabled only recently the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister. I have no intention of dividing the Committee on a matter of this kind. The moment I started on the debate I knew that I should be out of my depth within 10 seconds. Does the Minister's briefing contain an explanation of why it appears that the further education corporations are not being treated on all fours with the higher education corporations? I considered it important to table the amendment because I was troubled by the fact that the audit requirement was not the same for each. I do not need to pursue the matter further because the Minister gave a helpful reply. Does he have an answer to that question?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The arrangements for the constitution and conduct of the higher education institutions was set out in the Education Reform Act 1988. We shall soon debate the relevant provision in Part II relating to the higher education corporations becoming part of the new higher education funding sector. The arrangements for the constitution and conduct of the further education corporations are not set out in detail in the Bill. The proposal before the Committee is that they should be covered in the instruments and articles made under Clause 21 and Schedule 4. I hope that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Peston: It takes me a little further along the road and of course I shall read the Minister's reply. The essential point of his reply is that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State will consult the relevant bodies. That is most important and it is not necessary for me, let alone the rest of the Committee, to become involved. With that assurance, I am delighted to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 176B:
Page 69, line 26, at end insert:
(". An instrument shall provide for the corporation to draw up and publish its arrangements for monitoring and reporting on the quality of provision made by the corporation. The arrangements shall be substantially independent of the corporation itself and shall provide assessment by persons having substantial experience of post-16 education and training and in employment fields relevant to the activities of the corporation. The findings of assessment exercises shall be passed to the relevant Funding Council and made public.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment and I hope that we shall obtain information as a result of tabling it. Its purpose is to

901
require individual colleges to establish and declare publicly their arrangements for quality assurance. They are to include assessment by people with relevant experience in education, training and employment, and to provide that the conclusions of assessment exercises shall be relayed to the funding councils and made public. The Education (Schools) Bill is very strong on the principle of independent inspection of schools and there is absolutely no comparable provision in this Bill. We therefore want to know what is intended. The vague provisions under Clause 9 for quality assessment committees within the funding councils are not an adequate substitute. Effective quality assurance at institutional level requires the involvement of people with the appropriate experience in education and training and of employment fields relating to a college's activities. All that should be in the public domain. As I say, we are making comparisons with the Education (Schools) Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The amendment would require the instrument or articles of government for further education corporations to provide for the corporation to draw up and publish its arrangements for monitoring and reporting on the quality of provision made by the corporation. The instrument or articles would also have to provide that the arrangements be substantially independent of the corporation itself and provide assessment by persons having substantial experience of post-16 education, training and employment fields relevant to the activities of the corporation.
The findings of assessment exercises would need to be passed to the relevant funding council and be made public. The present colleges of further education have primary responsibility for quality control. Most already have mechanisms for assessing the quality of the education and training they provide.
Performance indicators relating to quality are being developed as part of college management information systems. I am sure that we all agree that colleges need effective systems to improve their quality and contribute to their own efficiency and effectiveness. A number of systems are being explored by colleges.
I do not believe that there is disagreement between us on the matter. The Government attach great importance to systems which will ensure the quality of education and training by the further education corporations. The corporations must have effective monitoring systems. However, neither the instrument nor the articles of government need contain specific provisions relating to quality assurance arrangements. That will happen anyway.
Clause 5 provides for the funding councils to determine the terms and conditions on which they provide financial support to institutions. The Secretary of State will require the councils to draw up financial memoranda with the corporations, outlining the conditions under which funding would be provided to them. The Secretary of State will expect the financial memoranda to contain provisions relating to quality assurance, but did not think it
902
appropriate for the Bill to specify what provisions should be included in the financial memoranda. I hope that gives some answer to the noble Baroness.
Lord McCarthy: The point being made by my noble friend relates to independent surveillance. It is not a question of quality assurance. We are all in favour of quality assurance. Is the noble Lord saying that subsequently in the Bill it says that there will be independent surveillance, or merely that the councils will be associated with the process of quality assurance? It is independent surveillance that we want; somebody independent of the colleges to survey and look at this new and, some would say, extremely dangerous but valuable practice. It is independent surveillance that we require.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The noble Lord has more experience than myself in the matter. I was looking to see what advice I had. Perhaps we can leave the point. I shall look further into it and come back to Members who are interested before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness David: I am grateful for that offer, which I accept. I agree with my noble friend; it is the independent quality of the surveillance that is important. That is where I drew the comparison with schools which have independent inquiries.
I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments. If he wishes to discuss the matter with me before the next stage, I shall be grateful. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 22 [Subsequent instruments and articles]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 17, line 13, after second ("the") insert ("appropriate").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, when moving Amendment No. 177 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 179. Clause 22 allows further education corporations to replace or modify their instruments and articles of government with the consent of the Secretary of State. It also allows the Secretary of State to make changes to instruments and articles following consultation with the council and the corporations concerned, as appropriate.
As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State is required to consult the council before making an order under subsections (1) and (2), which would make a new instrument for government for a further education corporation or modify an existing one. The amendments provide that references to the, "council" in Clause 22 were to the, "appropriate council", within the meaning of Clause 1(6). That would ensure that where an educational institution received financial support from both the English and Welsh funding councils the Secretary of State would be required to consult both those councils before making an order under Clauses 22(1) and 22(2). I hope the Committee will feel able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 17, line 30, at end insert ("appropriate").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Transfer of property, etc.: institutions maintained by local education authorities]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 180A:
Page 18, line 10, after ("conduct" insert ("together with all outstanding debt relating to those assets").
The noble Lord said: I am going to trouble the Committee with another technical amendment which I did not invent. It was also given to me by CIPFA and again I find it rather interesting.
Clause 23 relates to a subject which we could have debated. It provides for the transfer of local authority assets to the new further education corporations. Clause 38 deals with the transfer of certain loan liabilities. Neither clause provides for the transfer of outstanding debt relating to the assets to be transferred. A careful reading of the Bill suggests that the debt relating to current schemes on which the relevant bodies are engaged will be transferred. At least that is one way of reading the Bill. However, I am advised that there is no way of reading the Bill which indicates that the debt corresponding to completed schemes will he transferred.
It is the view of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy that good practice suggests that all the outstanding debt relating to the assets should be transferred. The reason for tabling the amendment is precisely to air that point before the Committee. I would not dream of calling a Division on a matter of this kind and do not expect the Minister replying necessarily to give more than the beginnings of an answer. However, I plead with him that whatever his answer, can he make it one that I can understand. More to the point, if his answer can include consulting with relevant bodies, as did his previous answer, that will keep me happy.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for again introducing something which he feels will improve the Bill. I have had to rely more than usually heavily on advice received, but the answer will at least be a matter to be read and considered.
As is known, Clause 23 is concerned with former local education authority-maintained institutions which are to transfer to the new sector, and provides that any land or other property held on their behalf by local authorities will transfer on 1st April 1993 to the ownership of the further education corporations established to conduct those institutions.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord would dictate that all debts relating to these assets should also transfer. I am advised that that is all very well in theory, but in practice it would not be possible to administer. I am advised that the amendment could not be made to work. Clause 23 follows the precedent set by Section 126 of the Education Reform Act 1988
904
which dealt with property transfers to institutions within the polytechnics and the colleges' funding sector. It breaks no new ground.
Under Section 126 of the 1988 Act, land and other property formerly owned by local authorities transferred to the ownership of the relevant higher education corporation, but debts relating to those assets did not transfer. Debt charges arising from capital projects relating to local authority maintained further education institutions are currently the responsibility of local authorities, who receive support through the capital financing block of the local authority finance settlement.
In the further education White Paper the Government made clear their intention that the liability for charges relating to college property incurred until 1st April 1991 would remain with local authorities and not transfer with the colleges to the new funding councils. The reasoning behind that is that local authorities' debts relate to projects going back many years and it would be an exceedingly complex and tedious process to separate those debts relating to the college property from the rest of the local authorities' historic debt.
Furthermore, any debt transfer could not be properly based on total college debt liabilities, since that would in effect reward those local authorities which have in the past overspent—that is to say, those whose expenditure exceeded the level that the Government considered was appropriate at the time. That would not be fair. Local authorities will continue to receive support via the revenue support grant to meet liabilities arising from approved levels of historic debt.
For new capital projects starting in the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93, it is intended that local authorities will start off bearing the cost of charges in the normal way. Consequent on the provisions of Clause 38, from 1st April 1993, the councils will take responsibility for reimbursing local authorities for the cost of servicing debts arising from certain contracts entered into between 1st April 1991 and 31st March 1993 which are approved by the Secretary of State. The proviso is that the debts do not exceed the level of capital allocations for 1991–92 and 1992–93 for further education and sixth form colleges in each authority.
Any borrowing in excess of these allocations will be the sole responsibility of the local authority; but where such borrowing is within the limits of the authority's overall all-service credit approval, support will be provided by means of the normal local authority financial settlement. The debt charges repayments provisions of Clause 38 are designed to encourage local authorities to continue to invest in capital expenditure for colleges in the run-up to independence. These provisions will give local authorities reassurance that they will receive identifiable support for the liabilities arising from such borrowing. It has been a long and rather technical reply, but I hope that it has been able to assist the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I remember moving a very similar amendment to that moved by the noble Lord on this occasion. It related to the last piece of legislation to which my noble friend referred. It struck

905
me as quite extraordinary that the local authorities should continue to bear the debt until I discovered that they would be totally reimbursed. That was merely a convenient mechanism for carrying through the change. I found that the local authorities were quits satisfied by that so I did not press the matter. I understand that the provision appears to have been working. I listened with great care to my noble friend's reply. Provided the local authorities do not spend above their capital allocation it seems they will have the total sums reimbursed each year; so it is simply a book matter.
Earl Russell: I was relieved to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, had to say because I also felt a certain amount of concern about the Minister's reply. I appreciate that the matter is deeply technical. I am very much reassured by what the noble Baroness said about reimbursement. However, I shall be extremely relieved to hear the Minister say that in relation to this amendment. It does not seem equitable to take away the assets and leave behind the debts. That might begin to look, to put it no higher, a little unfriendly.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: When the noble Earl asked me to speak in connection with the amendment, I believe that I covered the point fairly fully concerning reimbursement. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied.
Lord Peston: I thought I heard the noble Lord the Minister make that point. Obviously, it was a technical answer and I cannot claim that I fully understood what the Minister was reading out. I shall read what the Minister said. CIPFA is a body of very great significance. It is considerably concerned with good practice, notably good accounting practice. I do not believe that that organisation would have written to me and other noble Lords if it did not feel that there was a point to be made here. Having pointed out that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be consulting on the other matter that I raised, I asked the noble Lord the Minister whether, in order to be on the safe side, in case it has a better point than the one I have been able to make, the Minister would at least ask his right honourable friend to meet CIPFA or accept representation from that body, as regards this matter as well. I was reassured, but I do not feel I am expert enough to let the issue rest at that point.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: We want to get this matter right. I was minded to go back because, when I said rather fiercely that the matter was unworkable, I did not mean to cast aspersions on a suggestion that was intended to be extremely helpful. If the noble Lord can leave the matter with me I would like to explore it a little further.
Lord Peston: I gladly leave the matter with the Minister I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. because I should have mentioned her in my remarks. She put the point very clearly. In a technical area like this, particularly where the LEAs themselves are involved, they may well wish to make representation. It is safer to consult even if one is fairly
906
confident that one has got the matter right. With that assurance from the Minister, I am glad to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 18, line 23, leave out ("given his written approval") and insert ("been provided by the parties concerned with a copy").
The noble Baroness said: I believe that this amendment is fairly straightforward. It is to delete the words "given his written approval" which is that of the Secretary of State, and to insert instead,
"been provided by the parties concerned with a copy"
so that the Secretary of State would know what was happening. It should be possible for a governing body and a LEA to enter into a legally binding agreement without requiring the ratification of the Secretary of State in every case. That is particularly so when there are safeguards. Subsections (5) and (6) have adequate safeguards if there is any default at all under subsection (4).
During the course of the debate on various amendments there has been a great deal of criticism about the Bill giving additional powers to the Secretary of State. It seems unnecessary that we should give him additional powers when no powers are really needed. I believe that to be so in this case. If a governing body and a local education authority are able to reach a voluntary agreement it seems entirely unnecessary for the Secretary of State to have to give his blessing. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My name is attached to this amendment and I am happy to support it. It seems to be unnecessary to involve the Secretary of State in a business of this kind. It is perfectly possible for two parties to reach an agreement without needing to call in the Secretary of State on every occasion. If the Secretary of State and his immediate advisers are continually involved with business on this level, it may tend to diminish the time they have available for the formation of policy. The Bill seems to be taking a Secretary of State to crack a nut. I support the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The amendment would allow for land to be excluded from transfer under this clause by agreement between the local authority and the institution concerned, but without the added safeguard of the Secretary of State's consent. I do not think that that is desirable.
The Government have made clear that those colleges which are to transfer to the new sector shall have responsibility for the management and maintenance of the land, buildings and other property that they use. This reflects our policy of conferring upon colleges the maximum flexibility to conduct their own affairs. The main objective of Clause 23 is to provide for all land and property held by local education authorities on behalf of an institution currently maintained by that authority to transfer to the ownership of the further education corporation established to conduct the institution. However, we

907
recognise that there are occasions where the transfer of assets could seriously undermine a local authority's ability to discharge its duties, and accordingly have made provision under subsection (4) for certain land to be exempt from transfer, provided that both parties agree and the Secretary of State consents.
The Secretary of State will take a dispassionate interest in such matters; his role will be to ensure fair play. I am wondering whether the noble Baroness and the noble Earl have misunderstood the thrust of this provision. I consider this an important safeguard to the interests of both parties to a transfer and one which, I might add, has been warmly welcomed by all concerned. The local authorities in particular have voiced their approval to what they see as the "increased validity" of agreements which have received the Secretary of State's blessing. Furthermore, without the reassurance of the Secretary of State's approval, it is likely that many of the agreements facilitated by Clause 23 would not occur. That would be a great pity both for the local taxpayer and for colleges alike. I shall be interested to hear whether the amendment has been tabled against a background of misunderstanding. I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: That reply caused me a certain amount of surprise—in particular, the Minister's invocation of flexibility. On occasion flexibility is clearly a good thing. The question is whose flexibility? It seems to me that according to the amendment, we would have been providing for the flexibility of the contracting parties. I think the Minister is anxious about the flexibility of the Secretary of State. We need to think about who is doing the flexing and who is being flexed.
I am beginning to wonder whether flexibility is simply a euphemism for what is always described on this side of the Committee as the proposition that the Secretary of State may do whatever he likes. I take the point about fair play. However, there is always room for dispute about what form of play is fair. Is the Secretary of State's verdict on what is fair play always, in all circumstances, final? Is he always the appropriate umpire?
Baroness Lockwood: I was interested to hear the Minister's response. He wanted to give as much scope as possible to the further education institutions. Yet he goes on to say that they must have the authority of the Secretary of State. Perhaps we can get round this clause by leaving the Secretary of State some powers, where it is necessary in the transfer of property, but at the same time giving the parties where there is agreement the right to proceed with that agreement and keeping the Secretary of State informed. It seems unnecessary that his approval should be sought every time. I shall look carefully at what the Minister has said and see if we can reword the amendment for a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Transfer of staff to further education corporations]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 20, line 18, at end insert:
("( ) Following a transfer under sections 26 or 27 of this Act, a further education corporation, coming within section 26(1) of this Act, or a recipient of a transfer, under section 27 of this Act. shall continue to observe the terms and conditions agreed in any collective agreement on the same terms applicable to the transferor under that agreement, until the date of termination of expiry of the collection agreement or the entry into force or application of another collective agreement.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 26 deals with the transfer of staff into the new institutions. The Notes on Clauses relating to the Bill say that the aim of this clause is to ensure that the staff employed are able to continue their work. That gives one a fine sense of priorities. To be fair, it goes on to say that they should suffer no material disadvantage in regard to their contracts of employment or transfer.
It is true that on the face of the Bill there are at least four different ways in which the rights of the staff employed are underwritten as individuals. Subsection (1) defines who are the staff as individuals; who is to be covered. Subsection (2) provides that the individual contract dates of individuals shall continue. Subsection (3) ensures that the new employers shall inherit the obligations of the old employers; and subsection (5) safeguards individuals against constructive dismissal.
But all that refers to individuals. It is true that in subsection (5) we get as near as we can get on the face of the Bill to the formulation of something collective because subsection (5) refers to classes. It provides that the Secretary of State may make orders which refer to classes of employment. What he will make orders about, what those classes are, and what it will all mean is not on the face of the Bill.
That is where this amendment comes in. It provides that:
"Following a transfer under sections 26 or 27 of this Act, a further education corporation, coming within section 26(1) of this Act, or a recipient of a transfer, under section 27 of this Act",
—and here it is—
"shall continue to observe the terms and conditions agreed in any collective agreement on the same terms applicable to the transferor under that agreement, until the date of termination of expiry of the collection agreement or the entry into force or application of another collective agreement".
In other words, we are moving into specified groups —groups covered by collective agreements. What is being said in this amendment is that the results of collective agreements should be underwritten until they are renegotiated or changed in the course of time. In other words the workers will be guaranteed their existing pay. They will be guaranteed their existing pay as individuals; but they will also be guaranteed, as parties to the collective agreement, anything which has been negotiated about pay structures; about their grading, about their right of progress through a grade; and about their promotion prospects—all the things that tend to get embodied in collective agreements rather than individual contracts.
They would also be guaranteed the right to raise grievances and to take those grievances to the

909
respective representatives of their trade unions. They would have the right, in other words, to participate in the grievance procedures. They would even have the right to negotiate collective improvements to those agreements.
I wish that I could say that the amendment is unnecessary because it is unthinkable—as it would have been 10 years ago—for a public sector employer to undermine collective agreements as a systematic act of policy. But that is no longer possible to say. There are many public employers—British Rail, British Gas, British Telecom and others—who have quite intentionally—as they are entitled so to do—sought to gain advantages by giving employees concessions which they only get outside the collective agreement. We are saying that for this period, under this Bill, it should not be the case that those collective rights—all the ones that I have specified—should be guaranteed to the people who are being transferred from one institution to another. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Seear, who has her name to this amendment and may add a word of her own in a moment, I wish to support the amendment. It is a sensible, practical provision that agreements entered into should be continued until they reach their appointed time of termination. It will be a great deal easier for everyone that way at a time when enough upheaval will be going on anyway.
In common with most other noble Lords, I listened yesterday to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal make a Statement on the Maastricht Summit. He referred—I quote from memory—to the obscene doctrine that people are not bound by agreements they enter into. I may not have expressed myself quite so colourfully as the noble Lord, but the basic point commands general sympathy on these Benches and in most other quarters of the Committee. What is sound in one quarter is sound in another. That is an excellent reason for supporting the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The purpose of Clause 26 is to transfer contracts of employment. It is right that staff transferring to the new corporations should have such contracts safeguarded, as is set out in the clause. It is entirely another matter to extend such a principle to any collective agreement which may have been entered into by a previous employer. That might significantly constrain the new corporations' freedoms to manage their own affairs in an efficient and cost effective manner.
It will of course be the case that elements of collective agreements between institutions' management and their staff representatives will have been incorporated into contracts of employment. That being so, the elements concerned will be protected through the transfer of those contracts intact. But the new managements must be free to re-examine if appropriate other non-contractual parts of such collective agreements and not be hampered or bound by any provisions which would jeopardise these management aims. In other words, these institutions must be allowed to start with a clean sheet with respect
910
to collective agreements and not be hide bound or constrained by the policy or practice of their predecessors.
The Committee will be aware that in practice the contracts of employment of individual members of staff which are safeguarded by the clause will indeed incorporate many important features which have arisen as a result of collective agreements made over the years. In this sector there is what is known as the Silver Book, the document recording the outcome of national bargaining between the local authority employers and the lecturers' unions. That document and other agreements which have been made will have influenced what contracts have to say about such important matters as lecturers' duties, arrangements for remuneration and procedures to be followed on such matters as grievances. Where rights and obligations of that kind have been secured as a matter of contract, the clause as put before the Committee secures them. We see no further need to enshrine collective agreements as such by statute. That would be wrong in principle. The new sector, both employers and staff, must be able to negotiate freely on the future handling of these matters.
The approach in the clause is essentially the same as that of Section 127 of the Education Reform Act 1988, which provided for the transfer of staff to the higher education corporations—the newly autonomous polytechnics and colleges. That clause similarly transfers only matters enshrined in contracts and not collective agreements generally. I believe that it has worked satisfactorily for both management and staff. With that response I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: One is surprised to receive an answer of that kind. The noble Lord is quite right. The clause constrains the employer. It is supposed to constrain the employer. That is why it is there. But it constrains the employer in relation to individuals, not in relation to collectivities. The Government's objection is to the constraint of the employer from the point of view of a collectivity—a collective agreement signed by a trade union. Nor does it follow that it would not be capable of termination. That is what we are suggesting in the amendment. We are saying that the existing agreement would continue until notice was given of termination. That would be open to the employer as it would be open to the trade union. The constraint would not be unlimited; it would be the normal constraint, the to and fro of collective bargaining.
Finally, the Minister said that the corporations must start with a clean sheet—but of course only from the collectivity. From the point of view of the collectivity, the Minister is implying that there may not be any negotiation at all; no guarantee is being given as we transfer from one employer to another that the new employer will respect the procedures and the substantive results of collective agreements. We are not surprised but we will not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 20, line 30, leave out ("for the time being").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 184 to 187. I hope that the Committee agrees that they all go together.
Clause 26, and specifically Clause 26(7), defines who gets transfer rights. Subsection (7) contains three ambiguities —three limitations—with which we deal in the course of our five amendments. All these ambiguities make one wonder whether the framers of the Bill intend to protect full-time employees and part-time employees or only full-time employees. They make one doubt how far they have thought through what a full-time employee is, because on some possible definitions of what a full-time academic is I have to say that I know no full-time academics. That surely cannot be what the Minister intends. The fact is that academia is a pluralist game. All academics are endemic pluralists. If one interprets "full-time" in certain ways and if one interprets some of the words on the face of the Bill, all academics that I know would fall out of the protection of the clause.
In our amendments we are trying to deal with the matter in three respects. First, we want to take out "for the time being". That phrase has to be taken out. It is taken out by our Amendment No. 183 and by our Amendment No. 187. In the context of the Bill as we read it, "for the time being" suggests that the Bill may not cover those who when the transfer takes place are on sick leave, on maternity leave, on sabbatical leave, on secondment, or some other possibility. That cannot be the Government's intention and therefore we feel that the phrase "for the time being" is redundant and ambiguous and is best taken away.
We are also concerned about the presence of the word "only". That is taken out by Amendment No. 185. We submit that not to do so would be dangerous. It would mean that those extracurricular activities which are endemic to academia might be regarded as suggesting that one was employed not only by the college. Most further education lecturers from time to time live on marking A-level papers at weekends. How would we get A-levels marked if full-time lecturers did not mark them at weekends? They serve as external examiners. Sometimes some of them take on part-time private tuition. Some of them who cannot get part-time academic work perform in the evening at gigs. Some of them clean windows; some of them write books. Some of them talk on the local radio—some of them happen to make quite a lot of money talking on local radio. It cannot be the Government's intention to take all those people out and to say that only an academic who does nothing more than lecture and attend five days a week at his academic post is to be covered by the Bill.
We are saying that there is in the Bill no definition of categories that we recognise. Therefore we want to rewrite this part of the Bill. If all our amendments are accepted the clause would read that transference is covered if his,
"employment with the transferor involves work at that institution on a full or part-time basis, and
912
(b) subject to subsection (8) below, a person employed by the transferor is … solely at an institution if his employment with the transferor (disregarding any employment under a separate contract with the transferor) is on a full or part-time basis".
We think that makes it clear. We think that that is probably what the Government intend. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I should like to speak briefly in support of this amendment. The growing tribe of part-time workers in academic life is an unfortunate feature of the present scene. Such workers are often extremely poorly paid and on extremely weak contracts, with a great lack of security. There is much hardship in the field.
I should like to support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, about the use of the word "only". If that were applied equally in the higher education sector, we would, for example—just to add one more to the noble Lord's list—have very few books reviewed in the Sunday newspapers. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The amendments all relate to the transfer of contracts of employment of staff employed in institutions which are conducted by further education corporations. The deletion of the expression "for the time being", proposed in Amendments Nos. 183 and 187, would not allow the transfer of contracts of staff who might be employed by an LEA under a contract simply to work at such a place or places as might be specified from time to time; that is to say, without an explicit reference to a particular college.
Such contracts are quite common. The words "for the time being", which would be removed by two of the amendments, provide that the contracts of such staff, who are in fact employed by a college at the time of transfer, would be transferred. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that that is the right approach.
Amendments Nos. 184 and 186 are intended to ensure that staff employed solely at transferring institutions on both full-time and part-time contracts are covered by the terms of Clause 26. Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord that the clause as drafted already has that effect as it does not differentiate between full-time and part-time staff.
Amendment No. 185 proposes the deletion of the word "only". The inclusion of the word is essential to provide for the circumstances where a person has a general contract of employment with a local education authority but in practice may work at several institutions. A groundsman might be a typical example. It seems right that such a person should not automatically transfer from the LEA's employ. But that is a matter which should be looked at on its merits. Where appropriate, such a person could be transferred under the order-making power in Clause 26(1) (b). However, we expect that most cases will be settled by local agreement without an order being necessary. I believe that the staff will be better protected without these amendments to the clause. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I thank the Minister for that response. He has made some reassuring remarks, but they were not entirely reassuring. I wonder whether I could induce him to give a little more reassurance. He said that the phrase "for the time being" would work in the interests of the staff because it allows contracts to be transferred. If that is the case, it is an advantage. However, I still maintain that it has a disadvantage. I suggest that some people may say that because someone was sick or on secondment he or she is not covered by the clause. As I said, the Minister's remarks were reassuring but not entirely so.
The Minister then said that it is a general clause and that the word "only' is essential because it covers people who might work at several institutions. But he continued to say that it may not cover people who work at several institutions. I find the latter worrying. It may be said that a person who spent a number of hours working for an external studies department while working for a university down the road was working at several institutions. That seems to me to be unfair.
Therefore, we come to the central point of whether this clause covers part-time working. If I understood the Minister correctly, he said that it did cover part-time working. In that case I do not see why the word "part-time" cannot be put on the face of the Bill. Can the Minister tell me unequivocally that the Government's intention is that this clause should cover part-time as well as full-time workers? If that is the case, can he say how the word "part-time" is defined?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I think that part-time is not full-time. However, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that I said—and this will appear in the Official Report—that the effect of the clause does not differentiate between full-time and part-time staff.
Lord McCarthy: In the light of those reassurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 184 to 187 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Dissolution of further education corporations]:
[Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 21, line 9, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is a technical one. The Bill does not define "the council" only "a council" in Clause 1. The amendment changes the reference in Clause 27 to "the council" to "a council". It will allow the transfer of the property rights and liabilities of a dissolved further education corporation to the funding council for England or to the funding council for Wales, or both, but only by using the expression "a council". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 21, line 25, at end insert ("and
(c) Such persons appearing to him to be representative of employees employed at the institution.").
The noble Lord said: I thought that if Amendment No. 192 was not moved then we would not move Amendment No. 193. However, I am quite happy to move the latter. The amendment suggests that, in the process of consultation, one should consult the persons who are representative of the workers. It is an attempt to change the face of the Bill. On looking at the Bill, we take the view that it is allowing the Minister to decide whether or not he wants to recognise a particular group of workers or a particular representative of the workers; for example, a particular trade union.
We are saying that there should be something on the face of the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State is not free to decide who he recognises. Therefore, we propose the insertion of a paragraph which would ensure that the Secretary of State consults:
"Such persons appearing to him to be representatives of employees employed at the institution".
I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: As they stand, the provisions of Clause 27 precisely mirror those of Section 158 of the Education Reform Act 1988 which deals with the dissolution of higher education corporations. I must say that I do not think there is a reason for applying different provisions in respect of further education corporations. The amendment proposed would require the Secretary of State to consult representatives of employees employed at a further education corporation before making an order to dissolve the corporation.
I remind the Committee that this clause introduces statutory requirements in respect of the closure of further education colleges where none has ever existed before. At present there are no statutory requirements on local education authorities to inform or consult about proposals to close FE colleges. In this Bill we have ensured that such proposals in respect of FE colleges are the subject of publication and consultation. In practice that gives an opportunity to all concerned, not least staff and students, to submit their views to the Secretary of State if that is what they wish to do.
6 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord seems to have two answers. He said that they have done some good where there was no good previously. He said that nobody had to consult anybody, but now we have permitted somebody to consult somebody. He says that it is a small baby, but a good baby. Our answer to that is to ask why it cannot be the right and proper baby.
The noble Lord's answer to the amendment is that it was wrong before, so it must remain wrong. He says that it was not done before, so it cannot be done now. That is also not convincing, but I shall not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Designation of institutions]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The next amendment is Amendment

915
No. 194. I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 194A and 195 owing to pre-emption.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 21, line 36, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) The institution must be one of the following—

(a) an institution maintained or assisted by a local education authority, or which is grant-aided or eligible to receive aid by way of grant, which

(i) has a total enrolment number calculated in accordance with paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 3 of this Act of not less than 200 FTEs, and

(ii) satisfied the requirements of subsections (2A) and (2B) below;

(b) a consortium of educational providers which

(i) has a total enrolment number calculated in accordance with paragraph 1 (2) of Schedule 3 of this Act of not less than 400 FTEs, and

(ii) satisfies the requirements of subsections (2A) and (2B) below;

(c) a voluntary body with a national programme of further education work which satisfies the requirements of subsections (2A) and (2B) below, and

(d) a consortium of voluntary bodies operating across more than one local education authority, which

(i) offers a programme of further education including some which is of the types outlined in Schedule 1 to this Act, and

(ii) satisfies the requirements of subsection (2B) below.

