Sitting of 16 December 1991

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

    Mortgage Guarantees
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he is doing to make mortgage guarantees by his Department acceptable to building societies and financial institutions.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The income support arrangements in respect of mortgage interest depend on individual circumstances and do not therefore constitute a generalised guarantee. From next month, changes are being made in the operation of the arrangements with the aim of making them more effective in preventing the build-up of arrears where income support is in payment.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Secretary of State instruct his officials to see whether they can help constituents living in Hanover square in Bradford, who sold their homes for £1 to the British Heritage Housing Trust and are now angry that they cannot afford to buy their homes back at prices up to £51,000? The building societies are unwilling to accept guarantees given by the Department a nd by Bradford council because the former owners are pensioners, unemployed people and people en low
    2
    incomes. Will he ensure that urgent action is taken to enable my constituents to buy back their homes and does he understand that any scheme that he introduces which relies on cosmetics and sticking plaster will not be adequate compensation for those many people who are fearful of losing their homes for ever?
    Mr. Newton: I understand that there has been correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and Bradford West office about a particular case which must be one of those to which he adverted in his supplementary question. It has been fully explained to the hon. Gentleman that it is not possible to give advance assurances about particular payments when the payment of income support depends on an adjudication officer's decision at the time the claim is made. I think that that is fairly well understood. Normally the arrangements work well in terms of the general letter which is given to building societies.
    Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is to be any change to help with the repossession problem, it would be humane if it were made before Christmas? Does he further agree that it would help if housing benefit were paid directly to the lender and that that would make matters much easier for his Department in dealing with other benefits?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may be aware that, in addition to the measure on which I commented in my original answer, there have been discussions with representatives of the Council of Mortgage Lenders and some of my right hon. Friends to see whether further action can sensibly be taken to help with the repossession problem. Those discussions have been constructive and are continuing.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State recall for the House for how many years Opposition Members have been asking him to make mortgage payments direct to building societies? How many hundreds of thousands of people might now not be homeless if he had followed that advice? Why is it that sense enters the Government's head only when an election approaches?
    Mr. Newton: That is an uncharacteristically overheated question from an hon. Member who, rightly, has a reputation for the balanced way in which he puts things. He well knows that arrangements have been in place for a long time enabling direct payments to be put into force when arrears occur. Those arrangements have undoubtedly prevented many repossessions. At the moment we are seeking to improve the working of those arrangements and that has been widely acknowledged and welcomed by the building societies.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: When my right hon. Friend next meets the banks and building societies and rightly discusses with them the possibility of increasing direct payments of income support in respect of interest payments, will he emphasise that the most serious threat to the housing market and to the liquidity of the banks and building societies would be too many forced sales at prices that are too low? That in turn would lead to even more repossessions and he should tell the banks and building societies to be far more responsible about foreclosing on people's property.
    Mr. Newton: The Council of Mortgage Lenders as a body, and its members, would recognise the points that my hon. Friend makes. It is on that basis that the constructive discussions to which I referred are taking place between many of the lenders and Government representatives.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there has been widespread concern for some time about the scale of repossessions? Did he say in answer to a supplementary question that only an improvement to the existing mechanism is being considered? Would I be right in thinking that that would exclude new and more fundamental ways of trying to deal with a problem that is spiralling wildly out of control?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has drawn the wrong conclusion about an earlier answer, which I think was clear. We announced some time ago improved arrangements, as I believe them to be—we are already putting them in place and they will take effect from the end of the month—to make direct payments of income support where arrears occur. Another matter that is under discussion with the Council of Mortgage Lenders is whether a further extension of automatic direct payments could contribute to dealing with the problem.
    Mr. Higgins: In any future discussions, will my right hon. Friend include building societies, banks and insurance companies, as in many instances a mortgage may be backed by an insurance policy instead of the mortgage being arranged on a repayment basis?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, the talks embrace representatives of those concerned with that part of the business.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the Secretary of State note that the Prime Minister, when a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security, set in train the tidal wave of repossessions when he pushed a regulation through the House, five years ago to this very day, which disqualified a newly unemployed person from receiving half his DSS mortgage interest repayments for the first 16 weeks? Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that on that occasion the Prime Minister said:
    "There is no reason"—
    that is, for eviction—
    4
    "and it will not happen."—[Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1129.]
    Will the right hon. Gentleman at least apologise to the 100,000 families who have been evicted this year, especially as the Prime Minister's folly was in direct defiance of the building societies' advice at the time? Will he admit that the Prime Minister's action has caused untold misery? Will he repeal immediately the iniquitous Major disqualification rule?
    Mr. Newton: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents the position. The arrangements to which he referred were put in place after discussions with the Building Societies Association, during which it made it clear that a mortgagor would not repossess on the basis that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, as well as on the basis that where interest was rolled up in cases in which more than 16 weeks were involved, the Department would meet the additional interest charged on the extra payments arising. Those were balanced arrangements and in my view they have worked well. In reasonably expressing concern about repossessions, the hon. Gentleman should at least do so on a fair and straightforward basis.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families will gain from the three upratings of child benefit that will occur in the 12 months to April 1992.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): The answer is 6·8 million families.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. Friend confirm that 40 per cent. of people who gained from the upratings would not receive a single penny—perhaps I should say a single ecu—if they lived in socialist France?
    Mr. Jack: I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that the structure of our child benefit scheme ensures that the first child receives benefit, unlike the position under the scheme in France. He may be interested to know that several European countries have extra conditions on entitlement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Perhaps it is, but at least it gets the facts out and that is something certainly lacking on the Opposition Benches.
    Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain have means tests. In Belgium, Italy and Portugal, there are links to insurance status. I hope that those facts impress the House.
    Mr. Allen: To the issue of mortgages and pensioners, we now add child benefit—another part of the Government's real social charter. Is not the Minister thoroughly ashamed of his record on child benefit? The Government are trying to make good what they put wrong during the previous 10 years, but second and subsequent children still receive £2·05 a week less in real terms than they would have received if the Government had maintained child benefit at 1987 levels. Millions of pounds have been taken from mothers and children. Is not the Minister thoroughly ashamed of himself?
    Mr. Jack: I say very quietly to the hon. Gentleman that we need no lessons on that subject, given the record of the previous Labour Government, who reduced benefits to families by 7 per cent. in real terms whereas we have increased them by 29 per cent. During the period when

    5
    child benefit was not uprated, we did not stop helping families; we gave £600 million in real terms to low-income families. In the 12 months to April 1992, child benefit will increase three times and other benefits will be uprated. That is a record of which we can be proud.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend deserves congratulations on the Government's child benefit record over the past couple of years. Does he agree that the policy of family support extends to family credit? Will he contrast the 300,000 people who are receiving family credit with the impact of a minimum wage policy, which would have a devastating effect on many families and, of course, on single people?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend adverts to an interesting statistical coincidence. Well in excess of 2 million successful claims have been made for family credit whereas, according to some estimates, a minimum wage would put 2 million people out of work.

    Cumbernauld Office
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the reorganisation of his Department at its Cumbernauld office; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): With the formation of the Benefits Agency, local offices were combined to create more effective management units. In the case of Cumbernauld, the former local offices at Glasgow Springburn and Cumbernauld were brought together.
    Mr. Hogg: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware of the great concern among the public and the caring agencies about the decision to move senior management from Cumbernauld to Springburn? Is she aware of the widespread belief that Cumbernauld as a community has lost out on important benefits such as community care grants and budgeting loans? Will the hon. Lady therefore again consider reorganisation in the office in my constituency and whether it would be more appropriate for senior management to be located in Cumbernauld, to look after the needs of the community of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth properly?
    Miss Widdecombe: The people of Cumbernauld have no reason to fear that they are getting less of a service than they were getting before. None of the core facilities or the facilities directed towards the general public have been moved to Springburn; the finance and personnel section is the only one to have moved.
    Community care grants and provision under the social fund are worked out on a district basis. Nevertheless, the particular needs of client groups are taken into account when working them out. Recently, there has been a substantial increase.

    Occupational Pensions
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners have an occupational pension (a) now and (b) in 1979.
    Mr. Newton: The latest figures available show that, in 1988, 51 per cent. of pensioners received income from occupational pensions compared with 41 per cent. in 1979.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that such schemes give pensioners greater financial independence, but low inflation and low taxation are needed if they are to be totally effective and pensioners can get that only from a Conservative Government?
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend and the history of what happened under the previous Labour Government bears that out.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the Secretary of State consider those pensioners who do not have occupational pensions or whose pensions are so low that their overall incomes are low? Bearing in mind the bitterly cold days last week, would not it be wise to trigger the cold weather payments? Why should so many pensioners be so desperately poor that they dare not keep their homes heated adequately because, understandably, they are frightened that they will be unable to pay their quarterly bills? Will the right hon. Gentleman today authorise cold weather payments, which, after all, amount to only £6 a week?
    Mr. Newton: There are two points. First, as the hon. Gentleman knows, over the past three years we have directed about an extra one third of a billion pounds—including money that is to be paid additionally next April—to less well-off pensioners on income support for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined. Secondly, he will be aware that we have a much-improved scheme of cold weather payments in place this winter. Payments have already been triggered in a substantial number of areas and, thanks to the arrangements that we have made for automatic payment which were not in place last year, the first payments should be going out this week.
    Mrs. Roe: While welcoming the good news about the increased proportion of pensioners with occupational pensions, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that during the past 12 years the Government have fully met their pledge to protect state pensions from inflation and that during the past two years state pensions have risen by 15 per cent.?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right in both respects. Alongside that, on the firm base of the state retirement pension, we have directed additional help to less well-off pensioners in the way that I described.
    Mr. Meacher: Why is it that after three years of pension fund scandals stretching from Hanson to Maxwell, with dozens in between, the right hon. Gentleman still has not made any legislative proposals for reform of the pension fund law? Why is it that after three years he will still not legislate for an independent chairman, for 50 per cent. employee representation, for full and up-to-date disclosure of all relevant financial information, for prohibiting stock lending and for a proper statutory framework for trust law? Will he take on board the fact that if he continues to dither and procrastinate as he is now, the next pension fund crisis will be on his head?
    Mr. Newton: Far from not legislating, we have passed a substantial amount of legislation on a number of occasions including, most recently, the Social Security Act 1990, under which early next month I shall introduce the further regulations on self-investment to which many references have been made. The self-investment regulations—we have had to take great care over the transitional

    7
    provisions to avoid damaging firms and pension funds—are a good example of the need to act with proper consideration rather than to rush about with half-baked suggestions, as the hon. Gentleman so often does.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the past few years there has been a rapidly increasing number of pensioners, but that the value of occupational pension schemes and the real income from them has also increased rapidly?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, they have and that is substantially because of the way in which the Government have restrained inflation much more effectively than did the previous Labour Government.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he proposes to make any early changes in the operation of the social fund and in the availability of funds to local offices.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Since April we have made available additional funds of over £43 million to district office budgets for loans and grants. From today social fund officers will be using the completely revised guide which has been introduced in all district offices.
    Mr. Pike: Does not the Minister recognise that, even with these additional funds, if the fund is the final back-up of a system for people in the most urgent need of one-off payments, there is still too much budget limitation at local offices, which have to pay more attention to the availability of funds than to the need of the person applying? Does he recognise that the repayment of a loan is still too much of a limiting factor in granting loans, which should be granted anyway to the people in most urgent need?
    Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say before that we are dealing at the margins of the social security system with those in exceptional circumstances who have exceptional needs. I believe that the social fund, managing a controlled budget with discretion at local level, is the right way to proceed, but, of course, we are looking forward to the reports from the social policy research unit at York and others in the not-too-distant future when there will be an opportunity to review the whole system.
    Mr. Hind: I thank my right hon. Friend for listening carefully to the representations that I and many Conservative Members have made about the increase in the social fund, especially for the people in Skelmersdale of whom he took note when I made representations to him.
    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that among his priorities are people who find themselves homeless and without furniture or other items? Under the social fund and the additional money that he has made available, will they be given a high priority in the deliberations of local officers?
    Mr. Scott: As I think my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to make directions and to issue guidance on the social fund.
    8
    Guidance is also given at local level. It is for the individual social fund officers to use their discretion on whether payments are made.
    Mr. Bradley: The Minister is incredibly complacent about the operation of the social fund, on which many thousands of people rely to make ends meet. Is he aware of the abysmally low success rate in many cities? Is he further aware that when a grant is applied for jointly with a loan, there are massive variations among district offices in those cities? In Manchester, for example, the success rate in Wythenshawe is 5·7 per cent., in Chorlton it is 8·7 per cent. and in Rusholme it is 13·6 per cent., despite all three offices having spent their full allowance, including the additional money from February and September this year? Will he urgently consider the amount of money in the social fund to ensure that people are treated equally under this abysmal system whenever they go to social fund offices throughout the year and regardless of which office they apply to?
    Mr. Scott: I reject any concept of its being an abysmal system. In August this year, we provided substantial extra resources for the social fund because we recognised the pressures in offices. All offices received an increase of at least 10 per cent. and those under most pressure received up to 40 per cent. in additional resources. I challenge the hon. Gentleman's presumption about discretion. If there is discretion at local level, there will be variation between different offices when judgments are made by social fund officers. The combination of a fixed budget and the use of discretion is an appropriate way in which to meet exceptional needs.

    Income Support
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the increase in the value of income support for a single pensioner aged over 80 years from next April.
    Miss Widdecombe: There has been a widespread welcome for the uprating announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State which provides for an additional £60 million above normal uprating for pensioners who are over 80 or disabled. That and the 7 per cent. uprating for income-related benefits, nearly 3 per cent. more than the retail prices index, underline our resolve to protect and raise the living standards of the less well-off people of our nation.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that because of the ravages of inflation, the average pension of 400 roubles in Moscow is now only enough to buy 1 kg of sausages? Does she agree that that is a dramatic contrast with the increase of one third in the real value of benefits since the previous Labour Government left office?
    Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps an even more pertinent contrast, which my hon. Friend may like to consider, is the startling one between the fate of pensioners under the previous Labour Government and the well-being of pensioners under this Government. It is true that pensioners' average total incomes have grown by 34 per cent., whereas for the whole period of the previous Labour Government, they increased by only 3 per cent. The ravages of inflation under the Labour Government, if not

    9
    of Moscow proportions, are a solemn warning about what would happen to pensioners in the unlikely event of Labour taking power again.
    Mr. Hardy: How many sausages can a British pensioner over the age of 80 buy, while keeping his or her house warm?
    Miss Widdecombe: The retirement pension is regularly uprated in line with prices to enable pensioners to buy necessities. The rise in income-related benefits in line with the Rossi index, which was 3 per cent. more than the retail prices index, gives even greater buying capacity to pensioners who rely on state benefits.

    Residential Homes
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have benefited from real increases in the income support limits for those in residential care and nursing homes over the last three years.
    Miss Widdecombe: Over the past three years, there have been four increases in the income support limits for people in residential care and nursing homes—in April 1989, April 1990, August 1990 and April 1991. Further increases, well above inflation in most cases, are proposed from April 1992.
    Some 265,000 income support recipients are expected to benefit from the increases.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Those increases are most welcome, but can my hon. Friend assure me that elderly people no longer requiring medical treatment will not be discharged from NHS hospitals, where they pay nothing, into residential accommodation, where, despite those welcome increases, they will be required to contribute out of their savings until those savings are pretty well exhausted?
    Miss Widdecombe: I can confirm that it is a requirement that, if the national health service believes that continuing health care is appropriate, it is obliged to provide such care, either in NHS premises or, if necessary, by contract with the private sector. It is not the case that savings have to dwindle to nothing: ordinary income support limits apply.
    Mr. Frank Field: Does the Minister accept that, although many home owners provided a fine service, many others know that they have the Government over a barrel and push for excessive increases? Is she not rather ashamed—as a member of a Government who pride themselves on targeting—to come to the Dispatch Box and read to her hon. Friend a whole list of universal increases? When will the Government pay attention to the Select Committee on Social Security and go for targeted increases, thus saving taxpayers a great deal of money and ensuring that, at the end of the day, no one is evicted from private residential or nursing care facilities?
    Miss Widdecombe: My concept of universal benefits and that of the hon. Gentleman differ somewhat. The increases are wholly geared to those on income support. For universal benefits, we must look to the slightly cracked proposals of the Labour party, including its proposals for the old-age pension and how it would not target benefits.