(2A) Subject to subsection (2) above, to be eligible for designation under subsection (1) above any institution, consortium or organisation must have not less that 20 per cent. of its students enrolled on the types of provision outlined in Schedule 2 to this Act.
(2B) Subject to subsection (2) above, to be eligible for designation under subsection (1) above any institution, consortium or organisation must have satisfactory management, monitoring and quality assurance arrangements in place.").
The noble Baroness said: I am supported in this amendment by the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, who unfortunately is not able to be here this evening. The aim is to extend the criteria for designation. The purpose is to enable a range of bodies with experience in the education of adults to become designated institutions provided they satisfy criteria relating to size and satisfactory internal arrangements. Since the Government acknowledge the size and seriousness of many adult education services, it seems inappropriate that they should—and these are the adult education colleges and other institutions—need to route their applications for funding for Schedule 2 work through a neighbouring institution.
Like previous amendments—for example, amendments to Clause 15 which were moved on Tuesday—this amendment is designed to extend the new FE sector to include major providers of part-time Schedule 2 education. It allows those large institutions, whether or not maintained by an LEA, provided they satisfy management, monitoring and quality assurance criteria, to apply direct to the funding councils for funding. They should not have to route their requests for funding through the further education colleges.
Institutions and services fulfilling those criteria could choose to seek designation (and thus apply
916
direct to funding councils) or to route their requests through an FE college as seems most appropriate to local circumstances. The amendment also opens up a direct route to funding councils' funding for major voluntary bodies like the National Federation of Women's Institutes or the Pre-School Playgroups Association, should they prove to qualify and if they wish to avail themselves of that.
Some adult education colleges and voluntary bodies have very good relationships with their local FE colleges, but some do not. We believe that they should have a right to direct access for funding if they qualify under the conditions laid down in the amendment. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at this matter. We have a great respect for all those colleges and voluntary bodies which I mentioned. They would be reassured about the Bill, which is causing great anxiety, if the amendment were agreed to. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, about the importance of the colleges to which she has referred. However, I am worried about several aspects of the amendment. I recognise that the amendment sets very careful conditions as regards size and the proportion of the student body enrolled in Schedule 2 education which would govern the eligibility of institutions and bodies. However, despite that, there are problems with the amendment.
The White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century announced the intention to designate the Workers' Educational Association and the long-term residential colleges. But the conditions set by the amendment appear to rule out the WEA on the grounds of the proportion of its student enrolment in Schedule 2 education. The amendment insists that it should have no less than 20 per cent. Similarly, it appears that the amendment does not catch all of the long-term residential colleges which, to fulfil the conditions set by the amendment would have to have at least 200 full-time equivalent students (FTEs). I do not believe that one of them is as large as that. The amendment helpfully allows the WEA and residential colleges to enter consortia in order to be eligible for designation, which was referred to specifically by the noble Baroness, Lady David. But this does not square with the undertaking given in the White Paper and is most unlikely to be attractive to the WEA and many of the colleges themselves.
I do not believe that the amendment is workable in relation to its inclusion of maintained schools other than voluntary-aided schools. Those are now governed by schools legislation. Yet under Clause 29 schools, as designated institutions, would be subject to a quite separate set of provisions for their government and conduct. There is a conflict of legislation between that and the provision in this amendment.
I shall now turn to the voluntary bodies. We know that they have a very important role in the provision of further education. Most of their provision falls within the scope of the LEAs' duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for FE. A small amount of provision made by voluntary bodies falls within Schedule 2 and therefore within the remit of the

917
funding councils. At present, it is funded in different ways—by LEAs, perhaps, by central government departments, by TECs and through students' fees. It is that type of provision which the amendment seeks to address.
There appear to be two main anxieties. One is that voluntary bodies can no longer expect to look to LEAs for the funding of provision which will in future fall to the councils' duty. Of course, the LEA continues to have power to fund provision outside its duty, but I nonetheless understand this worry. The second anxiety is logistical. Those bodies making national or regional provision might find it more straightforward to relate to the funding council than to local FE colleges.
I believe these worries can be met. First, voluntary bodies will be able to consider whether Clause 6(5) is useful to them. Under that clause they can ask FE colleges to forward to the funding councils on their behalf an application for support. Secondly, it is open to voluntary bodies to approach the funding councils direct to explore the possibility of designation, where Clause 6(5) is not an appropriate channel of funding for them.
I am aware that three major voluntary bodies—the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Pre-School Playgroups Association and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—have been named by the National Institute for Adult Continuing Education as proper candidates for designation. It is interesting that two of those bodies were not consulted on the intentions which others had for them. I am confirmed in my view that those bodies, and any other voluntary bodies, should themselves explore the question of designation carefully with the funding councils, if they have worries about the future of the Schedule 2 provision which they make. This is particularly the case where bodies have close funding relationships with government departments or with TECs. Designation may well not be right in all cases.
I am sorry to resist the amendment because I realise that we are dealing with important colleges. However, perhaps I may say that it is wrong to run away with the idea that that means that by being part of the continuing local education authority system, they will in some way be at a disadvantage.
I remind the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it absolutely clear before the Bill commenced its passage that the Government intend to maintain funding for the local education authority adult education sector in the future.
Baroness Seear: I ask this through my ignorance and it is a. request for information. The colleges will go to local education authorities for "leisure work" but they will also be doing Schedule 2 work and therefore will be able to claim moneys from the councils. Is it intended that they should have to go for the Schedule 2 work to be funded from the councils, but through another institution, or can they go direct? I can well believe that there would be many cases when going through another institution would, to put it mildly, be unacceptable. What is the point of making them go
918
through another institution? Does the other institution act as a post office or does it have the right to say, "This is a respectable body that can be financed", or not? That would cause an enormous amount of trouble.
Perhaps it is clear to everyone, but it is not clear to me where there are the two sources of funding. There are two questions: where colleges have two sources of funding, can one go direct? If the colleges with two sources of funding cannot go direct but have to go through a further education college, does the further education council have a right of veto on the application from the college?
Lord Belstead: The point which the noble Baroness raises is in Clause 6(5). It is for Schedule 2 work. What happens is that the college would be mainly an adult education college receiving its funding from the local education authority. When the Bill comes into effect it can, as the noble Baroness said, reach in and make an application through a further education college which is doing entirely Schedule 2 work. What the noble Baroness did not say is that there are criteria which the reaching in college must address. The main criterion is that the work being applied for under direct funding from the further education funding council is work which is not being properly addressed in that locality at that time.
If there is any nonsense about the "post office" college, as the noble Baroness puts it, which has looked at the claim, if there is any nonsense about holding up an application unreasonably, then the applying college can complain. As the noble Baroness may recall, there are two powers in the Education Act 1944 under which the Secretary of State can open an inquiry and proceedings against the post office college. It could be found that they have acted either unfairly or unreasonably.
Baroness Seear: That is very important and I am grateful for that reply. It takes us a long way but there is still one point I wish to get quite clear. Does the further education college simply look at the adult college and say, "The work it is doing is already being done elsewhere". Or does it say, "The work it is doing is not good enough". Will it stand as judge on the matter, or is it merely making an administrative decision that the work is already being carried out in another college, therefore it duplicates the work and is unnecessary? Or is it in judgment on the application, saying that the work is not good enough? That is where the rows could arise.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness David: The noble Baroness has covered many of the points I wished to make, but it could be that the further education college to which the application goes is already doing the work. It may wish to keep it for itself and not fund the other college. However, it may well be that the students who are doing the Schedule 2 work in the adult education college have gained the confidence to do the work through doing earlier so-called leisure courses. They wish to continue the work at the same institution.

919
I have been told this by a number of people involved in the colleges. They are worried that if they get an unsympathetic further education college which wants to keep the work for itself because it will receive more funding if it attracts more students, it may treat the college unsympathetically. That is why they wish to apply direct in certain cases. Is it clear that if they receive an answer they do not like they can go straight to the funding council?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords, this type of application comes under Clause 6(5). On my reading of the Bill I can give an assurance in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It is not a question of judgment. Clause 6(5) (b) states that where:
"there are no arrangements for the provision in that year of any facilities of the kind specified in the application for the population of the sponsoring body's locality by any other institutions or the arrangements for such provision for that population in that year by other institutions are inadequate"—
there is an element of judgment here—
"the sponsoring body shall apply to the council specified in the request".
That is a duty, and it is where the Secretary of State would come in if the duty were not complied with.
Baroness Seear: I thank the noble Lord for that reply.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister very much for that. He has cleared up a number of points. It is obvious that the amendment which I moved did a number of things which I did not fully intend it to do. It clearly needs reconsideration and we shall probably need to come back to the point, with perhaps a better drafted amendment, when advice has been taken.
I should also like to consult those people who made representations to me from the adult education colleges and who are worried about this aspect. I wish to obtain their advice. I thank the Minister for the clarification. I was certainly not trying to upset the WEA, or the residential colleges. I did not realise that my amendment had any effect on them.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Baroness sits down, it seems to me in relation to the voluntary organisations that it is important that from this moment voluntary organisations begin to understand how the provision will work. They are rightly worried, they do not understand where to find the two sources of funding and how they are to know to which organisation to go. That is important.
The prevention of duplication which the arrangements involve must be understood by the colleges to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred. There is no question that if a course is running in one college, it will not receive funds for the course in the other one if it is not needed. We must realise that. These are two tricky points which people need to understand. I think I can see it working, but it is important that everyone should know exactly what the arrangements are or they will become more and more worried. That would be a pity.
Baroness David: I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important that people should understand
920
how it works. We must get it clear. There has been some clarification but we may well need a little more. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we shall come back again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 194A:
Page 21, line 37, leave out ("aided school") and insert ("school or a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school before becoming grant-maintained").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving Amendment No. 194A I should like to take also Amendments Nos. 197A and 197B. I fear this is a little complicated. It refers back to the exchange I had with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, late on Tuesday night, when I contended that in our view the voluntary colleges—whether controlled or aided or formerly controlled or aided—should not be declared bodies corporate under Clause 15 but should become designated institutions under Clause 28.
The first of these amendments is part of that package. The noble Lord was kind enough to say that he would have some further discussion with me on the point. It inter-relates to the matters in Clause 30 which deal with the special provision for foundation governors being in a majority in those schools where there is a trust deed. Unless I secure the position in relation to this amendment on Clause 28, I shall be in difficulty with Clause 30, hence my attempt to deal with it now.
Clause 30 as drafted makes provision for those voluntary aided colleges with a trust deed to have a majority of foundation governors. It is our contention that that should be the case for voluntary controlled colleges and for those colleges which are now, or will become, grant maintained, but which were formerly voluntary colleges. The reason for that in the first instance is that they all have trust deeds and those trust deeds must be honoured. Therefore, in our view, all those schools should be treated alike in this respect.
Furthermore, the Education Reform Act 1988 provided that where a voluntary school became grant maintained, there should nevertheless be a majority of foundation governors. The 1988 Act secures that provision for voluntary controlled schools as well as aided schools, and my amendments seek to secure that for sixth form colleges too. Amendment No. 197B seeks to cover those schools or colleges, which we believe should become designated institutions if the necessary provisions are agreed to, even if they do not have a trust deed.
Some voluntary schools do not have trust deeds, either because they never had them or because—this is the case with one or two schools—they have been lost. The 1944 Act provided that where there is no trust deed, the school should continue to operate in the same way as it did before that Act was introduced; that is, as though it had a trust deed.
The amendments seek to secure that there should be a majority of foundation governors for all schools which are or were voluntary schools. I apologise for the complexity of my speech. I hope I have satisfactorily explained my concern. I beg to move.
The Duke of Norfolk: I support the right reverend Prelate on these amendments. I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 197C which seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill. That is the meat of the whole matter.
Noble Lords: Not yet!
The Duke of Norfolk: I hope that I may still continue. The right reverend Prelate seeks to maintain the status quo as regards religious education.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: That is a different issue.
The Duke of Norfolk: Plainly I had better sit down.
Lord Belstead: We shall reach the amendment which the noble Duke addressed in just a moment. I preface my remarks by reiterating what the right reverend Prelate has said. I offered to discuss this matter with the right reverend Prelate and the right reverend Prelate has accepted my offer. We have covered some of this ground before. The overall objective of these amendments is to place all voluntary sixth form colleges, and any future grant maintained sixth form colleges which were formerly voluntary schools, on the same institutional footing in the further education sector; that is, as institutions designated under Clause 28 to receive funds from the further education funding council rather than as institutions conducted by further education corporations. These amendments would also require the governing bodies of all institutions in the new sector which were formerly voluntary schools, including any which have passed through the grant maintained schools sector, to have a majority of foundation governors.
Under the Bill as it is currently drafted, designation of voluntary schools under Clause 28 would not extend beyond the small number of existing voluntary aided sixth form colleges, with their particular status involving shared financial responsibilities, which will enter the further education sector automatically in April 1993. I listened carefully to the right reverend Prelate but I still believe there is a sound framework in place which will ensure that the position of the trustees and the foundation governors, and the charitable status of the institutions which are voluntary aided, will be preserved. Having listened to the right reverend Prelate, I do not think that we disagree about that. In other words, the path through Clause 28 for the voluntary aided institutions is, in all respects, preserved I understand that the right reverend Prelate finds that satisfactory.
I now turn to the voluntary controlled sixth form colleges which will enter the new sector in 1993, and any voluntary schools, or former voluntary schools, in the grant maintained sector which transfer to the further education sector subsequently. The right reverend Prelate is concerned that they should continue to make their contribution in line with their former voluntary status. However, I believe I am right in saying that no one can envisage a grant maintained college starting up in the near future because there would not be sufficient 16 to 18 year-olds to qualify.
922
The Government believe that it is right to make provision for the preservation of the majority for foundation governors of former voluntary aided sixth form colleges which are designated to receive funds under Clause 28 from the further education funding council. However, we do not believe there is a case for extending that privilege to all former voluntary schools. The right reverend Prelate appeared to suggest that there should be a majority of foundation governors in voluntary controlled colleges. Foundation governors commonly hold 25 per cent. of the membership of voluntary controlled school governing bodies and this has been accepted by the interested parties as being sufficient to enable them to fulfil their role with respect to the character of a voluntary controlled school.
The position of foundation governors of former voluntary schools in the new sector which did not have aided status would not therefore deteriorate. Moreover, the institution will continue to be conducted in accordance with its trust deed. The right reverend Prelate explained that for some unfortunate reason a school may no longer have its trust deed. In that case its character will be reflected in the articles of government.
The Government do not believe at the moment that there are grounds for extending the influence of foundation governors in the way proposed for the reasons I have just given. Nor do we believe there is a need for any additional provision in the articles of government. I hope that my comments do not sound negative. My words derive from my conviction that we are being fair and are doing our best to lay the groundwork for what is referred to in another clause of the Bill as keeping a good balance between denominational and voluntary colleges and colleges which have come from the maintained sector. However, I finish as I began. I believe that the right reverend Prelate wishes to discuss this matter outside the Chamber in addition to our discussions in the Chamber.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for giving an undertaking to discuss this matter further. I remind the Committee that Section 53 of the Education Reform Act 1988 specifically provides that in the case of any school that was a voluntary school immediately before it became a grant maintained school, the foundation governors would be in a majority.
All that my amendments seek to do is to continue the arrangements that were secured under the 1988 Act. It is not as if I wish a further extension to that or anything new. I am merely trying to secure what has already been agreed in the discussions relating to the 1988 Act. However, I suspect that it would not be helpful to take up any more of the Committee's time at this stage as the Minister has kindly agreed to hold further discussions on the matter. I shall therefore be happy to withdraw the amendment and continue the discussions elsewhere. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Government and conduct of designated institutions]:
[Amendments Nos. 196 and 197 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Special provision for voluntary aided sixth form colleges]:
[Amendments Nos. 197A and 197B not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 197C:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Religious education
.—The provisions relating to religious education and religious worship contained in the Education Reform Act 1988 shall apply to all further education institutions which were formerly maintained or grant-maintained schools.").
The right reverend Prelate said: The amendment brings us to the discussion which we nearly started by accident a moment or two ago. The question at issue—to which I referred in the Second Reading debate—is whether, if the sixth form colleges are to be transferred to the further education sector, the provisions of the Education Reform Act in relation to religious education and religious worship should still apply, as they do at present. The amendment seeks to provide that that should be the case.
I have no desire to re-open the fairly lengthy discussions which we had in the course of the debates on the Education Reform Act. It seems simplest merely to say that, notwithstanding that the funding arrangements have changed, the religious education and religious worship provisions should continue to apply. I hope that that will be acceptable to the Government. 1 beg to move.
The Duke of Norfolk: The new clause which the right reverend Prelate has moved seeks to maintain the status quo over religious education in institutions of further education covered by the Bill. Legislation on schools provides for religious education to be given and religious worship to take place in all schools. Those provisions were re-approved by Parliament as recently as 1988 in the Education Reform Act. Members of the Committee will no doubt recall the lengthy debates which took place in this Chamber and the strong support which was expressed for the religious provisions of the Act. The Bill would quietly drop them in the case of sixth form colleges, leaving the decision to individual governing bodies. That would mean the disappearance of religious education and worship in many of those colleges, particularly in non-church colleges. The position in sixth form schools would remain unaltered but in sixth form colleges it would be changed.
The justification for that change is alleged to be that the tradition in further education is different and does not include religious education at that age. I do not find that an adequate reason, particularly as the Bill itself does not adopt what is described as the further education tradition since it apparently leaves the decision to local choice by the governing body.
924
I cannot think that we live in a time when the 16 to 18 age group does not need the help of religious education. I hope that we can maintain the status quo and not embark on changes so soon after Parliament reviewed the matter in the Education Reform Act.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: It is with considerable diffidence that I rise to speak on this matter, on which I am much less qualified to speak than the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford who moved the amendment. I do so as the head of an institution which has a chapel in which, by the statutes of the college, divine service is celebrated every day of the term and has been for more than seven centuries. It is the case, however, that in the higher education sector attendance at an act of collective worship is on a voluntary and not a compulsory basis, and that has been the case for many years.
The right reverend Prelate is correct in asserting that in sixth form colleges at present such participation is on a compulsory basis because under Section 9 of the 1988 Act the parent—and I find it somewhat curious that it refers to "the parent" rather than "a parent" but that is not an important point—has to request that the pupil be excused from the act of collective worship.
It is the case that the present Bill makes a number of significant changes, which have been very fully discussed already in this Committee. Sixth form colleges now move to the further education sector and will be subject to the provisions applying to that sector. That distinction, arising mainly out of Clause 3 of the Bill, was very fully discussed. The matter was questioned in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and dealt with fully.
There is here an important element of choice for the schoolboy or schoolgirl who has passed the age of compulsory education and may choose whether to remain within his or her school at sixth form level, if there is such provision within the school, or to go to another sphere of education, namely further education. Some may prefer the more structured and closely disciplined environment of school. Others may prefer the new world of a college in the further education sector which much more closely resembles the institutions which they may enter some years later at the age of 18 if they proceed to the higher education sector. These are now young adults—students not pupils. It is within the logic of the Bill that that is where the division comes between pupils and students, between the secondary and the further education sectors.
The time comes when children become adults, albeit young adults, with new responsibilities and freedoms, among which is the discretion to take their own view concerning collective worship. Were the right reverend Prelate's amendment simply to assure the provision of a single act of collective worship, as in Section 6 of the 1988 Act, that would be an entirely appropriate provision and one which I should be very happy to support. However, I am afraid that it goes further. It entails also the provisions of Section 9 of the 1988 Act. It would make attendance compulsory at the sixth form college unless the parent of the pupil were to request otherwise. I feel that in the further

925
education sector we should be encouraging students to thin1 for themselves and to take responsibility for themselves.
Therefore, although I should be happy if the amendment were to make the provision of a single collective act of worship compulsory, I cannot support the notion that attendance should also be compulsory.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may say a word in support of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, on this matter. 1 do not want to go into the substantive matter of religion, on which my views may well differ significantly from those of the noble Duke and of the right reverend Prelate. However, as a matter of principle it seems to me to be wrong that, purely as an incidental consequence of a Bill dealing with further education, we should amend some very detailed provisions which, as the right reverend Prelate said, we debated at great length in connection with the 1988 Act.
If the Government wish to reconsider the question of religious education and religious worship they ought to place the matters before us so that we can have a long-winded row on the matter if need be. However, merely for that to happen as a consequence of legislation dealing with further education would be wrong. We should not be involved in matters of this kind as a consequence of a desire to reform further education. That should be dealt with on another occasion. I consider that a good point arises as a result of the amendment.
The Duke of Norfolk: At present religious education is compulsory up to the age of 18. Parents can opt out if they want to do so. In direct grant schools, grant-maintained schools and voluntary aided schools religion is part of the curriculum in the school. However, I agree that there is an opportunity to opt out. If such schools are transferred to the further education sector we believe that the religious elements should remain compulsory or available up to the age of 18.
Lord Belstead: This is quite a difficult matter. The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was perfectly reasonable. I was in no way surprised to see the amendment on the Marshalled List in the name of the right reverend Prelate.
The Committee will be aware from the discussion that religious education and collective worship have been compulsory in schools since the Education Act 1944. The Education Reform Act 1988 emphasises that it is the duty of all schools to provide a curriculum which promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils. I believe that that provision was inserted by your Lordships' House. Religious education and collective worship play an essential part in that process. Parliament was clear in its view that they should continue to be provided in the schools, but, partly for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, such provisions have never extended to further education or other post-16 institutions outside the schools sector. The details of
926
the curriculum have traditionally been left to the governing bodies of those institutions to determine for themselves.
I take the issue head on. It is this point that will affect the sixth-form colleges which go into the new, centrally funded further education sector; but, in saying that, perhaps I may make two points. First, individual institutions are to make such arrangements as their governing bodies see fit or—this is an I important point to bear in mind—as their trust deeds may dictate. In making such arrangements as the governing bodies see fit, it is fair to say that some of the considerations to which my noble friend Lord Renfrew gave voice would be in the minds of the governors.
Secondly, we should not forget that the voluntary-aided colleges which are to go into the new further education sector will enter that sector through designation. The foundation governors will be in a majority and will be able to preserve the provision of religious education. The voluntary-controlled colleges, over which the right reverend Prelate and I still have outstanding points to resolve, would be able to apply for foundation governors to be in a majority and would therefore be able to preserve the provision of religious education. It would be open to them to do that.
As the right reverend Prelate reminded us, grant-maintained schools were given a majority of foundation governors when voluntary-aided and voluntary-controlled schools became grant-maintained. I realise that that does not answer the main point in the amendment, but we should not forget that quite a large swathe of colleges which go into the new sector will undoubtedly wish to address in a positive manner the question of religious education, and possibly religious worship.
We do not intend by this amendment to fetter unnecessarily the freedom of anyone. It is rather the other way round. The sixth-form colleges that go into the further education sector should then be free to make the provision that they think right in this matter.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: There is one point with which my noble friend has not dealt, or at least I did not hear him deal with it; namely, the distinction between compulsory and available facilities for religious worship in those colleges. I take the point that he has just made that, once they move into further education, it may be right for governors to have the say as to the degree to which religious education and worship is allowed or provided. However, one cannot altogether forget that the origin of the schools which are dealt with in the amendment is one in which they were originally governed by a trust deed for the purpose of the religious ethos of the school.
I take the point that, at age 16 plus, it may well be that attendance at a religious ceremony might be left to the voluntary decision of the pupil. However, the availability of religious facilities in an institution that was once founded by charitable endowments for the purpose of providing available religious worship as a collective act is rather a different matter. I wonder whether my noble friend has thought of that point.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I must be truthful, because it is not much good being untruthful with regard to my noble and learned friend, and say that I do not think that the matter has been addressed, certainly not by myself. In referring to the availability of religious facilities in institutions that were founded by religious denominations, he is talking about the maintained sector which sprang originally from the churches. Perhaps I may take that point away because I have no better answer to give my noble and learned friend this evening. It is a telling point. Perhaps I may put it in rather homely language for my own personal consumption. The question arises: what about the facilities that exist? To what use will they be put in the future? My noble friend Lord Renfrew may have provided some of the answers, but perhaps I may take the question away to see whether I can find an answer.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful for this brief debate and wish to say at once that I am sensitive to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I do not for one moment wish to dismiss the importance and seriousness of what he said.
My anxiety is that if, as the Government appear to indicate, it is their intention that those who attend sixth forms in sixth-form colleges are no longer required to have religious education and to attend a collective act of worship on the grounds that have been put forward—namely, that young people of that age are free to choose—it automatically applies that, similarly, 16 year-olds in schools should be allowed to choose. I therefore contend—I almost gave a warning—that, if we open all that up again, we are bound to enter into all the discussions that we had prior to the 1988 Act. I would rather not do that because that was a long and difficult process and I was only on the touchline. Heaven forfend that we should have to go through it all again with me in the front line!
However, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that further discussions are to take place. I may have misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, but the amendment applies to all sixth-form colleges, whether they have trust deeds or not, because that is the current position.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps I was foolish not to make the point that I had just been listening to my noble friend on the Front Bench. He made what appeared to me to be a valid point; namely, that in the case of the voluntary-aided group, the majority of governors would probably be foundation governors. They could therefore have the say. That was the point I should have made, and the right reverend Prelate is perfectly right to take me up for not making it.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I do not wish to detain the Committee further on this point. I hope that it is recognised that it is a point of some sensitivity and importance. I therefore hope that it will be possible for us to discuss the matter further. It may be necessary for me to come back with further
928
amendments if we cannot achieve a successful outcome to the discussions that must take place. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 31 to 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Making additional property available for use]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 26, line 14, at end insert (", and
(c) he has received assurances from the governing body of the new sector institution that the use to which the property which is the subject of this order will for a period of not less than three years after the order shall take effect he the same as that for which the property was used prior to the local education authority discontinuing, or planning to discontinue its use.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that former LEA premises used for further education provision remain in use for that purpose. Unfortunately, there has been a long history of premises provided or secured for the education of adults being taken over for what have been considered higher priority uses by the controlling institution, be it a school or college.
The more central or mainstream role being afforded to Schedule 2 adult education in the new sector will probably have the effect of making that situation less likely in the longer term. However, there is a need to safeguard premises from the loss of their adult role. That will be of particular importance for premises which are at a distance from the parent college.
We should like to know the Government's attitude to this matter and to hear that there will be some safeguards. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The purpose of the clause is to ensure that facilities continue to be available for the provision of further education courses in instances where a local education authority decides to take them out of use but the governing body of a local further education institution believes that they are still needed by local people.
Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will have a power to make available by order a local authority's land or property for use by an institution in the further education sector where it has been used for the provision of further education and where the local education authority has ceased or intends to cease to use it for that purpose.
Clause 34 is intended to make plain that this is a device of last resort. There are a number of safeguards that make clear that it is not possible for a further education college arbitrarily to secure the property of a local authority. I believe that that is what the noble Baroness seeks.
First, the property in question must cease to be used for further education. Thus, if an LEA goes on providing further education in the property, the question of transfer cannot arise at all.
Secondly, the further education sector institution must be unable to secure access to the property by agreement with the LEA. Thus if the LEA concedes a

929
lease of the property on reasonable terms, or guarantees access under a contract, there is again no question of transfer.
Thirdly, it must be necessary or desirable for the further education sector institution to have the use of the property. Thus it must contain facilities needed for further education sector purposes (for example, dedicated facilities for a course listed in Schedule 2), and the further education sector institution must itself lack adequate facilities, or not be able to provide them for the area in which the property is located.
Fourthly, applications must be made within three years of 1st April 1993. Fifthly, the Secretary of State must consult the further education funding council, the local authority and the Education Assets Board before making an order transferring the property, or giving the further education sector institution rights to use it.
This clause is necessary because local education authorities will no longer have a statutory duty to secure the provision of further education of the sort listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill. We want to guard against the situation where a local authority decides to take out of use a facility dedicated to that sort of further education—for example, a centre for basic skills funded through education support grant. If the facility is still needed for the people of the area, the local further education college should be able to secure its continued use. We hope that such matters will be settled by agreement locally. But in cases where no agreement can be reached, it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to retain the powers of last resort set out in this clause.
The amendment suggests that property should only be transferred where the Secretary of State has received assurances from the college that it will be used for the same purpose as before for at least three years. As I said, there are substantial safeguards to secure that property is transferred only where it is really needed. But I do not think that it would be helpful to eliminate altogether the possibility that a college might want to use the property for slightly different purposes—for example, to transfer some of the courses put on in the property to its main site and to use the new property for some of its other courses. That is useful managerial flexibility. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness David: So far as I could follow, perhaps there was some reassurance there. I should like to examine what the Minister said and, if I am not totally satisfied, come back at the next stage. I understand that this point will be followed up by the noble Baroness who intends to move a Motion that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Seear: I had no idea that this noble Baroness was making such a proposal. If she did ever say so, she made a mistake because she is not so proposing.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Control of disposals of land]:
[Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 not moved.]
7 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 39 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Russell: I intend to raise this matter. It may be for the convenience of the Committee to consider together the Motions that Clauses 39 to 42 should not stand part of the Bill. This is an interrelated body of clauses. I believe I am correct in saying that the deletion of the one clause would have the consequential effect of the deletion of the others.
These are clauses which caused a good deal of debate when they were first foreshadowed in the Statement which announced that the Bill was coming. They deal with the wrongful disposal of assets. They make provision for repudiating contracts if necessary in the case of all contracts entered into after 21st March 1991, which is quite some time ago. I appreciate that it is the view of the Chamber that retroactive legislation is not always impermissible. Nevertheless, I believe that it ought to be looked on with a certain amount of suspicion and given a good deal of scrutiny before this Chamber permits it.
An interesting question arises: why the choice of 21st March 1991? I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for confirming that that was the day of the Statement which foreshadowed the introduction of the Bill. So control on the disposal of property is becoming law from the day of the ministerial announcement. That has a certain vague resemblance—I admit it is only vague—to legislation by decree: a measure acquires the force of law from the day on which the Minister announces it.
That is something about which I feel a good deal of misgiving. It is always a good test for this kind of situation to ask what one would feel if the power were used the other way round. Let us therefore imagine a government not drawn from the Benches opposite. They come into office and introduce a law requiring that all disposals of assets after 1st December 1991 shall be held to be void. One might then hear a certain amount of protest. I think that we should treat the cases as parallel.
There is a good deal of difficulty in controlling the executive. Therefore it needs to be wary in the use of its powers. The use of such powers which give the executive more opportunity to exercise flexibility is addictive. It will be argued that it is a case of making too much fuss about a little thing. However, if one accepts the principle of addiction, then it is not necessarily an answer to say that the first shot is really a very little one.
I listened carefully last Tuesday to the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. He again argued that I was making too much fuss about a little thing. I found afterwards—I wish that I had found it while I spoke—the note that I had made while he was on his feet which referred to

931
"a little cloud no bigger than a man's hand". As the Committee knows, that led to a good deal of disturbance.
Other points need to be taken into consideration. We have another example of government suspicion of local authorities. We have had one already today with regard to Amendment No. 181 about agreements on property requiring the consent of the Secretary of State. We have had another example on contracts. The matter comes up so frequently that it is beginning to sound a little like paranoia. While everyone, in particular Members of the Committee on these Benches, admits that there are local authorities which are rightly viewed with suspicion—I am sure that my noble friend Lady Seear will give examples willingly —not all of them ex officio are necessarily viewed with suspicion.
Much was said when the Statement was made on the Bill about the danger of planning blight as a result of such a long control on disposal of assets. There is also a real problem with contracts which were in the process of being negotiated at the time that the Statement was made which were caught halfway through the process. We are all familiar with the problem of the housing chain. That can also arise in relation to public buildings. When we consider areas where retroactive legislation is to be viewed with suspicion, I should have thought that those persons involved in the disposal of properties ought to be regarded as fairly high up the list. I beg to move that the clause shall not stand part.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps I may make a short point in answer to the witty observation that the noble Earl made about our previous exchange last week. He seemed to think that he had support for his argument either last week with l'esprit de l'escalier or, for the Motion that he has opposed today, by the reference to the cloud the size of a man's hand which he said had caused a good deal of upset. On the contrary, it proved the fruitful end of a large drought.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Clause 39 provides that during the "controlled period", which for the majority of institutions will be from 22nd March 1991 to 31st March 1993, local authorities must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before disposing of any land held or used for the purposes of an institution which is transferring to the new sector. This includes the disposal of and the option to acquire freehold or leasehold interests as well as outright sale.
This clause follows the precedent set by Section 137 of the Education Reform Act which dealt with disposals involving institutions funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. It is nothing new. It is essentially a measure which is designed to prevent local authorities from disposing unreasonably of assets held for the purposes of an institution transferring to the new sector. The aim is to ensure that on independence colleges are not placed in a position where their ability to fulfil their functions is compromised. I am sure that none of us would want to see that happen.
932
I know that this measure is not likely to find favour with local authorities, but our prime concern must be for the colleges themselves. It is vital that their interests are safeguarded.
It was considered necessary to make a Statement on 21st March to seek Parliament's approval of retrospective legislation in order to protect institutions which will fall within the new sector from local authority depredations in the intervening period. The noble Earl may remember that it was in response to an announcement made on 21st March in another place that two boroughs, Haringey and Rochdale, passed resolutions at emergency meetings to appropriate for other purposes significant parts of their respective college properties. The stated purpose behind the move was to safeguard the authorities' interests. I do not believe that it is too speculative to suppose that the ultimate intention was to dispose of those properties. Indeed, in the case of Haringey the local press reported that a national supermarket chain was the potential buyer for the appropriate site. I held that without the 21st March Statement, and my honourable friend's intention, and the subsequent provision of Clauses 39 and 40, many authorities would seize the opportunity to sell off their colleges' assets in the lead-up to independence.
Furthermore, the Department of Education and Science has intervened on a number of occasions to protect colleges from unwelcome disposals. However, intervention is not all one-sided. For example, in one instance, despite a college's objections, my right honourable friends agreed to the authority's proposal to dispose of a college site.
There will of course be occasions when a local authority might have a just reason for wanting to dispose of property. The Bill recognises this and Clause 39 allows for the Secretary of State to give consent to such disposals. It also allows for such consent to cover groups of disposals and empowers the Secretary of State to give his consent prior to Royal Assent.
The noble Earl spoke to the question whether Clause 42 shall stand part of the Bill. Clause 42 empowers the Education Assets Board to repudiate contracts made by local authorities which are in contravention of the preceding clause: that is to say where the local authority has not obtained the consent of the governing body of the institution and, where appropriate, the consent of the Secretary of State. The clause provides that such repudiation shall take effect as a repudiation by a local authority and any liabilities arising out of the cancellation shall be the responsibility of the local authority; and that is quite right.
I have no doubt that local authorities will resent the power of the Education Assets Board to repudiate contracts made by them. However, this power can only be invoked when a local authority has acted unreasonably, that is, in contravention of Clause 41. The most important consideration is the colleges themselves. Their interests must be protected. Both clauses are essential. I ask the Committee to agree that they stand part of the Bill.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Earl replies, perhaps I may say, first, that the noble Earl in his genial way created quite an interesting precedent when he invited us to consider the question whether four clauses taken together shall stand part. It is something upon which my simple mind is normally incapable of concentrating. However, I believe that he was justified in letting us save time in this way on this occasion.
However, I feel bound to point out that many of the institutions referred to in Clause 39 and in later clauses arc charities. This morning we concluded the Public Bill Committee on the Charities Bill. That is a detailed Bill which to a great extent by reference to previous legislation has amended the law, including the law relating to disposals of land. I merely express the hope —it may be difficult for my noble friends on the Front Bench to reply to it—that those exceedingly able people who are responsible for giving instructions to parliamentary counsel for the drafting of the Charities Bill and this Bill have made sure that in this part of the Bill there has been a proper dovetailing with the detailed provisions of the Charities Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I hope that it is not out of order for me to ask for clarification. I have received no brief and may have misunderstood the matter. I understand that Clause 39(2) (c) brings into the controlled period those educational institutions mentioned in Clause 28 of the Bill which are voluntary-aided colleges. Is it the intention of the clause to impose a limitation on schools or colleges which are held under trust deeds?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am under the impression that the answer is, no. However, if I am wrong I shall write to the right reverend Prelate forthwith
Earl Russell: I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, for his observations. I take the point about the end of a large drought, but a certain amount of upheaval is involved. I also take the point about precedent but not everything that has been done before is necessarily correct.
I take the Minister's point about our prime concern being for the colleges. Of course, in this day and age even more than usual many colleges are vitally dependent for their survival on the sale of land. Many are in the London area. Those colleges may find that their future financial plans are completely brought to a halt. They may find that interest on a debt continues to accumulate and their plans for dealing with it are brought to a halt. While I agree with the Minister about the interests of the colleges being put first, I am by no means clear that that necessarily points in favour of the present clause.
I take the Minister's point about Haringey. Such cases exist from time to time but here the Minister is making a judgment about intention. That is always tricky. No doubt the Minister will be familiar with judgments that are made from other Benches about the Government's intention. No doubt from time to
934
time he considers that such judgments are unfair. Indeed, some have been made in connection with this clause.
I listened to the Minister's point about the Secretary of State giving consent to disposals where they are, in the eyes of the Secretary of State, necessary. That is yet another example of an issue about which we on these Benches have complained throughout the progress of what is now the Bill and throughout the progress of what is now the Education Reform Act 1988. We have complained about the continual extension of the power of the Secretary of State into areas where it did not before operate on that level; the continual elevation of the Secretary of State's individual judgment to the point where it is approaching something which is very close to the rule of law.
I appreciate that this is a complicated issue and that there is a case to be made on the other side. I listened with a great deal of care to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who obviously has a point to make. When I listened to the Minister, however, I heard no perception that there is a point of difficulty. If I had heard that—a recognition that there is a constitutional problem but that maybe I am taking it too seriously —I should not have pressed the matter further. However, I am deeply worried about the extent to which the Executive is unaware that there is a problem about elevating its power in this way. I can think of only one way to bring to the attention of the Executive that there is a problem. I oppose the Question that Clause 39 stand part of the Bill.
7.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 39 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 31.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Arran, E.

Kitchener, E.

Astor, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marlesford, L.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cox, B.

Morris, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cross, V.

Mountevans, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ferrers, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Peel, E.

Goold, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Guildford, Bp.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Reay, L.

L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hemphill, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Shrewsbury, E.

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

935

Swansea, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Waddington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wise, L.

Ullswater, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Airedale, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Annan, L.

McCarthy, L.

Avebury, L.

McNair, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Blackstone, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Rochester, L.

David, B.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Seear, B.

Desai, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ennals, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Warnock, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 39 agreed to accordingly.
Earl Howe: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Offshore Safety Bill [H.L.]
7.22 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 4 [Increased penalties under Part I]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert:
("and the court, in deciding upon the penalty for an employer guilty of any such offence, shall take into account the extent to which he has consulted with safety representatives or safety committees within the meaning of section 2 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4 since both amendments seek to do much the same. Essentially they seek to do something about penalties; they seek to link penalties to the extent to which an employer has consulted existing safety committees or safety representatives within the meaning of the Act.
Amendment No. 1 deals with the proposed amendment to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 on the face of the Bill which provides additional penalties for health and safety offshore; that is to say, imprisonment on conviction for up to two years, a fine or both. To that increase in penalty we add the amendment, which states that the court,
"in deciding upon the penalty for an employer guilty of any such offence, shall take into account the extent to which he has consulted with safety representatives or safety committees within the meaning of section 2 of this Act".
We would argue that an amendment of this kind, which we were pleased to discover was within the compass of the Long Title, is in line with what Lord Cullen said about safety committees, and in line with and pursuit of the objective of the Government when they said that they accepted every recommendation in the Cullen Report.
That amendment was tabled in order to deal with the problem of safety legislation offshore. But in case it is said by the Government or any Member of the House that that would place a special tariff on punishment for offshore employers, we added Amendment No. 4, which makes a similar provision for industry generally. Therefore the same conditions apply to all employers. If the Government wish to accept Amendment No. 1 but not Amendment No. 4, that is something we can consider.
The House will remember that in his report Lord Cullen was concerned to strengthen the role of safety representatives. Three specific recommendations were made in the report—27, 30 and 31—which asked for various points to be laid down in order to strengthen the role of workers in relation to workplace safety on oil rigs. They asked the regulatory body—the Health and Safety Executive, the operators or the contractors—to support and encourage the involvement of the workforce in safety. The recommendations proposed that safety representatives should be protected against victimisation by Section 58 of the Employment Protection Act applying to them. Recommendation 31 said that the 1989 regulations should be modified to the effect that the training of safety representatives was paid for.
At Committee stage we said that we found none of those proposals in the Bill. At that time we sought to introduce an amendment to include some of them. This time we managed to put the amendments before the House. We are trying to meet the implementation of the Cullen Report in full. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I added my name to the amendments and am glad to support them. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for the ingenious way in which he managed to bring to our attention the desirability of involving employees in the promotion of safety under a clause in the Bill which deals with penalties for contravening safety requirements.
At Second Reading, and again in Committee, I made plain my anxiety that, despite the recommendations of Lord Cullen, the Bill contains no reference to the value of safety committees and safety representatives as a means of helping to enforce the principle that each employee is responsible for his own and his fellow workers' safety. On each occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, told us why changes could not be made to the 1989 safety representatives and safety committee regulations under the 1974 Act until the Bill had been enacted, thus making the regulations statutory provisions, and until the regulations had been reviewed. The amendment provides another way to induce employers in the meantime to consult with representatives or a safety committee as a means of improving provision for the safety of employees.
The amendments do not seek to prescribe specific penalties for offences. Their effect is simply to oblige the courts, before reaching their conclusions, to take account of the extent to which employers have consulted safety representatives or a safety committee. They are therefore modest proposals. I regard the need for employee involvement in safety matters as important. I am happy to support the amendments as

937
one way of advancing the practice without further delay. I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents although I am not sure that offshore installations come strictly within the ambit of that organisation. However, I hope my noble friend the Minister will seriously consider the amendment. I confess that I have never been on an oil rig but I have flown over one. Following the Piper Alpha disaster and some subsequent near misses, the reasoning behind the amendment is sound.
I believe that safety committees do a very important job. Accidents on offshore installations are often very much more serious than accidents in the factory or even on the roads because of the obvious combustible implications. The House should give serious thought to this matter. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give consideration to the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on his ingenuity in introducing this subject into the part of the Be11 dealing with offences. I must oppose it and shall tell the noble Lord why in a minute.
Amendment No. 1 deals exclusively with offences concerning certain offshore health and safety regulations. It complements the similar Amendment No. 4, which the noble Lord has put forward in relation to onshore offences, and which we are taking with it.
Before replying to the amendment, it might help if I were to remind noble Lords of the legal requirements upon employers to consult their employees. Offshore, these are different from the requirements onshore under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The requirement to consult offshore is set out in the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989 made under the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971.
Onshore, the requirement to consult is set out in Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Section 2(4) gives recognised trade unions the right to appoint safety representatives to represent employees in consultations with their employer, about health and safety matters. The Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 state that if requested by two or more safety representatives, the employer must set up a safety committee. Section 2(6) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act requires employers,
"to consult any such representatives with a view to the making and maintenance of arrangements which will enable him and his employees to co-operate effectively in promoting and developing measures to ensure the health and safety at work of the employees, and in checking the effectiveness of such measures".
Failure to comply with Section 2(6) is an offence and leaves the employer open to prosecution.
I should explain that Amendment No. 1, dealing with the offshore regulations, could not as drafted achieve its objective because of technical defects. That is because it refers to safety representatives and safety
938
committees within the meaning of the Health and I Safety at Work etc. Act. As I have explained, that would not cover offshore representatives and committees, who are elected or established under separate legislation. I appreciate that that is a technical matter which I am sure could be resolved, but there are good reasons why the Government do not consider that the amendment is worthwhile even if corrected. They are essentially the same as those which apply to the onshore amendment. I will therefore deal with the arguments together.
The Government recognise and welcome the valuable role played by safety representatives and safety committees, both on and offshore, in ensuring a healthy and safe workplace. My noble friend Lord Auckland should be in no doubt as to the Government's intention in this matter. Both these amendments appear to seek to enhance that role by proposing that courts impose an additional penalty upon employers who fail to consult representatives or committees properly. The Government do not believe that this amendment would have the desired effect and we oppose it for a number of reasons.
First, it applies only to those employers who have safety representatives and safety committees. Those who do not would escape its provision. It would be unjust if a court were to inflict an additional penalty upon an employer who had consultation arrangements which may have failed in a particular instance, but could not apply an equivalent test to an employer who did not have any consultation arrangements. Where representatives exist, the law already provides penalties for failure to consult them.
Secondly, there would be nothing to prevent a court from reducing a penalty, because the employer had properly consulted. In effect, the employer could argue that because they were consulted, the safety representative or committee had shared the responsibility for the action which led to the offence. In other words, the employer could argue for a reduction of his liability for the offence on the grounds that the representative or committee had contributed to the act or omission which led to the offence. I am sure that no one in this House would wish to see the onus of responsibility shifted in that way.
Finally, by asking the court to take into account whether or not an employer consults his workforce, the court's attention could be drawn away from other equally important areas of health and safety management. For example, has the employer produced an effective health and safety policy? Have hazards been identified and risks adequately assessed? Have employees received the information and training necessary for their health and safety? In any health and safety case, the prosecution has the opportunity to draw to the court's attention any matter which may be relevant to the proceedings. The danger of this amendment is that in time it could cause courts to give disproportionate attention to consultation. I do not say that this will necessarily happen, but it could. I hope that in the light of my explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I cannot take credit for the ingenuity which enabled this matter to get as far as

939
the Marshalled List. The ingenuity bears the mark of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. However, I do not believe that that ingenuity has got very far. The Minister tells us several things. He tells us that although our amendment is not perfect he could improve it if he wanted to. That is not really a point of substance because he clearly does not want to improve it. He also tells us that one of the reasons he does not want to is that it would be unfair to the employers who would not escape the consequences of the measure because there would be other employers who would escape as they do not have safety committees. If that were the problem the Government could remedy it by enacting legislation to extend safety committees across the board. There is no reason why the Government should not do that.
If the Government do not like a situation in which there is one set of employers with safety committees who have a set of duties in regard to safety which another set of employers do not have, they could have done something about that. But they have done nothing about it for 12 years. If they have allowed that situation for 12 years, then I do not see why they cannot allow it in relation to this amendment.
The Minister then said that, although the amendment might be a good thing because he is in favour of safety, he is not in favour of giving more power to the representatives who want to ensure safety. He is against that because it might draw interest away from other things. We say that if that interest was directed towards safety there would be few issues which could draw it away from something as important as safety.
The final point made by the Minister is a contradiction. He said that there is a deep danger that in time so much concern will be given to consultation that it will be disproportionate. The fact is that the Minister has simply asked the office to list as many objections as it can, whether they hang together or whether they are logical or not, and he refuses our amendment. I see no point in dividing the House at this stage and I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 10, leave out ("and (5)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a fairly simple amendment and it might have been better if we had tabled it at Committee stage, but it has only recently come to my notice.
The Bill as it presently stands proposes that a paragraph of Section 33 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act shall cease to have effect. Paragraph 5 of Section 33 to which it refers reads as follows:
"Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) (g) or (o) above, then, if the contravention in respect of which he was convicted is continued after the conviction he shall (subject to Section 42(3)) he guilty of a further offence and liable in respect thereof to a fine not exceeding £50 for each day on which the contravention is so continued".
I do not see why this section should be repealed simply because the Bill proposes to increase penalties. The
940
point about this particular section is that it contains provisions for a daily fine until a contravention has been put right. It may be argued that £50 a day is not very much. The important point about it is that it is a daily penalty until there has been a correction. That is an important proviso. I do not see why it has to be repealed on the basis of this Bill. There might of course have been a reason to increase the amount of the daily fine. But the Government have not done that —the Bill seeks to wipe it out altogether. It is a fairly small point, and I shall be glad to hear the Government's explanation. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful if I explained the Government's reason for seeking to repeal the provision in Section 33(5) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I emphasise once again the Government's determination to get the level and structure of these penalties right. In pursuit of this, we looked very carefully at the provision in question.
The key reasons for repealing that provision are as follows. First, the reason why it was decided to repeal this provision at this time is because this Bill would give magistrates access to much higher penalties for the offences of flouting notices or remedy orders. This provision will give magistrates much greater latitude when imposing penalties. They will therefore have the powers they need to take into account the continuation of the offence, even where this factor is insignificant in itself. In addition, magistrates will still be able to refer cases up to Crown Courts where fines are unlimited.
Secondly, in recent years sentencing policy has moved away from the use of daily fines. This is because daily fines have the effect of drawing the courts' attention to one particular aspect of an offence; its longevity. This could be to the detriment of other (perhaps equally important) factors which the court might wish to take into account. Thirdly, we no longer think it necessary to have a provision for a daily fine in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Indeed, we are not aware that the daily fine is used in this context. If a company is prosecuted a second time for failing to obey the same notice, the prosecution would bring this to the court's attention. The court would then be free to take this into account in determining the penalty.
I hope that in the light of my explanation of Government policy the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation, and for the detail which he has given. I was anxious as to why this particular section was to be repealed because it seemed to me that a daily fine would be some sort of further penalty. However, in view of what he has said tonight, I do not think that there is any point in pursuing this amendment and I am grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Then Standing order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 10th December):
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Vicount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the problem with this Bill is not what is in it but what is not in it. I should like to take this opportunity of making a few comments before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.
At Second Reading we were told by the noble Viscount that the Government had accepted all the recommendations of Lord Cullen which were made following the inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster. It is a great disappointment to us on this side of the House, to learn that as far as this Bill is concerned the Government have not yet seen fit to do so. The Bill is a purely technical exercise transferring responsibilities to the Health and Safety Executive. We have been advised that under new regulations resources are being provided to enable the HSE to undertake these duties and to appoint specialist staff, including more inspectors. Penalties are being increased also.
We do not object to any of this. But one of the most important recommendations of the Cullen Report concerned the establishment of what Lord Cullen called). "safety culture". He rightly said that in order to establish this it would be necessary to involve the workforce. He emphasised that management at the very highest level had to be committed to the idea of safety as an absolute priority, so much so that cutting corners, as he put it, would simply become inadmissible.
On our side, we do not believe that it is possible adequately to involve the workforce without some protection against victimisation. There is no obligation upon employers to recognise trade unions—it was clear from the Cullen Report that many simply will not do so, despite the very good record unions have in training members and encouraging safe practices. Strong union organisation gives some protection against victimisation. Lord Cullen made no specific recommendations in that area, since industrial relations were outside his remit. But there surely is a need for some legislative protection.
It is not going to be easy to involve the workforce if employees fear they may be victimised if they complain or point out breaches of regulations. Many employees working on installations in the North Sea are on short-term contracts: the worry that these contract; may not be renewed if they complain can be a very real one. And of course we are in a recession with high levels of unemployment so that the pressure
942
to say nothing could be very great potentially disastrous. It is not enough to claim—as the Government do—that there us already proection against unfair dismissal. Some employees may not have been in that particular employment long enough to be entitled to take a case to an industrial tribunal. There are in any event long waiting lists, particularly if a case goes to appeal. And it could get around that such an employee is a troublemaker—thus making it much more difficult for him or her to get another contract.
Protection against victimisation is particularly important in the case of safety representatives. It is clear that Lord Cullen felt that there should be elected safety representatives—those on Piper Alpha appear not to have been elected at all, but simply to have been the supervisors themselves. However, individuals are not likely to come forward to be elected unless they can be sure of some protection if they seek to do their jobs well and conscientiously.
Lord Cullen specifically recommended the protection of safety representatives. On page 392 of Volume Two of his report at paragraph 30 he says:
"Safety representatives should be protected against victimisation by a provision similar to Sec 58(i) (b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978."
We sought at Committee stage to introduce amendments for discussion in this Chamber to try to give effect to this particular recommendation by Lord Cullen. They were ruled out of order because they were outside the scope of the Bill.
I do not quarrel with this ruling. Given the Bill is as it is, the ruling is clearly right. But it is the fault of the Government that they have limited the Bill in this way, while telling everyone concerned that they accept Lord Cullen's recommendations in full.
It is quite true that the noble Viscount has said that European directives will control whatever government is in power to introduce comprehensive legislation before the end of 1992. This may of course be quite a large task. But why is it necessary to wait until then? It would have been possible to do it immediately, simply by introducing a different kind of Bill. Why could not immediate protection against victimisation be given to the employees concerned? Surely that is due to people who are willing to come forward for election as safety representatives to protect the interests of themselves and fellow employees in what is acknowledged to be a very dangerous environment. Why should they have to wait?
I have not heard a convincing explanation from the Government. But I do not think that we have heard the last of this argument. While we do not oppose the Bill—since it gives effect to some of the recommendations of Lord Cullen—we cannot commend what the Government have done, or rather have failed to do. It is a missed opportunity—but it is worse than that: it leaves employees who deserve our support without the protection that they ought to have. The Government have not heard the last of that, and we shall seek an opportunity to return to this matter after the Christmas Recess.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I shall be brief because there is not much left for me to say. At Second