    Pensioners (Central Heating)
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioner households have central heating; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.
    Mr. Scott: The latest figures available show that, in 1989, 70 per cent. of pensioner households had central heating, compared with 43 per cent. in 1979.
    Mr. Carrington: That dramatic increase is warmly to be welcomed, particularly in view of the very cold weather that we have been having. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that very satisfactory increase reflects the Government's success in ensuring that pensioners have benefited enormously from this country's rising standard of living over the past 12 years?
    Mr. Scott: The figures that I gave in response to my hon. Friend's question about central heating are replicated by those for other consumer durables over the same period, and reflect a considerable increase in pensioner living standards under this considerable increase in pensioner living standards under this Government—an increase of some 34 per cent. from 1979 to 1988.
    Mr. Lofthouse: But surely the problem is how many pensioners can afford to use their central heating. Given his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) a few moments ago, can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many areas cold weather payments have been triggered? Is it just a few?
    Mr. Scott: I cannot give the figures. Severe weather payments have been triggered in a number of areas during this period of exceptionally cold weather. In a sense, I am disappointed that the Meteorological Office was unable to trigger in advance on this occasion. The Met Office tells me that it wanted to study the matter with care, as this was the first such period of cold weather since the new system was introduced. It will be studying the pattern that has occurred this time, and hopes to be able to make improvements in future.
    Hon. Members: How many?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Scott rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Scott: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I did not want the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question that had been asked, from a sedentary position, but perhaps he intended to add to his reply to the supplementary asked by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse).
    Mr. Scott: Since I have been asked, the answer is 25.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Given the huge increase in occupational pensions, and the fact that 75 per cent. of newly retired people now have savings, can my right hon. Friend confirm that, over the past 10 years, pensioners' average income has increased to no less than five times what it was under the Labour Government, when income from savings fell by 16 per cent.? Can he also——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Not at this stage. One question, please.
    Mr. Scott: The increase in pensioner incomes in each year of this Government's period of office has been greater than the increase over the whole period of the last Labour Government.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the context of ensuring that pensioners can heat their houses, what meetings has the Minister had with other Departments following his meeting with me and the Cold Weather Credit Campaign earlier this year?
    Mr. Scott: Obviously we are concerned with the campaigns of the Department of Energy and the Department of Health. We have regular meetings to ensure that the impact of cold weather on the old and vulnerable is as small as possible and that they, their neighbours and friends, and organisations that help them are as well advised as possible about meeting the needs of vulnerable groups.
    Mr. Favell rose——
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose——
    Mr. Speaker: I think that I should call the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) in terms of balance.
    Mr. Favell: The new proposals for discovering whether elderly people require residential or nursing care will be most welcome. Has my right hon. Friend discovered that people who choose to stay in their own homes, and particularly privately owned homes bearing in mind maintenance and other costs, often live a less attractive life than people in many residential homes?
    Mr. Scott: I believe that it is a matter of balance. Many people can enjoy a high standard of living in comfort in surroundings to which they have been accustomed throughout their lives, with the necessary support. Other people may well need help in residential and nursing homes, and we have substantially increased the amount of support that they can receive.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long it now takes to process claims for family credit on average.
    Mr. Jack: In November the average clearance time was 17·5 working days. The family credit unit has now beaten its clearance time target of 18 working days in each of the last four months.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that some people have to wait a long time before their family credit is paid? Often that occurs because employers are reluctant to supply information and that causes real hardship. People in my constituency have difficulties in paying their mortgages because the payment of their family credit is slow. Will the Minister make it clear that it is the duty of all employers to furnish information as quickly as possible? Would it not be better if payments could be made within seven working days rather than the time that it takes now?
    Mr. Jack: I looked very carefully at the recent correspondence concerning constituents which the hon.
    12
    Gentleman has referred to us in relation to that subject. I am pleased to say that we can offer hope for improvement on two counts. The first relates to people who are normally employed. Next April, we will introduce a new administrative formula that will significantly improve processing time and cut down errors. The formula has been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which does not want to consult on it, but would like us to implement it as soon as possible.
    Secondly, we have asked the social policy research unit at York university to carry out research in respect of the self-employed. That work is going well and I hope that we will have the conclusions by the middle of next year.
    On both counts, we will ensure that the job is done speedily. However, it is up to employers to speed up their response. The new arrangements that I have outlined will provide employers with a form to give information to employees applying for family credit, and that should speed up the process.

    Pensioners
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated proportion of pensioners who own their own homes.
    Mr. Newton: In 1988, 49 per cent. of pensioners owned their own homes.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is that not encouraging evidence of the extent to which pensioners are sharing in the advance towards greater independence and higher living standards? Is there not an extra benefit for those fortunate enough to own their own homes in that a state pension related to the retail prices index, which includes housing costs, contains a concealed bonus for them?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is certainly right to believe that it is an advantage and evidence of the success of our policies that a growing number of pensioners have the extra independence that owning their own homes can bring. That trend is also reflected in the ownership of many other things, including telephones, central heating and cars, for which the increase between 1979 and 1988 has been quite dramatic.

    Invalidity Benefit
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many referrals concerning claimants in receipt of invalidity benefit were sent to the regional medical officer from his Department's local offices in (a) 1990, (b) so far in 1991 and (c) what percentage of the total number of such claimants these referrals represent.
    Mr. Scott: It is not possible easily to identify invalidity benefit from other incapacity benefit referrals. However, in total, 824,000 referrals were made in 1990, representing 29 per cent. of claims live at any point during the period. Up to September this year, there were 694,000 referrals, representing 25 per cent.
    Dr. Godman: How do the referrals figure in terms of national averages for the two offices in Greenock and Port Glasgow? Why is such a hard line taken towards people who, in the eyes of GPs and consultants, are manifestly unfit for any kind of work? One constituent of mine has been referred to the regional medical officer 15 times since

    13
    1985. That is harassment of the worst kind. It is a case for the Parliamentary ombudsman. It is malpractice, and that hard line should be thrown overboard.
    Mr. Scott: Of course, if the hon. Gentleman would like me to give him figures for his own constituency offices, I will do so in writing. If he wants to raise any individual cases, he knows very well that I will do that. His talk of harassment and a hard-nosed approach hardly squares with the figures. The case load for invalidity benefit from 1978–79 to 1991–92 has increased from 600,000 to 1·35 million. Obviously, it is right that we should be careful about expenditure on that scale, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will give him such information as he requests.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Investment Policy
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the Commissioners' investment policy.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing the Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners' long-standing investment policy is the effective and prudent management of the assets entrusted to them, to achieve the best total return for the furtherance of their primary object, which is the financial support of serving and retired clergy.
    Mr. Marshall: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the success of the Commissioners' investment policy, which has enabled them significantly to increase stipends? Does he agree, however, that it would be more effective for the Church if stipends were related to performance rather than minimum stipends?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will appreciate that performance-related pay in the cure of souls is a difficult concept. Nevertheless, the Church of England is actively engaged in a programme of appraisal of clergy performance, with which are linked proposals for consideration of the terms and conditions of service of clergymen, including the continuation of the parsonage freehold.

    Redundant Churches Fund
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how much has been granted to the redundant churches fund in each of the last two years.
    Mr. Alison: The redundant churches fund received £1·7 million from the Department of the Environment and £760,000 from the Church Commissioners in 1990, and £1·8 million and £774,000 respectively in 1991.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend will, I am sure, endorse the importance of fostering sacred and secular links. He may be aware that the custom of displaying royal arms in churches has fallen into abeyance since Queen Victoria's time. Will he make representations
    14
    within the budget to which he referred to urge the Commissioners to restore that agreeable practice in the 40th year of this monarch's reign?
    Mr. Alison: It is true that, from 1660 onwards, it became compulsory to display the royal arms in every church as a reminder to clergy and the congregation that the monarch was the head of the Church. If that practice has declined somewhat, it has been because nobody had any doubt that the Queen was the head of the Church. However, should Mr. Delors and the European Commission cast envious eyes at the Church of England from Brussels, it may be necessary to encourage the reintroduction of the painting of the royal coats of arms on parish churches in England.
    Mr. Frank Field: How often in the past two years have the Commissioners ignored the advice of the redundant churches fund, and how many historic buildings have been lost thereby?
    Mr. Alison: I think that only one historic building has fallen prey to the failure of the Commissioners and the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches to meet, consult and agree. The work and co-operation of those bodies is very vigorously, sensitively and carefully carried out to ensure that redundant churches of note are not demolished.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that fewer churches would be declared redundant if they were less expensive to maintain? In that context, will he assure me that the Church Commissioners are continuing to press the Treasury for relief from VAT for repairs to listed buildings?
    Mr. Alison: I assure my hon. Friend that that is the case.

    Theft
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what has been the amount lost through theft in respect of Church Commissioners' property over the last three years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: The majority of the Commissioners' property—commercial, residential and agricultural—is leased to tenants who would naturally insure against theft themselves. The Commissioners therefore do not have details of individual cases, and cannot estimate the amount lost overall.
    Mr. Banks: I hope that the Commissioners are concerned about the prevalence of theft from churches for which they are ultimately responsible. The number of artefacts that is now leaving the churches rivals the number at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries. In my day, it was just the lead from the roofs that went missing, but it is now anything that can be put into the back of a lorry. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of an excellent book that has been written and published by the Staffordshire police, who are so very good at smuggling guns into Brixton gaol, which tells churches how they can be made more secure to stop things being taken from the buildings? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that all churches have access to that excellent publication?
    Mr. Alison: Yes, and I shall certainly take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's point. However, the Church Commissioners are not directly responsible for parish churches. The hon. Gentleman talked about smuggling arms into prison. Although the Church Commissioners are more concerned to ensure that bibles are, if necessary, smuggled into prison, we shall certainly be on the lookout for guns being smuggled into churches.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend think that my National Lottery Bill might be the answer to many of the Church Commissioners' prayers, as one of its objects would be to benefit our heritage, the proudest part of which must be some of our churches? Does he agree that making money available to the Commissioners for that end would play a substantial part in helping to secure those parts of the Church that are of extreme value—the things that are now being stolen?
    Mr. Alison: I should emphasise to my hon. and learned Friend that praying is never a gamble and that the income to be derived from gambling is a great deal more volatile than that which is likely to be derived from praying. We shall stick to the safe old ways.
    Mr. Carrington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern about theft from redundant churches, which are so frequently not protected against people breaking into and vandalising them? Will my right hon. Friend now make representations to the redundant churches fund, so that sufficient money can be made available properly to secure those churches until an alternative use is found for them?
    Mr. Alison: Yes, I take note of my hon. Friend's point, which should be a practical preoccupation for diocesan authorities. As my hon. Friend will know, demolition is sometimes an option when a church is declared redundant, but, generally speaking, the use of that redundant church for alternative beneficial social purposes is quickly arranged.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As somebody who is very interested in and responsible for redundant churches in Scotland, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, since it is Christmas, he thinks that it would be charitable of the Labour party, so that the the redundant churches can be repaired, to return the £26 million that were given to it by Mr. Robert Maxwell?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a bit wide of the question. I am not certain that the Church Commissioners are responsible for churches in Scotland, but let us hear the answer.
    Mr. Alison: I am particularly glad to have a reminder of the Christmas spirit from so distinguished a Scottish colleague. That can only mean one thing in this context, but fortunately the Church Commissioners are not responsible for church buildings in Scotland.

    Ordination of Women
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what financial estimates the Church Commissioners are making in respect of the effect on their expenditure of the introduction of the ordination of women; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: In the event of the draft legislation being enacted, the cost to the Church Commissioners would depend on how many clergy resigned who were eligible for financial assistance. The cumulative cost to the Commissioners' income per 100 men has been estimated at £4·5 million spread over up to 20 years, although that could be offset by savings to the Church of England of over £2 million over that period as a result of the departure of clergymen. Those clergy would also have access to the Church's retirement housing scheme.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend and those whom he represents accept that those people—I am not one of them—who oppose the ordination of women have a right to their conscience? Will the Church Commissioners make continued provision for them and for their churches, even if they form part of a schismatic movement, as they have every right in conscience to do?
    Mr. Alison: I can confirm that it is the deliberate intention of the General Synod of the Church of England to make certain that, if the House endorses the ordination of women—should it come before us, which it may not—clergymen who depart on conscientious grounds will be provided for. The Church of England is determined on grounds of principle and general sensitivity in human relationships to make good provision for those who feel that they are bound to resign their livings.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Dr. Godman, but the question is about the Church of England.
    Dr. Godman: May I respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he and the Church Commissioners are worried about the intended and unintended consequences of the ordination of women, they could seek wise advice from the Moderator of the Church of Scotland? We in Scotland have some fine women ministers, who carry out their duties in an honourable and decent manner.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman refers to "women ministers", but, alas, the very word "minister" illustrates the controversy. A minister is not necessarily a priest, and it is the ordination of the priesthood that causes the difficulty.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    House Sittings
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to present further evidence to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House; and if he will make a statement.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The House will be aware that I have already submitted a written memorandum and given oral evidence—in a personal capacity—to the Select Committee. I have indicated that I would be willing to have a further meeting with the Committee if it wished me to do so. I am sure that the whole House looks forward, as I do, with great interest to the forthcoming recommendations of that Committee.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House confirm that one of his recommendations is a four-day week for Tory MPs? Will he bear in mind the fact that he has a cheek to recommend that on behalf of his colleagues, when more than 200 Tory Back-Benchers have 500 moonlighting jobs between them? If they are too busy to do a five-day week, how come they can take on all these extra jobs? Nineteen ex-Cabinet Ministers have 59 directorships between them. The right hon. Gentleman should recommend, one Member of Parliament, one job only.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have not recommended to the Select Committee that we should have a four-day week. It is a travesty of the suggestions being put to the Select Committee to represent them in that way. As I have told the hon. Gentleman before, some Members of Parliament from constituencies way beyond London feel that it is important that they should be able to go to their constituencies on Fridays. They have important activities to undertake there. It is nonsense to suggest that it is a four-day week. For most Members of Parliament, it is at least a six-day week.
    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he will seek to implement any changes in this Parliament rather than the next?
    Mr. MacGregor: That depends, first, on when the Select Committee reports, and, secondly, what it says and whether its proposals commend themselves to the House. I understand that the Select Committee hopes to report well before Easter. If it does so, that will reflect considerable credit on the Committee. It has a heavy job to undertake and it has received a great deal of evidence. I hope that it can meet that timetable so that Parliament can meet its recommendations.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: When my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover refers to a four-day week, he simply misunderstands what is going on. I spent seven hours journeying to London today. It will take me another six or seven hours this weekend. Many of us spend 12 or 15 hours a week travelling to and from our constituencies. My hon. Friend completely misrepresents the position when he puts it to the House of Commons and the British public that Members of Parliament are getting off with a shorter week.
    Mr. MacGregor: On this occasion, I find myself 100 per cent—[interruption.] It is interesting to see a dispute on the Labour Benches. On this occasion, I find myself 100 per cent. in agreement with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and in total disagreement, not for the first time, with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

    Visitors' Facilities
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Lord President of the Council what facilities are available for visitors to the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: Visitors in Members' parties are able to tour the line of route at times when it is open and they and other visitors are admitted to the galleries when the House is sitting and to Committees sitting in public.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should make visitors a little more welcome when they arrive at Victoria Tower. especially after a long journey?
    18
    There are no toilets and there is nowhere to sit down, which is especially a problem when there are many people milling about at peak times.
    Mr. MacGregor: We endeavour to do so in every way possible, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the main constraint is accommodation in this place.
    Ms. Gordon: What progress has been made for wheelchair access to the Jubilee Room and the Grand Committee Room?
    Mr. MacGregor: As I have said on a previous occasion, approval has been given for the installation of a chairlift up to the Grand Committee Room.
    Mr. Favell: What can my right hon. Friend do to encourage Members who represent constituencies in London and nearby to invite their visitors to come here early in the morning? My constituents from Stockport have to get up at 5 or 6 in the morning to get here for midday. They are then faced with an enormous crush because everyone arrives at the same time.
    Mr. MacGregor: This will largely depend on the willingness of Members to co-operate. I appreciate my hon. Friend's suggestion, because my constituents often face the same difficulties. I will consider what can be done, but I suspect that it is up to individual Members.
    Mr. Flynn: Is it not a continuing disgrace that visiting parties of the disabled, pensioners and children are denied the simple hospitality of a cup of tea or a place to rest while the political and business cronies of hon. Members are royally entertained in this Palace at subsidised expense? Why does the Leader of the House deny the publication of information that he gave me two years ago on the political complexion of those hon. Members who entertain most? Why is that information now a state secret?
    Mr. MacGregor: On the second point, because it is not relevant. Bookings are undertaken by individual hon. Members in their parliamentary capacity; it has nothing to do with political representation.
    On the first point, the Catering Sub-Committee is due to consider the results of a feasibility study to determine whether reasonable catering facilities can be provided fairly close to the Palace.

    Working Hours
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent representations he has received about the hours of working of the House.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have received a few letters both from hon. Members and members of the public regarding the review of sittings of the House. It is not surprising that there are not many to me, because the representations at this stage are being made to the Select Committee.
    Mr. Marshall: At the risk of being accused of making a sexist comment, may I assure my right hon. Friend that any success he has in this will be warmly welcomed by the wives of Westminster? May I also suggest, however, that one of the consequences of altering the hours at which the House sits will be that it will be more difficult for children to come round in the morning?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend could have avoided being sexist by referrring to the "spouses" of Members. That would have been a more accurate description, because husbands also encounter difficulties in this respect. I was keen to set up the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and keen to give it the evidence I did, not just to improve the position of families but for a wide variety of other reasons. If we can conduct more of our business at more civilised hours, it would help a little. The issue of children visiting the House will be one of those taken into account and considered by the Select Committee.
    Mr. Hardy: Has the Leader of the House seen the early-day motion that I tabled last week? It has been signed by a significant number of Members, who seek to see the time of Question Time on Monday changed because of the inadequacies of public transport due to inadequate investment, crime, terrorism or bad weather, which may get worse in the next few months. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that proposed change sympathetically, so that hon. Members can get down here to ask the questions that may appear on the Order Paper in their names?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put his point to the Select Committee, to which it falls to make recommendations on that matter.
    Mr. Waller: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that there would be strong opposition on both sides of the House to any disproportionate loss of private Members' time? Will he consider the fact that ten-minute Bills, which I think he has proposed abolishing, are especially valued by many hon. Members? They are an opportunity to raise issues when many hon. Members are present, and their loss would not be acceptable.
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right to talk about disproportionate loss. If we seek to change the hours, which may involve reducing the number of hours that we
    20
    sit, we must consider a proportionate change across the board. It was in that context that I made my recommendations. I was suggesting moving the time at which private Members can have business raised in the House to a more high-profile period of the day. I also wanted my recommendations to be balanced. However, it will be for the Select Committee to make recommendations to the House, for the Government to consider them and to make proposals to the House and, ultimately, for the House to decide.