943
Reading I said that on these Benches our general attitude to the Bill was one of support in so far as the Bill followed the recommendations of the Cullen Report. That remains our position. However, at that time, like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I expressed concern that the recommendations of Lord Cullen relating to the need for the workforce to be involved in safety, particularly through their representatives on safety committees, were not included in the Bill. On account of that omission and of the lack of provision in the Bill for other recommendations of Lord Cullen involving employment matters, such as the protection of employees from victimisation if they made adverse comments on safety, I joined in Committee with other noble Lords in criticising Clause 1 of the Bill, that being the only way in which such issues could be raised. We have reverted to the subject of safety committees and safety representatives on Report this evening—again without success.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, has reminded us that matters of that kind are to be dealt with by amending employment protection legislation as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle presents itself. I cannot see that opportunity arising before the next general election and I continue, like the noble Baroness, to regret the delay that will result.
Notwithstanding those criticisms, I should like, in conclusion, to thank the noble Viscount for the courteous and good humoured way in which he has piloted the Bill through the House and at the same time, if I may, compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on the constructive part they have sought to play in our discussions.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in our deliberations for their interest in the Bill and for the way in which they have addressed the issues which obviously are of importance to them.
I have stated more than once that the Government have accepted all of Lord Cullen's recommendations in his report on the Piper Alpha disaster. I was reminded of that point by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. The Government have no intention of shirking their responsibilities in this area. I have outlined various measures which have already been taken in carrying out this commitment, including a substantial transfer of resources to the HSC and sought to indicate what further action will be taken. I have made clear on several occasions that the Government fully accept the recommendation on victimisation of safety representatives. I have explained, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, indicated, that we intend to amend employment protection legislation to deal with this matter as soon as there is a suitable legislative vehicle. That will take place within the foreseeable future. This Bill cannot be that vehicle. It is an enabling Bill concerned with safety matters, and employment protection issues are outside its scope.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, is right. The Bill cannot and should not implement all of Lord Cullen's
944
recommendations. It is an essential enabling measure, which will allow the reform of the existing offshore safety legislation. This legislation will be replaced by the "goal setting" regulations recommended by Lord Cullen. The regulations will underpin the new safety case regime by defining the necessary standards to apply to every installation. This Bill therefore represents an important step forward in putting in place the regime envisaged by Lord Cullen.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.55 to 8.20 p.m.]

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clauses 40 to 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Remuneration of employees]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 33, line 33, leave out ("September 1992") and insert ("April 1993").
The noble Baroness said The amendment proposes that the "proposed date of increase" should be deferred from September 1992 to April 1993, so as to give adequate time to make the adjustments and also —this is most important—to avoid retrospection. Once again, there is an element of retrospection in the matter which would he avoided if the date was deferred until April 1993. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The amendment proposed would render the clause ineffective. If the Government's timetable goes to plan, the clause will have no effect from 1st April 1993. Its purpose is to guard against the possibility of present employers awarding their staff an irresponsible pay increase which would have undesirable and costly knock-on effects for the new corporations at little or zero cost to themselves. That purpose would be thwarted by the proposed amendment. The new corporations cannot reasonably be expected to foot the bill for end-loaded settlements negotiated by their predecessors in circumstances where any significant proportion of those costs would not fall on the local education authorities, either individually or collectively.
I must emphasise the fact that the Government are not interfering with any pay increases due from the normal settlement date of 1st September 1992. Therefore, they are not seeking to interfere in matters which are currently within the purview of the National Joint Council for Further Education. From 1st April 1993, when the new sector will be up and running, the Government intend that pay should be settled through negotiation between employer and employee. We do not intend to be a party to those negotiations. We believe that there should be maximum freedom for institutions to set pay in response to their needs and circumstances. Taxpayers' interests will be protected

945
through the level of funding made available to the councils. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Seear: In the interests of speed, I shall withdraw the amendment on this occasion. However, I may return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 34, line 6, leave out ("appearing to him to be") and insert ("who are").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to give all trade unions a right to make representations to the Secretary of State. As such, it removes the discretion as to whether the Secretary of State considers a trade union to be an appropriate body. If unamended, the clause would allow the Secretary of State to select those from whom he wishes to the representations on the fundamental question of the remuneration of employees. It reserves considerable discretionary powers for the Secretary of State as to his choice of persons from whom representations are to be heard.
They ability to pick and mix from those who are to put forward views on the key issue of pay is unnecessarily restrictive. Identifying those bodies who represent relevant employees is a fairly straightforward task. Such bodies, often trade unions and professional associations representing the interests of their members, are in the best position to make a valid and usually constructive contribution to the determination of matters that relate to pay. They are in the best position because their constituent elements—that is, the employees—are out in the field doing the work. On that basis alone, they ought to be entitled as of right to make a contribution to the remuneration debate without having to pass the Secretary of State's test as to whether or not they are "appropriate". They are already appropriate persons and the Secretary of State should not need to make a decision on that point.
It seems to us that allowing representative organisations to put forward a case on behalf of their members is a positive step in opening up a constructive and well-informed debate. The right to take part in such a debate should be a right for the organisations and a duty imposed upon the Secretary of State. Reservation of such a discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State means that, potentially, the voice of those who are most affected by his decisions will not be heard. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: It is possible that I was not paying attention to what the noble Baroness said, but I am not sure whether she said that she was speaking to Amendments Nos. 202 and 203. However, I shall be replying in respect of both of them.
Baroness Blackstone: I apologise. I should have said so. I was speaking to both amendments.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The amendments would remove the Secretary of State's power to exercise discretion as to who should be afforded the opportunity to make representation on the part of the
946
employees concerned. That might result in administrative difficulties as, without the exercise of such discretion, representations concerning proposed pay increases might he received from anyone purporting to be a representative of the employees concerned, whether or not on reasonable grounds.
Pay settlements are traditionally and sensibly settled through negotiations between employers and their staff unions or associations. They bargain on behalf of the staff concerned. Management normally enters into appropriate union recognition agreements. The arrangement has, in practice, proved acceptable to all concerned. We expect the principles underlying those arrangements to continue in so far as representations to the Secretary of State may be appropriate under the clause. However, that is not to say that any individual employee or representative, or any small trade union or association, would automatically be denied the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State.
The clause rightly and properly confers upon the Secretary of State the power to make an appropriate decision in matters concerning such representation. His decision would, of course, have to be reasonable or it would be open to challenge in the courts. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: It would be a little more reassuring if we had an indication as to the criteria by which the Secretary of State will decide who are "appropriate" persons. As the matter stands, they could be any bunch of people of whom he happened to approve. That, in any true sense, would not be representative; nor, I suggest, would it have very satisfactory consequences. I can quite see that there may be a case for ruling out certain people. However, it would be very much better if we were told that there were some limitations on the Secretary of State's total freedom of choice as to whom he will deal with.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Perhaps there is a precedent for that but I do not have it to hand. If it helps the noble Baroness, I should be happy to try to find that and let her and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, know.
Baroness Seear: I am grateful for that. As the noble Lord is aware, we are deeply suspicious of the enhanced powers of the Secretary of State. If we could be reassured that this is not another excess of power for the Secretary of State, that would ease matters considerably.
Baroness Blackstone: In the light of the Minister's response, I am happy to wait to hear from him. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Statutory conditions of employment]:
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Information with respect to institutions within the further education sector]:
[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 36, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) the educational achievements of their students prior to their enrolment at the institution,").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 206 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 207 and 208. However, I shall concentrate largely upon Amendment No. 206, and I believe that the noble Earl will deal with Amendments Nos. 207 and 208.
In moving this amendment I do not suggest that Clause 48 is unacceptable; quite the contrary. To provide such an enormous database will be a social scientist's and planner's heaven. It is somewhat bizarre that that will emanate from the present Government. They must know what they are doing. I look forward to that database being available. I am not sure that I shall last long enough to use it but I am sure that my successors will find it a source of extremely useful material.
For those of us who are interested in considering the performance of institutions, it lacks a baseline. To use the parlance which has been taken over from economics, one is not just interested in what an institution achieves but what it achieves relative to the material with which it has started. My normal rather tart view of these matters is to say that if one looks at the average polytechnic, its achievement is astonishing. If one looks at the whole of Oxford and Cambridge, its achievements are disastrous considering the quality of material with which it starts. One is staggered at the relatively poor performance of what they end up with. In other words, what we are discussing here is value added.
There is nothing in the data suggested which requires that particular piece of information to be published. The purpose of Amendment No. 206 is to provide the line according to which we can measure achievement. If one has students who have three superb A-levels and they end up with a lower second, that does not impress me, that is usually what happens to a large number of students at Oxford and Cambridge. If one has students who begin with four Ds at A-level and they end up with first-class honours degrees, which happens at many polytechnics and other universities, that seems to indicate that the teachers involved are rather good at their jobs.
That is the purpose of this amendment. It is not very good to say, "A lot of our students achieve a great deal." One must know what was the original raw material. That is the point of Amendment No. 206. It seems to me that the Government would wish to include that kind of information in the appropriate database because they would not wish any researcher to be misled by the available data so that he is unable to do a proper job. A similar remark applies to the other two amendments in this group but I shall leave those to the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: In supporting the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 207 and 208. Those make specific points about the statistics which we should like to see collected in order to measure performance. In the first instance the amendment refers to staff-student ratios. During the progress of the Bill we have heard a good deal of debate about how far a worsening staff-student ratio amounts to a worsening of quality. There are points involved in that; in some cases, room capacity. In others there is the point which a number of noble and learned Lords will have experienced when acting as judges in court; namely, that beyond a certain number of hours listening in a concentrated way, concentration may begin to waver. The Minister believes that we are exaggerating about that. It may be in his interests to try to collect statistics because, if he is right, he may be able to prove it.
The same point applies to funding per student, which is the next information which we ask to have collected. There has been much debate during the progress of this Bill about how far reducing unit costs is a threat to quality. For me that is arguably the most important single issue behind the Bill. Again, the Minister believes that we are making a fuss, in which case he might agree that it is important to collect statistics to see whether we can find some evidence to show which of us is right. However, I should say that when one is judging the quality of education, that cannot be done simply and solely in terms of the quality of the degree. The degree of understanding, insight, interest and the extent to which information is remembered a year later are all variables which do not always show in the quality of a degree. Nevertheless, any correlation between the quality of the degree and the funding per student would be worth having.
We ask also in Amendment No. 207 for a collection of evidence on the student-book ratio. Again, for many of us that is an absolutely vital issue. It relates fairly closely to the question of the staff-student ratio. If one is teaching and one sets students a list of books to read, if there are two or three of them then, with a little efficiency, they can share the books around. However, if one sets a large book for six people in one week, a great many of them will not get to read it at all. In that case, they simply cannot do what is required of them. Therefore, the student-book ratio is quite an important matter to take into account when deciding on the quality of an education available. In fact if I were, as I have recently been, advising my children on the choice of a place to go, that is a piece of information which I should be particularly eager to know.
Amendment No. 207 also asks for a record of the drop-out rate. When we are talking about efficiency—and we on this side of the Committee, on these Benches, believe in efficiency as we understand it, even if not as the Government understand it—how many students drop out must, to some extent, be a measure of how efficiently the job is being done. That should be recorded.
The question of how unit costs are measured is also raised. That is something about which a number of us are not entirely satisfied. At the end of the day, the

949
correct way to measure unit costs is unit costs per graduate. That means that those who drop out do not count in the list of units.
That would also deal with the fact—which is distorted by the present method of gathering statistics —that if one takes student costs per annum, as we do at present, one entirely distorts the basis of comparison between this country and the Continent. In this context, by "this country" I mean England and not Britain since the Scottish system is different.
The amendment also demands collecting information on student support. If your Lordships have paid attention to some of the protests which have been going on recently, the refectory capacity and issues like that are of considerable importance in the points which have been raised.
The point of Amendment No. 208 is that it asks for collection not of raw data but of weighted data taking account of background. The correct way of collecting statistics must depend on what one wants to know. There is more than one thing we could want to know here. If we want to know simply how good it is at the end, then perhaps raw data might be the right thing to collect. But if we want to know how well the place is doing with what it gets, then the weighted data would be the correct data to collect.
It is just like the argument about the retail price index or the underlying measure of inflation. Which of those is the right one to use depends on what we want to know. So we should not leave out the weighted data, and therefore I am happy to support the amendments and look forward to the Minister's reply.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: The noble Earl has vividly made the point about why it would be quite inappropriate to try to collect this kind of performance data for further education. All the examples which he gave were highly appropriate to the higher education sphere. He talked about performance per graduate, the cost per graduate and the ratio of library books, for example. I remind the Committee that in further education colleges people are studying courses in hairdressing, plumbing, bricklaying and various aspects of trades for which there is no appropriate book provision. Practical skills are being taught as well as A-levels, GCSE repeats and so on.
The vast range of courses which are on offer would make the complexity of the kind of performance data which the noble Earl describes almost impossible to proscribe in regulations made by the councils, never mind on the face of legislation —on the face of the Bill.
I hope that the noble Earl will agree to withdraw the amendment because performance indicators of this kind would be highly destructive to the system that I am sure all of us in the Committee support.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I wish to draw attention to a tendency which I experience in the higher education sector and which I am sure must be present in the further education sector. It is the bureaucratisation of academic life. We seem to spend
950
an increasing amount of time compiling all manner of statistics which are not always informative. I have some sympathy with the general points made by the noble Earl, but the task of compiling these statistics would be formidable. It would undoubtedly devolve ultimately upon academics and teachers as much as upon administrators.
I already have some difficulty with the clause which asks that statistics be kept and information published on the careers of students after they have completed a course or have left the institution. That places on the institution a considerable burden of compiling and maintaining records. Although I am fully in sympathy with the value of information, I ask myself who will compile it? The noble Earl's suggestion would be admirable if it did not have the pre-condition that further statistics be compiled, which is much less admirable.
I was a little confused by the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about Oxford and Cambridge. He seemed to address himself to what I have always believed in the higher education sector, although we are still focusing on the further education sector at the moment. Since he had the kindness to refer to those institutions, I agree with him that it would be helpful if entry requirements were better understood. One problem which the universities of Oxford and Cambridge face is that they have insufficient applicants for places from pupils in the maintained sector. There is a widespread illusion that there is something special or difficult about entry into Oxford and Cambridge. I was therefore dismayed to find the noble Lord, Lord Peston. as I understood it, contributing to that myth and illusion.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: This has been an interesting short debate and I have listened carefully to opinions from all sides. The amendments seek to add to the types of information that the Secretary of State may by regulation require institutions in the further education sector to publish. They propose to include information about the education of students prior to enrolment, resourcing and certain performance indicators by which to gauge efficiency and effectiveness. The third amendment refers to the publication of information about the socio-economic make-up of the area in which the college is situated.
The Government are prepared to consider the principle raised in the first two of these amendments. Our objective is to require the publication of information which will be useful to young people, parents and employers. We are also concerned that colleges should be able to evaluate their own performance in relation to similar institutions. There is a great deal to be said for keeping that information as simple as possible, to allow the users to form their own judgments.
In the case of information about the education of students prior to enrolment, I understand that the purpose of the noble Baroness in proposing this amendment is to leave open the possibility that the Secretary of State might, at some future point, require the publication of information in a form which allows comparison between the qualifications achieved by

951
students at the institution and their level of achievement when they entered—in other words, the "value added".
The intention behind the amendment is laudable. The difficulty lies in constructing a sensible basis for establishing the "value added", which can be readily understood. The students entering colleges have a great variety of backgrounds and educational achievements. It is by no means self-evident that one could construct sensible indicators of "value added" on the basis of previous educational qualifications alone. That has been pointed out. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State sees no prospect of requiring publication on a "value added" basis at present, because it has not been demonstrated how this could he done simply and in a way which helps those who have an interest in these matters. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on the understanding that the Government will give the matter further consideration.
Lord Peston: My noble friend Lady Blackstone was not involved.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I apologise to the noble Baroness. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, moved the amendment on his own behalf. We shall move on. I turn now to the amendment proposing that certain information on college resources and the efficiency and effectiveness of college provision should be published. The Government already call upon colleges to produce some of the information proposed by the amendment for colleges' own management purposes. Although, except for funding per student, colleges are not required to publish the information, that said, I am sure that many colleges would want such information to be published to enable them to evaluate their own performance in relation to that of similar institutions.
I have, however, some serious reservations about the consequences of accepting this amendment as it stands. First, I am not convinced that all the information listed would be particularly useful either for internal management and inter-institutional comparisons, or as an aid to student or employer choice. Secondly, many sixth form colleges might find it both onerous, as my noble friend said, in resource terms, and difficult in systems terms to produce such a range of information in the early years of independence. Indeed, there are some FE colleges that might face similar problems. I therefore ask again that noble Lords withdraw the amendment on the understanding that the Government will give it further consideration.
On the third amendment in this group the noble Earl said that it was not raw data that was needed. I believe I have made the comment before that there is much to be said for raw data as opposed to cooked data. The Government see no need to make provision for data about the socio-economic area of colleges to be published. We are sure that young people, parents, employers and the institutions are quite capable of
952
drawing sound conclusions from the information already provided for in this clause. They would, for example, have a pretty shrewd idea of the implications of institutions in the same area achieving different results.
The publication of socio-economic information, alongside the information covered by this clause, might be used to justify poor performance, which in turn—I attach importance to this—could create and result in low expectations. That is a real argument. In the light of the fact that I have agreed to reconsider the first two of the amendments we are discussing, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Lord, Lord Peston, decides what to do with his amendment, I wish to discuss one of the points the Minister made. I did not say absolutely that it is not raw data that are needed. I said the kind of data needed depends on what one wants to know. With the leave of the Committee, I also wish to respond briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. They are quite right. I think what I was proposing might be applicable in some parts of the further education sector, but working out which is a task above my abilities. During a very long week one is tempted to slip into talking of what one knows. I should have resisted that temptation but I did not. I am sorry.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for his reply. Although the case is widely believed to be to the contrary, I occasionally speak for myself and not merely under the instructions of the noble Baronesses on my left. The Minister's reply was both interesting and helpful. He made one point better than I did, which is that the institutions themselves would wish to be judged with a proper baseline rather than just on the data referred to here. I take the point about cost, but, equally, one would apply the question to all the data rather than to any particular part of it.
The great achievements of the FE colleges frequently consist of educational achievements with pupils who have failed in other institutions. Many of our children attended an FE college because their previous school did not work out for them, even though that school may have been satisfactory for other pupils. I understood the Minister to say that the Government took a view that FE colleges and sixth form colleges will succeed even though they may not have the best material. I was quite pleased to hear that the Minister will reconsider this matter.
I was partly pulling the leg of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, but only partly. In due course he will hear my views on Oxford and Cambridge. I was merely using those two universities as an example of the point I was making. I believe in that point very strongly. I was not under the impression that Oxford and Cambridge accepted students who had three grade D A-levels. I should be delighted to hear that the lecturers at those universities wish to devote their great teaching skills to teaching such students. We shall discuss that in due course.
Baroness Seear: Is the noble Lord confident that A-levels are the best way of detecting future able students?
Lord Peston: The noble Baroness knows that I appreciate what a poor indicator of ability A-levels are. Unfortunately, we live in a world where A-levels appear to be the beginning and the end of all higher education.
Baroness Seear: Given that A-levels are a poor indicator, they become a poor base for the noble Lord's subsequent calculations.
Lard Peston: Let us defer discussion on that matter —the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, advised this—until we reach that part of the Bill that is concerned with higher education. I do not go quite so far as the noble Baroness, but my point is that we need a baseline if we are to measure efficiency. I have spoken for too long. I thank the Minister for his most constructive reply. I shall look forward to hearing whether the Government have any more proposals in this field. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 207 and 208 not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Publication of proposals]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 208A:
Page 36, line 43, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 49 deals with what should happen when a council makes a proposal either to establish or to dissolve a further education college, and the conditions that will appertain. This amendment requires the funding councils to consult LEAs before proceeding with a proposal to open or close a college.
The proposals to open or close, or to expand or contract colleges will directly affect the demand for school sixth form places in an area. They should therefore not be allowed to proceed without prior consultation with the local education authority on the implications for school sixth form provision.
Changes in college patterns will impact more widely, for example, on LEAs' continuing responsibilities for adult and continuing education. Such considerations also need to be taken into account before the councils proceed with proposals to change college patterns in any area. We must remember that LEAs are the providers of the students for the further education colleges, and, as it were, of the sixth form colleges. Therefore they must be fully informed of plans, and they should be among the first people to be consulted on them. This seems to me an eminently reasonable amendment. I hope the Minister can accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The Government fully accept the need for local consultation on proposals to open or close local colleges. However, I do not think the amendment is necessary. As drafted, this clause places a duty on the further education funding councils to consult widely prior to making proposals to establish
954
or dissolve further education corporations. They must publish a draft of any such proposals and they must consider any representations made about them.
Many institutions and organisations will have an interest in the effects of such proposals. These include higher education institutions, voluntary organisations and grant-maintained schools as well as local authorities. Therefore it surely must be right that a broad duty to consider local representations should he placed on the funding councils, with no special statutory prestige accorded to local education authorities. As I have said, the views of LEAs will he considered alongside the views of other local interests. It will be open to LEAs—as it is to other local interests—to make their views known.
The clause improves the statutory provision for local consultation on further education. I have referred to that before. At the moment there is no duty to inform or consult on proposals to open or close colleges in the further education sector. The councils and the Secretary of State will in future be in a position analogous to that of local education authorities in making proposals for the establishment or closure of schools. On those grounds I resist the amendment.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for his reply. I believe the LEAs would have been happier if they were named among those to be consulted. I wish to consult local authority associations to find out whether they are satisfied with the Minister's reply. If they are not, I reserve the right to return with this matter at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 208B not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Duty to provide for named individuals]:
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 37, line 16, after ("education") insert ("or training").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 209 is purely a probing amendment to try to discover the purpose behind this clause. Clause 50 seems to be a rather strange clause in the context of the Bill. It provides a power for the funding council to direct individual institutions to provide for particular students. The power applies only to the 16 to 19 year-old age group, as does the duty of funding councils to secure the needs of those with learning difficulties. Therefore this clause could be intended to be used as a reserve power for the funding councils to insist that particular students with special educational needs are provided with appropriate education and training.
In Committee we have noted that the broad brush funding methodology that the funding councils will be likely to set up, taken together with various output measures of efficiency, would tend to make special need students unattractive to colleges. They will be less likely to attract special funding, as they do now under the local authority formula funding schemes. They tend to be difficult and expensive to teach and very often are not high achievers. As such they tend to
raise costs and depress the raw score examination results which are increasingly likely to be used as performance indicators.
If funding councils are to achieve their duty of securing the education and training of those with learning difficulties, some form of power or influence will be needed. However, the clause as drafted appears something of a blunt instrument and it is difficult to see how a national body could efficiently or effectively make specific directions with respect to all students who might need them.
There may be other reasons why the clause has been drafted as it has and I should be very glad if the Minister could throw some light on the purpose of the clause. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The clause deals with the funding councils' reserve power to require places to be provided for named individuals at particular institutions. The effect of the proposed amendment to subsection (2) (a) would be to place a requirement on the governing body of the institution concerned to provide education or training appropriate to the abilities and aptitudes of such individuals rather than, as now, education appropriate to their abilities and aptitudes.
The amendment is seriously flawed technically but I shall not make much of that in the light of the fact that the noble Baroness said that it was merely a probing amendment. However, I should warn her that if she intends to bring it back, it would need considerable redrafting.
The duty of the council is not intended to extend to the provision of a particular place on demand irrespective of cost. However, in some areas a college may be the sole supplier of a post-16 education or training. As a result there may be instances in which the council expects the college to meet the needs of a particular student. That may apply in the case of a young person with special educational needs.
Guidance from the Secretary of State will make clear that that power is for use in exceptional circumstances only. Admissions to courses will normally be a matter for colleges. Funding from the councils will not relate directly to individual students, and denominational colleges in particular may be reassured that the Secretary of State does not intend to interfere in their admissions policies other than in exceptional circumstances: for example, in the case of a young person with a special educational need for whom provision could not otherwise be made.
I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Any full-time training which might be required for individuals involved in placements of that type would in practice be covered by the reference to full-time education appropriate to their abilities and aptitudes in the clause as it stands.
I hope that I have been able to throw some light on the clause and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: I thank the Minister for that reply. I take it from his response that the clause applies to young people other than those with special needs in exceptional circumstances. The word "training" in my amendment was introduced merely because it had been introduced in relation to those with special educational needs. I thank the Minister for his explanation. I still think that this is rather a blunt instrument for that particular purpose, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Duty to give information to the funding councils.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 37, line 42, at beginning insert ("(1) As specified in subsections (2) and (3) below").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 210 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 210A, 211, 213 and, although it is not grouped with those amendments, with the Committee's permission I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 214 since it deals with a similar issue and to do so might save some time.
The Bill creates duties for a number of bodies to provide information to the funding councils. However, local authorities also have powers and duties under the Bill. If they are to be allowed to fulfil their statutory duties they will also need access to full information on the provision which has been made within their areas. The amendments to Clause 52 therefore create parallel duties and powers to make sure that that necessary information can be collected from the funding councils and their institutions by local education authorities. It is particularly important with respect to the duties and obligations to provide adult education under the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Clause 52 lists the bodies required to give the further education funding councils such information as the councils may need for the purposes of the exercise of their functions under Part I of the Bill. The effect of the amendment is to require the bodies listed to provide similar information for local education authorities.
I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The further education funding councils are new organisations. They will not have had time to build up close working relationships with the other bodies on which they will have to rely for information. The legislation we propose will ensure that they are able to obtain such information quickly. On the other hand, local education authorities already have well-established working networks and legislation will not be necessary.
The funding councils, local education authorities, governing bodies of institutions and other organisations involved in the provision of further education will all have differing responsibilities and differing requirements for information. They will clearly need to co-operate and to work very closely together.

957
Plainly we cannot legislate to ensure that productive relationships develop between all the potential partners.
The effect of Amendment No. 214 would be to impose a duty on the further education funding councils and other organisations involved in the provision of further education to provide local education authorities with such information as they might need for the exercise of their functions under this part of the Bill. Again, I do not feel that the amendment is entirely necessary. As I said, funding councils, local education authorities and other organisations involved in the provision of further education will have differing responsibilities. Even in this case—it is a similar amendment—it is not necessary to resort to legislation to ensure that co-operation takes place. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, although I am a little surprised by it. I agree that we cannot legislate in order to create or produce productive relationships between different agencies involved in further education or any other public service. However, I should have thought that, as the local authorities are required to provide a considerable amount of information for the funding councils, that should be a two-way requirement. We should also be sure that the funding councils provide the local authorities with information of the kind that they are likely to need, particularly with respect to adult education. I am therefore a little surprised by the Minister's reply and his suggestion that that information is not necessary because the networks already exist as regards local authorities. They do not exist because the funding councils do not exist, so the argument is somewhat illogical.
However, I shall look again at what the Minister said and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 210A and 211 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 38, line 8, at end insert:
("(e) a District Health Authority, and
(f) in respect of its Social Services provision, a local authority").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment aims to include district health authorities' and local authority social services' provision for adults with learning difficulties in the FEFC considerations.
The Government's care in the community policy requires joint care planning for adults re-entering education. I am sure that the Committee will agree that education has a significant role to play in the process of resettling into the community adults with learning difficulties, including those previously in long-stay hospitals.
The amendment will reinforce for the further education funding councils the fact that some responsibilities in that regard now fall to them, as well as giving a necessary power to secure information. Many colleges already have long and successful
958
experience with adults and young people with learning difficulties and they must be supported and encouraged to extend or to take up that role.
This is a straightforward but important amendment and I hope that the Government will be flexible and willing to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: As the noble Baroness said, the amendment extends the requirement that certain bodies should supply the councils with the information that they need to exercise their function to district health authorities and, in respect of their social services provision, to local authorities. We have restricted the bodies named in the clause to those without whose compliance the councils would not be able to exercise their functions. I hope that a number of bodies not named in the clause will provide the councils with information when required, but it is not practical to extend a legal requirement to all of them. District health authorities and local authorities fall into that category.
The noble Baroness said that she thought I would give the matter careful consideration. Naturally, as always, I shall read carefully what she has said, but I do not think that she has given compelling reasons for me to accept the amendment.
Baroness David: I am disappointed with that reply. The Government laid great emphasis on care in the community. People are coming out of long-stay hospitals and a great deal of help is needed. The provision would give a great deal of reassurance. I should like the Minister to say that he will look again at the matter. It is an important matter and, if he will look at it again, I shall not press the amendment. I feel strongly about it and hope that he will oblige me to that extent.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I say again that I shall look at the issue carefully, but I cannot go beyond that. I do not wish to be disobliging, but I do not accept the case made by the noble Baroness. I understand that she is serious about the amendment and I shall consider it.
Baroness David: The Minister has said that he will look again at the matter. I am grateful for that and shall await the result of his consideration with some interest. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 213 not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 not moved.]
Clause 53 [Directions]:
[Amendment No. 216 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): I have to advise the Committee in calling Amendment No. 217 that if that amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 218.
[Amendment No. 217 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 38, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) Directions under subsection (2) above shall be given by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Clauses 7 and 53 in this part of the Bill are the analogues of Clauses 64 and 77 in Part II, which have attracted all the attention. The fact that the clauses concern further rather than higher education does not make them any the less important.
With Clause 53 we come to similar amendments to those that were debated under Clause 7. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for not moving the amendments in his name which again would have invoked the relevant funding council—the Quality Assessment Committee—as the proper body to sound the alarm if it was thought that this clause would tend to operate to diminish the quality of education.
I have argued before (and do so again) that it would not be very effective to put the onus on councils appointed by the Secretary of State to engage on a collision course with him, and there was no indication as to how Parliament was to be informed. I therefore believe that my proposal offers a better safeguard, and I am glad to say that the noble Earl has come to the same conclusion.
On the previous occasion that we discussed the clause empowering the Secretary of State to impose the terms and conditions for funding, I was criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton (who I see is in his place) and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, when he replied, on the grounds that the amendment would mean holding up necessary funding for the colleges. I endeavoured to allay that anxiety. I shall not go into that matter again at this moment; but in any case it does not apply in this case because we are not discussing overall funding but directions which the Secretary of State may give relating to:
"the provision of financial support by the council in respect of activities carried on by any particular institution or institutions".
Whereas on Clause 7 there was some uncertainty about whether particular institutions could be affected, there is no doubt at all in this case. That is confirmed in the Notes on Clauses in their handsome blue folder which the Government presented to us. I have left them outside the Chamber but I consulted them before coming into the Committee.
This is therefore a more pernicious and intrusive clause than Clause 7. It would permit the Secretary of State to withhold or withdraw funding from any course of study put on by a particular institution that the Secretary of State does not like. Immediately it suggests Big Brother in a big way. It would not only necessarily bear on peace studies or whatever might happen to be unpopular with the Government at the time; it could bear on all kinds of other courses as well.
Moreover, it does not make sense in the area that we are discussing. We are talking about freely elective, post-compulsory education. We are not talking about the national curriculum but what is on offer after the national curriculum. As I said yesterday, young people are not stupid. They are the best judges of the
960
courses which they should be following and the skills which they should be acquiring. The whole point of having devolved, free-standing colleges—I thought that that was what the Government were saying—is that the system should be demand-led and not second-guessed by a supposedly omniscient Secretary of State.
Therefore, at the very least if the Secretary of State wants to use the powers under this clause, he should come to Parliament and give his reasons. That is what my amendment seeks to provide. If, during the course of the Bill, the Committee cannot approve an amendment on those lines, and should the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, divide the Committee this evening, I should certainly be prepared to vote with her against a Motion that the clause shall stand part of the Bill. However, I very much hope that the Government will see some force in my comments and perhaps come some little way towards me. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I support the amendment. It seems to me to have taken a practical route, if a rather less fundamental one than I was contemplating, to deal with the problem before us. The Minister must have realised by this time that the power to give special directions to a particular academic institution is one which gives rise to quite profound misgivings, in particular when one considers leaving it on the statute book without knowing into whose hands it might come in the future.
I see no reason why a concern for autonomy in higher education institutions should exempt one from being concerned for autonomy in further education institutions. The principle seems to me to include a substantial common area. I am prepared to listen to the Minister to hear whether he can make out a case for arguing that there is some special need arising from some peculiarity of the further education sector to have such a clause in the Bill. I shall keep an open mind with regard to that justification until such time as I hear it, which I hope will be in a few moments.
It is curious that in the economic field the case for centralised planning seems to be going out of fashion. Yet at the same moment it seems to be coming into fashion in the education field. I should have thought that the cases against it are similar in the two fields.
I have said that we have misgivings, and that we are prepared to listen. However, many of us are worried about what might be done with those powers. We wish to know to what use they will be put. The noble Lord's amendment directs the use of the affirmative resolution. That means that any use of those powers would be brought before us and we would have the opportunity to judge that use on its merits. If there were merits in the use of power I am sure that someone in the Chamber is capable of persuading us of the truth of the facts.
Lord Renton: The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, pointed out quite properly that we shall find similar provisions relating to higher education in Clauses 64 and 77 whereby the Secretary of State is to be given power to give directions affecting specific places of learning—I use that broad

961
expression—in relation to both further and higher education. I cannot see the need for that either in relation to higher or further education.
I believe that in the public interest it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to be allowed to give general directions to the funding councils. However, the idea that the Secretary of State should concern himself with particular institutions, of which there will be several thousand altogether, seems very strange. I would have hoped that Clause 53(2) might be reconsidered.
I turn now to the amendment. It is very unusual for directions to a quango, a funding body or any such body, given by a Minister of the Crown, to be subject to affirmative resolution in either House. With deep respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, although I have great sympathy with him in his objections to the directing of particular institutions to directions of the funding council, I doubt whether his method of correcting the matter is the best one. I prefer to see the words,
"carried on by any particular institution or institutions"
omitted altogether from the clause.
Lord Flowers: I support the noble Lord's amendment although I would rather oppose the standing of the clause. If it comes to that situation, I shall do so.
There are certain aspects for which this clause is not wholly unreasonable. The Secretary of State may wish to lay down matters of a financial nature, or something of that kind. If the funding council is not able to deal with that matter, the amendment might conceivably have some force. But under this clause the Secretary of State can tell the councils how to teach Greek, or, even worse, politics. That is something up with which I shall not put! Therefore, I shall support any provision that does it down. I support the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, because his suggestion helps to put it down. I also give notice that if the noble Baroness cares to oppose the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill I shall support her.
Lord Belstead: Even though Members of the Committee from the Front Bench opposite have not spoken, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke in a little detail and only to the amendment. Clause 53 requires each further education funding council in carrying out its functions to comply with directions contained in an order made by the Secretary of State. Indeed, the focus of attention in particular of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, was that the direction may be general or special. Special directions may relate to financial support provided by the council for activities at particular institutions.
The Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the Government's further education funding policy. Therefore, he feels that he requires a reserved power to issue directions to the councils if need be. We are talking about a great deal of money. Taking the higher and further education sectors together, the sum is more than £5 billion. Therefore, the clause is included in the Bill in order to provide the power of last resort for use in an emergency should
962
relations with the funding councils break down. It is also provides a long-stop protection of the taxpayer's interests as regards considerable sums of public funding.
The further education sector is a great success story. The importance of the sector is the reason why the Government are bringing forward the Bill. Although I know that there is political difference about the issue in the House, we believe that under the Bill we shall do more good for the further education sector. At the same time, it is not discourteous or inaccurate of me to say that some of the colleges in the further education field are not long-standing and their track records do not compare with those of some of the historic universities. Furthermore, under the Bill we are introducing some entirely new institutions into the new further education sector.
Therefore, the Government believe that it is essential that Clause 53 should provide not only for general but also for institutions' specific directions. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said that that might be so, but he could not think why. Perhaps I may give an example. If relations between the Secretary of State and the funding councils should deteriorate and become poor, there could be a future need for a Secretary of State to protect the taxpayers' interests in respect of the funding going to a particular institution. In those circumstances, an institution's specific power would be needed. Let us suppose that on advice a Secretary of State believed that money was being poured into a particular institution which was no longer a going concern. However, if for reasons which were much to be deplored the funding councils did not see it that way, the Secretary of State might feel it necessary to resort to an institution's specific direction. Conversely, the same could be true—
Lord Dainton: I apologise for interrupting, but it has occurred to me to ask a question. How will the Secretary of State know, if not through the funding council, that there was a state of affairs of the kind that has been hinted at? In my experience it could never go by any other route. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to explain the matter so that we may give careful consideration to the example which he has put in front of the Committee.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Flowers: Before the noble Lord continues, perhaps I may ask this. If the Secretary of State is dissatisfied with the advice he receives from the funding council in a matter so important that he would wish to interfere with an individual institution, why does he not fire the council? That is perfectly within his rights.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, first. I hesitate to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, who can forget more about higher and further education than I shall ever learn.
However, it is taking a simplistic view to suggest that it would not be possible for anybody, if they made it their business to do so, to learn about the affairs of a specific further education college. That is

963
particularly so if the affairs of that college were clearly running into considerable trouble or, as indicated by the end of my example, if the college was clearly flourishing but for some reason the further education funding council—perhaps due to bad lines of communication between itself and the Secretary of State—was starving that body of funds. We may not agree but I give that as an example. It is not fanciful to say that it would be possible to find out about the affairs of a further education college in all kinds of obvious ways. Any public organisation can be checked up on.
Lord Dainton: Perhaps I can ask the Minister how, the case being that it was public knowledge, the funding council would not be aware of it. That seems to be a contradiction in terms.
Lord Belstead: I am not suggesting that it would not be known to the funding council. It would be deplorable, but I give it as an ultimate reserve situation that should the funding council take a view that on advice the Secretary of State thought was perverse, then there is an argument for wanting to institute specific powers.
Before I leave the point—and I feel that I have not carried both noble Lords on the Cross-Benches with me—perhaps I may refer to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. The noble Lord said that whatever there might be in examples—I have given mine—nonetheless in his view this clause allows any Secretary of State to interfere in the teaching of specific subjects. I shall listen and have listened carefully to what has been said. I realise that the Committee holds strong views on the amendment.
Lord Flowers: Can the noble Lord at least confirm that if the Secretary of State was so dissatisfied with the funding council, he could fire it?
Lord Belstead: I believe that is so. I do not have my finger on the schedule; but nonetheless I stick to my point.
I now move to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. There is a simple difficulty with Amendment No. 218. I may be wrong about it, but the advice I received is that if we went to the affirmative resolution procedure it would lead to a lengthy hybrid instrument procedure in Parliament. That is my advice. If it is right, then it makes for an impossible situation. It would mean that whenever a Secretary of State needed to come to Parliament with the affirmative resolution procedure the delay would not be merely considerable, it would be enormously lengthy. I simply lay that before the Committee. I am not trying to buy the Committee off by saying that; clause stand part is to follow. But I do not believe that affirmative resolution procedure is the road down which we should travel.
In discussion on the Secretary of State's direction-making powers in higher education in the Education Reform Act, which we will have to come to at a later date, the Committee will remember that the negative resolution procedure provided for in that Act was thought by Parliament to strike the right balance
964
between the needs to allow for urgent action and necessary control over what is in essence a reserve power. Therefore I rest my case as regards the noble Lord's amendment which is before us. At the same time I say that the negative resolution procedure was thought to be right concerning the Education Reform Act.
Before I sit down perhaps I may say that advice has reached me that the Secretary of State could sack council members only for non-attendance or for being unable or unfit to discharge their functions. Thought would then have to be given as to whether the second leg of that consideration applied.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord will remember that I was about to intervene, but I did not do so to allow him to continue. Then with unusual politeness I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. Perhaps the noble Lord will now allow me to make my point. One cannot let pass the noble Lord's statement that the Secretary of State could find out what was going on in any organisation. I find that an extremely sinister remark. Can the noble Lord tell us how that is to be done? Does he go around asking people and hearing from them? He may hear from people whom he likes or others whom he does not like. The noble Lord shakes his head. If that is not the way in which he gets his information, then how is it done?
If the Secretary of State had gone to certain departments of the institution at which I worked for a long time and had asked about others, he would have received an extremely lurid account of what was going on. However, I would not say that that lurid account would necessarily be accurate. The collecting of information about which the noble Lord is so confident is an extremely dubious procedure. I would like to know how it is done and what the safeguards are for the people about whom the information is being collected.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may just answer the noble Baroness. For goodness sake, we have quality assessment written into the Bill. In addition to that the Secretary of State has an assessor for the council. There will be feedback from those sources. I do not believe it is sinister to say that a public body cannot impart a view to the general public, and even more so to the relevant Minister, as to how the body is doing. After all, there have to be audited accounts and things of that kind. What is much more important is the question of quality assessment and feedback through the council.
Baroness Blackstone: The Minister gave an example of why the Secretary of State might need this power. His illustration was that the funding council might pour money into an institution in an undesirable way. As the head of a higher education institution, the idea of the funding council pouring money into any institution seems a little far fetched. However, even if the eminent industrialists, businessmen and others that the Secretary of State is going to appoint were to take these steps (it is a little unlikely that they will do

965
this) they would be unfit to hold office and therefore they could be sacked. In those circumstances the power is not needed.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Does the noble Baroness agree that not all courses in higher education or in the sector we are examining at the moment, justify the public funds that are put behind them? Can the noble Baroness tell me whether all the courses in her institution and those of other noble Lords who have spoken with such force on this matter, are of a quality—even with all the quality assessment that we have at the moment —which justify the public funds that go into them? I shall be very interested to have that assurance.
Lord Peston: I would like to know whether the Minister agrees. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has put his finger on exactly what this issue is about. This is the danger which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, told us that we did not have to fear. If the Secretary of State is starting to play that game, then we are in a most dangerous state as far as concerns the future of further and higher education. I understood the Minister to say that precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said could not possibly happen, and that that is not what the Secretary of State had in mind. If the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is correct in what he is saying, we are on most dangerous ground and we could not let this matter go. I was hoping that the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was the correct one. The Secretary of State must not be in a position to say, "I, the Secretary of State, specifically am not going to finance this course in this institution". The moment he does that, it will be the end of further and higher education in this country. That is what we are arguing about.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord seems to say that the cloak of academic freedom can hide the cloak of academic self-indulgence.
Lord Peston: No!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: This is what happens at the moment, and it will go on happening. The Secretary of State must have the final say in matters where all the other instruments of self-regulation have failed.
Baroness Seear: I have seen the kind of situation that we are talking about. Putting up with a certain amount of inefficiency, and even self-indulgence, is a small price to pay for keeping academic freedom.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am not sure if the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, put his finger on it or put his foot in it. But certainly he is developing a line which many of us on this side of the Chamber would find very difficult to follow. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will express comment, because I think that the view which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has of academic freedom is not one which many of us here would share.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to make one small point. I think that much of the agenda of this discussion was not an FE agenda; it was a higher
966
education agenda and the very strong feelings have to do with amendments which are coming later. I wonder whether the situation in further education colleges is quite the same.
Certainly the argument about how the Secretary of State might know what the trouble was, does not apply in FE because in these colleges, as I envisage them, there will be local people sitting on the governing body. The TECs people will be there; and other people have been saying that they would like a statutory place for local authorities; and the Minister has told us that they may be there. They will certainly be working hand in glove with the college because of the planning they have to do. Their officials will be in and out all the time.
It will be very easy to know, in the case of an FE college, what is going on. It is a different agenda. I do not know whether that justifies the kind of role suggested by my noble friend Lord Pearson—and I know how he feels—but perhaps he did a not make a very good move when he said that because I do not particularly want the Secretary of State to be saying, "You will do that bit of further education and not that one". It is not the same agenda.
I would say to noble Lords that it is a very different world. I have moved about in both of them as I know some noble Lords have. It is very different, and the kind of academic freedom needed in an FE college is of a somewhat different quality. I think FE principals and the governing bodies would agree with that. Therefore I do not think that the arguments are quite the same about how the Secretary of State knows. However, I go along with the principle.
Earl Russell: The Minister has made one point which was new to me: the point about hybridity, on which I am very much afraid that the Minister may be right. Nevertheless, we are discussing issues which will help us at a later stage of the Bill, and I hope we may persist.
Essentially here, we are back on ground we covered in 1988. The Minister is relying on the accountability of the Secretary of State for public money. It must go on the record that I think all of us concede that without a moment's dispute. It was, after all, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who tabled an amendment, and moved it earlier today, for compulsory auditing of accounts. We on these Benches did not rise to speak to the amendment, but that was only because we believed that it was not controversial. Had it for a moment been disputed, we would have supported it.
The Secretary of State is entitled to know that the money is spent for academic purposes. The question is not about the Secretary of State's right to accountability; it is about his competence. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is doubtless right that in any profession—in mine, or in his, or in any other of which I can think—there is sometimes self-indulgence or incompetence. It is perfectly correct that, where possible, and as convenient, and by those who are able to do it, something should be done to control that situation.
The Secretary of State has a legitimate interest in that point. The question is, by what means the Secretary of State may pursue it. The Secretary of

967
State, after all, is not an academic. Even if he were, no academic claims competence in every field of every other academic. If I were set to judge the competence of a mathematics department, I simply could not do it. So the Secretary of State has to rely on the judgment of those who are capable of reaching a competent judgment, just as in matters of law the Secretary of State has to rely on the advice of the Law Officers and the judges; just as in military matters it is a clear convention that operational decisions in the field are not made by the Secretary of State for Defence because, unquestionable though his authority is, he is not competent to do it.
I was somewhat perturbed by the Minister envisaging a situation in which the Secretary of State and the funding council disagreed and the Secretary of State would propose to enforce his judgment at the expense of the funding council's judgment. Were I to find such a disagreement between the Secretary of State and the funding council I would not a priori know who was right, but I would, I confess, have a slight predisposition to suppose that the funding council, because it knew slightly more about it, was slightly more likely to be right than the Secretary of State. It is this sublime assumption of the Secretary of State that what he thinks absolutely must be right and absolutely must be enforced which gives us such profound misgivings about allowing him these powers. Powers should be in the hands of those who are competent to exercise them. In this case I have not yet been convinced that the Secretary of State is such a person.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may defend myself on the matter of academic freedom. I said at Second Reading that I would be among those who would die to preserve academic freedom. I completely accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that a certain amount of academic self-indulgence is worth paying as a price for academic freedom. But we are looking at a situation here where the mechanisms of ensuring academic quality, which is part of the price of academic freedom, have failed. I could give the Committee examples of which I am aware at the moment where the present mechanisms have badly failed. However, I am sure that noble vice-chancellors and others are aware of those as well. It is not perhaps appropriate to name some of the institutions, although I shall if necessary, that have been subject to considerable scrutiny by, shall we say, HMI, the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, the Council for National Academic Awards, local inspectorates and so on where still that quality is sub-standard and is short-changing quite a large number of students. I can see a way in which the Secretary of State might become aware, possibly through a "Panorama" television programme—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: He might; and he might want to interfere. I do not think he can just fire the funding councils overnight. I should have thought
968
that this reserve power, which will obviously be used only when all these other steps have failed, is not as unreasonable as some noble and academic Lords wish to pretend.
Lord Renton: Can my noble friend say whether the examples he has given refer to higher education or further education, or both?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I thank my noble friend for that intervention. My experience of this is in higher education, but I am aware of it in the school sector as well. I must confess that I have no specific examples in the sector that we are looking at at the moment. I speak more from general principle.
Lord Belstead: I should stress that the clause is in the Bill to provide a necessary power of last resort—hence the example I gave—for use should relations with the funding council break down, and for the purposes of providing a long-stop protection of the taxpayers' interest in very considerable sums of public money. In saying that, I should like to repeat what I said when I spoke previously. As regards the point made by the the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, that this power gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to intervene in what is taught in institutions, I should certainly be ready to take that point away and draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend. I cannot give a commitment on it but, as I said, I will take it away for further consideration.
Lord Kilmarnock: We have had an interesting and what I would describe as a two-layer debate. We considered the big question, the answer to which is that this clause has, virtually speaking, no friends in the Committee—other, perhaps, than the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I shall not presume to say whether he has put his finger or his foot into the debate. Then there was the technical point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on the question of hybridity which might introduce long delays into the system if the proposal were adopted. However, some of us may think that this was an advantage in this particular case.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renton, say that Clause 53(2) ought to be reconsidered, regardless of the technical issue. That was a valuable point. I believe that he said he was in sympathy with the thrust of the amendment, if not with its mechanics. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said that it might not be unreasonable for the Secretary of State to have some powers of a financial nature with which he could direct the councils and, possibly, the colleges. In fact, he already has that power under Clause 7, which provides that he can impose terms and conditions which, as I understand it, are directed at financial and managerial matters.
In his first reply, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, prayed in aid the Secretary of State's duty in relation to this clause to protect the very large sum of public money—I believe he mentioned £5 billion. The noble Lord used various phrases. He referred to, and I believe that I am quoting him correctly, a "power of last resort", a "long- stop protection of the taxpayers' interest", and I believe he also mentioned a "reserve