    European Standing Committees
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 25 November, Official Report, column 415, what recent representations he has received about the modus operandi of European Standing Committees A and B; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have recently seen copies of several Members' submissions to the Procedure Committee's first stage review of the operation of the revised scrutiny arrangements. I look forward to receiving the Procedure Committee's report soon and shall consider carefully any recommendations it might contain about the operation of the new European Standing Committees.
    Dr. Godman: Following Maastricht, is it likely that the modus operandi of those Committees will change? Will there be an increase or decline in the work load? Several of the permanent members of those Committees feel that changes must be made in terms of both of the permancy of the chairmanship and of the need to provide specialist advisers to those permanent members.
    Mr. MacGregor: It is too early to say whether there will be an effect following Maastricht. The Committee is considering both the specific points that the hon. Gentleman made, and I expressed my own views on them to the Committee in my oral evidence.

Mortgage Repossessions
3.31 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall the brief reference by the Secretary of State for Social Security earlier this afternoon to today's meeting between Ministers and the Council of Mortgage Lenders on the subject of mortgage repossessions. The issue is clearly of grave concern to hundreds of thousands of families who risk losing their homes, and to local authorities that will have to shoulder the burden of the homelessness that might ensue. It is also of grave concern to owner-occupiers who must fear the catastrophic impact on property values if so many houses are repossessed. Yet there has been no formal statement from Ministers. They may have nothing to offer, but that has not stopped them holding press conferences or making public statements.
Have you, Mr. Speaker, had any intimation from Ministers that they intend to make a statement, today or in the very near future, that would at least enable the House to question Ministers about that meeting and to show that, even if Ministers have no solution to offer, the Opposition have?
Mr. Speaker: I agree that it is an important matter. That is why I allowed a long run on question 1 today—[Interruption.] It was longer than I would normally allow. I made inquiries about the press conference and I am assured that it had nothing to do with this matter. The hon. Gentleman's point will no doubt have been heard by Ministers responsible.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Finance Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  Local Government Finance Bill
    New Clause

      TRANSITORY EXEMPTION FOR SCHOOL LEAVERS
      '.—(1) After paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the 1988 Act (personal community charge: exemption) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
      "School leavers.
      5A. A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if—

      (a) he is aged under 20 on the day,

      (b) the day falls within the period of 6 months beginning with 1 May 1992,

      (c) immediately before that date he was undertaking a qualifying course of education, and

      (d) the course was not undertaken in consequence of an office or employment held by him."

      (2) After sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6A of Schedule 1A to the 1987 Act (personal community charge: exemption) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
      "(1A) If such a person as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above ceases to undertake such a course of education on or after 30th April 1992, he shall continue to be exempt until the start of the earlier of the following days—

      (a) 1st November 1992,

      (b) his twentieth birthday.".'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.33 pm
      The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 17—Abolition of 20 per cent. community charge contribution and extension of community charge rebates to students from April 1992—
      '.—(1) In subsection (3) of section 131 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (community charge benefits) in paragraph (a) the words "and is not there shown as undertaking a full-time course of education on the day" shall be deleted;
      (2) In subsection (5) of that section after "concerned" there shall be inserted:—
      "up to 100 per cent. of his liability for personal community charge contributions";
      (3) Sections 1 and 2 above shall have effect from April 1992.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 127 and 128.
      Mr. Portillo: Although the Bill is principally about the council tax, the new clause relates to the community charge and what is known as the student gap. At present, exemptions from the personal community charge exist for 18-year-old school pupils in respect of whom child benefit is paid, and 18 and 19-year-olds who are on qualifying courses of further education. But about half of the 200,000

      23
      people who fall into either of those categories go on to full-time education and become entitled to student relief of the community charge.
      At present, however, there is a student gap, which may last for a few weeks or a few months, separating the exemptions from the day on which a person enrols on a full-time course of education. Although it is possible for such a person to claim community charge benefit during that time, thus reducing his or her liability by up to 80 per cent., we accept that the administrative burden imposed on both the individual and the charging authorities is unnecessarily heavy. We therefore propose to relieve local authorities and school leavers of that burden by exempting, until 31 October 1992, 18 and 19-year-olds who are undertaking a qualifying course of education on 1 May 1992.
      Mr. Bryan Gould: I suspect that new clause 33 is the forerunner of numerous similar Government-inspired changes to a Bill which the Government assured us, when they dragooned it though its Committee stage, was in pristine and perfect condition and would need no amendment. This is, I suspect, the beginning of a process that will lead to much the same outcome as was brought about by the hundreds of Government amendments—sometimes running into four figures—that have been tabled to similar Bills. If such an outcome does indeed result, it will show just how damaging the guillotine and the resulting truncation of Committee debate have been.
      We none the less welcome this particular representative of the genus. If all the others deal with small issues in a way that improves the Bill, we shall have less ground for complaint. The new clause is undoubtedly good news for the group of students who will benefit from the closing of what the Minister described as the student gap—I believe that the Government's estimate is 200,000. This is, of course, part of the slow, gradual, painful process whereby Ministers are forsaking, step by step, all the policies and principles that underpinned the poll tax. One by one, the arguments that were said to justify it are being abandoned.
      New clause 33 does not go far enough. Typically, the Government have had the courage to concede by implication that they have lost confidence in what they legislated for so confidently just a short time ago. What they lack is the courage and confidence to pursue their conclusions to their logical outcome. As a consequence, students are still not entitled to rebates, and the 20 per cent. contribution rule remains, along with all the damage that it does—especially to local authorities that are struggling to collect the poll tax.
      Our new clause 17 would extend to students the right to claim community charge and, in due course, council tax rebates. Students are undoubtedly a section of the population who have suffered substantial hardship as a result of Government-inspired measures. I have a student daughter myself, and I know from her accounts—and from her constant recourse to the parental purse—that life is indeed very difficult for students. Their grant has been frozen in real terms at much below the level at which they could expect to survive on it; they have been denied entitlement to income support, housing benefits and rebates; there are no jobs with which they can supplement
      24
      their incomes during vacations; and those who find themselves desperately hard up discover, when they turn to the hardship fund, that it has already been exhausted.
      For all those reasons, I think that students are particularly deserving of help. The Government's proposal is welcome, but it only scratches the surface of the problem. Our new clause 17 would establish their entitlement to rebates, which would benefit them greatly.
      We expect to have an important debate tomorrow afternoon on the 20 per cent. contribution rule, which the Government insist on retaining until 1 April 1993; but our new clause 17 would also have the effect of abolishing, as from 1 April 1992, this 20 per cent. contribution rule. If it were abolished, that would have the blessing, as far as I am aware, of every local authority association, the Institute of Revenues, Ratings and Valuation, and the Child Poverty Action Group, the very strong blessing of the citizens advice bureaux—and the enormously authorititative support of the Audit Commission, which, in its report, had this to say on the subject:
      "Local authorities say that large numbers of income support recipients are in arrears with community charge payments for 1990/91. These chargepayers make up a very small amount of the total value of outstanding community charge. Pursuing these defaulters for such small amounts is not a good use of scarce recovery resources when there are much larger debts outstanding. The Government have already accepted that there will be no minimum contribution to the council tax. Abolition of the minimum 20 per cent. community charge contribution for income support recipients would ease the administrative burden on local authorities very considerably."
      I do not intend to rehearse at length—the opportunity for that will come tomorrow—the powerful arguments, financial and practical, which would support the abolition of this rule at the earliest possible date. Today I shall content myself with quoting what I hope by now is a familiar argument for the Minister, advanced by the Audit Commission. It is that the attempt to collect the 20 per cent. contribution from those on income support costs 15 for every £6 net revenue raised. Even on grounds of simple housekeeping and accounting, that ought to conclude the argument.
      It is not even as though the Government have adhered to their own reasons for refusing to act on this in the past. They have conceded, by abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution rule for the council tax, that there is no ground in principle for maintaining it. We all recall that in the heyday of the poll tax the one principle that Ministers and Conservative Members were most reluctant to abandon was that everyone should pay something. That principle has now been abandoned; the Government no longer advance or maintain that position. They abandoned the principle for the council tax, so no argument in principle remains.
      The Government then resorted to the argument of practicality. They said that it was impossible to abandon the 20 per cent. contribution rule because income support rules had been constructed on the basis that a 20 per cent. contribution had to be paid. They said therefore that if the rule was changed there would have to be a consequential change for the social security rules. That argument no longer applies because no consequential change is now required. The Government have abandoned any pretence that income support payments include an element that would cover the 20 per cent. contribution, so they can do

      25
      away with the 20 per cent. contribution rule at the earliest practical opportunity, with no difficult practical consequences for income support.
      We are left with a slightly opaque, not to say metaphysical, argument from the Minister of State. He maintained that the rule was an essential concomitant of the poll tax because it was a personal tax, yet we a:re told that in respect of the council tax, which is also, at least as to 50 per cent., a personal tax, there is no difficulty in doing away with the 20 per cent. contribution rule. If it can be abandoned in the case of the personal element of the council tax, it is hard to see why it cannot be abandoned immediately for the poll tax. If it were abandoned, the burden on local authorities of trying to collect what the Prime Minister described as a virtually uncollectable tax would be substantially lightened, and that would be of great benefit.
      Ministers are fond of criticising local government because many local authorities are less than 100 per cent. successful in collecting the poll tax. If they were serious about helping local government with that difficulty, they would abolish the 20 per cent. contribution rule. That is what our new clause 17 would do. I commend it to Ministers, but, bearing in mind our debates in Committee, I confess that I do not do so with any great hope that they will see sense for once and will accept this sensible recommendation.
      3.45 pm
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I welcome the Secretary of State's intention to fill in the student gap, but I am bound to say that I can see no logical reason for attempting to collect the 20 per cent. from students now that the Government have conceded in the new council tax that students will not pay it. My council and students would very much like the 20 per cent. contribution to be abolished for the final year of the tax.
      Mr. Dick Douglas: I am a bit bemused about the definition of a student and should like to have it clarified for England, Wales and Scotland. The Government have moved away from their view that everybody should pay the poll tax and are making some amends. However, the plight of students is well known to every hon. Member and it is absurd, especially in Scotland, that local authorities are trying to collect the 20 per cent. from students for 1989–90.
      Earlier in the debate a Scottish Office Minister was present, but he has departed. Do the Government have figures for Scotland about the number of students involved and the cost to local authorities of trying to collect this tax? The Government have abandoned in the so-called council tax not only the rule that everybody has to pay but a key element of the poll tax—accountability. There is no strict relationship between local authority finances arid the accountability of councils to the electorate who may or may not be paying.
      Although the Government proposal is welcome, it flies in the face of all logic. They are redressing a gap but not accepting the other enormous gap of students in Scotland being asked to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax from 1989 onwards. Local authorities are chasing up and down the land trying to collect taxes from people who may have moved three, four or five times. That is nonsense. The cost is exorbitant and the Government should take this opportunity to tell that to local authorities, especially in
      26
      relation to students, although there are other categories to which we may refer in other clauses and amendments. The Government are getting into an absurd position and they should recognise that.
      Mr. John Bowis: I do not question the fact that in some parts of the country students are finding it difficult to make ends meet. Like the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), I also declare the reverse of a pecuniary interest because we are paying out to our student sons and daughters. Some students have been placed in difficulties by local authorities that have set a community charge that is so far beyond the reach of people that even the 20 per cent. required from students makes life difficult. Students in my borough of Wandsworth and in other, mostly Conservative, boroughs whose community charge was below target have no problem, because an element of the student grant meets 20 per cent. of the reasonable charge. The difficulties arise in Labour boroughs where authorities have rashly and ineffectually overspent.
      I welcome new clause 33, which deals with the student gap. It takes up the issues that I raised with Ministers in Committee. They said that they would consider the problems that I drew to their attention and would produce a solution on Report. I think that the hon. Member for Dagenham could have been a little warmer in his support of the Government's proposal. As the hon. Gentleman said, the new clause deals with a comparatively small problem in terms of the number of students who are affected by it, but to them it is a real problem.
      We know that until the end of December the family of the school leaver is still eligible for child benefit. There would, therefore, be exemption until then. However, after the end of September there is no longer that eligibility. It would be nonsensical if a young person who was waiting to go to college was required to pay. It is surely to be welcomed that students will not find themselves in that position. I use this opportunity to say that local education authorities throughout the country have, in the context of the debate, reached only the end of October. All too often, student grant decisions are being taken at such a slow pace that even at that stage a student's place in higher education may not have been confirmed. There is a message to local education authorities to be quick about getting student grants to students.
      That must be in addition to the helpful remedy that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has adopted to eradicate the anomaly that was built into the system.
      Mr. David Bellotti: The proposed changes are welcome. They will offer a little help in moving towards meeting what can be described only as a considerable task.
      Students have had a hard time in recent years. New clause 17, which would abolish the 20 per cent. requirement, receives our warm support. It would provide enormous help. Surely the Government could accept it on the ground of cost. The Audit Commission and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives have told the Government that the cost of collection of the 20 per cent. requirement is two and a half times the sum that is collected. If the Government wish to act in addition to their desire to help people, there is the argument that removal of the 20 per cent. obligation would be extremely cost effective.

      27
      There are good reasons to help students, whose grants have decreased in value in real terms. The pressure on parental contributions is making life extremely difficult during the recession. This is at a time when the Government are trying to encourage more young people to go into education. The requirement that we are discussing is running counter to other Government policies that are designed to help young people to move into further education. The Government are well aware of the few in the 16 to 19-year-old range who are in education in this country compared with the numbers in other European countries and in other countries throughout the world. That comparison relates to both further education and training.
      We welcome the improvements that are to be made, but there is much more that could be done. Students are always willing to make a contribution if they have sufficient money to do so. At present, they just do not have enough money. One of the reasons why they receive moneys late through local education authorities—I take up the comments of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis)—is that LEAs do not have staff available to them to process the many applications that are made in July and August because of the Government's power to cap local authorities. Even in Conservative-controlled authorities that have always been held up as being cost effective, and certainly not profligate, it is difficult to bring in extra staff for two months of the year to process grant applications. There are many more applications than there were, because there are, in many instances, no real jobs for young people. As a result, they are being forced into education, but, at the same time, they are not receiving the grants that they deserve.
      By supporting new clause 17, we would be supporting also several parts of the Government's policy. I hope that the Government will find it possible at this stage to make concessions and to help the students.
      Mr. William McKelvey: I wish to make a plea on behalf of Scottish students who, after all, had the poll tax imposed on them one year before it came south of the border. There are bound to be many more students in Scotland than elsewhere who will be pursued for arrears, and that point has been made adequately. It is ludicrous to pursue people for their debts when the cost of collection is two and half times the amount of the debts. Given the poverty in which those students find themselves, will the Minister consider having an amnesty for those students? The 20 per cent. payment will be seen by people, particularly students in Scotland, as a sign of the Secretary of State pursuing political dogma over economic sense.
      Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) got off to a pretty poor start when he talked about the Government coming forward with hundreds of amendments. We have tabled one new clause, which covers ground not covered by amendments in Committee, and five sets of amendments, all of them arising from the Committee proceedings. The hon. Gentleman is really expressing his profound disappointment that the Bill was so well drafted that it was not necessary to have rafts of amendments. So flimsy was the Labour party's attack on our proposals in Committee that we did not discover any
      28
      chinks or openings in our policies. The spirit of Committee means that, when one finds measures that can be improved, one proposes amendments, but the Labour party did not unearth aspects of which we were unaware. The Committee gave us two or three matters to think about, and we are happy to introduce measures to deal with them.
      It was clearly anomalous that students should leave school expecting to receive an 80 per cent. discount on their personal community charge when they become students in higher education but in the brief intervening period be subject to a full community charge, less any income support to which they are entitled. It is right that we should end that anomaly.
      I am surprised that the hon. Member for Dagenham, who has a student daughter, is keen to take students back into the benefits system. Our taking students out of the benefit system is a major step forward. To have available to people who have withdrawn voluntarily from the labour market to pursue their studies the benefits which have been provided by Parliament to those without resources or income because of circumstances beyond their control is to give entirely the wrong message to students. The fact that we have amended income support and housing benefit to take students out of that benefit system has been a great step forward.
      Mr. Gould: The Minister has clearly demonstrated why he proved so impervious to the powerful arguments which we put to him on so many issues in Committee—he is totally out of touch with the real world.
      Mr. Portillo: Many parents believe that it would be, and was, wrong to have their student sons and daughters brought into the benefit system. That system was not intended for students. The fact that students are not provided for in that way is a great improvement.
      Mr. John Battle: Surely the Minister accepts that the student grant was geared to take students through the long summer vacation, when they got no money. The Government removed their access to benefit, leaving them with a 16-week period during the summer without benefit. How is that gap bridged?
      Mr. Portillo: The financing of students should be by a combination of grant, loan and moneys which they may be able to earn and not by bringing them into income support or housing benefit, which would be absolutely wrong.
      The hon. Member for Dagenham made a point in which he was erroneously joined by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti). He quoted the Audit Commission's figure which purports to show that collecting from students and the other 20 per cent. payers costs more than is collected from them. As I explained in Committee, that is a wholly erroneous figure. The £6 that the commission quoted purports to be the difference between what is made available through income support to those who pay 20 per cent. and what they were paying back in addition in community charge. That is a completely false comparison. What matters is that, as the Government have made moneys available to those on income support so that they can pay their 20 per cent. contribution to the community charge, those moneys should be collected. The amount at stake is £440 million and the average cost of collection now stands at £12·50. If