969
power". But none of those phrases is statutory language; it is the language of debate and the language which we read in Hansard. We do not read it on the face of the Bill. In fact, when I consulted the Clerks in regard to tabling an amendment for a reserve power, they told me that it was quite meaningless. Therefore, although we always respect and pay attention to what the Minister says, it only appears in Hansard and is not on the face of the Bill.
I was also surprised by one or two other aspects of the Minister's reply. For example, if one or two or a few colleges teach something that the Secretary of State does not like, that will hardly affect the overall budget of £5 billion which he seeks to protect. If any institution became so poor—I believe that the noble Lord used the word "poor"—and had deteriorated so far that it became desirable for it to cease operation but the council for some curious reason did not see it that way (I believe we have elucidated the fact that it cannot be sacked) we have to remember that the council is appointed by the Secretary of State and, supposedly, consists of good men and women whom he presumes will give him good advice. That seems to me to be quite an extraordinary reason for a clause of such draconian dimensions.
If the Secretary of State wishes to protect the taxpayer, that can surely be achieved by drafting a much more appropriate and limited clause. In fact, I believe that the Bill already provides for the winding up and establishment of institutions. If that is the Secretary of State's worry, he does not need this paraphernalia to protect himself on that count.
In his first reply the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that he would give serious consideration to the amendment. I was glad to hear him say when he rose to his feet again that he would give serious consideration to the effect or impact of the clause on what is taught. I hope that he is telling me that before the next stage of the Bill he will bring forward a version of this clause or another clause in which it is specifically stated that what is taught does not come within the purlieus of this clause.
If the Minister does not do that, the Government will be in very serious trouble. This is a dry run for all kinds of things to come. I shall not divide the Committee at this hour. As I say, this has been a useful dry run. However, before I withdraw the amendment, I invite the noble Lord to confirm to me that the Government will take it away and will come back with something which may be more acceptable at a later stage.
Lord Belstead: With very great respect, I did not say that I would look again at this amendment because I believe it to be hybrid. However, I said that I would draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am glad to hear those words fall from the noble Lord's lips. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Intervention in the event of mismanagement of breach of duty]:
[Amendment No. 219 not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [The Higher Education Funding Councils]:
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 41, line 18, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4) (a) below").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we move to higher education and as the hour is late I shall be as brief as possible. However, first, I must make the point that, given the new structure of the funding councils for both further and higher education, the working of the whole system, at whatever level, will be crucially dependent upon the quality of the membership of those councils.
That is the point which I address in Amendments Nos. 220 and 221. The whole purpose of the amendments is to ensure that in appointing council members, the Secretary of State should recognise that a substantial fraction of the membership of the council shall be actually engaged now in teaching, research or both and thus bring the necessary and contemporary knowledge to the deliberations of the council.
That the council cannot command the respect of the institutions with which it has dealings, nor function satisfactorily without having that kind of experience at its disposal, seems to me to be quite obvious and axiomatic, not least in the matter of quality assessment which has already been the subject of debate this evening. That experience is absolutely vital. Therefore my amendment ensures that current knowledge is available to the council and should cover all the subject areas so that there is no part which does not have the best information contemporarily available.
This is not a revolutionary proposal, but merely goes some way towards restoring what is in Section 131(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988 which provides explicitly that not less than two-fifths nor more than three-fifths of the members of the funding council should be:
"currently engaged in the provision of higher education".
Therefore the amendment is not only in line with the forebear and guiding star of that Act which was the Croham Report as it concerned higher education, but it is also consonant with the Government's White Paper issued earlier this year which I believe is called Higher Education: A New Framework. There it is stated absolutely categorically that a funding council will have a strong industrial and commercial element as well as members from higher education. It is cast in terms of the assumption that members will be drawn from higher education. That is axiomatic in the sense that I stated.
I therefore very much hope that the Minister will agree to this amendment which, it seems to me, may have arisen by an oversight since the matter is explicitly referred to in the White Paper as it was a part of the Act under which we now operate. If it is not agreed to, we shall need some explanation as to the reasons for the change from the provisions in the

971
existing Act to the proposals in the Bill. I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 220 and commend Amendment No. 221 to the Committee.
10 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My noble friend Lord Dainton—the other half of the Tweedledum and Tweedledee team—has proposed our amendments in his usual clear and precise way. Rather than repeat what he said, I shall content myself with saying that I fully support him and accordingly commend the amendments to the Committee.
Perhaps I may be allowed to emphasise one point. No one quarrels with the idea that the funding councils should contain among their membership persons who have demonstrated their competence in industry, commerce, finance or the practice of an honourable profession.
Incidentally, perhaps "any profession" would be going a mite too far, but I shall not elaborate. Such people have been of inestimable value to the universities in recent years. I have every expectation that that will continue to be the case. I remind the Government that such persons and persons of very senior status already give their services freely to almost every university and polytechnic in the land. The funding councils may find that they have met their match in terms of this category of membership. No matter, the competition will be good for all concerned.
Nor is it disputed that the funding councils should contain persons with experience and demonstrated capacity in the provision of higher education. It would seem amazing were this not to be the case. But the Committee will not be surprised that I take exception to the omission of the phrase, we now seek to reinstate which is to be found in the Education Reform Act which was recently passed, as the noble Lord said, and which was clearly called for in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Croham, on which I understood all these proposals were to be based. The phrase allows persons,
"currently engaged in the provision of higher education"
to be appointed to the councils. These are the people who know what it is all about today. We have a long tradition of including current practitioners on committees and councils of this kind. It is perfectly understood how they must behave. They must declare their interest, just as we do in this Chamber, and refrain from taking part in decisions in which they have an interest. My sole point is to urge that a few such people should always be included. In certain fields I find it impossible to imagine how the councils could otherwise fulfil their responsibilities.
In medicine, for example, it is essential to have current experience of the complexities of funding arrangements and organisation and the effects of these upon the work of the medical schools. It is simply not enough to have a retired dean of medicine or professor of surgery. Things change too rapidly for that. One must have someone who is at present in the swim of things.
I would argue too, that it is essential to have persons who are currently teaching, and can reflect
972
upon the effects of council policies on such matters as quality assessment and upon the teaching of the institutions to which the policies are directed. Retired persons get rapidly out of touch, as I know to my cost. I support my noble friend's amendments.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: From this side of the Chamber I support this amendment. This is not a matter of representatives of the kind we discussed earlier today—of various groups of varying degrees of relevance. We are dealing here with, at any rate some of the people, who are most centrally involved in the organisation and working of any single university and who are among those who are best qualified to know about the subjects under discussion. However, that point has already been effectively made by noble Lords opposite.
The point that concerns me—it has been touched on already—is the extent to which, in this respect, the present Bill so conspicuously falls short of the 1988 Act. As we have been reminded, under the 1988 Act there were to be 15 persons on the relevant council—the UFC, as it was then. Of those, between six and nine persons either had to have experience of or show capacity in the provision of higher education—that same clause, roughly speaking, stands in the present Bill—or, had to be currently engaged in the provision of higher education. That latter phrase does not stand in the present Bill, but is contained in an amendment under discussion.
In the present Bill there is a council of 12 to 15 persons. Under the Bill the Secretary of State is to have regard to "the desirability of including"—that is already a much weaker phrase—various categories, rather than being bound by the phrase "shall include". Under the present Bill those appointed to a council must have experience or capacity in the provision of higher education, and experience or capacity in,
"industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession".
As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, has said, that is a most welcome addition as such experience has always been of great value in those fields. However, the omission of the phrase which forms the subject of one of the amendments under discussion is so conspicuous that it takes one's breath away. I wonder what those who are responsible for the detailed drafting of the Bill were thinking of when they omitted that phrase. It would be interesting to hear why that phrase was omitted from this Bill when it formed the basis of the Education Reform Act 1988.
Generally in the academic world I try—I hope I succeed sometimes—to explain and justify the thinking of the Government. In general I am most happy with the present Bill which represents a great advance in many areas. However, I cannot understand why the phrase I mentioned was omitted from the Bill when it already stands in the 1988 Act. I should be most interested to receive an explanation of that curious circumstance.
Earl Russell: In speaking to Part II of this Bill I must, as a serving university teacher, declare my interest. I wish to support the amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers. I

973
also wish to speak to my own amendment, Amendment No. 222, which is grouped with the other amendments. I am amused by the way the Committee keeps referring to the 1988 Act as the standard to hark back to, because after all we were not particularly happy with the Act at that time.
Conservative Secretaries of State for Education remind me rather of the American folk song which has a chorus which goes, verse after verse after verse:
"And I married another far worse than the other and I longed for the old one again".
I shall be a little more ambitious. I shall go back to move the same point which I moved in 1988 and ask for an academic majority on the higher education funding council. I moved a parallel amendment to Part I. It was resisted on the ground that I spoke for the providers, who are a selfish interest, and we ought to be listening to the consumer. Our consumers are our students. Perhaps I may speak for a moment on behalf of the petitioners, the students of King's College. They are not particularly happy with what the Secretary of State is doing.
A genuinely consumer-led model is possible. The University of Bologna, which was one of Europe's great universities, was for a long time run on such a model and it worked. There is not the conflict of interest which this model presupposes. It is one of many cases of free market thinking suffering from an excessive debt to Marx. It is a false model. It is even more false in that the Secretary of State does not speak for the consumers. To say that power should be given to the consumers and on that ground to give it to the Secretary of State is an abuse of language.
We are dealing here with an argument about competence. I shall not dwell on that point because I have touched on it already. However, we should consider the question of the boot being put on the other foot. There are not many professions which would resist an input from people outside the profession. That can be refreshing because disciplines, like toenails, are capable of ingrowing. It is quite different, though, to be presented with a demand for a profession to be governed by an outside majority because it is in some way deemed to be incapable of running its own affairs. Is there any profession in the country with any sense of self respect which would see that restriction placed upon it and not jib at it?
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers, and also speak to Amendment No. 222A to which I have put my name. That amendment has almost the same effect as Amendment No. 221 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers. I do not wish to delay the Committee by repeating what has already been said. I should like merely to support everything that has been said by the noble Lords in moving the amendment and by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew.
When the Minister replies no doubt he will say that of course there will be on the funding council academics who are currently engaged in the provision of higher education. If he says that, then presumably he can accept the amendment. There should be no difficulty.
974
Many people who work in higher education fear that, if the amendments are not accepted, at some future date a future Secretary of State who may be less reasonable than the present one would pack the council with people who have no experience of higher education or, if they have such experience it is outdated experience because it is many years since they have been serving academics. I support the amendments.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I too should like very much to support the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers, and the noble Earl. Those members of the present council who bring industrial and commercial experience to the work of that body and who are also users of the finished product—to use the noble Earl's phrase—have undoubtedly made a distinctive and valuable contribution. However, I believe that they would be the first to wish clear provision to be made in the Bill, as it was in the previous Act, to ensure the presence of a substantial proportion of academics or, to use the phrase of the amendment,
"Persons currently engaged in the provision of higher education".
After all, no successful industry could function were it to be run by a board of the great and the good, however distinguished, where there was not a substantial body and indeed a majority of professionals in that particular discipline or industry, if we are to use the industrial approach. The Government have clearly recognised that in their present practice, and I hope that the Minister will work to restore that provision with particular regard to the need for current academic advice to be available.
Things move very fast in the education world, and universities have shown a refreshing ability to move with, and sometimes ahead of, the times. The funding councils should have the benefit of the up-to-date experience of a steady supply of academics who are conversant with new attitudes, new needs and new responses to the educational challenge.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I do not wish to delay the Committee any longer. I want only to offer my support for the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment because, if he does, a great many of the anxieties about the working of the council which are expressed in later amendments might well be allayed.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may put my foot in it again as probably the only person in the Committee this evening who, as a representative of commerce, has spent some eight years on academic bodies, in the Council for National Academic Awards and the polytechnic sector of higher education.
The amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers, is grouped with Amendments Nos. 221, 222 and 222A, so I shall speak to them together.
I have no difficulty with the concept of those who are currently engaged in higher education being on those funding councils. I should have thought that

975
that was extremely helpful. Perhaps the most useful person to have is the person who has just given up active duty because he has the time to give to those councils that they so urgently require. My noble friend Lord Beloff said this evening that businessmen—
Lord Dainton: Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Pearson that at least in the University Grants Committee—and I have no reason to believe that the practice has been discontinued—a payment is made to the academics. They are supposed to give a proportion of their time, so, on the question of devoting their time to their own subject, they must make that sacrifice while members.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Of course, not being an academic, I would not know what influence that has on academics' teaching duties.
I accept the point about people who are currently engaged in higher education being on those bodies. When it comes to whether there should be a majority of them with experience of working in higher education, I am not so sure. Perhaps I might dwell here for a moment on the difference between those who lead the world of work and the academic world. Presumably, those who wish to be academics do so because they wish to study their books, to write books and to have as many publications as possible, to do research, to carry out scholarly activities and so on, dare I say even to apply their energies to improving their units of resource. By that I do not mean by magnifying their cash flow. I refer to improving what are sometimes referred to as their students. If, on the other hand, we turn to those who lead the world of work, they are presumably trained and successful in management. We are talking here more about the management of the academic system under consideration than we are about academic pursuit in itself.
Personally, I am sure that it is right for the Secretary of State to have complete discretion in those appointments. I would settle for at least 25 per cent. of the membership of those councils to be comprised of people who have shown capacity in industry and finance. The Committee will notice that I am nervous of commerce in that regard. As a representative of commerce, it is fair for me to say that, but I am sure that the successful representatives of industry and finance would be preferable to those from commerce. Representatives of professional practitioners might be helpful—doctors, lawyers, engineers, chemists and physicists. Recently retired senior serving officers in our Armed Forces would be helpful to the councils' deliberations. There may be quite a few of them after the Options for Change programme is completed. They are often extremely wise men and women who would certainly have been helpful in a number of the debates in which I have been involved over the past 10 years.
Finally, I turn to the serious matter of the appointment of the chairmen of those bodies. I believe that it is very important that the chairmen of the funding councils should come from the categories that I mentioned. I believe that Sir Ron Dearing, for whom I have the highest regard and who has been absolutely
976
excellent as chairman of the CNAA, has been successful as regards the funding council. He is to be the first chairman of the new funding council for England. I should have thought that when it comes to the appointment of a chairman that is an important distinction to make.
I am not academic-bashing. I am absolutely clear in my mind that a number of successful academics would be very helpful to some of us in, for instance, the City of London or industry, were they also to be chairmen or certainly have powerful voices on our boards. The cross-pollination and cross-fertilisation of ideas is most important in debate. In my view, the councils as well as many commercial and industrial boards would benefit from that kind of arrangement.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord is quite right about the cross-pollination of ideas. I thank him for a great many of his remarks. I wonder if that approach offers a way forward.
Lord Belstead: All these amendments aim to include on the higher education funding councils people who have experience of higher education. With regard to Amendments Nos. 220, 221 and 222A—the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, spoke to the last mentioned one—Clause 58 already requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of appointing members to the new councils who have experience in the provision of higher education or who are in positions carrying responsibility for such provision. I have no doubt that both Secretaries of State will want to ensure that there is a sensible mixture and balance of experience within the membership of the new councils. That must mean that not only a substantial number of members from higher education backgrounds will be included but also that many of the members are likely to be engaged in the provision of higher education at the time of their appointment.
However, I think it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to appoint members for their personal qualities. It would therefore be undesirable to inhibit the Secretary of State in any way from appointing a particularly well qualified individual with significantly higher education experience simply because he or she did not happen to be employed at an institution at the time.
Lord Tordoff: I wonder how the noble Lord defines "personal qualities". It seems to me to be a very wide phrase. It may, for instance, mean members of a certain political party or it may encompass the shape of their face or the colour of their hair. I wonder how that phrase is defined.
Lord Belstead: I believe that if the question were asked, "Shall we have this man or shall we have that man upon the committee" and the answer is, "Well, what are we looking for", to which came the reply, "We are looking for high quality in their particular fields", both of the people in that dialogue would know exactly what they were talking about.
Clause 58 also requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of appointing members to the new councils from both higher education and

977
business backgrounds. My noble friend Lord Pearson spoke interestingly about that from his experience. There is no question about it; that is something that has become more the practice in recent years and I believe that it is right for councils to try to do that.
As I emphasised, members will be appointed for their personal qualities and not as representatives of particular interest groups. While in practice the two categories are unlikely to be mutually exclusive, it would be undesirable to inhibit the Secretary of State from appointing a particularly qualified person because that person fell on the wrong side of the distinction.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew asked why the wording of the clause referred to "having regard to the desirability". My answer is that the Bill in that respect is different from the 1988 Act. Even with the flexibility given by the phrase:
"shall have regard to the desirability"
the definition in the Act of the higher education members related solely to members currently engaged in higher education. In replying to the amendments this evening, I make no secret of the fact that we want the greater flexibility that is in the Bill.
What is my conclusion, having listened to the comments on the four amendments? First, with respect to the noble Baroness, I must resist Amendment No. 222A because it would restrict the members of the higher education funding council to those currently engaged in higher education. That would rule out, for instance, the advantage of being able to appoint the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, although we should have the solace of being able to appoint my noble friend, Lady Perry. Quite seriously, I believe that the amendment is over-restrictive.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said on Amendment No. 222, which provides that the majority of members on the higher education council shall be from the sphere of higher education. Again, I resist the amendment. To move in this Bill to a specific majority would be a departure even from the Education Reform Act. The Committee will remember—my noble friend Lord Renfrew placed it on the record—that the numbers in the 1988 Act total 15 persons on the UFC and the PCFC, of whom between six and nine were to come from higher education. Although it is absolutely true that the possibility of a majority was written into the 1988 Education Reform Act, it was not a certainty.
Amendments Nos. 220 and 221 were moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. I would be deaf if I did not say that noble Lords have a point. Without more ado, I shall consult on them with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I cannot give a commitment. However, I should like to take the two amendments away with the intention of reporting to the Chamber at the next stage of the Bill. I believe that there is some cogency in the arguments put forward.
Lord Dainton: I warmly thank the Minister for those concluding remarks. Perhaps I may take a moment to explain what I meant by a substantial number. In referring to a substantial number I was being careful. I believe that the bedrock of the
978
functioning of the funding council must be intimate knowledge of the institutions with which the councils are dealing if they are to have any credibility with those institutions. More importantly—it has been much stressed by the Government side—members of the council must show a skill in being accountable for the public money that is being entrusted to them. Therefore, one must have a range of membership which covers the major fields of activity of the institutions for which the councils are responsible.
It is not for me to spell it out now, but I leave this as a thought for the Minister to take away. We cannot possibly afford not to have a distinguished scientist or a distinguished engineer/technologist—he might come from manufacturing industry and serve both purposes—but we would also need someone who is au fait with what is going on at universities. Those two spheres have to be brought together. I know from my experience in recruiting industrial members to the University Grants Committee that often one is grateful to have the balancing of the industrial and academic in those more applied spheres. That goes without saying with regard to the social sciences, arts and humanities; and there are others that one could specify.
In a council of the size that is projected, I believe that it is perfectly feasible to meet the criterion to which I refer which sets a lower limit on the size. I should have endorsed what the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said. There is a special problem with regard to medicine and dentistry. They interact with public services—with hospitals and so on. The matter will arise later in relation to quality assessment. All sides of the Chamber are deeply concerned with that aspect. Therefore, the question of the composition of the committee will once again come before us. I am most indebted to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 220A:
Page 41, line 27, after ("State") insert ("in consultation with those with a legitimate interest in higher education").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 220B. It offers to do for Wales what Amendment No. 220A does for England. My intention is, as always, to be helpful. In this case I hope to be helpful to the Government. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to make the best possible appointments, to win credibility for the Secretary of State's decisions and to gain wider acceptance of the members chosen for the English and Welsh funding councils.
I am greatly concerned that the powers given to the Secretary of State in Clause 58(2), (3) and (4) regarding the appointment of members of the English higher education funding councils are insufficient. They do not specifically empower and encourage him to seek and profit from the best available advice. My amendment would permit the Secretary of State to profit by requiring him to consult with legitimate interests in higher education—such as practising

979
academics, employers, administrators, staff, students and even learned Members of the Committee—before appointing members of the English higher education funding councils.
Membership of the funding council as detailed in Clause 58(4) is narrowly defined, as we heard earlier this evening. It may limit the flexibility of the Secretary of State, in particular if he lacks the widest possible spectrum of opinion to advise him. The Secretary of State shall choose only those who have either:
"shown capacity in, the provision of higher education",
whatever that means,
"or have experience … in, industrial, commercial or financial matters".
That almost amounts to an exclusion of students and staff, scientists, prelates, professors and so forth. It severely limits the Secretary of State's choice.
Clause 58(4) (a) and (b) puts something of a straitjacket on the Secretary of State. He is "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd" and he needs all the help that he can get. Surely the funding councils need to maximise the potential information available to them. I suggest only that the process of consultation would benefit the funding councils and would not cause any vast inconvenience to the Secretary of State. Certainly, it does not imply any kind of improper influence, control or veto.
The amendment, if properly implemented in the spirit in which it is proposed, would assist in maximising support for members chosen for the funding councils. Legitimate interests would feel part of the decision-making process if they were given a chance to give advice and to make recommendations. Funding council members, when appointed, would know that their appointment had been discussed and broadly accepted by those with whom they had to deal on a regular day-to-day basis—the employers, the staff, the students of the institutions committed to their care—and surely they would find such assurance fortifying. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I support the amendments which are also tabled in my name. Amendment No. 220A is probably one of the most reasonable and moderate amendments that we have moved in a long time. It would insert the words:
"in consultation with those with a legitimate interest in higher education".
I suggest that there is flexibility enough there to allow even the most cautious Secretary of State, or anyone else for that matter, not to feel threatened by it.
Lord Belstead: Like equivalent provisions in the 1988 Act, the clause provides that members of the higher education funding council shall be appointed by the appropriate Secretary of State. I have no doubt that each Secretary of State will wish to ensure a sensible balance of experience within the council's membership and will listen carefully to any advice which may be offered on appointments. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, said that Secretaries of State are "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd". That is perhaps going a little far. The present Secretary of State is a man who gets out and about.
980
However, it is true that senior Ministers, whatever the government, depend considerably on advice when making appointments. It is only right; they must. Therefore there is nothing between what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is saying and what the Government believe; that is, that the Secretary of State needs to be advised when making appointments to the funding councils. But—and the noble Lord probably assumed that the word "but" would follow—appointments are intended to be made on the basis of personal qualities rather than as representatives of specific interest groups. There is therefore a danger of a Secretary of State making appointments statutorily in consultation with groups, if that is what the amendment intends. If the noble Lord intends more than that, then I feel bound to observe that the amendments would be almost impossible to operate, given the breadth and diversity of persons having a legitimate interest in higher education.
The noble Lord is both a wise and generous man, and I note that he said "if this was operated in the right spirit". However, when one is talking about legislation one must weigh every word one writes on the face of the Bill. This second limb of my argument, that it could become almost impossible to operate, is a serious point.
Given his overall responsibility for higher education funding policy, it must be clear that decisions on appointments to a higher education funding council will be made by the Secretary of State. The amendments would represent a departure from the tried and tested equivalent provisions of the Education Reform Act. We have just debated an amendment where I was adjured—not once but several times—not to depart from the Education Reform Act provision with regard to the composition of the funding councils. I must say here that if we accept Amendment No. 220 we will be departing from equivalent provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988. For those reasons, although the noble Lord moved the amendment most attractively, I fear I must resist it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am disappointed. For one heady moment I thought I had pierced the stony bosom of the noble Lord the Minister, but it was not to be. I heard what the Minister said. Nothing that I heard causes me in any way to change my opinion one iota; clearly nothing that I said causes him to change his opinion one iota either. Reserving my rights to return to the matter at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 220B to 222A not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 41, line 39, at end insert:
("(c) persons who have experience of, or knowledge of the requirements of students with learning difficulties.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 223 goes back over—
Lord Belstead: I do not have the right to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but this amendment