      29
      the Opposition want to make a comparison, the fact is that the average 20 per cent. payment is about £50 and the average cost of collection is about £1250, so £37·50 stands to be collected over and above the collection fee.
      Mr. Bellotti rose——
      4 pm
      Mr. Portillo: The comparison quoted by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) and others is false, because, taking account of the fact that the Government are paying large sums in benefit to help people to make the 20 per cent. payments, it implies that that would have to be withdrawn. That would involve a heavy cost which the Government are not prepared to undertake. I think that the British public also believe firmly that, as money has been voted from taxpayers to income support recipients so that they can meet their 20 per cent. contribution, that money should be used for the purpose for which it was intended, especially since the headline figure of the community charge was reduced by £140. That means that the average now being made available as an addition to income support more than covers the average 20 per cent. being sought.
      I shall quote some figures which show that the additions now stand at £1·31 a week for single people and £2·62 a week for couples, but as the estimated net average community charge level for Great Britain this year is £2·10, that would imply that the average 20 per cent. contribution was 80p a week for single people and £1·60 a week for a couple. Therefore, the amounts that we are providing in income support are much higher than the average that those people are being asked to pay.
      Mr. Bellotti: The figures that the Minister has just given and the ones that he gave in Committee are not in dispute. However, does he know of any other tax under which the Government would put money into a system and give it to people while expecting to get it back, then not get it back and pay extra money in order not to get it back? That is the situation in this case. Have the Government any similar ideas for such taxation schemes, because if one took that scenario further, the country would be bankrupt in a very short time?
      Mr. Portillo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to give any encouragement to the people who are not paying, but there is no question of an amnesty, as suggested by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). Moneys have been made available to people on benefit in order that they may pay their contribution to the community charge and we have every right—as do the taxpayers—to expect that those moneys are paid to local authorities for the purpose for which they were intended. Therefore, there will be no amnesty and local authorities will continue to enforce the payment of the 20 per cent. contributions.
      Mr. Douglas rose——
      Mr. Portillo: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I was about to answer the point that he made. He wanted to know what was the definition of a student. New clause 33 and the two amendments would close the student gap, so we are talking about 18-year-olds who are at school and whose parents receive child benefit for them and 18 and 19-year-olds, whose parents do not receive child benefit, who are on a qualifying course. Such a course
      30
      could be described as further education as opposed to higher education. The regulations state that the person must be on a relevant course and that the relevant hours of that course must exceed 12 hours in a week. A relevant course is one that lasts for more than three months, is not higher education, not a correspondence course and must usually be followed during the day, not at night school. We are trying to ensure that those who are at school or at college—doing A-levels, for example—and who then cease to be in that position but who are going on to higher education do not have to pay community charge in the short gap between leaving one part of their education and moving to the other.
      Despite the Opposition's rather testy and ungenerous reception, I am sure that the provision will be welcome. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said. It will be of great help to all if local education authorities are able to make quick determinations. I commend the new clause and the associated amendments to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Cr j 8–4lause 1

      COMMUNITY CHARGE IN SCOTLAND
      '(1) Before 9th July 1992 the Secretary of State shall cause to be published a report, to be called the Community Charge Report, on the effects of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Act 1987.
      (2) The Community Charge Report shall assess the effects of the Act on—

      (a) the cost, economy, efficiency and effectiveness of financial administration in local government;

      (b) the public acceptability of local taxation;

      (c) the levels of services provided by local authorities;

      (d) the state of local democracy;

      (e) the incidence of local taxation.

      (3) Before publishing the Community Charge Report the Secretary of State shall consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, representatives of consumers and such bodies with an interest in the impact of taxes on persons with low incomes as appear to him to be concerned.'.—[Mr.Dewar.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following:
      New clause 5—Scottish annual report—
      '( )—(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare an annual report to Parliament on the workings of the council tax.
      (2) In preparing his report under subsection 1 above, the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to effect of the tax on:

      (a) people who live on their own;

      (b) people who occupy property provided solely through their employment; and

      (c) people who rent their property.'.

      New clause 7—Cost of the council tax in Scotland—
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the introduction of the Council tax, publish a report detailing the cost of introducing the tax.
      (2) The report prepared under subsection 1 shall contain the costs accrued by local authorities, whether met out of central funds or not and the cost of valuing the properties.'.
      New clause 8—Effects of the Community Charge—
      '.—(1) Before 9th July 1992 the Secretary of State shall cause to be published a report, to be called the Community Charge Report, on the effects of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (the Act).
      (2) The Report shall assess the effects of the Act on—

      (a) the cost, economy, efficiency and effectiveness of financial administration in local government;

      (b) the public acceptability of local taxation;

      (c) the levels of services provided by local authorities;

      (d) the state of local democracy;

      (e) the incidence of local taxation.

      (3) Before publishing the Report the Secretary of State shall consult the local authority associations, representatives of consumers and such bodies with an interest in the impact of taxes on persons with low incomes as appear to him to be concerned.'.
      New clause 10—Discounts—
      '.—Sections 11 and 12 below shall not come into effect until such time as the Secretary of State has produced a report on:

      (a) the incidence of discounts,

      (b) the cost of administering discounts,

      (c) the use of council tax benefit as a means of reducing council tax liability for those on low incomes, and

      (d) the steps which billing authorities are to take for the purposes of ascertaining whether the chargeable amount of council tax is subject to any discount.'.

      New clause 12—Annual report—
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare an annual report to Parliament on the workings of the Council tax.
      (2) In preparing his Report under subsection 1 above, the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to effect of the tax on:

      (a) people who live on their own;

      (b) people who occupy property provided solely through their employment; and

      (c) people who rent their property.'.

      New clause 13—Cost of the council tax—
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the introduction of the council tax, publish a report detailing the cost of introducing the tax.
      (2) The Report prepared under subsection 1 shall contain the costs accrued by local authorities, whether met out of central funds or not and the cost of valuing the properties.'.
      New clause 27—Non-payment (inquiry)—
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a report detailing the level of non-payment of the community charge for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.
      (2) Any report under subsection (1) above shall include details of the amounts outstanding from charge-payers liable to the 20 per cent. contribution.'.
      Amendment No. 15, in clause 117, in page 78, line 29, at end insert—
      '(1A) Section 11 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has produced the report required by section (Discounts) above.'.
      Mr. Dewar: The new clause raises a matter of considerable substance which will delay the House for a significant time. I understand that Ministers are not too keen to remember that once proud flagship, the poll tax. I do not intend to spend time rubbing salt in wounds, although I recognise the temptation and have been encouraged by my hon. Friends to do that. We want to look forward, although I cannot help remembering the speeches made in 1987 on the subject of the poll tax and the extent to which the predictions made then, not only by the Opposition but by many others, have turned out to be justified.
      I remember the derision which met the Tory Reform group when it said that the popularity of the poll tax was
      32
      dropping as fast as a stone over a cliff. I remember with some amusement the Minister of State, Scottish Office saying that the opposition by the Tory Reform group to the poll tax legislation was the first and most pressing reason why that tax should be supported. It has always struck me as an intellectually interesting but not very substantial point.
      The clock has moved on and, understandably, Ministers now want to walk by on the other side. I warn them that I see no great advantage in concentrating on the new form of the rating system which they are now introducing. The more people look at the small print, the less they will be convinced.
      New clause 1 seeks to place on the Government the duty of producing a report that will deal with the record of the poll tax and the current situation which it has created, both for those who have to pay it and for local government which has to maintain services on it. It would point to the lessons which should have been learnt by central Government but which we fear may not have been.
      It is important to stress that there is a genuine reason for a report, and that is our apprehension that as a result of the very tight timetable which has been ruthlessly enforced on the debate many of the details of the new system will not be properly considered. There is a real fear that many of the disadvantages which linger administratively with the poll tax and which still plague us may be imported into the new system. The report and examination proposed in the new clause would do something to guard against that danger. That point is given added weight by the fact that Ministers are always anxious to deny that the new system is a form of rating system based on capital valuation, which it evidently is.
      I do not have the advantage—I use the word tentatively—of having much experience of the style of the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities. I am not familiar with it, but I have already noticed that it is deadpan and perhaps funereal. The hon. Gentleman argued that it was a great step forward for the student community to leave it virtually without any means of support for large parts of the year—particularly during the long vacation. I found that a very individual approach to the problem and would venture gently to suggest that it will not command universal support among students in my constituency or, I suspect, any other constituency.
      My own view is that the present system may appear tolerable to students and their parents if those parents are in a position to make a substantial parental contribution without financial embarrassment; but I must tell the Minister—and this goes to the heart of some of his arguments—that, in all my years in Parliament. I cannot remember a time when students have been more bitter and more genuinely distressed by their economic situation than they are at present. I use the word "bitter" having given the matter considerable thought. There has been a series of demonstrations and I have had a series of approaches from individual students—particularly the heads of one-parent families going late into higher education—who feel that they have been betrayed and who, frankly, would be appalled by the way in which the Minister has just dealt with the subject.
      The preparation of the report that we seek would enable us to examine the impact of the poll tax on a whole series of aspects of local authority finance and life, which is set out in the new clause. The report would consider the economy and efficiency of local government finance. It is

      33
      a cliché hardly challenged these days that local government, at least, has had to live through a nightmare in which confusion has shaded into chaos as the poll tax has continued on its most unfortunate course. It has cost two or even three times as much to collect as the rates, and we have had a network of incomprehensible adjustments, transitional allowances and reduction schemes, all moving into each other to produce a system which I certainly—and I make no bones about this—have the greatest difficulty in understanding and in explaining to people who come to me with questions that are beyond the reasonable compass of people not professionally involved in dealing with such systems.
      It is also important that we consider the justice—or, rather, injustice—of what has happened and try to learn lessons from that. I do not want to repeat the familiar arguments about a flat-rate tax unrelated to ability to pay. To be fair, the Secretary of State has accepted for some years that the poll tax was essentially unjust and indefensible and said so at quite an early stage. It appears that the Government now accept that and, presumably—although I do not say this with very much confidence—the right hon. Gentleman has managed to persuade the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the phalanx of no-turning back Members who surround him in his departmental fastness of that fact. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to convince his colleagues that the poll tax 'was an inhumane system which is rightly being abandoned on that ground if no other.
      It is important that the lessons to which I referred are learnt, and that would, I hope, be one of the consequences of the report for which the new clause would provide. There are others, and I shall briefly sketch them in. First, there is the impact on local government services, which has undoubtedly been considerable. Secondly, there are the problems of non-payment. Thirdly, there is the reduction to dangerous levels of the percentage of revenue controlled by local government itself—now down to 12 or 13 per cent. in Scotland and even lower, I think, in Wales.
      Although that phenomenon has been politically convenient for the Government, it has been condemned by local authorities and professionals across the whole range because, in the longer term, it will undoubtedly undermine and weaken local democracy in a way that, whatever our political persuasion, we may come to regret. It has preserved and built into the system a gearing factor which I find repugnant and which undoubtedly puts local authorities in a consistently difficult position, not least in dealing with burdens and statutory duties placed upon them by central government.
      Another aspect with which I hope the report will deal is the damaging undermining of confidence in local government as a system, and in local government finance in particular. I take that point very seriously from a non-partisan point of view. Many of my Conservative friends share that view. That undermining is partly the result of the past 10 years of Government policy—the "pay as you use" approach to local government services, the privatisation and competitive tendering. It was also, however, partly the result of the non-payment campaign run by other people in other parts of the political spectrum. The proposition that local government taxation is a voluntary imposition which people may take or leave
      34
      as they wish has insidiously gained currency. That view may cause acute problems for any local government system in future.
      4.15 pm
      Those are all areas of genuine importance about which real points can be made and where an impartial survey that would bring together the facts would be a considerable service for debate and the future planning of local government financial systems. There is a tendency for Conservative Members not to face up to what has happened, but to talk in vague and general terms about a lack of consensus and support for the poll tax. Well, that is a self-evident truth. The reasons for that lack of support and the imperative of trying to avoid the mistakes which created that situation are matters of pressing concern that fully justify the proposition in new clause 1.
      I want to refer now to my particular interest, and that, of course, is the situation north of the border. There is no doubt that Scottish local government is in crisis. The poll tax has been a disaster, the full extent of which is only now becoming evident. The shortfall in income for the first two years of the tax is about £350 million. My regional authority of Strathclyde has lost £190 million between 1989–90 and 1990–91. The figure for Lothian is £76·5 million, and for Tayside it is £21·9 million. The position in 1991–92 is as bad if not worse. After five months of this financial year, £584·7 million was unpaid, representing more than 70 per cent. of the expected income for this financial year.
      I recognise that Ministers accuse councils of not doing enough to collect the tax. That is an easy way for them to escape their responsibilities and to avoid facing up to what has been happening. As the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), will know, there have been advertising campaigns in the press and on television. Non-payment has been condemned by local authorities in the strongest terms. No fewer than 3 million summary warrants have been taken in the courts. There have been 100,000 arrestments and 550,000 voluntary agreements to cover payments of arrears. No one is proud of the fact that we have been driven to that. No one is proud of the present position. The figures are evidence of the misery and confusion created by the Government's blunders.
      Ministers bear the first and greatest burden of guilt, but others must take their share of the blame. Nationalists who have argued for non-payment must also answer a heavy charge. The non-payment campaign was never more than political opportunism dressed up as principle. Among the nationalists there must be some at least who have been unwilling travellers on a dishonourable road. I remember the nationalists' former leader, Gordon Wilson, advising against a rash and selfish adventure, but he could not hold the line against the heady populism advocated by those who ultimately replaced him. The party joined forces with Militant Tendency openly and, on that issue, without reservation.
      It was extraordinary to find the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) publicly defending the Anti-Poll Tax Federation—an organisation that advocates and practises the tactics of violence. He was defending a demonstration during which cars were damaged, 29 people were arrested, and a police station was besieged. Many nationalists must be uncomfortable about the company that they keep on that question.