981
was spoken to with Amendment No. 15 on the first day. Perhaps the noble Lord will bear that in mind in speaking to it.
Lord Renton: With regard to the point raised by my noble friend, this amendment was mentioned on the first day in respect of funding councils for further education. Here we are dealing with funding councils for higher education and it may be thought the circumstances are slightly different. I must say that, having taken part in the discussion on the first day, it did not occur to me that we would be precluded from considering the matter in relation to funding councils for higher education.
Lord Belstead: I am extending the time that we are taking The considerations that my noble friend Lord Renton has mentioned occurred to me. The fact is that this amendment was grouped on the first day. It is a matter for the Committee. I simply ask the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to take that into account.
Lord Addington: I was going to take that into account anyway. I was not altogether sure that it was exactly the same amendment because my memory is not that good. The amendment covers many of the same issues. I was hoping to draw from the Government the same kind of consideration of the issues involved as we had concerning further education. One must take into account that in higher education there is bound to be a slightly different perspective on the problems and that there will probably be a smaller number of students involved.
Unfortunately, the higher education part of the Bill is to some extent selective. Those with learning difficulties will find greater barriers. It is almost certain that a smaller proportion of students will get through. With that in mind, I would like to draw from the Government the same kind of assurances that we received from them concerning further education. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: This matter is relevant to the question of higher education. Perhaps I might mention a personal experience. During my third year at Oxford, which was my final year for a degree in jurisprudence, I was tutored by T.H. Tylor of Balliol, who was blind. He had a First in law. He had tremendous difficulties. He was entirely dependent on his sister. She was older than him. She helped him with his academic studies and enabled him to get a First in law. One must not assume that even in higher education people with learning difficulties have needs which can possibly be ignored. In order to ensure that they are not ignored, I hope that my noble friend will agree that this amendment, or one very much like it, is written into the Bill.
I stress that there is no question of this being a representative appointment. It is simply that the person to be appointed shall be known to have,
"experience of, or knowledge of the requirements of students with learning difficulties".
In those circumstances I should have thought that this amendment is a very wise precaution.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may briefly add to what has been said. I have known of two cases
982
of severely deaf students who had very special problems. I have known of a blind student from Zimbabwe who did extremely well by gaining a First at Cambridge and following post-graduate work at Oxford. He needed special people to read to him. He really had special problems. Nevertheless, he was academically absolutely in need of that support.
Lord Belstead: I have very little doubt that no Secretary of State will want to ensure that there is other than a sensible mixture and balance of experience within the membership of the new councils. It seems likely that at least one of the members with a higher education background will have some experience or knowledge of the needs of students with learning difficulties.
Perhaps I may put the problem simply. If this amendment were accepted just like that, it would be difficult to stop there. Why not have similar provisions in respect of particular learning circumstances of students from the ethnic minorities with traditional qualifications for higher education entry, or mature students? There is a problem.
I do not believe that an amendment of this kind is the only means whereby the needs of a particular group of students will be taken into account. The Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council has already adopted targets for increasing participation for students with special educational needs. I imagine that for their part the Secretaries of State will want to consider whether their launch letters of guidance to the new councils should make it clear that promoting access for students should be one of their aims. Indeed my understanding is that that is very much in the minds of those in the Department of Education and Science.
Having said that, I should like in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to repeat the undertaking which was given by my noble friend Lord Cavendish on a similar amendment to Clause 1 of the Bill. On the strict understanding that we are not talking about representatives, and with no commitment—I have to say that—I shall be happy to take this away and to look at it.
Lord Addington: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for that commitment. I appreciate that it is a very generous one working within tight boundaries. Before I withdraw this amendment, I should also like to say that the area of special educational needs is very important. The example given by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is one to which we might give one second's thought. He said that somebody had to help somebody else with their academic work. That other person presumably was severely curtailed. We are also talking about making everything available for all those taking part with all disabilities. A little bit of knowledge and assistance—for instance, in a Braille translator enactor —would have helped enormously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 42, line 10, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("the Courts").
The noble Earl said: This amendment takes up the provision that disputes about the functions of the funding councils shall be settled by the Secretary of State. The amendment proposes to remove "the Secretary of State" and insert "the Courts". If the Secretary of State can settle any dispute about the functions of funding councils, this amounts to yet another further power to confer supplementary functions. The courts are a good deal more appropriate because the Secretary of State in any dispute about the functions of the council is at risk of being ex-parte.
The councils have been described—I think by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris—as the Secretary of State's creatures. This gives him a large amount of power. His will is not law. Somebody ought to be able to control it. I shall not, at the moment, go into the question of how far the courts can do so; but I hope that they can. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The noble Earl is unduly suspicious on this occasion. Perhaps I may give an example which comes from the same clause. Suppose there was an uncertainty (to put it at its lowest) or a dispute (to put it at its highest) as to whether an institution's activities are wholly or mainly carried on in England, or wholly or mainly carried on in Wales, as referred to in the clause. In the unlikely event of this being the case, someone has to make a determination because of the need to ensure that resources go to the appropriate funding council for the purpose of funding the institution - and subsection (8) provides for this to be resolved by the Secretary of State. I should have thought that that was the right way of doing that, for instance, rather than going off to the courts with all the expense and the delay which that involves.
I shall certainly have a look at this again to see whether my answer has ranged wide enough. But on the exchange that we have had, that is the feeling I do have.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. The example he has chosen is indeed an innocuous one. I agree; I do not see the point in arguing that cases like that should necessarily be taken off to the courts. I am very grateful, on the other hand, for the Minister's undertaking to look at this again and see whether it might confer unwittingly further powers going a bit beyond that. With thanks for that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Further and Higher Education Funding Councils]:
[Amendments Nos. 225 to 228 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 65, line 8, at end insert ("and shall establish a committee for London").
The noble Earl said: As a teacher in the University of London I must declare an interest in this amendment. The amendment provides that the new funding council shall have a sub-committee for London. The Universities Funding Council is at present supposed to have a sub-committee for
984
London. Some of my colleagues have recently expressed doubt about how often that funding council has met. I therefore put down a Question for Written Answer asking when it last met. The Answer of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, appears in today's Official Report. She replies that it meets from time to time. That I found not exactly a forthcoming answer and for that reason I thought it was worth going ahead with this amendment.
There are quite special questions that arise in the organisation of education in London which need a certain amount of knowledge to address. I should like to think that the new higher education funding council would have briefing on it. In its annual report the University of London states that in the four years to 1990–91 it has faced a 10 per cent. decline in its income in real terms.
Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, testifying before the Public Accounts Committee in January 1990, had quite a tough examination on why he had not drawn its attention to the particularly severe deficits of a number of London academic institutions. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has called the attention of the House before to difficulties at Royal Holloway and Bedford New College. There have been troubles at University College, London, which have also been drawn to the attention of the Committee as have, yesterday, those at King's College, London. Yesterday, Queen Mary and Westfield College also had a march and petition. Goldsmith's College at present has an occupation because of the cancelling of a large number of courses and the dismissal of lecturers who should have been teaching them—dismissal, I understand, for reasons of financial stringency and not for dissatisfaction with their performance. London polytechnics have rather similar difficulties. I am sure that Members of the Committee have read about Middlesex Polytechnic. I have already mentioned the sit-in at Thames Polytechnic which was to do with the library budget. That is a high proportion of the vocal discontent at present going on in the country.
It raises the question: is there some special London factor that has not been taken into account? I believe there is. It is the question of London unit costs. In September 1988 the University of London, largely as a result of the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, to whom I am grateful for discussion of this subject—I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment—calculated the extra costs of being in London at £10 million a year. The University of London argued for a level playing field. That is a fair request. I know that some adjustment has been made since but it has not been sufficient to make up the difference.
The hardships of which we hear in London seem to be more severe than a great deal of what I hear from my colleagues in the provinces; and that despite the fact that the university is one of considerable quality. Indeed, it has been argued that in my own subject it is capable of matching and even exceeding the quality of Oxford and Cambridge. While I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, will not agree, I hope that we may agree to differ on the matter.
The university also has a particular structure which appears from inside to be a source of great strength. But it takes an effort to understand it. Every now and then people from other places are capable of becoming irritated simply because it takes work to understand it. We are all human; we all become tired; and in those circumstances we can all become irritated with special difficulties.
In today's Evening Standard I see that the Secretary of State for the Environment is concerned with offering proposals to restore London pride. I was glad to read that. I believe that every country in the world has a university in its capital city. We have a particularly good one. If the Secretary of State for the Environment is concerned with London's pride, I hope that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will also be so concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: There are times when the noble Earl comes very close to persuading me. But I am afraid that he has not succeeded in drawing me into an alliance with him on this amendment. I cannot support it.
Lord Peston: I am somewhat puzzled by the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I did favour the amendment, but I should remind the Committee that there are three universities of London and there will be nine or more in the next year; in other words, we shall have at least 12 universities of London before very long. I thought that the amendment was about trying to rationalise that situation which, speaking as a member of staff of one of the universities of London, seems to me to be quite absurd. I certainly did not think that it was about what is narrowly called London University. I thought that it was designed to ask whether we need a dozen or more universities of London.
If it were to mean the latter, I believe that, first, the council should establish a committee to try to solve what I think is the rather serious problem of excess supply of separate units, if I may put it that way. Secondly, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that if a committee is set up it should meet on occasions There is no point in having a committee which does not meet.
There is also a very serious economics question about unit costs. If London is disproportionately expensive, then I would worry that we ought to reconsider whether we need quite the university that we have, let alone 12 of them. If my meaning could be attached to the amendment, I would feel happier supporting it than I do at present with just the noble Earl's meaning. I place that proposition before the Minister for him to consider.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank the noble Lord for having set the record straight as regards the number of universities that there will be in London if the Bill is enacted. I do not support the amendment because I think that there are special regional cases around the country, and London is a region in its own right. Therefore, it does not have a stronger case for its own committee than any other region.
986
I challenge the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on one particular point. I strongly resist the idea that 12, 15 or 20 is too many universities. Indeed, most other major capital cities of the world have at least twice that number.
Lord Peston: I should like to ask the noble Baroness a question purely for my own enlightenment. Was she serious when she said that most capital cities have about 24 universities? I thought that I knew about the subject, but I was not aware of that fact.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I invite the noble Lord to visit New York and Tokyo and to start doing his homework from there.
Earl Russell: I was perfectly aware of the existence of other universities in London. I believe that what I say is true of them also; namely, that they too have the same problems with unit costs. I was relying upon others with more knowledge to say so.
Lord Belstead: If I may say so, I believe that there is an almost unlimited range of special interests for which committees could be established. It would be wrong to prescribe them in legislation. But, in case that sounds utterly negative, perhaps I may make a more constructive remark and say that the Bill enables the councils to set up committees for any purpose. Therefore, the mechanism already exists in the Bill for the councils to be able to do exactly what the noble Earl recommends. Even if they do not read Hansard in order to digest the proceedings as the Bill passes through this place, I have no doubt that the noble Earl's words will impinge themselves upon the councils when they are appointed.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. I have two further questions for him to answer. First, can he draw the attention of the relevant authorities to the fact that this is one university which feels that it has been treated rather worse over the past few years than some other universities? Secondly, can he find out if the London sub-committee is going to meet? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11 p.m.
[Amendment No. 230 not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 230ZA:
Page 65, line 15, at end insert:
("(5) The Funding Council shall establish a Student Consultative Committee to monitor relevant information deemed suitable by the Council.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment brings us back to the subject of students and the idea that they should have some voice and influence over the process of their own education. That is particularly appropriate in higher education as there is a great tradition of student involvement. Indeed, the growth of the National Union of Students in many colleges and, indeed, the growth of many smaller groups representing individual universities, is a good example of how students take their own role seriously.
In this case, unlike the debates at the beginning of the day, we are merely talking about consulting students. There is no problem of representation; we

987
are merely talking about consulting student bodies, which are numerous; for example, the British polytechnics sports association or the universities athletics union. When I was a student I had more to do with the athletics union than I did with the students' union. All those bodies should be consulted because they can provide, if nothing else, an area of expertise.
I suggest that this is a moderate and sensible amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: There is a great deal in the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but I am not so sure that I am enthusiastic about the amendment. The reason for that is that at various points throughout our discussions today we have considered how far it is appropriate for the councils to be left alone to govern their own affairs.
This is another case where an amendment seeks to impose yet another committee and a procedure upon the council which may not suit the council's methods of working or for which the council would find a better alternative. While in no way wishing to depart from much of what the noble Lord said—he has taken a great interest in the Bill and has put forward many useful ideas—on those grounds the Government would not support the setting up of yet another statutory committee.
Lord Addington: Although I like the sentiment, I should have preferred to have something written on the face of the Bill because, once again, we are talking about those people who are concerned with the sharp end of the process. However, I thank the noble Lord for his sentiment. I shall take away the amendment and consider what should be done with it. I reserve the right to return to this matter at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 230A:
Page 65, line 16, at end insert:
(". The Council shall establish an adult education sub-committee to represent the interests of the long-term residential colleges, the WEA, the four London colleges and the other major institutions and organisations.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment asks for another special committee. I should not be moving it at this hour but the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, who is unable to be here, asked me to move this amendment to which his name is attached.
It is well known that there is considerable anxiety throughout the country about what will happen in regard to adult education. This amendment is about a particular section of adult education—some aspects of this have been referred to in the past—and in particular, the long-term residential colleges; namely, Coleg Harlech, Co-operative Fircroft, Hillcroft, Northern, Plater, and Ruskin. In addition, there are the well known national organisations such as the WEA and the four London colleges. The needs of those colleges and their standing in the nation, because they are national colleges, put them in a rather different position. Their long tradition and recognised quality means that they are in a category by
988
themselves and they justify a committee to see that their maintenance and development is adequately handled. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: Paragraph (8) of the schedule is designed to allow the councils to establish committees and sub-committees for any appropriate purpose, a point which the noble Baroness will forgive me for repeating. They may well want a committee on the education of adults, but I think that it would be wrong to decide for the councils, through legislation, which committees need to be set up now. I think that is something that councils themselves are best placed to judge.
While we are talking about the amendment, may I say a brief word about the colleges? The noble Baroness mentioned the six long-term residential colleges. They were reviewed earlier this year by the Department of Education and Science, and, in the light of that review, the Ministers at the department recognised the unique place that those colleges hold in providing residential education for adults who have missed out during their school years. They decided that it would be appropriate for the colleges to enter automatically the further education sector through the mechanism of Clause 28. This would enable their needs for capital funding, for example, to be considered alongside those of other colleges. Similar decisions were reached in respect of Coleg Harlech in Wales.
The Government firmly believe that the long-term residential colleges have an important role to play in the new sector. As I said on Second Reading, we shall be making clear in guidance to the funding councils that the distinctive characteristics of those institutions must be taken fully into account.
The noble Duke is not here this evening, the noble Baroness moved the amendment; but it is of interest that Plater College in Oxford, which I believe used to be called the Catholic Workers' college, is one of the long-term residential colleges which would transfer automatically to the new further education sector under Clause 28.
If I may give a further reassurance, Clause 6(3) of the Bill requires the councils to have regard to the desirability of maintaining what appears to them to be an appropriate balance in the support given by them as between institutions with a denominational character and other institutions. So the Bill honestly offers no threat to the traditional character of Plater College or other similar colleges.
I just wanted to add those words because it is important to show that the importance of the long-term colleges has very much been addressed in the Bill. Therefore, in resisting the amendment, as I am doing, I am not resisting the words and feelings of the noble Baroness about the importance of the long-term residential colleges.
Baroness Seear: I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for that reply; I am not surprised to have received it. I noticed that he talked exclusively about the long-term residential colleges. The amendment also mentions,

989
"the WEA, the four London colleges and the other major institutions and organisations",
which are regarded as in a somewhat special category in the field of adult education.
However, even though the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, it is valuable that we have had this exchange and it will be in Hansard. It will give at any rate some reassurance to the colleges as to the support that they are likely to receive in the future. With that observation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 231 to 238 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 239:
Page. 65, line 34, at end insert ("Any exercise of functions so delegated shall be reported to the next meeting of the Council.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks to amend paragraph 10 of Schedule 1. That paragraph provides that "the council"—that is either of the funding councils—
"may authorise the chairman, the chief officer or any committee established … to exercise such of their functions as they may determine".
In fact, it authorises the delegation of functions. I do not argue with that. The amendment simply asks that any functions,
"so delegated shall be reported to the next meeting of the Council"
I have no doubt that the Minister will tell me that this is an unnecessary amendment. I am quite prepared to admit that the horse has not been stolen. That is why I am trying to build a lock on the stable door. It seems to me that this is a sensible piece of procedure. If that gets spelt out early on, it is a sensible precaution. If one has to wait until it is shown to be necessary to take precautions, then one gets into an area where it is quite difficult to suggest it. The whole reason why I am moving the amendment is that as yet no reasons can be shown for it. That is the time to do it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I respect the noble Earl and I admire his zeal, but quite frankly our statute book is getting cluttered up with small instructions to various bodies that we appoint by statute. Can we not leave some good sense and discretion to them? I hope that my noble friend will resist this amendment.
Lord Tordoff: There have recently been instances outside the field of academia—for example, in the field of commerce and particularly of newspapers—where if the chairman had had to report his actions to the board as regards the movement of money from pension funds into other areas, it might have been useful. If such a provision had been on the statute book rather than just left to people's good graces, some people might have been a lot better off than they are today. I welcome the amendment.
Lord Renton: We are not dealing with business in this Bill: we are dealing with sedate matters of education.
Lord Tordoff: We are dealing with people in this Bill.
Lord Belstead: While it is perfectly true that anyone can err, I believe that the councils themselves should decide these matters. We should occasionally place our confidence in the people we are appointing. We hope to appoint high quality councils and they should decide how to fulfil this function without having to refer to the statute book.
Earl Russell: It had never been my intention to press this amendment. I heard the point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made. Had I intended to press the amendment, I would then have refrained from doing so. However, I think the point was worth raising. It is worth repeating, often out of season as well as in season, that these routine precautions ought to be observed. The Minister has stressed tonight that we seek accountability for public money. I do not wish to say anything to suggest that we on these Benches care any less about that than anyone else. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 240 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 65, line 36, leave out paragraph11.
The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks to delete the provision which allows the Secretary of State or his representative to attend meetings of the council. It was once my pleasure and my privilege to read a memorandum written by my ancestor, the fourth Earl of Bedford. The memorandum was written about 1628. It explained why he thought the King should not attend meetings of the Privy Council.
That memorandum precisely expresses the case that I want to make in favour of this amendment. He said that when the King attended meetings of the Privy Council, members of the Privy Council went to great trouble to find out what the King wanted, as he had, after all, the power to promote them. They went out of their way to offer the advice that the King wanted, whereas what the King really needed was to hear the advice he did not want. Indeed, if he is a good King, what he actually wants is to hear the advice he does not want. My ancestor thought that the King's attendance at the Privy Council meetings gravely reduced the quality of its deliberations. That is exactly my case for this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: With great regret I must oppose this amendment which I regard as quite ridiculous. Anyone who has had any experience of government would not only believe in this amendment, but would support a stronger amendment to state that the Secretary of State must send an assessor to all these meetings. If the noble Earl believes that in this kind of matter there would not be officials present, that only indicates he has no experience whatever of how the machinery of government works, and ought to work. If the noble Earl presses his amendment, I shall certainly vote against it. It simply bears no relation to the reality of government.
Lord Belstead: That is fair. There are numerous precedents for these arrangements. Paragraph 11 is virtually identical to paragraph 12 of Schedule 8 to the Education Reform Act which relates to the

991
universities', polytechnics' and colleges' funding councils. Those arrangements have worked well. I realise that it is an occupational hazard, and that when I say that it has worked well, perhaps the representatives will be hearing what people wish them to hear. However, in these modern times I do not believe that it works like that, particularly if the representative is always present at every meeting.
Lord Dainton: Perhaps I may reassure the noble Earl that in my own fairly long experience in this sphere I have known of assessors being present and there being no assessors. I have always found that assessors are willing to withdraw when it is necessary for them to do so to meet the condition which the noble Earl wishes to be satisfied. With skilful leadership there is never any problem in that regard.
Earl Russell: I hear the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and am reassured. I hear the words of caution from the Minister and am reassured by them also. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on his promotion to the Government Front Bench! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Transitional arrangements]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 43, line 34, at end insert:
("(5) and the Secretary of State shall ensure that sufficient transitional arrangements will be made to fund the extra capital expenditure required to bring polytechnics and their student unions and their support services up to the same level of funding as that of universities.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with a very important part and one of the primary aims of the Bill—removing the binary divide. From the point of view of many students it is a key issue.
The academic reputation of the polytechnics is beyond question. They would not have this promotion had they not proved they were ready for it. However, unfortunately many polytechnics do not meet the same standards in terms of student facilities as universities. When choosing a university one first chooses the course and then compares facilities such as student accommodation, sports facilities, drama facilities and so on. In that area polytechnics invariably come off second best. That happens to be an accident of history. Unless the facilities of the colleges and polytechnics can be brought up to the same standard as those in universities they will be at a disadvantage in an area which forms an important part of student life.
In case someone should be tempted to say that people do not go to university to have a good time I suggest that if one tells someone that they can go to one university and have a good time or to another where they will have a bad time they will choose the one which is more pleasant. Indeed one of the attractions of higher education is that it is supposed to be fun.
At present students are being squeezed hard. No one would dispute that. Therefore, facilities such as student accommodation - which is much grizzled about by those students who have it and prayed for by those who do not because it is cheap - is one of the important factors when deciding on a university or polytechnic. There are also aspects such as the social benefits from meeting other people taking the course. One of the great plus points in favour of Oxford and Cambridge has always been that they are well provided for in terms of accommodation and the other factors which make student life pleasant.
If that very important aspect of the institutions can be raised to the standard in the majority of universities, one will really have removed the binary divide. There may be one or two polytechnics which already match those standards, but at present the universities hold an advantage. It is late, but this is a very important issue and I await the Minister's answer with interest. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I wish very strongly to support the amendment. It is a tremendously important topic and it is sad that we are debating it at this late hour. It is one which has concerned me for a great many years since I began to undertake research on the economics of education and became involved with the CNAA in endeavouring to enhance the polytechnics in their early days. I do not see this as a party political matter. It is a problem which will have to be faced by any government.
I have always asked myself on what rational grounds I could argue that, because students go to a polytechnic rather than what is currently called a university, they ought to have poorer library facilities, to study in overcrowded conditions, to have inferior eating facilities, to have poorer playing fields and so on. I have never been able to think of any argument to convince myself, other than the obvious one: where will the money come from? We have simply let this matter drift on year in, year out by saying that there is no money, but eventually we must ask of the available funds what priorities we wish to establish. The noble Lord referred in the amendment to transitional arrangements, but I fear that transitional arrangements, even if we set about dealing with them, will take some time.
Those of us interested in higher education must face the fact that the criteria for the expenditure of funds must be at least partly to redress a serious imbalance. I am willing to be convinced by the Government if they could tell me why a polytechnic student should have inferior conditions. I have never had the imagination to produce the argument for myself.
When I saw that the amendment had been tabled, I hoped that many noble Lords would be present and that we could go into the matter in some detail. Obviously, no one wishes to do so at this time, but I hope that in replying the Minister will at least show some sympathy for and understanding of the principles here; namely, that the polytechnics, by which I mean the students, deserve a better deal, given