      35
      Labour, too, was under pressure over non-payment, but a responsible party does not advocate irresponsibility. There were a number of good reasons for not advocating non-payment. It has carried weight with Labour, but apparently not with the nationalists. Politicians who hope to make law cannot pick and choose which laws to obey. It is a luxury which they cannot afford and which sets a dangerous precedent. Predictably—I speak with some feeling about my experience in my own constituency—many people living in modest circumstances were tempted by non-payment. They now face the problems of debt and debt collection. The nationalists, the authors of that misfortune, can offer no help. How can the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) or any of his colleagues look in the eye of a pensioner who is threatened by a sheriff officer? All that the nationalists can do—they certainly do it—is to complain about the inevitable consequences of their own actions, blaming everyone but themselves.
      Non-payment was bound to affect local government services—it was designed to do so. Marginal reductions in funding hit many of the most vulnerable in the community. The SNP, in its search for party advantage, has made a significant contribution to that disaster. This year, Strathclyde region has been forced to cut £34 million from its budget. When a library closes or education services suffer, people are entitled to ask, "Is this the price that we are now paying for the SNP non-payment campaign?" Its actions have pushed up bills for everyone else. In Lothian this year the poll tax was £48 higher than it would have been if it had not been for non-payment. The SNP must take direct responsibility for that increase. The addition is, in a real sense, the Sillars surcharge or the Salmond tax.
      We are entitled to hear the SNP's current position. It ended the non-payment campaign, but not because it was satisfied with the Government's alternative to the poll tax—it did not even wait to see the details. The one decisive factor was the growing unpopularity of non-payment itself. SNP Members are not satisfied with the proposals in the current Bill—after all, they opposed it on Second Reading but they are not sufficiently dissatisfied to risk continuing non-payment or indeed to seek a place on the Committee considering the Bill. Nationalist Members apparently take the view that those whom they represent do not need a voice on a wide range of issues debated in the House. That is a deliberate decision, but it is not one on which their constituents have been consulted.
      A year ago—I remember it very well—the nationalist candidate in the Paisley, South by-election, a member of the party's national executive committee and, indeed, a member of the new-fangled shadow Cabinet, was asked what he would do if the sheriff officers were at his door. The answer that he gave was clear and practical in personal terms—he would reach for his chequebook and end the embarrassment. Every hon. Member knows that that solution is not open to many of my constituents or to many of those who listen to the nationalist soft-sell on non-payment. There was no pretence in the housing schemes, and in the battered inner cities non-payment was only for those with a chequebook and who could take the strain. Thousands and thousands of ordinary Scots are now paying the price for that.
      It is no surprise that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities reports that 70 per cent. of those in debt were originally entitled to a poll tax rebate at some level.
      36
      Rebates of course—I regret this—can be backdated for only 56 days. Many who would have been entitled to rebates now face huge bills which they have no hope of meeting. I advise the hon. Member for Eastwood that the Government should act now to abolish the 20 per cent. rule—there is no excuse for not doing so—and allow those in debt to claim the rebates which should have been available to them all along. The Government must bear the main responsibility for all the pain and suffering, but the SNP is also guilty. The role that it has played has been irresponsible and contemptible.
      Throughout this debate, and throughout all the years of argument and discussion, the Government have sought to avoid the clear implications of what they were doing and have been guided by blinkered ideology. A report of the kind for which we argue in the new clause would highlight lessons to be learnt and perhaps bring some good from the fiasco that the poll tax has been. I hope that it would concentrate Ministers' minds on the need to give practical help to those who have suffered. It might also reinforce the view, which badly needs buttressing, that local democracy must be a foundation for freedom in this country. Providing an independent voice so that local communities can run their own affairs is an important part of our democratic structure. All those things have been damaged by the poll tax experience and they must now all be rebuilt.
      I said earlier—I do not retreat from this view—that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was one of the early converts to the obvious. He was one of the first Conservative Members to be converted. I can still remember the speech that he made on 16 December 1987 because I was struck forcibly by it. He said that the poll tax
      "will build on a platform of crude regression which seeks to make equal in the eyes of the tax collector the rich and the poor, the slum dweller and the landed aristocrat, the elderly pensioners living on their limited savings and the most successful of today's entrepreneurs."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987: Vol. 124, c. 114.]
      The right hon. Gentleman meant that and, to be fair to him, he acted upon it when he had the opportunity. The tragedy is that, although the right hon. Gentleman has had to capitulate on the principle in many ways and has forced many of his hon. Friends to do so rather less willingly, he has got many of the practical details wrong. Many of the practicalities will lead us back into trouble. The report that we seek would throw light on that possibility.
      We must also remember that many of those who surround the Minister—many Conservative Members—have learned nothing and wish to learn nothing from the poll tax experience. I note that only a year ago, on 5 December 1990, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
      "we must not lose sight of the strength of the underlying principles that are already embodied in the community charge."
      In a particularly spirited passage, the right hon. Gentleman continued——
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Scottish people need to be reminded again and again that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) willingly and eagerly voted for the Scottish poll tax Bill.
      Mr. Dewar: Indeed, he did. We had an exchange on that point in a recent debate when, by chance, the right hon. Gentleman was present. That just shows that the laws of chance work in wondrous ways. Although I do not want to make much of it, I explained to the House then that there was a good defence and an alibi and that the right

      37
      hon. Gentleman offered us the explanation that he had asked the Secretary of State for Scotland about it and had done what he was told. That might be close to a Nuremberg defence, but it is at least something that can be advanced for the right hon. Gentleman.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland showed absolutely no doubt about the rightness of what he was doing when he defended the poll tax. I was particularly touched by the right hon. Gentleman's thought in that debate a year ago when he continued:
      "Is it sophisticated"—
      that was supposed to be dramatic irony—
      "to have a method of payment for local services based solely on the bricks and mortar in which one happens to live?"—[Official Report, 5 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 397–400.]
      The right hon. Gentleman then went on to describe at some length something that sounded very much like the council tax that he will now no doubt defend. On that occasion——
      Mr. McKelvey: The Secretary of State would embrace it.
      Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend is probably right because I will say this for the Secretary of State for Scotland: he is not a man to see the fine tuning in any argument; something is always absolutely black or absolutely white for him.
      Many strata of opinion remain in the Government and in the Conservative party. The Government may well be swept away to the Opposition Benches shortly and I very much hope that that will be the case. However, I advise whoever is in government that there is genuine virtue in looking dispassionately, professionally and with an expert view at the record of the poll tax, and especially at the administrative details, to try to ensure that we do not import into the new system the seeds of self-destruction that Ministers so foolhardily built in to the flawed and totally unjust poll tax a few short years ago. I believe that what we have suggested is worth doing. This is a good new clause. It would set in train what might be a useful antidote to some of the dangers about which we are so well aware and for which many of our constituents are still paying the price.
      4.30 pm
      Mrs. Ray Michie: It will surprise several hon. Members that: early on in the debate we are able to talk a little about Scotland. While I am grateful for the new clause, which I support, I wonder whether it will help the disappointment at the endeavours of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to stop an amendment tabled in Committee by the Liberal Democrats to abolish the poll tax in Scotland a year early. Of course, it was guillotined.
      It is right that we should examine the impact of the poll tax in Scotland as well as the rest of Britain, for no consideration was ever given to what its impact would be in Scotland. In the Scottish context, it is particularly ironic that the poll tax should be replaced by a property tax, because it was the unfairness and hardship caused by the rates in Scotland which led to the hurried and disastrous introduction of the poll tax.
      As we have heard so often, the Conservatives had no mandate to introduce the poll tax in Scotland. They were warned of the consequences at the time, but they paid no heed. Indeed, they failed to listen to the Scottish people in
      38
      the 1987 general election, when the disintegration of the Conservative party in Scotland started. They failed to pay any attention to the results of introducing that tax. Of course, we see the consequences for the Conservatives now.
      It must not be forgotten that the hardship caused by the poll tax, the difficulties in collecting it and the overwhelming public opposition to it—the factors cited as the reasons for abolishing the tax—not only existed for a year longer than in England and Wales but were ignored when only Scotland suffered. The crisis in local government caused by the poll tax is more acute in Scotland because of that extra year of cost and chaos.
      The Prime Minister has led in giving the general impression that the poll tax has been abolished. Non-payment is already at critical levels, as we heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Next year, non-payment will increase as people think that the bills do not apply to them. That is the case at present. Hundreds of thousands of people think that the poll tax has been abolished, so they think that the bills which come in are simply the result of a mistake by the computer.
      The high level of non-payment is the reason why we are committed to abolishing the poll tax a year early in Scotland and, for one year only, putting the cost on national income tax. It would be a practical means of ensuring that local government services are provided, that the excessive waste and cost of collecting the poll tax is avoided and that the hardship of the 20 per cent. charge is ended. It would also be a symbolic gesture. It would mean that the Government acknowledged at last that they were mistaken in forcing the tax on to the Scots.
      Of course, the lack of a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers means that English and Welsh taxpayers would have to contribute to the abolition of the poll tax in Scotland. That is regrettable but unavoidable, but, as it was English Members of Parliament who voted for the tax in Scotland, it has a certain justice. Unless the poll tax is abolished in Scotland, the cost to local authorities will be insupportable.
      I make a particular plea to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), about the position in the Western Isles. I do so following an invitation from the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) to meet council members of Western Isles council who came to the House to brief Members of Parliament.
      I welcome the fact that the Scottish Office has said that it will meet those councillors, but unless Ministers are prepared to help the people, it could be the end of the Western Isles and the people in them. They have struggled for hundreds of years and suffered a great deal. They should not be called upon to suffer further. After all, the Government have a responsibility and they must share culpability for what happened, because the council was not warned about the collapse of Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
      The Government cannot leave that council to sink. This country owes the Western Isles and its people a great deal. I hope that the Minister will give them the greatest consideration and say, "Yes, we will help you, the people of the Western Isles."
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I am listening closely to what the hon. Lady is saying. I hope that she will recognise

      39
      that the Secretary of State has authorised the Western Isles to borrow £24 million this financial year to meet its requirements. I am sure that she will also acknowledge that the community charge paid by those on the Western Isles is between £26 and £28 per annum. That charge is a fraction of the average paid by other community charge payers in Scotland.
      Mrs. Michie: I am aware that the Secretary of State has allowed the council borrowing powers, but it requires £3·5 million to service its borrowing requirement.
      The poll tax on the Western Isles may be high or low, but the fact is that jobs will be lost, schools will be closed and we will witness a further emigration of people from the region. That will mean an end to that people's culture, Ianguage and way of life, as they will be unable to survive in the Outer Hebrides.
      Taxpayers in Scotland, England and Wales should be told the cost of introducing another local tax. The administrative costs of valuing properties, introducing new software and establishing new billing methods will fall on the taxpayer—local and national. In the interests of accountable government, the electorate must know the true cost of collecting the new tax and correcting the Government's mistakes. That is the purpose of new clauses 7 and 13.
      New clauses 5 and 12, in common with new clause 1, intend to force the Government to report to Parliament
      "on the workings of the council tax".
      The Government must not be allowed to ignore the consequences of their actions as they sought to do with the poll tax. I assure the Government that the new council tax will throw up many anomalies and unfairnesses. They must be noted and corrected. If the will is there, the Government will acknowledge and correct their mistakes.
      We welcome the discount system for single people. Tomorrow, my party hopes to persuade the Government to increase it to 40 per cent. Whether we succeed or fail will not alter the fact that the impact of the council tax on single people must be carefully monitored by reports to Parliament.
      Mr. John Maxton: The local tax system proposed by the hon. Lady is based upon an ability to pay. I find it rather surprising that she now says that she accepts the discount system, which covers everyone, whatever his income. The hon. Lady is now proposing a 40 per cent. discount, which would mean that the better-off would get even more.
      Mrs. Michie: That is not what I am saying. I do not like the council tax; nor do I like the Labour party fair tax or whatever it is called. We would like the introduction of a local income tax, based on the ability to pay.
      In Scotland, a higher proportion of people rent rather than own their homes. Therefore, they obtain no benefit from the capital benefit of the property in which they live, unlike homeowners.
      The council tax, especially in areas such as Edinburgh, will penalise renters. People who rent privately lost when the poll tax was abolished becaue many private landlords did not pass on their savings to their tenants. Now they will lose again because their bills will depend on the landlords' circumstances, not theirs. How that will be conducted should be reported to Parliament.
      40
      The council tax will also cause many problems to people in tied housing or similar property provided for and through employment. Many examples of occupations that cause concern should be reported on. An obvious example is Church property. It has often been in Church hands since the days when the status and income of Churchmen were higher than they are today. Manses, especially in Scotland, used to be given a 50 per cent. derating, but that no longer seems to be the case.
      I am particularly concerned about farm workers in owner-occupied or tenanted farm houses. They must often live in large, old and rambling farm houses. We all know the crisis that agriculture is in at present. Farm properties provide no income, and the principle that the value of a house can be calculated by its size and potential price on the property market must not be extended to agriculture. Farm houses have been traditionally low rated and, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that they would be placed in a lower band because of the present state of agriculture and the lack of demand for such houses. At least he recognises the problem, and I hope that the Minister who replies will say that agricultural houses will be placed in a lower band.
      Others in tied housing, such as schoolteachers, school caretakers and policemen, will also be adversely affected. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood, will recall that, in 1989–90, the rates portion of the rent allowance for police officers was abolished without compensation. That meant a reduction in earnings of between £45 and £57 a month, and it affected more than 2,000 police officers in Scotland. Rural areas like my constituency of Argyll and Bute were even more affected, because 80 per cent. of police accommodation there is of necessity tied housing.
      The rent allowance that included the rates portion was long regarded as part of a police officer's take-home pay. The Government refused to implement the award of the police arbitration tribunal, which included that rates element. The allowance used to be linked to property, and I hope that it will be restored and police tied houses will also be put in a special band.
      Those problems will have to be carefully monitored if we are to avoid the chaos of past years. The reports are for the future. They are designed to ensure that the Government accept their responsibility for the cost and workings of the council tax and that they do not seek to blame any failure of the tax on local authorities. The priority for Scotland is the immediate abolition of the poll tax to rescue the people and Scottish local government from a complete shambles and near-disaster.
      4.45 pm
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: It is interesting to note that no Tory Members now rise to defend the poll tax, despite the fact that it was introduced in Scotland against the will of the people.
      Mr. Maxton: They are coming in now.
      Mrs. Fyfe: If they speak in the debate, it is unlikely to be in defence of the poll tax. However, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) may be in a state of mind to do so, but that remains to be seen.
      The new clause is worth while because accountability is good for the soul. It occurs to me, however, that for that

      41
      to work one must have a soul. When the poll tax was pushed through against the democratic will of the Scottish people, it was obvious that the last thing that the Government cared about was the needs of other people. They had no consideration for those who were too poor to pay it, and compassion was distinctly lacking on the Conservative Benches. They were determined to push that medicine down everyone's throats and it was not surprising that people spat it out so vehemently.
      Today, no one is left to defend the poll tax, except perhaps one or two isolated individuals who may speak in favour of it—who knows? However, there was a time when the Tory Benches were packed with hon. Members who knew better than the people of Scotland what was best for the rest of us.
      If the report were drawn up, it would be a useful task. It would remind us of certain facts regarding the introduction of the poll tax. For example, when the poll tax was being drafted, the Government were warned by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Rating and Valuation Association, as well as local government accountants and town clerks throughout the land, that it would be utterly chaotic. CIPFA published a chart for the benefit of its members on how the poll tax would operate. It was not being contentious or using it for publicity purposes but wanted to aid its colleagues in local government who had to contend with operating the tax. The report caused much amusement to those of us who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill for England and Wales. We thought that, if that was supposed to be simplicity, heaven knows what complexity would be like. But the Government went ahead and ignored all the warnings. Likewise, they ignored public opinion, which was expressed vehemently at the time of the general election and which has been repeated at every possible opportunity since.
      There is an amazing contradiction between the Government's attitude to last week's discussions at Maastricht and their attitude to democracy within the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister poses as the defender of Britain's right to do as it pleases and not have nasty foreigners telling us what to do, but within the United Kingdom the Conservative party was willing and determined to impose a poll tax on the people of the United Kingdom, whether they wanted it or not. I shall be interested to hear whether they can straighten out that contradiction.
      The poll tax has had an enormous impact on services and jobs. Strathclyde region alone expects to lose some 750 jobs if lost moneys cannot be restored quickly. That will have an enormous impact on Strathclyde region, not only for those 750 jobs but for the community at large through the loss to the local economy. I do not know how the Government can regard that with equanimity. They know about the unemployment in the west of Scotland, particularly in Glasgow. They are faced with a serious loss of jobs on top of all the job losses in the past, yet they are determined not to respond in an obvious and sensible way. If they extend the measures under the council tax to the poll tax and allow those who will pay 20 per cent. to pay nothing, that would at once resolve the problem of lack of Government money. It would still not resolve the problem entirely, however, because the main problem is a sheer lack of Government support for local government.
      The Government have always claimed that the poll tax was about enhancing local democracy. It has been
      42
      noticeable how many people, especially young people, have removed themselves from the electoral register. Because they simply could not afford to pay the poll tax, they have deprived themselves of the right to vote. The Government know that thousands of people have done that and that the electoral roll has gone down considerably in many areas, especially in impoverished urban areas.
      The Government are assiduously trying to build up the electoral register by seeking Tory voters in every country in the world, but they are not prepared to encourage people to come back and become entitled to vote here. It is necessary for the victims of Government decisions who are living here to assert their democratic rights, or for others to assert those rights.
      The Minister has told us that he considers the Bill to he without serious defects of any kind. The Government had introduced a few paltry amendments of their own, but had accepted no amendments from Labour—because, apparently, we had said nothing that they did not know already. That remark will stick in all our minds. Once again, the Government are saying that they know exactly what they are doing: they know what they are doing to students, student nurses and people suffering from Alzheimer's disease whose partners do not pay poll tax and who are billed in their stead, regardless of their own mental condition.
      People will be dumbfounded to learn of the big change in the legislation—the duke will no longer pay the same as the dustman. He will now pay three times as much. All over the country, people will be saying, "That is a big democratic advance." There will be enormous anger over the continuing injustice of the Government"s notion of how local administration should be financed, and a good deal of disquiet about the fact that all single individuals will receive discounts, regardless of their personal circumstances.
      That is nonsensical, and it contradicts the Government's own stated policies. They have consistently refused social security benefits to the very needy, on the ground that they are targeting the neediest. Is it "targeting the neediest" to hand out discounts to people who are already extremely well off? The Government's entire policy is a shambles, and they will soon be slung out because of it. We shall ensure that the country knows what they are doing. It is they who will have to pay, and they will do so, whether it is in February, March, April, May, June or July.
      Mr. Dick Douglas: It is difficult not to think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) did not want a new clause to enable the issues that he mentioned to be investigated, but, rather, wanted a new clause to "involve" the complicity of the Scottish National party in opposing the poll tax by persuading certain people not to pay at a certain time. I worry about the state of the law when a lawyer starts using the technique of "guilt by association".
      Mr. Dewar: I did not.
      Mr. Douglas: I shall make every effort not to misquote the hon. Gentleman. None the less, he gave the House the clear impression that he was associating the Scottish National party with Militant Tendency in regard to violence. The hon. Gentleman nods his assent. If that is not a McCarthyite technique, I do not know what is.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: That is a very serious accusation.
      Mr. Douglas: It is. People have been expelled from the Labour party because of such association. It is serious to accuse someone of a McCarthyite smear.
      I am pleased to be speaking after the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I note that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) is also in his place. Not so long ago we all sat together in Glasgow, in a committee of 100: I shall not refer to the other hon. Members who were with us, as they are not present today. We suggested then that we should protect those who could not afford to pay, and who would be confronted by all the rigours of the law so beloved of the hon. Member for Garscadden.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I clearly remember a time when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars)—who, I am sorry to say, is not here today—was so anti-Trot that he threw people out of the party that he had drawn together in the mid-1970s, whether they were Trots or not. Now he finds himself associating with them. That is very strange.
      Mr. Douglas: I do not know who the hon. Lady means. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is not here, however, and I am courteous not to refer to any hon. Member who is not present and whom I have not given notice of my intention to do so. Hon. Members generally try not to do that, as far as is humanly possible. Nevertheless, I can tell the hon. Member for Maryhill that I am quite willing to answer for my part in the episode that I mentioned—with a degree of pride, but not vaingloriously.
      The hon. Lady does not deny that, along with other hon. Members who are present today, she advocated non-payment.
      Dr. Godman: I thought that the hon. Gentleman pointed at me then.
      Mr. Douglas: No, indeed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable respect, does not think that any of my remarks concern him.
      Other matters would require investigation in a report. The hon. Members for Maryhill and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) mentioned a mandate, but the hon. Member for Garscadden did not refer to the fact that the Tories have no mandate in Scotland. That is because he is a Unionist. He is quite capable of standing up and blaming everyone except himself for the imposition of the poll tax.
      I remember, in January 1988, pleading with the hon. Gentleman to tell the Leader of the Opposition that we should show some guts, and that, when the Leader of the Opposition went to Edinburgh, he should not suggest that we go cap in hand to pay the poll tax. The hon. Member for Garscadden cannot gainsay that—and that is not guilt by association. The hon. Gentleman should stop acting like a big wean, and behave like a man.
      Although he did not mention it in his speech, the hon. Member for Garscadden takes some responsibility for a matter that should be examined in any report: the imposition of poinding and warrant sales. He and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) thought nothing of parading through Glasgow behind banners proclaiming, "No warrant sales here". Examination would reveal that Labour authorities had used the threat of
      44
      poinding to coerce the people referred to by the hon. Member for Maryhill who cannot pay and thus have no choice. What has the Labour party done to defend them?
      The hon. Member for Garscadden has used the Nuremberg defence—"I had to obey the law". It was like a pantomime to see the hon. Member for Garscadden running past Knightswood Cross with his pamphlet, "Garscadden News No. I", saying, "Rejoice, rejoice" and telling people that, in effect, Labour had killed the poll tax.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman took part in the "don't register" campaign and ran about trying to persuade people not to register. Then he caved in. However, I am talking about the hon. Member for Garscadden, who, as I say, was running around distributing "Garscadden News No. 1"—we await issue No. 2.
      Mr. Dewar: At least I am not running away from the constituents who elected me.
      Mr. Douglas: Neither am I, and I never have. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is not here today. I would not be a member of a party from which the Leader of the Opposition could expel me. It is a measure of the gutlessness of the Labour party that someone like the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East can get thrown out of it for taking a stand rooted deep in the traditions of the Labour party.
      5 pm
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) wanted me to give way to him earlier. I have attacked his posture on non-registration. New clause 27 is after something not dissimilar from what the hon. Member for Garscadden wants: an examination of non-payment and why people cannot pay. Strathclyde has done a survey showing that 70 per cent. of those who did not pay could not pay. These people do not need persuading; their economic circumstances rule out their ability to pay. That is why most people did not pay.
      Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of a mandate. Having been elected under one party label by his constituents, having reneged on that party label, having then stood under his new party label in a local government election and having been defeated, and having declared his intention to stand under another party label in a different constituency, does the hon. Gentleman think that he should perhaps return to the people of Dunfermline for a mandate?
      Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. I never stood with another party label in a local government election in my time in the Scottish National party. I have fought many elections and I know that a losing candidate gets the blame. I have taken the blame when I have lost, but, oddly enough, when one wins, it is the party that has gained the victory, never the individual.
      We got the poll tax because people were thirled to the party banner. This is not a House of free-standing men and women; they are dragooned through the Lobbies by the Whips. The hon. Member for Garscadden would have to take the same medicine if he came to power because he