993
the effort that is being put in by their teachers and others in that area. I therefore strongly support the amendment.
Lord Belstead: The amendment would place a duty upon the Secretary of State to provide a predetermined level of funding to the new universities. Both noble Lords who spoke to the amendment explained why they are anxious to see the amendment succeed. Mechanically, the amendment is misconceived. The Secretary of State has already determined his allocation of capital funds to the UFC and PCFC after careful consideration of the needs of each group of institutions. My right honourable friend's next grant, for 1993–94, will be to the new Higher Education Funding Council. As far as I know, there is no additional money in between.
The noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Peston, made a brief but strong case for the amendment. The Government have not been slow to meet capital needs of the polytechnics and colleges. Since 1989–90, grant to them has increased by over 50 per cent., greater than that for universities, recognising the relative lack of attention to this area of expenditure when polytechnics and colleges were under the control of local education authorities. I say that in no vindictive way, but, if you look at the figures, there is truth in that assertion.
It must be a matter for the Secretary of State to determine the appropriate level of capital funding for buildings and equipment for the UFC and the PCFC. Each funding council must be free to determine individual allocations according to the needs of individual institutions. For the reasons that I have given, I do not think that the amendment would work and, on hat ground alone, I must resist it.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Lord sits down, I was not merely trying to establish a mechanical procedure. I am sure that that is true of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, too. One is simply trying to air the principle. That is what concerns me. I regret to tell the noble Lord that I have not looked at the latest figures and I accept his word that there may have been some small shift of funding in the direction of the new universities. I am delighted to hear the Minister use that expression. I too shall try to use that term rather than refer to polytechnics. Even though I, as a university teacher, may complain endlessly about my lack of resources, I always know when I go into one of the new universities, that I am quite well off in many of the most important areas.
All that I seek to do—the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will then speak for himself—is to air the important principle of finance. I do not air it as a party political matter. I see it as at least as difficult for a different Government to solve as it is for this Government. I should simply like to establish the fact that the problem needs solving.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: Clearly, I must declare an interest here as I try to run one of those institutions—the former polytechnics, new universities or whatever one wishes to call them. It goes against my professional grain to count the teeth of any
994
gift horse. I thank the noble Lord who proposed the amendment. I appreciate the spirit that lies behind it, but I must resist the idea that, inevitably and always, the facilities for students in polytechnics are inferior to those in universities.
Lord Addington: The noble Baroness will forgive me, but I did not say "always"; I said in the majority of cases. The amendment does not mention all of them - a blanket ban; it is intended to bring them all up to a general standard. I quite accept that the amendment is technically not correct, but the idea behind it is to bring polytechnics up to a recognised standard. There are certain new universities which have also been caught by this provision.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank the noble Lord for that comment. I think that he demonstrates the complexity of this amendment. Not all the polytechnics and their facilities would therefore be in line to qualify for any such additional or transitional funding. Where I think that the gross difference between the present polytechnics and the existing universities can be found is in the facilities for research equipment. I do not believe that it would be in the interests of the higher education sector to plead for a sudden shift of research funds on the scale that would be needed in the direction of the polytechnics.
However, I repeat that in terms of student facilities, student residences, student union and indeed some of the teaching accommodation, I do not believe that there is by any means an uneven distribution of good and poor quality accommodation.
Earl Russell: The Minister will be in some difficulty if he resists the principle of this amendment. One would like to think that, if the former polytechnics are to have the title of university, they are to be given something of value. That means that they should be given all the powers, dignities and equipment and so forth that go with that title. If that were not done, there would be a risk of a new binary line being created, which I believe we would very much deplore. I hope that the Minister will indicate at least a little more sympathy towards the principle that is behind the amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I apologise for speaking twice, but I believe that I am right in saying that the current amount of research funding which the Universities Funding Council distributes is somewhere in the region of between £700 million and £800 million. If that were divided evenly, it would take £350 million or thereabouts out of the budget of the existing universities, which would be disastrous. None of us would wish to see that happen. I believe that that is the major area in which inequity currently exists. It can only be righted over a very long period of time when each and every one of us earns the right to have that kind of even distribution.
Earl Russell: But what happens when people do? If the Government want something, they must be prepared to pay for it. If they are not prepared to pay for it, it cannot be done properly. So I ask the Government to pay for it.
Lord Addington: I accept that the amendment is technically faulty and I shall therefore not take it any further. Before withdrawing the amendment, I should like to say that I shall almost certainly come back to this issue at a later stage. I should like the Government to remember that we are talking about student unions and support services. As I said before, unless those come up to scratch or produce something close to it across the board, I agree that there will be some type of variation. Unless the new universities roughly, as a group, are comparable with the older universities, we shall not have a true one-university system; we shall still have a great legacy left over from the binary divide. That is what this amendment is aimed at. It is an issue that we should address later on. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Administration of funds by councils]:
[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 44, line 9, at end insert:
("(e) The Council shall continue the practice of Special Factor Funding as hitherto used by the Universities Funding Council").
The noble Earl said: This amendment asks for the new higher education funding councils to continue the practice of special factor funding, as previously conducted by the Universities Funding Council. It is a matter which I understand is under review.
I must declare an interest in that this issue has a particular effect on the University of London, from which I come. It also has a particular effect on the Institute of Historical Research, of which I am a member of the board of management. More generally, the point of special factor funding is to protect the existence of institutions of national importance, whose importance may be greater to the academic world in the country as a whole, or even in some cases in the world as a whole, than it is to their own particular college.
To illustrate the principle, perhaps I may take one institution which does not enjoy special factor funding but may do so in future. The Department of Dutch in University College is the only department of Dutch in the country. There is a national interest in there being one department of Dutch somewhere. After all, at a recent meeting there has been a considerable need for interpreters capable of speaking Dutch. In fact it has been used hitherto largely for university museums in Oxford and Cambridge and for the senate institutes in the University of London.
The University of London at present receives £11.38 million in special factor funding. Were that funding to the University of London to cease, a good many institutions of genuine world class stature would be at risk of survival. Some institutions at present enjoy such funding; some do not.
The Institute of Commonwealth Studies at present does not enjoy such funding because of a chapter of accidents almost on the level of the situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, last night in relation to the Property Services Agency. A report which would have ensured such funding simply failed to
996
reach the Universities Funding Council before its deliberations were complete. The institution is in considerable doubt about its survival.
The Institute of Historical Research, with which I am most concerned, is in my opinion more important to the study of history in the country and the world than the remainder of the University of London put together. In saying that, I include King's College to which I am profoundly loyal; it is the body which pays my salary. It is a place where scholars from around the world meet, exchange ideas, read books and check footnotes. It costs very little indeed. Forty per cent. of its readers come from outside the University of London. A large proportion of its readers come from overseas. One of the most passionate defenders of the institution whom I heard recently was a visiting professor from the University of Moscow who, hearing that its survival was in doubt, expressed astonishment that anything so insane could be contemplated.
It does not cost much to keep the institute going. A sum of about £1 million is involved. The special factor funding is supposed to guarantee its level funding. That means that funding declines by 2 or 3 per cent. a year which demands adjustments but is not disastrous. Without the special factor funding it has no future.
The Institute of United States Studies is in a similar position. It has not had the funding. It is in difficulties. It has caused considerable anxiety to the Foreign Office and to our embassy in Washington. There is a diplomatic implication. There is a feeling in the United States that it contributes a good deal of money to help interest in British studies in the States and that there is no reciprocal generosity in this country towards studies of the United States.
It is an effect of the squeeze that everyone tries to cut back and retreat into their central core. Any specialised area is constantly threatened with extinction. That applies to many valuable institutions. Therefore long term planning and economy is not easy.
I fully admit that this is a piece of special pleading, but I believe it is a case worth pleading. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I must admit to the noble Earl that in practice I believe that the new funding councils will have to include some allowances for special factors which cannot be dealt with through the operation of the main funding methodology. Indeed, my understanding is that the PCFC as well as the Universities Funding Council take account of London factors in their methodologies now. However, the way in which special factors are taken into account must be for councils to decide. It would be a mistake for the Government to impose specific solutions on the Bill before the council is even appointed. Although the noble Lord says that it was special pleading, to be fair to him the points are generalised and are of importance. However, I still do not believe that they should be put on to the face of the Bill.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister deeply for that reply. He said everything I hoped for. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 245 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 246:
Pap 44, line 20, at end insert:
("(c) make grants to students with learning difficulties in respect of any additional disability-related expenditure, other than travel costs, incurred or to be incurred by them because of attendance on the course.").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry to rise at this hour to make yet another plea to the Government to help those who are disabled in one way or another and who need special support in higher education. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 247 and 249. The purpose of Amendment No. 246 is to make it possible for higher education funding councils to give financial assistance to individual students. Some of them need help with expenses incurred as a result of their learning difficulties.
Amendment No. 247 will give the councils a duty to make particular grants to institutions as opposed to individual students in order to help disabled people to attend their courses.
Amendment No. 249 will allow funding councils to fund directly any support services which are working within the higher education system.
The provision in Amendment No. 247 has been expressed as a duty by using the word "shall". I know that would be preferable from our point of view, but I should be happy to swap the word "shall" for the words "the council shall have power to". I can well understand the reasons why the Government prefer that, and if that is what they wish I shall be happy.
In speaking to the amendments, the examples that I shall gave are of people who are deaf or have been deafened. For the purpose of the debate I ask all the highly-intelligent Members of the Committee to imagine that they are deaf students or have recently been deafened. They will then see why the amendments are necessary.
I turn to Amendment No. 249. Most disabled students in higher education receive a disabled student's allowance. One might believe that is enough for them to be able to equip themselves to follow courses of higher education intelligently. However, the aids which they need are very expensive. For instance, they may need an interpreter or notetaker equipped with special electronic aids. Without such human and electronic aids to their studies they cannot begin to compete with people who are not so disabled. They may be extremely bright people but their disablement is an impairment. Everything should be done to give them equality with their peers who are not disabled.
However, the problem does not relate to the ordinary student who is deaf. One may say that because he receives a disabled person's allowance he is reasonably well catered for. Part-time and graduate students do not receive the disabled person's allowance. What are they to do without support? The support is high cost and prohibitive for the ordinary person. However, it should be made available from central government funds.
Few deaf people are able to choose the increasingly
998
flexible part-time courses: because there is no disabled students' allowance. Nor can they afford to go on to post-graduate degree courses: again because there is no disabled students' allowance. All that goes against government policy. The Government are doing their best to promote those very courses, especially the part-time courses. It is clearly not right that bright and willing deaf people who are capable of benefiting from them, should be debarred from post-graduate courses because there is no disabled persons' allowance.
It is an important amendment. I shall not dilate upon it because the point has been made. However, I should add that the Government spokesman on the Front Bench was extremely kind and agreed to talk about the raft of amendments I am concerned to move, and I should like him also to consider these three amendments. It may save a great deal of time this evening when we all want to go home.
The second amendment relates to the disabled students' allowance. If that were paid to part-time and post-graduate students it would be helpful. But it would not be everything. What is often needed is help which is provided by adapted buildings. Certain higher education centres are well adapted; particularly Reading University and Sheffield Polytechnic. They make facilities available such as the induction loop system, which is necessary in lecture halls, and indeed such small items as flashing fire alarms—deaf students cannot hear bells—and flashing door bells to enable them to enter their student lodgings at night. They may not be expensive, but they are important items.
The problem is that the deaf learn about such well adapted centres as Reading University and Sheffield Polytechnic, and apply in large numbers to attend those institutions. That is unfair on the institutions. If they spend a lot of money on those items—more than most other institutions—they cannot spend it on other equipment which other competitive universities or polytechnics can provide. That is not fair. If two or three outstanding centres are chosen because of their help to, for example, deaf people, then they must be provided with sufficient funds. The alternative is to provide sufficient funds to all universities and polytechnics. It is an administrative matter which I need not go into in detail, but something must be done to help those people.
I can illustrate my third amendment using Sheffield Polytechnic as an example. It relates to providing funds for support services for disabled people. The hearing impaired support service at Sheffield employs interpreters, lip speakers and note-takers who will accompany deaf students at the polytechnic and university into their lectures. Without that support they cannot begin to compete or catch up.
I ask that the amendments be considered sympathetically by the Government. I do not expect them to reply with an immediate yes; but I hope that they will not reply with an immediate no. I ask them kindly to consider them in the package they have already agreed to consider. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for the reasons he gave. I briefly wish to add this. In

999
relation to Amendment No. 246 it cannot be said that the social security provisions will necessarily cover the disability-related expenditure at a university.
My second point concerns access. It may surprise some Members of the Committee to know that the question of access arises at all in relation to learning difficulties. It does. One of the most famous scientists in the world is a research Fellow at a Cambridge college who cannot walk. He has to live in a wheelchair; he finds speaking and writing very difficult. But he is a genius. If he had not been helped along somehow, he would have been unable to produce the remarkable work that he has done.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: There is a great deal of substance to the noble Lord's amendments. I am glad that he mentioned the meeting that we are going to have. I am sure that these matters will arise. These amendments seek to enhance the ability of the higher education funding councils to provide funding in support of students with learning difficulties. However, I believe that they are unnecessary. I would like to go through them with as much economy of words as is possible.
Amendment No. 246 would allow the higher education funding councils to pay grants to students with disabilities relating to the additional costs that they may incur in attending a course. The Government recognise the need for such grants, and provide for them. We do not think it right to involve the funding councils in duplicating the existing system. The Committee will know that in general, and subject to certain conditions, students attending higher education courses are eligible for help with their living costs through mandatory awards and student loans.
The allowances relate, as is proposed by the amendment, to the additional costs arising from the disability which are incurred as a result of attending the course. Where any student does not qualify for a mandatory award, the local education authorities have discretion to offer discretionary awards. These can, if the authority sees fit, include the same range of allowances.
We are proud of that system of allowances which has been widely acknowledged as generous. They are almost exactly the same as the possibilities proposed by this amendment. Clearly the noble Lord, in promoting the amendment, agrees that we have got the range of allowances about right. As those allowances already exist, we do not believe that it makes sense to duplicate them. Local education authorities can already pay them. Giving the higher education funding councils a power to do the same thing in parallel makes no sense to us and it could lead to confusion as to which body is responsible for assisting students with disabilities.
The amendment would also result in the higher education funding councils dealing with individual students in respect of their grants. But that is not the role of the funding councils: they are to fund higher education provision, not students. The local education authorities are set up to deal with individual cases. It
1000
would be a diversion from the funding councils' main task to require them to set up administrative structures for this purpose as well.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 247. That amendment would introduce a new duty into the arrangements for funding of higher education provision. It would require the higher education funding councils to make grants to the governing bodies of higher education institutions in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them for the purposes of allowing access to their provision for students with learning difficulties.
The Government's policy is to increase access to higher education, and that includes students with disabilities. But I have to say that we do not regard this amendment as appropriate. Clause 61 of the Bill gives the higher education funding councils wide powers in relation to the funding of higher education provision. That includes the power to fund the provision of specialist facilities for students with disabilities and projects to tackle the problems of physical accessibility that some of them face.
Thus the Bill already provides for funding to be allocated by the new higher education funding councils to improve the accessibility of higher education institutions for students with disabilities. That continues the discretion that is currently available to the existing funding councils. The Government therefore see no reason for the proposed new duty; such duty would not be consistent with the Minister's traditional relationship with the higher education funding bodies. The Government do not prescribe how funding should be allocated to individual institutions by these bodies.
We intend that Minister's' existing arm's length relationship with the existing funding councils will continue with the new higher education funding councils. Nevertheless, the Government take very seriously the anxieties expressed that disability should be no bar to education. Indeed, we share those anxieties. We shall consider carefully what should be said in the launch guidance to the funding councils about provision for students with learning difficulties. We intend to make clear the considerable importance which the Government attach to adequate provision being available for these students.
Finally, Amendment No. 249 in this group of amendments seeks to add to the powers of the higher education funding councils to make payment under regulations made by the Secretary of State under Section 133 of the Education Reform Act 1988. I appreciate that the promoters of the amendment are anxious to ensure that funding can be made available to bodies which provide support for students with learning difficulties. However, Clause 63 is concerned with payments by the funding councils only in respect of particular types of costs; payments to local education authorities and the governing bodies of designated institutions in the polytechnic and colleges funding council sector for premature retirement costs; compensation payments to former staff at teacher training colleges which have been closed; and increased pension payments to retired non-teaching staff.

1001
The purpose of Clause 63, like Section 133 of the Education Reform Act 1988, is to compensate local education authorities and institutions for the compensation payments which still need to be paid to former and existing staff of polytechnics and colleges. None of these costs falls to be met by agencies which provide support to students with learning difficulties.
However, I am not just arguing that the amendment is in the wrong place. I must also say that the powers which the noble Lord seeks are already in the Bill. The general powers of the higher education funding council to fund higher education provision are in Clause 61 of the Bill. Subsection (61) (2) (d) specifically provides for the councils to fund for any person the provision of services related to the provision of education. This of course includes services provided for students with learning difficulties. Thus the Bill already makes adequate provision for bodies which provide support for these students to be funded
In summary, my answer to all three amendments is in essence the same. We believe that the funding powers that they seek are already adequately provided either in other legislation, in the case of student support, or elsewhere in the Bill. As I said to the noble Lord at the outset, I look forward to fruitful discussions with him and others who support these amendments. In the meantime, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, decides what to do with this amendment perhaps I may say that I did not find the reply very sympathetic. I should like to ask the Minister to consider one possibility, which it seems to me could very easily be made available and could be of a great deal of use and that is the provision of a centrally compiled list of information about what facilities are open to people with disabilities in different universities.
A couple of memories, in particular, move me to suggest that. One is having the privilege and the pleasure of teaching a pupil with spina bifida. But I had to teach her on the third floor, which naturally caused her a certain amount of difficulty. We were teaching in a Nash villa in the middle of Regent's Park. If we had put in a lift, English Heritage would have had a fit - and it would have been quite right. It might have been a good idea for her—though I may say, not for us, since she was the life and soul of the department—to have steered her to a place where movement might have been rather easier.
I also remember a colleague who was teaching on the third floor of a listed building in Gordon Square. He was dying from motor neurone disease. He experienced acute difficulties. Again, because it was a listed building we were unable to put in a lift. There are other cases where universities could put in a lift. And here, in times of financial stringency, earmarked money could be very valuable indeed for the process. I hope the Minister will think a little more sympathetically about this.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I gave reasons. If I did not sound sympathetic it may have been because I was
1002
trying not to detain the Committee. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his suggestions which of course I shall look at.
On the matter of sympathy, my noble friend Lord Belstead and I have tried to look at all the amendments with as much sympathy as we can. The noble Earl may have missed what I said, but we have gone to some trouble to arrange a meeting at which we hope a good many of these problems can be talked over. It will not be lack of sympathy that impedes progress.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his constructive suggestion. I would only differ from him in that my impression of the Minister's reply was that it was distinctly sympathetic.
It is a valuable suggestion that this information should be made available and that the money should be earmarked; otherwise the money will not come forth. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He was right that, however good the social services provision, it will very often not be enough. That is one fault with the present system. I should like to have heard from the Minister about the flexible part-time courses and postgraduate courses for which no disabled student's allowance is available. It seems quite wrong that there should be no allowance for such courses.
Having said that, I welcome the talks to which the noble Lord has agreed. I am not at all sorry that my amendments were in the wrong place. I am not sure that all the powers we seek are already in the Bill. That is the kind of thing we can talk about. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 not moved.]
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No.248ZA:
Page 44, line 30, leave out ("subject to that").
The noble Lord said: In view of the lateness of the hour I shall try to be concise. Ministers have shown great sympathy, the patience of Job and in some areas the wisdom of Nestor.
This small phrase "subject to that" may seem a trivial matter and Members of the Committee may ask themselves why we are wasting our time with just three words at this hour of the night. It may seem like a drafting amendment but I do not think it is. There is an important principle here. Perhaps we should regard it as a probing amendment to see whether that is so.
The words "subject to that" ought to be quite unnecessary, in which case they could clearly be deleted. They appear to constrain or compromise the important qualification set out in the last part of subsection (4) of the clause. Those words embody a general principle of great importance. The principle is that the funding council shall not interfere with money which a university obtains from some source other than the funding council—from an endowment perhaps, or from a benefactor or from whatever other source.
Now of course the council may fix terms and conditions for the manner in which a university may spend money derived from the council. That is accepted, and naturally therefore it will fix relevant terms and conditions for repayments, which is what the clause focuses on, in relation to money derived from the council. But the principle also stands in the Bill that the funding council does not meddle in financial matters beyond that. That is to say, the funding council does not meddle in financial matters other than those matters where the finance derives from the council.
The phrase "subject to that" appears to qualify that important principle. It appears to imply that the council is seeking repayment by the university of moneys owing, and it speaks of sums derived otherwise than from the council. There is something here that cannot be right. The principle should stand clear and untrammelled. I should be grateful for an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that the general principle is accepted and therefore for an explanation of the function of the words "subject to that". It may well be that those words are otiose and should therefore be deleted. I beg to move.
12 Midnight
Lord Belstead: Clause 61(4) is almost identical to Section 134(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988 which qualifies the powers of the UFC and the PCFC to attach conditions to grants made to institutions. The only significant difference is the addition of the words which this amendment seeks to remove; namely, "subject to that". Let me assure Members of the Committee that these words do not represent any change of policy. Their purpose is simply to achieve greater clarity in the effect of the subsection.
Subsection (3) enables a higher education council to make grants to institutions, subject to conditions. Like equivalent provision in the Education Reform Act, subsection (4) specifies that those conditions may enable a council to require repayment of grant in whole or in part, or payment of interest relating to such repayments by an institution which fails to comply with such conditions. I suggest that that is clearly sensible. If money is given for a particular purpose and is not used for it, it should be repaid.
Subsection (4) also specifies that, subject to those provisions for repayment in the case of noncompliance, a council may not attach conditions relating to the use made by an institution of funds derived from sources other than the council.
The purpose of exempting arrangements for repayment from the general rule—that conditions of grant shall not relate to institutions' other income—is simply to provide for circumstances in which an institution repays grant or interest upon it from funds not received from the council. It does no more than provide for necessary flexibility in such repayments. In view of that reassurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I thank my noble friend the Minister for that explanation. I think that I
1004
shall have to read it in Hansard because I do not entirely understand why the words "subject to that" are needed. I do not understand why it would not be simpler to delete the words. However, I certainly do not wish to divide the Committee at this hour of night. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Peston: I listened very carefully to the Minister's answer. I found it to be wholly convincing, except for exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, is making. In other words, it seems to me that the words "subject to that" do not add anything to the Bill. In fact, the Minister totally convinced me in the sense that he persuaded me to go in the opposite direction to the one which he wished us to follow. What he said made good sense. I understood what he was saying. We do not require the words, "subject to that". Perhaps he could, at least, reflect upon the matter.
Lord Renton: In my opinion such words are unnecessary in any statute at any time.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I thank both noble Lords for their interventions. As I said, I shall read my noble friend's response very carefully. Perhaps he will also be so kind as to read very carefully the arguments which have just been put forward. If necessary, we can return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Administration of funds: supplementary]:
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 248A:
Page 45, line 4, leave out paragraph (a).
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 248D, 248E, 248F and 248G. We are grateful for the inclusion in Clause 62 of the reference to denominational institutions. There was no reference to them in the White Paper and, as I said on Second Reading, it is a great encouragement to us to see the reference in the Bill.
The group of amendments has three purposes; first, to strengthen the reference to the denominational institutions by the removal of some rather otiose and woolly phrases. Of course, they may serve some purpose, but the amendments strengthen the reference to denominational institutions. The second purpose is to include reference to those institutions which are administered by more than one denomination, because some colleges are run jointly. The third purpose is to include reference to those institutions which are run on trusts which relate not just to what will happen to the property if the institution is closed but also to the current use of the property. Those are the three simple objectives of the amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: Amendments Nos. 248A and 248D add a requirement to have regard to the desirability of maintaining a significant number of institutions of a

1005
denominational character. They contain a serious practical flaw but even if that could be overcome, I do not think that we could go along with the principle of the amendments. The practical flaw in Amendment No. 248D is that, unlike Clause 62 as presently drafted, it does not specify who should judge whether a significant number of institutions is significant or whether a particular balance of support is appropriate. There can be no objective definition. The only bodies suitably placed to make such judgment would be the higher education funding councils.
In principle, the objection to the nature of the relationship between the councils and the institutions is that I do not believe that it would be appropriate to require the funding councils to fix particular numbers of institutions. Higher education institutions are independent bodies responsible for their own destinies. A higher education council's job is to fund provision and not to maintain institutions. The new higher education sector is bound to develop over time and it is right that it should be free to do so. Development may mean that the number of institutions within it will change.
The Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council has a Church and Associated College Advisory Committee which advises it on the particular interests of the church colleges which the council recognises form a distinctive part of the sector. I think we can expect the new funding councils also to establish a means of hearing that distinctive voice.
I understand that some colleges of higher education are nervous about their future under the new arrangements. But they do have a valued contribution to make, and it is not the Government's intention that this should be diminished. Indeed, if one looks at the 1991–92 enrolment figures published last month, they show continuing demand for places in the colleges of 14 per cent. over 1990–91, exceeding that of polytechnics at 12.9 per cent. The colleges will clearly need to participate in whatever funding methodology is developed by the new councils. But provided that they continue to do so successfully—and I see no reason why this should not be the case—their continuing contribution will be secure.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 248E and 248F. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for drawing my attention to this unintended limitation in the definition of institutions of a denominational character. The Government do not wish to exclude ecumenical institutions from the definition.
If the right reverend Prelate feels able to withdraw Amendments Nos. 248E and 248F, I will undertake to introduce a government amendment at Report stage to meet the point made by the right reverend Prelate.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 248G. I fully understand the right reverend Prelate's anxiety that the Bill's definitions of institutions of a denominational character should be suitably comprehensive. In relation to Amendments Nos. 248E and 248F, I intended to give an undertaking that a government amendment will be introduced on Report to remedy a defect in those definitions. However, Amendment No. 248G seems to me, with great respect, to be an unnecessary addition.
1006
Clause 62(4) defines institutions of a denominational character in terms of two tests. They can either be an institution where a majority of the governing body represents the interests of a particular religious denomination; or one where most or all of its property is held under trusts provided that, if it closes, that property or its sale proceeds shall benefit a particular religious denomination.
Accepting the need for an amendment to cover ecumenical institutions, which I have offered to the right reverend Prelate, the Department of Education and Science advises me that it is not aware of any institution recognised as being of a denominational character and likely to be part of the new higher education sector which would fail both of these tests.
The right reverend Prelate may of course be aware of such institutions. If he is, it would be helpful if he could draw them to my attention. I invite him to withdraw the amendment with my assurances that the department will consider further the need for an amendment. However, if there are no such institutions, the amendment would be unnecessary.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply and for the encouragement and assurances he has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 248C:
Page 45, line 7, leave out ("distinctive").
The noble Lord said: I am in my usual difficulty in speaking to this amendment which stands in the names of my noble friend Lady David and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is late at night and I think it is a tremendously important amendment. Nonetheless, although I seem to get stronger as the night gets longer, I shall not delay the Committee long.
I understand the general meaning of Clause 62 and the part we have just discussed to do with the denominational aspects of institutions. This is a probing amendment, but my noble friends and I are having difficulty as to what Clause 62(3) (b) means. It mentions the desirability of maintaining:
"any distinctive characteristics of any institution".
If I may put my problem to the Minister, it is this. What does the word "distinctive" mean in this clause? To put it differently, why would the funding council not want to do this? It is the reverse of my usual stance. What is there in this that requires it to be on the face of the Bill? It seems to me obvious that the funding council, in determining its allocation of funds, would look at the distinctive characteristics of any institution. I would argue that that is precisely why we set up the funding councils.
I do not wish to appear too suspicious, but one of the glories of our higher education system, which will be enhanced in due course with the new universities, is its diverse character. Our institutions have distinctive characteristics. I do not merely quote the Open University or the special case of Birkbeck College or all the others. We can always tell when we are in one university or another because they have different qualities and atmospheres. They have different ways of doing things. I admit that I like the distinctive

1007
characteristics, but I take them so much for granted that my fear is that this is trying to say, "We shall mention 'distinctive' because we mean 'not distinctive'". In other words, why fuss about this in any way?
I put it to the noble Lord that it may well be that my noble friends and I and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, are a trifle too suspicious about what the Government may have in mind here.
In this case, to my understanding the subsection would not be necessary. It seems to me that if the funding council remotely did its job properly, it would take account of the characteristics of the institutions with which it deals. I ask the question bluntly: what am I supposed to learn from the use of the word "distinctive"? I can wait for an answer, if one is not available. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: When the noble Lord asks exactly what is meant by the distinctive characteristics, I believe that the answer is this. The White Paper made it clear that a unitary framework for higher education was not intended to make all institutions the same. It emphasised the importance of safeguarding the best of the distinctive characteristics of individual institutions, such as the vocational emphasis of present polytechnics and colleges. It did not rule out the possibility of institutional characteristics changing over time.
This is an important issue and one to which, in reply to the debate on Second Reading, I made a brief reference. A noble Lord asked whether there was a danger of losing the distinctive characteristics of the polytechnics as they became universities. The answer is contained in the short paragraph that I have just delivered: namely, that the vocational emphasis of the present polytechnics and colleges is such that, if it exists in a polytechnic, the polytechnic itself would be loath to lose it. So would we all.
I do not wish to go further than that except to say that I hope the noble Lord will not wish to take the word "distinctive" out of the text.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I think that there is more to the matter than he has said. I did not fear there would be some danger in removing the word "distinctive". It was only when I read the clause that the potential danger occurred to me. One starts to worry when someone fusses about something when that should not be necessary. It is at such times that I normally become suspicious.
I believe we are all agreed on the need to maintain diversity and distinctiveness. That is not the argument. We shall, however, consider this matter and read carefully what the Minister has said. If we are still unhappy with the matter, we shall return to it at a later stage. Having listened to the Minister's remarks, I do not think there is any difference between us on what we want to see in our higher education system. I am still not too happy with the wording of the provision. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 248D to 248G not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Payments in respect of persons employed in provision of higher or further education]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 248GA:
Page 45, line 27, after ("area") insert:
("( ) the London Residuary Body;
( ) the London Pensions Fund Authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 249A to 249E. These technical amendments empower a higher education funding council to make payments to the London Residuary Body and the London Pensions Fund Authority in respect of compensation payments made by these bodies to former staff of the Inner London Education Authority. They also empower the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council to make payments to these bodies until it is dissolved, and regularise past payments to them by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.
The background to these amendments was explained in an answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Education and Science on 6th December.
Clause 63 empowers a higher education funding council to continue to make the payments which are currently made by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council under Section 133 of the Education Reform Act for local education authorities and governing bodies of designated institutions in respect of compensation payments made by them to former employees. The liabilities of the ILEA were transferred to the London Residuary Body when the ILEA was abolished, and due to an oversight Section 133 of the Education Reform Act did not cover payments to the London Residuary Body. That is why we are in the position we are and that is why we have tabled these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 249 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 249A to 249E:
Page 45, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (2) (a) of that section (meaning of relevant expenditure) after "education authority" there is inserted "the London Residuary Body or the London Pensions Fund Authority".").
Page 45, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (4) of that section (duty to give information) after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
( ) the London Residuary Body;
( ) the London Pensions Fund Authority".").
Page 45, line 38, leave out ("Subsection (1) of").
Page 45, line 39, after ("if") insert:
("( ) in subsection (1)").
Page 45, line 42, at end insert ("and
( ) in subsections (1) and (2) the references to a local education authority included the London Residuary Body and the London Pensions Fund Authority.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, agreed to.
House resumed.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Charities Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the public Bill Committee with amendments.

London Docklands Railway Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past midnight.

  DISABILITY INFORMATION PROJECT
  DISABILITY INFORMATION PROJECT
  IVF/ET: PROCEDURES AND ETHICAL GUIDELINES
  IVF/ET: PROCEDURES AND ETHICAL GUIDELINES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: COMPENSATION CLAIMS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: COMPENSATION CLAIMS
  DRUGS PREVENTION INITIATIVE
  DRUGS PREVENTION INITIATIVE
  FISH FARMING INLAND AND AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY BUILDINGS: PLANNING CONTROL CHANGES
  FISH FARMING INLAND AND AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY BUILDINGS: PLANNING CONTROL CHANGES