      45
      believes that he is entitled to govern here if he gets a mandate in the United Kingdom, regardless of what happens in Scotland.
      The United Kingdom mandate is spurious. How can the Labour party say that it has a mandate for the United Kingdom when it does not even put up candidates in Northern Ireland? People who, like me, opposed the poll tax rightly argued that the Government never had a mandate in Scotland. I challenge the hon. Member for Garscadden to face me in debate on this issue. He will be asking the electorate to give him and the Labour party their votes to pursue particular policies. Thereafter there will be little discussion and the hon. Gentleman will not be arguing about the sovereignty of the Scottish people from then on.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden had the temerity to sign the claim of right in the Scottish convention. It concerns the exercise of the rights of the Scottish people. I shall give way to him on this if he has the guts to stand up. It seems that he does not like what I am saying much—perhaps my language is a little too industrial for him—but I would be willing to engage in this sort of argument with him in Garscadden.
      Mr. Wilson: What about Dunfermline?
      Mr. Douglas: Yes, there too. [Interruption.] Why is not the Labour party asking for a by-election in Coventry? I have fought more elections than some Labour Front Benchers have had hot breakfasts and I have already said that losing candidates always take the responsibility.
      Mr. Wilson: What about the Co-op?
      Mr. Douglas: I did not hear that, but if the hon. Gentleman will get off his backside he can repeat it.
      Mr. Wilson: The Co-op has been a good meal ticket for the hon. Gentleman and it is odd that at this stage in his career he should depart from anything and everybody who put him where he is today—and three times throw away a Labour seat. That is a matter between him and his conscience; but if he has any conscience left, why does he continue to draw his salary under the label of a party he was not elected to serve as a member of?
      Mr. Douglas: That is not really worth answering. Any obligations that I have to the Co-operative movement have been honourably discharged, and there are hon. Members here who know that. I have more than repaid my obligations to the Co-op. In any case, that is not part of this discussion.
      If we are to have a report, let it examine every aspect, including ability to pay. The council tax does not take that into consideration; nor do Labour's proposals. My party makes it plain that a tax related to ability to pay must be related to income. The tax in Scotland will raise about £800 million and cost about £80 million to collect—£l for every £10. There will be no relationship to ability to pay and there will be a register of sorts, although it will not be called that. The tax will involve a costly benefit system for the 100 per cent. discount scheme and there will be searching tests for those who are eligible for 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. discounts.
      My party has produced figures to show how a local income tax could be put in place in Scotland. I do not have the figures for every region or district with me, but in general terms the proportion of revenue raised by local
      46
      government is about 14 per cent. in Scotland—to be raised from the equivalent of non-domestic rates either under the poll tax or the council tax. If that is the average over the length and breadth of Scotland, it is reasonable to assume that for some local authorities it will be under 5 per cent. That means that this paraphernalia is necessary to collect £1 in £20. There has been no indication from Labour that it will abandon the Government subvention on that. Labour has not said whether it would try to collect more or less than the Government are trying to collect through local revenues in the non-business sector.
      Why has Scotland had to impose so much administration at such great cost? It is because the Government will not face the fact that Scotland could have a local income tax that would be easily and cheaply administered and would avoid all the bureaucracy and cost. I am not arguing the case for England and Wales. Part of our new clause relates to the 20 per cent. rule which the Government have partly abandoned. I plead with them to abandon it completely from I April 1992 and to make it retrospective in Scotland.
      About 3 million warrants are out and another of our amendments, which I hope will be reached tomorrow, deals with poinding and warrant sales. Such methods for the recovery of small amounts are acts of terror. The hon. Member for Garscadden or the hon. Member for Cathcart should make it clear when winding up that Labour is utterly opposed to Scottish local authorities using this barbaric device. They should dissociate themselves wholly and entirely from it.
      Mr. Maxton: I understand that the hon. Gentleman's party chose not to seek membership of the Committee that examined the Bill. It certainly asked us to boycott the Committe. In Committee, I moved an amendment to take the warrant sales procedure out of the Bill. I was supported by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and by my hon. Friends. If the hon. Gentleman had sought a seat on that Committee, I think that he would have got one and would have been able to vote against warrant sales.
      Mr. Douglas: It is not the same thing. I apologise if I have not made myself clear. I have asked the hon. Gentleman to make it plain that Labour is opposed to the imposition of warrant sales.
      Dr. Godman: In the short time that I have been in the House, many of my hon. Friends have established an honourable record for seeking to introduce a more humane form of debt collection. I refer in particular to my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). Some of us seek a more humane form of debt collection.
      Mr. Douglas: I accept that. It is no accident that two of the hon. Members that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned were, in the early days, among the leading proponents of a non-payment campaign—I apologise, I have got that wrong. Certainly the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who is in his place, will accept what I have said in relation to him.
      The SNP and Members from other parties introduced a Bill to abolish warrant sales. If the poll tax is dead and, like the hon. Member for Garscadden we should be saying,

      47
      "Rejoice, rejoice, rejoice", the hon. Member for,Garscadden or the hon. Member for Cathcart should use their position as Front-Bench spokesmen to make it clear that Labour is opposed to the use of poinding and the threat of warrant sales to impose a tax that is dead. If they cannot do that, they should not use their Front-Bench offices slanderously to attack other parties and accuse them of supporting organisations that seem to promote violence. I do not think that it is worth while asking the hon. Member for Garscadden for an apology, but he should, as a lawyer, reflect clearly and cautiously on what he has said.
      Mr. Maxton: Has the hon. Gentleman ever shared a platform at a rally with Tommy Sheridan and members of Militant Tendency?
      Mr. Douglas: Wait a minute, this is really getting in. The answer is, yes, of course. I have shared platforms with many individuals, but I have made my position clear on those platforms. That is exactly what I said at the beginning of my speech. This is a clear case of trying to get guilt by association. The hon. Member for Maryhill has shared a platform with Tommy Sheridan.
      5.15 pm
      Mrs. Fyfe: I want to put it on the record that I have never done any such thing.
      Mr. Douglas: I withdraw any hint or any tendency that I may have had to smear anybody. My memory may be failing me, but I have clear memories of the hon. Member for Maryhill being at rallies at which Mr. Sheridan was at least present. I have clear memories of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), who is in his place, being at similar rallies. I have no hesitation in saying——
      Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I really must put this on the record because of its effect on my credibility. I have gone out of my way to tell people that I refuse to share a platform with that particular gentleman and that if other people cared to do so, that was their affair. I always said that I would not, I think for fairly obvious reasons.
      Mr. Douglas rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is very wide already. It would be much better to concentrate on the new clauses.
      Mr. Douglas: I withdraw any implication and apologise to the hon. Member for Maryhill. That is the least that I can do. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Provan is in his place and he can interject if he wishes to do so.
      We would welcome any report that examines the process of the poll tax since its imposition in Scotland in 1989, and any report that directed itself especially to the plight of those who could not pay, substantial numbers of whom found themselves in conflict with the law because of their poverty. I have no hesitation in saying that the Scottish National party and I, before I was a member of that party, in standing beside those who could not pay made a major contribution to the downfall of the poll tax in Britain. I would not suggest for a minute that we were entirely responsible for its demise, but we made a
      48
      significant contribution by showing that people could take a local initiative and say, "Enough is enough." If the people of Scotland had taken the advice of the hon. Member for Garscadden and that of the Leader of the Opposition and paid up and obeyed the law and supinely touched the forelock, the poll tax would have had a credibility that no one in the House thought that it ought to have had. That is a credit to the people of Scotland who opposed the tax from its inception by overwhelmingly voting against it, especially in the election of 1987.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As someone who has spent his life as a conciliator—someone who hates disputes and who cannot bear to see the children falling out—I feel that I should intervene with some quiet words that will enable the prodigal sons of Garscadden—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—and Garscadden elect to come together in harmony and peace. I am a humble lawyer who has done his best to settle cases rather than fight them to ensure that it was understood that dispute was not a proper way to resolve disputes.
      The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) left the Labour party on a policy of leaving also his country. He has deserted and left those who elected him. I remind him that guilt by association is a doctrine that is central to the law of Scotland. If he imagines that he will stand for the Scottish National party, having deserted Great Britain, Dunfermline, the Labour party and the platforms on which whoever the fellow that he mentioned stood, and on which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) never stood, I remind him that the doctrine of concert is alive in Scotland and is central to its Scottish specialty and authority. If he is to direct accusations at the hon. Member for Garscadden, who is a distinguished laywer, when he is intent on departing in the direction of the SNP, he might learn one minor principle of the law of Scotland. He should bear it in mind before he starts accusing others of guilt by association.
      The marvellous fall-out that we have seen this afternoon is a typical example of Scotland in Europe. We love each other so much that we cannot bear not to express our hatred. We have been given a useful example of the nationalists' position.
      The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West talked about the warfare of those who would not pay what is called the poll tax—in other words, the community charge. It has always seemed to me sensible that people should pay a standard charge as a licence fee to enjoy local authority services. After all, no one objects to a standard licence fee for a car, whether he has an Austin Seven of 1935 vintage and drives two miles a year, or an even older car of the sort that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) drives because he bought them when he was 18, or a Rolls-Royce in which he travels round and round the world every day and night. Equally, no one objects that we all pay the same television fee, whether the individual watches it or never watches it, whether the screen is a mile wide or an inch wide.
      I have always said that it would have been much more sensible to introduce a tax to which there was added a licence fee for a television to join the licence fee and insurance for a motor car. Such a tax would amount to about £250 a year.
      I have never heard anyone argue that those who cannot afford to pay their poll tax cannot afford to pay their

      49
      television licence fee or for their car licensing. If we assume that they are honest, I have not heard it argued that such people cannot afford to insure their motor cars. Let us be very careful about the "Can't pay, won't pay" approach. Before the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West deserted his electorate, how many people did I speak to in Murray's bar who, when swallowing another beer or another whisky, were asking, "Are you going on the 'Can't pay, won't pay'?" The veracity and philosophy of the hon. Member are extremely suspect, as are those of the members of his party who say that they are standing for what are called the people of Scotland.
      The people of Scotland? Let us talk about the people in Scotland. We know that 80 per cent. of the people of Scotland live in England and that 80 per cent. of the people in Scotland are not Scots, including most of the leaders of the SNP, who are second generation Irish. I am unimpressed by the wonderful plea that is put forward. My family has been in Scotland for only 1,000 years or more, and I can trace it back. I am not particularly impressed when those who desert their constituents, their parties and their principles argue to me and others about what should happen to the people of Scotland when they are talking about those who happen to live in Scotland.
      I fought the 1974, 1979 and 1983 elections in the knowledge that the Labour party had said that it would bring in a tax of this sort. All of my colleagues fought those elections on the basis that we believed that such a tax would be wrong. I am in the greatest difficulty in understanding why suddenly a tax of this sort should become utterly right.
      Let us not forget the argument of the hon. Member for Nowhere—I suppose that that is the right way to describe him now, but I talk about the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West—on ability to pay. The tax that we are discussing will be levied on someone who, perhaps, married in 1920 and is now widowed. The house in which she lives was bought for £500, for example, and it is now worth £200,000. On the basis of a later clause, which I shall try to remove from the Bill, a snooper, on his own say-so, will be allowed to enter properties and look round them without a warrant. Surely that is an extraordinary proposition.
      If we are to argue about inability to pay, I hope that the hon. Member for Nowhere will support my amendments in the light of the unfortunate widow, who for no reason of hers——
      Mr. Douglas: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will use their eyes and will note that if anyone is in suspended animation, it is the hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am sorry. I did not understand the intervention, partly because it included such long words. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain it to me afterwards in a moment of suspension and animation.
      The system will be based on an assumed income from a capital asset over whose value the original buyer has no control and which he cannot sell, any more than a tortoise can sell his shell, because it is his home. The business of "can't pay" is important.
      Complications are introduced when we consider a person who is a district nurse for three hours a day, two days a week. A man may have to return to his temporary residence because of the presumption that, for the
      50
      purposes of the Bill, a "day" remains the same day as when it started. I did not know that we needed a Bill to say that a day is presumed to be the same day as when it started—I always took the view that that was a decent assumption. I assume that even Scotland in Europe will take that line. It may, however, be contrary to the common law of Liechtenstein.
      The amendments all complicate what is an already absurdly complicated Bill. I remember when I was a child. I loathed rice pudding and, when given too much of it, I would say, "That is not fair." Nanny would say, "Life is not fair, laddie." The system would be fair if we charged everyone on the basis that we charge for a pint of beer, a loaf of bread or a television licence—whether the Duke of Plaza Toro or the Member for Nowhere. I wish that we would do that, and I am sorry that the Bill is doing the opposite.
      5.30 pm
      Dr. Godman: We have just listened to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who is something of an institution in Scotland. It is not for me to criticise him, because I seek his support on other matters, particularly to preserve a famous historic building which is tottering. I do not say that the hon. and learned Gentleman totters; he has kindly agreed to support my campaign to preserve that fine building.
      I shall not join the attacks on the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)—or the hon. Member for Nowhere, as he was described by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, when I faced the crisis of the collapse of the Scott Lithgow shipyard, he gave me much help.
      I wish to ask the Under-Secretary about the position of Scottish and English merchant seamen. Under the poll tax, Scottish merchant seamen have been discriminated against compared with their English colleagues. The evidence demonstrates that English merchant seamen have been able to argue more easily before tribunals the case for removing them from poll tax registers than have their Scottish counterparts. Even when Scottish and English merchant seamen have served on the same ship, Scottish seamen have had to pay the poll tax, whereas English seamen have been given discounts. Will that discrimination continue with the council tax?
      My sympathy lies with Scottish merchant seamen who have been discriminated against, but I also have much sympathy for the people on abysmally low incomes who cannot afford to pay the poll tax and who face the indignity of warrant sales. As has been said, poinding is an humiliating experience. The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 reduced the harshness of warrant sales, but they are still a squalid form of debt collection. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) served on the Standing Committee on the Bill which lessened the hardship caused, but poinding remains a humiliating experience.
      People close to me have gone through poinding and tell me that it is distressing when sheriff officers come into their homes. Even with the Debtors (Scotland) Act, it is a miserable affair for those in Scotland who are pursued for debt. Many of my constituents on low incomes listened too eagerly, perhaps naively and certainly unwisely, to the non-payment campaigners and now find themselves in deep trouble because they followed those sleekit

      51
      hypocrites. Those campaigners cannot help them now. In that regard, my constituents are lost and will have to face the intrusion into their homes of sheriff officers. Where do we find the non-payment campaigners? They are not opening their cheque books to help constituents who supported their campaign.
      The poll tax and the attendant problems caused for ordinary people feature largely at my surgeries, and I believe that the same happens at the surgeries of most of my hon. Friends and other Scottish Members of Parliament. Constituents raise the subject of the poll tax much more than their problems with the Department of Social Security, and that is important, given that about one third of the people I represent are in direct or indirect receipt of social security payments—a dreadful statistic.
      To a considerable extent, the Government's handling of the poll tax in Scotland—which was introduced with the enthusiastic support of the present Secretary of State—has brought about the demise of the Conservative party in Scotland. We are facing the likelihood of a major constitutional crisis in Scotland, chiefly because of the Conservative party's insensitive and uncaring governance of the nation. Scottish Conservative representation in the House of Commons is down to single figures; following the next election, it will be even lower, no matter what happens to the overall position of the two major parties in the next election.
      Even during the Prime Minister's so-called honeymoon period, I have been convinced that the number of Conservative seats will fall below 326. I genuinely believe that the Government will lose the next election. They certainly deserve to do so in Scotland because of their actions. Although the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) have just survived, they too may become Members for Nowhere after the next election.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose——
      Dr. Godman: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman want to intervene? It appears not—perhaps he is in a state of suspended animation.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose——
      Dr. Godman: The hon. and learned Gentleman can now wait for a minute or two.
      The new clause calls for an assessment of the levels of services provided by local authorities, and that is very important. In my constituency, services have been reduced—reluctantly—by Strathclyde regional council, and those reductions harm the most fragile and vulnerable groups in our communities. I refer mainly to the elderly and others who will suffer because the provision of the home help service is being reduced instead of increased. What will happen to those who are discharged into the community from psychiatric units and from long-stay mental hospitals when an authority such as Strathclyde, which has a fine social work department, cannot provide the help that such people need? The reductions in services have largely been caused by the failure—an honourable failure—of Strathclyde regional council to collect the poll tax.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was confused by my reluctance to allow him to give way to me. I thought that he was confused, but that is another matter.
      I am one of the most vulnerable in society, but I did not have central water, I had no dustbin collection or sewage provision, no one mends my roads, I do not use the local library and I have no children to educate, so I get nothing. However, thanks to the Government, now I at least have sewage collection, rubbish collection and central water. As one of the more vulnerable members of society, I am very grateful.
      Dr. Godman: I am not sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is one of the most vulnerable in our society, but I suspect that he is one of the most confused in his part of Scotland. His reference to his vulnerability plainly reveals his confused thinking at the moment, but it is not always so confused. The hon. and learned Gentleman has a fine forensic approach to these issues, and I look forward to hearing his speeches later.
      The level of services provided by local authorities is a very worrying issue in my constituency because Strathclyde regional council is now so badly placed with regard to finance because of its inability to collect the poll tax from people who sometimes can pay but will not pay, but, much more often, simply cannot pay.
      I genuinely believe that we are facing a political and constitutional crisis in Scotland, which has been brought about by the insensitive and uncaring Government. If their representatives in this House are reduced to, at best, two or three, that is merely what the Government and their representatives deserve.
      Sir Hector Monro: I did not want to intervene in the socialist split between the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and the Labour party, all of which are confused about how to proceed with the collection of a form of local government tax. The people of Scotland will begin to wonder where the Opposition stand when they hear speeches such as those that we have heard today.
      We tend to forget that the reason why we are introducing a simplified form of rate collection is that the old rating system was unpopular not only in Scotland, but throughout the United Kingdom. The reason why it was so unpopular is exactly the same reason why the community charge and now the council tax are unpopular—local authorities spend far too much money. Only when we get on top of that issue and make local authorities understand that they are meant to be good housekeepers and not to spend money rashly and unrealistically will we get local government expenditure down to the equivalent levels of 10, 20 or 30 years ago when all elected councillors—many of whom were independent—made a point of thinking about those whom they represented. Their first priority was to keep expenditure down and to provide the best services possible within their budgets.
      Budgets are now set at extortionate levels and when, naturally enough, the Government or the local population say, "Steady", local authorities say that there must be dramatic cuts. However, the cuts are in the budget, not in expenditure, and that is what we have difficulty in bringing home to the people of Scotland. All over Scotland we see in local and national newspapers talk of cuts in this and cuts in that, but the cuts are in proposed budget

      53
      expenditure, not in real expenditure which has, of course, increased year in, year out as has the revenue support grant under the present Government.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it has.
      5.45 pm
      It is time that the people of Scotland realised that it is-elected councillors suggesting budgets that are quite unacceptable which is the cause of the trouble in Scotland today, especially when we bear in mind the substantial progress made with the uniform business rate which, in the long run, will be of tremendous benefit to businesses and in which there can be only an increase related to inflation, as opposed to the substantial increases of a few years ago.
      The Minister rightly introduced capping for some local authorities, but I hope that he will bear in mind the low base from which some authorities began in recent years. One can perhaps understand the capping of authorities that are spending £400, £500 or £600 while others are spending £150 but are capped because they started from a fraction of a base level of the higher spending authorities. For small rural district councils it has been difficult even to maintain expenditure at inflation levels, let alone to try to keep within the capping level of about 4·5 per cent.
      I hope that when the Minister replies he will take the chance to highlight some of the singularly unpopular proposals from the socialist parties, such as the rating of farm buildings, local income tax and other suggestions which are quite unacceptable in Scotland. The new clause asks for another layer of bureaucracy and for officials to spend months preparing reports and papers when they should be preparing their work for the introduction of the new council tax. Time is not on our side in terms of preparation for April 1993. Any diversion of effort by local authority officials to provide the information required by the Opposition—much of which they could probably research in the Library in an hour if they tried—is quite unnecessary. For those reasons, and because the Opposition have made such a miserable case, I hope that the Minister will reject the new clause.
      Mr. William McKelvey: I will try not to stray too far from the new clause, although you, Mr. Deputy Speaker" have said that this is a wide debate. The main point of the new clause is that we want the Government to carry out a proper survey of the effects of the community charge and to study the
      "cost, economy, efficiency and effectiveness of financial administration in local government".
      The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has already told Ministers that local administration throughout Scotland is in a desperate position. If Ministers do not address the problem of non-collection of the poll tax, the poll tax for next year and the following year will rise astronomically. Resistance to the payment of the poll tax will probably rise accordingly. The Government must address the problem of the total debt, which is about £357 million of unpaid tax for the previous two years.
      Local authorities must be given back some power so that they can decide the practicalities of collecting certain debts and whether the cost involved in trying to collect them is worth while. Despite the figures that the Minister gave, I am convinced, as are many local government finance officers, that it is costing more in some cases to attempt to collect the back payments than it is to forget about them.
      54
      I am not saying that we should simply have an amnesty. The Government would find an amnesty for all those who have not paid unacceptable and I understand the reasons for that. However unfair a tax is and however it discriminates against the poor, we must realise that it is a tax under the law. In any campaign, there is a problem if those with ability to pay pull others into the campaign, especially those who are too poor to pay.
      The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) said that I, among others, was involved in a campaign of non-payment. That is correct. I stand here without shame to say that I believed then that those who could afford to pay but who would not pay bore the responsibility at least to put up some resistance to a tax that had heen imposed on us. However, I qualify that comment and the local paper can be produced to show that I did not invite those who would be in difficulties over the payment of the tax to become involved. I did not see it as a form of elitism to say that I put forward the argument that people like me should resist payment for the moment. I stated publicly that I fully understood that I would have to pay not only the tax, but eventually the surcharge. I did not want those who could not afford to pay the tax to be put into the embarrassing situation of having debt collected, not only for the tax that they had not paid, but for the 10 per cent. surcharge. I ultimately paid what I owed and the 10 per cent., although I did so reluctantly because it was a lousy tax. Time has shown us that it is a bad tax.
      Conservative Members who waxed eloquent about the virtues of the poll tax are disappearing like snow off a dyke. However, they did not disappear when it came to marching through the Lobby, probably asking each other, "What is this tax all about?" The answer was, "It is going to Scotland, old boy, so just go through as the Whips have told you." No one gave any real consideration to that abomination or to the difficulties that it would cause for the poor people in Scotland.
      The Opposition and some Conservative Members doubted the wisdom of the tax. Those to whom I am not allowed to refer—they sit in the jury box over there—told the Government that the tax was ill thought out, that it would be difficult to collect and that it would create difficulties for the Government. However, Scottish Ministers embraced the tax eagerly because they saw it as the best thing for Scotland since sliced bread. Even now, some of them argue that the poll tax was fair and good, and they say that they do not understand why its collection went so wrong.
      The Government cannot blame those who are not paying for the downfall of the tax because that would defeat the dogma attached to it. I believe that those in Scotland who did not pay played some part in the demise of the tax. When Conservative Members who had trotted so gleefully through the Lobby discovered what the effect of the tax would be on England and on their constituencies, they studied it and understood that any tax that is written down on the back of a fag packet cannot he acceptable to the people.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be annoyed if I give a marginally different point of view. It is passing into mythology that the Tories introduced the poll tax in Scotland to punish the Scots. The opposite is the case. The former Prime Minister introduced the poll tax because she honestly thought that

      55
      it would be the saviour of Scottish seats in the 1987 election. It was meant to be beneficial to the Scots. That shows how bad the Government's judgment was and why, when the difficulties were discovered, the English said that they did not want to touch the poll tax with a bargepole.
      Mr. McKelvey: My hon. Friend is right. To be fair, the former Prime Minister, the present Prime Minister, Ministers and Conservative Members failed to understand the background of Scotland's history and heritage. They failed to understand that Scots will simply not accept a tax being forced on them—I believe unconstitutionally. We are a Union and I can see no reason why there should be a different form of tax in one part of the Union from that in the others. Ministers would not accept that view and what has become of the community charge is almost history.
      The matter will not be allowed to rest. The poll tax has not been abolished, although many people in Scotland imagine that it has. The collection of the poll tax and the pursuit of people who are too poor to pay still goes ahead. I have never accepted the collection of debt by warrant sales, especially for domestic debt. Many of us fought hard and long to abolish poinding altogether. It may be acceptable for a council that is done by a big business man, because the only way in which it can get back its money may be to get its hands on his business. What is obnoxious to me and to many other Labour Members is a form of debt collection that aims to humiliate the person from whom the debt is being collected. Such a form of debt collection is inhuman and should be resisted. As soon as possible, especially for Scotland, we should consider closely the matter of poinding and we should dispose of it as a means of collecting domestic debt. It is a disgrace and should never be pursued.
      I do not agree with members of councils, whether SNP or Labour-led, which with relish set officers on to the collection of the poll tax. They are misled. However, once the debt is handed over to the sheriff officers for collection, they will use warrant sales to collect the debt. They will then be resisted, as has been shown.
      Mr. Douglas: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that such a course of events is acceptable? There is some control over the sheriff officers and the messengers at arms. It is not a perfect control, because they are not properly controlled through the court system, but there is control. The creditor has a responsibility to acknowledge that the debt that is being pursued will not be gathered under the poinding schedule. We are in a queer trait, indeed, if local authorities—Labour controlled or otherwise—do not say, "This is nonsense. Halt the process there."
      6 pm
      Mr. McKelvey: Local authorities cannot take that decision. Once the matter is in the hands of the sheriff officer, the officer determines how the debt is collected. Local councils can say to sheriff officers, "We do not want you to pursue the matter through warrant sales," but the sheriff officers are contracted to do a job and can say, "If we can collect the debt only by means of a warrant sale, that is what we will do." The authorities cannot control the means by which sheriff officers collect the debt as long as
      56
      it is collected legally. I do not like the practice—we must fight against it and change it—but, unfortunately, for the time being at least, sheriff officers have the legal right to use poinding.
      We must examine that difficulty ourselves. It is no good shoving the blame on to a local authority and saying that debt collection should not be pursued through warrant sales because, ultimately, they are forced to undertake poindings. Such proceedings ought to be resisted locally and they are resisted locally.
      What about those who have the ability to pay but who are still not paying? They are responsible for a large part of the £537 million worth of debt that directly affects local authorities' ability to provide services. When we realised that there was a threat of that happening, I and many others to whom I spoke who had previously resisted payment said, "There is one thing that we will not do: we will not jeopardise services or jobs in our community by our campaign of resistance and non-payment." When we realised that that threat existed, we withdrew.
      The Scottish National party, on the other hand, pursued the issue and encouraged people not to pay, saying that it was leading a campaign of universal non-payment. When members of the SNP realised that the difficulties in which local authorities were placed would reflect badly on them, they washed their hands of the matter.
      As I said at the time, I have some local experience of resistance to paying rent, which I gleaned during rent campaigns. I vividly recall carrying a banner saying, "We will not pay the increase in rent in the Dundee district." At the other end of the banner was someone who I knew had paid his rent. I asked, "Why did you pay your rent, Jimmy?" He replied, "It was not me, Willy, it was my wife." The domestic pressure on many households is such that some womenfolk who knew that, ultimately, they would be left to pay the rent said, "It is all right having a non-payment campaign but when it fails, as it will fail"—and it did fail—"who will pay the rent? Who will be lumbered with the debt?"
      Hundreds of people in Scotland who were either too poor to pay or who were duped into taking part in the non-payment campaign as a way of destroying the tax now find themselves having to pay not only the debt but the surcharge. That is grossly unfair.
      I have two constituency cases about which I shall happily tell the Minister—indeed, I have probably written to him about them already. The first concerns an old lady in a private nursing home who does not even receive her pocket money because it is taken from her as part of her rent. She has no visible means of support, except that she is being looked after by that private nursing home. Yet that old lady is still being pursued by sheriff officers for non-payment of the 20 per cent. that she should have paid last year. Does it make economic sense, and is it humane, to pursue elderly and frail people to collect the 20 per cent? What is it costing? I do not believe that the cost of pursuing those too poor to pay is less than the sums in respect of which they are being pursued.
      My second constituency case concerns someone in receipt of benefit from the Department of Social Security. The sheriff officers have asked the DSS to stop part of the payment and pay his poll tax. The Department has replied that, because that person is paying so much in loan repayments, he is now under subsistence level and cannot pay the poll tax.

      57
      Why must we pursue poor people such as those for non-payment of the 20 per cent? Would it not be better to return to local authorities the discretion that they enjoy in other areas and say to them, "By all means, pursue those who can pay and will not pay. Home in on them. But, in cases of genuine poverty and difficulty, involving the elderly, the frail and the poor, you can write off the debt as uncollectable."
      The trouble is that political dogma is being allowed to overrule economic sense, and that that dogma says that everyone must pay the tax. That was the basis on which the tax was introduced: everyone had to be accountable. It is arrant nonsense to say that pensions and benefits have been uprated to allow for the payment of the poll tax; people simply do not believe it. Is it not nonsense to say to someone, will give you £1·50 so that you can pay the £1·50 that I propose to tax you"? Why could not the sum have been paid directly? Because that would have defeated the object and negated the dogma, which said, "We want you not merely to pay the tax but to know why you are paying it."
      Mr. Barry Porter: I have some sympathy with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which concerns the pursuit of those who cannot pay. Equally, I sympathise with the argument that people who can pay ought to pay. But I have been trying to follow his argument that every tax should be related to people's ability to pay it. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing, on behalf of the Labour party, that VAT and Customs and Excise duties should be abolished and replaced by a tax related to income, wealth or something of that nature? I have worked out on the back of a cigarette packet—and this bears no relation to my ability to pay, which is nil at the moment—that, if we followed that argument, we should have a standard rate of income tax of between 45p and 50p in the pound. That would be nonsense. We have indirect taxation—as we should have indirect taxation—and there should be taxes on spending as well as on income.
      Mr. McKelvey: I am sure that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) would not disagree that, in collecting taxes, we must take into account people's ability to pay. Whisky is extremely heavily taxed. The Government get a heavy whack for every bottle consumed. It is one thing for a person to decide whether he wants to consume a bottle of whisky. It is quite another when every person is taxed simply because he happens to be a body. The head tax was done away with centuries ago and should not be acceptable. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he continues to find the poll tax acceptable and would still vote for it, he is at least being honest enough to say so, but other Conservative Members have put their heads down and said, "We never believed that it was a decent tax in the first place."
      The matter has yet to be resolved. The Government are in difficulties because local authorities have enormous debts. In England, those debts are only now beginning to accumulate, but in Scotland they are all too familiar. We must give local government some respite and enable it to deal with this growing and extremely difficult problem. It is no good arguing that, year after year, the Government have dished out money to local authorities. Nobody will believe that that is the case. Housing revenue, for example, has virtually disappeared and, in Scotland, the result has been that we have thousands more homeless people than
      58
      we have ever had. Many young people were turfed out of their houses by their parents, who said, "We are not going to pay your poll tax for you. You are not earning, so out you go." Some 24 per cent. of homeless people wandering the streets of London come from Scottish backgrounds and Scottish homes—a fact which we find totally unacceptable.
      I found it obnoxious to listen to the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday referring to the wonderful uplift that has been given to London. I accept that it is nice to see the House of Commons in its new coat. However, perhaps we should have spent the money that we have spent on this building providing clothes for those hapless souls who sleep in cardboard boxes. Perhaps we should have some form of taxation so that we can clothe all our people adequately.
      There is no point in trying to defend this immoral tax. Elderly people in Scotland, England and Wales will die in their thousands because they do not have the money to heat their homes. We should not rely on the instant cold weather payments that are triggered after seven days of below freezing temperatures. Had local authorities not been in so much debt as a result of the non-collected poll tax, they might have been able to concentrate on services and ensure that homes are adequately insulated. If they were adequately insulated, the cold weather might not have such drastic effects and cause the deaths of elderly and frail people.
      Ministers are reluctant to feel ashamed about the application of the poll tax. They must consider the fact that the tax was applied in Scotland one year in advance and that was against the constitution. We should consider the plight of Scottish authorities and try to solve their problems, because those problems will be mirrored in English authorities in the next few years. The problem will not go away. It is growing and we should consider all the effects as outlined in the new clause.
      Mr. Bowis: We were all moved when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) told us about his life under socialism in Scotland, with no hot and cold running water, having to deal with his own sewage—or whatever it was that he did—begging for a crust of bread at the door of his little rural cottage and being forced by his nanny to eat his rice pudding. He was trying to pour some oil on the Opposition's troubled waters in Scotland. In so doing, his learned advice came down slightly in favour of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) rather than the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). I want to redress that balance slightly, because I believe that the hon. Member for Garscadden has an honourable record in terms of his policy on the issue. I believe that he is wrong, but he is sincere and consistent.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who is the prospective Scottish National party candiate for Glasgow, Garscadden. I can understand his confusion.
      Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right.
      In his erstwhile guise, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West and I debated the community charge at Cambridge university in the days when we all believed that the community charge was the greatest thing since neeps

      59
      and tatties. I must tell Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who raised the matter earlier, that many of us believe that the community charge is a good system. My borough of Wandsworth has shown that the system could have worked.
      Wandsworth has a zero charge this year, and we have just announced a zero charge for the coming year. Before Opposition Members point it out, that is on the basis of Government grant that is one third less than in neighbouring inner-London Labour boroughs which are charging £400, £500 or £600. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West is right to question the sincerity of some Labour party representatives who have challenged him today.
      6.15 pm
      I am with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West when he stands up for the people who cannot pay. However, he should recall that we have a rebate system designed to look after those who cannot pay. That system works only if we have a system of local government in which responsible local authorities set responsible levels of community charge. That has always been the case. If local authorities do not set such levels of community charge, the benefit and rebate system is inadequate to look after the people about whom the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West is concerned.
      The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West also referred to other members of the public who refused to pay the tax when they were capable of paying it. Among those people were Labour Members, Labour councillors and Labour party officials who campaigned around the country for non-payment. They could pay, but they would not.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to the guilt by association of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West in respect of his meetings with Militant representatives. However, if I can believe my own ears, it seems, from the expulsions from the Labour party as a result of Militant connections, that everyone in the Labour party who has appeared on a platform with Militant representatives is at risk.
      Guilt by association works two ways. It may work with regard to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West being on a platform with a Militant spokesman. However, it also works with the Labour party failing to discipline its own members who campaigned against payment of the tax. It is their surcharge that people throughout England, Scotland and Wales are having to pay.
      Mrs. Ray Michie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my party has never been in favour of a "can pay, won't pay" campaign. However, he should be careful about whom he is accusing of not paying when they could pay. There are Conservative councillors who have not paid, but who could pay.
      Mr. Bowis: I was referring to hon. Members. I know of no Conservative Member who has not paid. If there is one, the hon. Lady should name him or her now. If Conservative councillors have refused to pay, I condemn them as utterly as I condemn the Labour councillors who have not paid.
      As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has raised her party's head above the parapet, she should
      60
      be careful about the cost that she is seeking to impose on the people of this country. Her leader estimated during the Ribble Valley by-election that the average local income tax would be £600.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: I hope that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) will not be offended when I say that life in Bargeddie and Bellshill must be very different from life in Battersea. I can find no support for the Government's proposals, although I can see much logic in new clause I and much support for the principles that it enshrines.
      New clause 1(2)(c) refers to
      "the levels of services provided by local authorities".
      Given that we have a very confused system of local government finance, with central Government's contribution, a much smaller amount raised from local revenue and enormous difficulties because of the previous form of taxation that the Government attempted to introduce and the new one that they introduce in this Bill, local authorities far too often, in department after department, instead of dealing with the big issues of education, leisure and recreation and the quality of life in their districts, have to devote a great deal of time to collection problems and cannot give priority to essential services.
      I greatly regret the unacceptable problems that have been imposed on social work departments in Scotland, especially when poverty is on the increase, when the national health service is under attack, and when local authorities are expected to deal with community care problems to which they simply do not have the resources to enable them to respond. To its credit, in recent weeks, the Glasgow Evening Times has been exposing the scandal of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people being sent to prison. Every social work department in Scotland wants to address those problems but they cannot do so because resources are not available.
      I welcome new clause 1, with its reference to genuine consultation not only with COSLA but with organisations such as citizens advice bureaux. If we have genuine consultation, such scandals and the failure to respond to people's needs will be addressed. Local authorities can see poverty before their very eyes. With genuine consultation, they will be able to cope. If we involve the consumer in the widest possible sense and restore the democratic role of local government in Scotland to its rightful place, we will do a great service to democracy. For that reason, I am delighted to support new clause 1.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): This has been an interesting debate, but it has had little to do with the council tax.
      Mr. Maxton: Why is not the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replying?
      Mr. Bennett: I am replying to the debate because this is a United Kingdom Parliament and, as the new clauses are about England, Scotland and Wales, a Welsh Office Minister is perfectly entitled to reply.
      It has been an interesting debate, but there has been little talk by Opposition Members about the council tax. The debate has been about the community charge. It has been a negative debate on the part of the Opposition. They have looked backward rather than forward. I have no hesitation in advising the House to reject the amendment and the new clauses.

      61
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spent most of his time having a debate with the Scottish National party about who was responsible for what in Scotland in terms of advising people not to pay the community charge. I shall refer to that matter in a minute. I shall deal with the two or three points of substance that arose in respect of the parts of the Bill that we are discussing.
      The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) argued that, in Scotland, England and Wales next year, the Liberal party would like to see the abolition of all local taxation and the imposition of a national income lax for one year only. I find that very strange, because Liberal Democrat Members spent the whole time in Committee arguing that local councils should raise more of their own resources from local taxpayers rather than from national taxpayers. Seeing that there might be a little bit of an electoral advantage with a general election coming, the Liberal party is prepared to stand principle upon its head and argue the exactly opposite case on the Floor of the House.
      The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute spoke also about the cost of implementation of the new council tax. The Government have accepted the estimates made by the CSL Group Ltd. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales provided an extra £6 million over the total for aggregate external finance for 1992–93, which was announced in July, to meet the estimated revenue costs of local authorities of bringing in the new council tax. The same has been done in England, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the Secretary of State for the Environment, has put aside £86 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has provided a further £10 million to enhance allocations in 1992–93. I do not think that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute can argue that local authorities have not received generous extra financial support in the coming financial year for their implementation of the council tax.
      The hon. Lady spoke also about the local income tax. We had a long debate in Standing Committee on that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) will speak on that matter in a later debate when we discuss Liberal amendments on the local income tax.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) spoke about Labour's amendments. She said that the Labour party had not had an opportunity in Standing Committee to debate its point of view in full. It is worth pointing out just what happened in Standing Committee. On clause 6, for instance, we had seven and a half hours of debate. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) admitted that he spoke only because the Labour Whip asked him to speak in order to prolong the debate. We had another seven and a half hours of debate on clause 11. On clause 22, we had a two-hour debate, in which the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) spoke at great length. On clause 32, we had three and three quarter hours of debate, and on clause 53 we had a four-hour debate.
      In Committee, Labour Members did not allocate time between the amendments that they wanted to debate. They time-wasted and they spoke at great length. If Labour Members have any cause for complaint, they should look at their own behaviour in Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) spent 12 minutes saying
      62
      good morning to the Committee and telling us that it was his wife's birthday and that he had not been able to buy her a present. That was the level of debate time and again. We all felt sinking hearts when the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, "I shall speak briefly," because we knew that that meant that a 40-minute speech was on its way.
      I do not believe for a minute that the hon. Member for Maryhill can complain that the Labour party did not get its views across in Committee. Labour Members had nearly 90 hours to do so. If they failed to get their points across, it was because of their own disorganisation.
      The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who I understand is to stand at the next election as the SNP candidate for Glasgow, Garscadden, spoke at great length, but not one of his words was on the SNP amendment to new clause 27. It seemed strange that the hon. Gentleman did not have the confidence in his own amendment to speak to it at all.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) spoke in conciliatory and dulcet tones—unlike mine tonight—about this complicated legislation. Any local government finance legislation is bound to be complicated. Someone once said—I think that it was Palmerston—on the Schleswig-Holstein question, that there were three people who understood Schleswig-Holstein: one was dead, one had gone mad, and he had forgotten. That is very true of local government finance as well. Although we have had to bring in a complicated piece of legislation, when we look at the rebate system, the discounts and the banding that we have put forward, it will be seen to be fair legislation which attempts to help all those who will be faced with local council tax.
      Mr. Maxton: I wonder into which of those three categories the Minister puts himself in terms of the council tax. Is he dead, has he forgotten, or has he gone mad?
      Mr. Bennett: That is a very witty intervention.
      The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke at great length on the community charge, but he did not address the council tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) spoke about the Labour party wasting Scottish local authorities' time in asking them to work out alternatives to the legislation. I agree that it would be better if local authorities ignored the Labour party's political posturing on the matter and got on with the job in hand, which is to prepare for the implementation of the council tax on 1 April 1993.
      Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Bennett: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I have sat here since four minutes past four, waiting to reply. There is agreement between the Front Benches that there will be short replies.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) made some interesting points. However, I wish to conclude my remarks by referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Garscadden.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden became involved in a family squabble with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West. It was a real family squabble between two sorts of pink socialists, arguing about who was right over the community charge. I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Garscadden expressing his great moral

      63
      outrage about the SNP, waiting to hear him condemn those Labour Members who had said that they would not pay the community charge, but I heard not a word of condemnation from the hon. Gentleman about his colleagues.
      6.30 pm
      The hon. Members for Maryhill and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) did not say, when they launched their Committee of 100 campaign in Scotland, that they would not pay the community charge themselves. Although they have spoken today about local government finance, they did not admit that they encouraged people not to pay the community charge. I wonder why there is so much hand-wringing among Opposition Members about that matter——
      Mr. George Howarth: This is terrible.
      Mr. Bennett: What is terrible is the fact that Labour Members, who want to be law makers and to pass legislation in this House, break the law themselves. We should place that important fact on the record. I am appalled that Labour Members have said today that their constituents are suffering when they argued in public that people should not pay the community charge——
      Mr. McKelvey: That is not true.
      Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is not true, I would welcome an intervention from him.
      Mr. McKelvey: I thought that I had already explained the position, but perhaps the Minister was not present. I can show clearly and publicly—it is on the front page of my local newspaper—that I said that I was taking a political stance, but I did not suggest that others did what I did because I knew that I would have to pay the surcharge and that others might not be able to do so. I regret the fact that those who brought people into the non-payment campaign are now simply washing their hands of the other people who are lumbered with the debt.
      Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is taking a moral stance by saying that he will not pay his tax when other people will have to pay a surcharge to make up for the income that was lost because he would not pay, I can only say that that is a strange form of morality.
      It is clear from our debate during the past two and a half hours that Labour Members do not want to discuss the council tax. They would rather go back to discussing the community charge. We are committed to abolishing the community charge and shall do so. The Bill will be passed. I ask the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Gould: We have had a good and useful debate, but it was clearly not much enjoyed by Conservative Members. There are a number of signs of that. First, the Secretary of State for the Environment graced us with his presence for 10 minutes during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). The right hon. Gentleman then reached the limits of his patience, thus doubling the amount of time that he spent in Standing Committee. However, it was on the basis of that 10 minutes' observation that he apparently found it possible to criticise the Labour party for filibustering. His remarks
      64
      on that subject were as ill-founded and unconvincing as those of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales a moment ago.
      The second sign that the Conservative party has not relished the debate was the presence on the Treasury Bench of that Under-Secretary. I mean no disrespect to him—that is, no more disrespect than is normally his due—when I say that the fact that he was asked to reply to the debate was intended by the Government to signify that they did not much like the debate or attach much importance to it. That view is confirmed by the fact that not a single Conservative Back-Bencher was present at the beginning of the debate.
      I am not surprised that Conservative Members wanted to slink away from the debate. They have guilty consciences—not just about the disastrous consequences of the poll tax, but also about their shameful record during that whole episode, when they allowed themselves to be dragooned through the Division Lobbies in support of the legislation and then, when the whistle was blown and they were told that they had to reverse direction, they all slunk off in that reverse direction.
      The new clause and the report that it seeks to introduce are not only important but essential. We seek first to establish what went wrong, because what went wrong did enormous damage to local government, to individual and family budgets, to respect for the law and to civil rights. The poll tax was undoubtedly the worst mistake made by any Government in modern times.
      The second purpose of the report is to establish who was responsible for making that mistake. Of course, Conservative Members now want to distance themselves from the whole catastrophe and to say that it was all the fault of their former leader, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), but half the present Cabinet were deeply implicated in the introduction of the poll tax. The Chairman of the Tory party, the current Secretary of State for Health, the current Home Secretary and even the Prime Minister himself were the guilty men. No wonder they do not want to be brought to the dock and made to face the charges.
      Thirdly, and perhaps most constructively, we need a report to learn the lessons and to ensure that the mistakes are not repeated. The first of those lessons is that the poll tax was unacceptable because it was unfair. We no longer have to say that, because the Government's own excuse for abandoning the poll tax is that people could not be persuaded that it was fair. However, the same principle of unfairness is enshrined in the new council tax. The best-off will not pay their fair share. The scale of liability is to be compressed or dampened, so others will have to pick up the bill.
      Another lesson is that the poll tax turned out to be too complicated and too costly, although its great virtue was supposed, to be its simplicity. It was hugely complicated and expensive because it took enormous time and resources to trace all the people who moved. During the year, about 40 per cent. of those on one register moved off it and on to another when they changed address. In some parts of London, 60 per cent. of the register had to be changed during the year. The council tax is similarly complex. It will have all the problems of the poll tax, coupled with the new problem of being a totally untried property tax.
      Another lesson is that the poll tax was utterly uncollectable. Again, it is not only the Opposition who say

      65
      that. The Prime Minister himself has described the poll tax as "virtually uncollectable". That is why local authorities have had to issue 7·5 million summonses. No one should point the finger at individual local authorities as though all that was their fault, because it is a problem that faces the whole of local government. Local government is £1·5 billion short of the amount that it would have collected if the poll tax had been as collectable as the rates. The same mistakes are being repeated with the council tax.
      As I have said, another problem with the poll tax was the damage that it did to civil rights. About 1 million votes have gone missing. We must assume that 1 million people decided to trade in their vote to escape paying the poll tax. However, we are told yet again that local authorities will be encouraged to turn to the electoral register to establish liability for the new tax. What an incentive, yet again, for people to trade in their vote to escape their tax liability. That is not the right thing to do, and nobody would advise people to do it, but the Government have not learnt the lesson: that that is what people did under the poll tax and that that is what they will do under the council tax also.
      The poll tax was a nightmare for local government. It was supposed to improve accountability. Indeed, in its dying days, accountability was said to be its one remaining saving grace. But we now have universal capping, which is again being enshrined in the council tax legislation. That is another lesson that has not been learnt, and a mistake that will be repeated.
      Finally, and perhaps in the long term the most harmful, there is the damage that the poll tax has done to the acceptability of the concept of one's legal obligation to pay local government taxation. Bad lessons have been learnt by so many people who have found it possible not to pay the poll tax. If we are not careful, those lessons will be carried over to the new council tax and to all other tax-paying obligations.
      This has certainly been an uncomfortable debate for the Conservative party, and that discomfort has been more than justified. If they had any sense of shame, the Government would have shown it this evening and expressed remorse. Indeed, if the Conservative party in Parliament had been local councillors in local government, they would have been surcharged, bankrupted and driven from office. We cannot bankrupt them or surcharge them, but we shall drive them from office, and that is what the British people will want.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 350.

      Division No. 26]

      [6.39 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Benton, Joseph

      Allen, Graham

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Alton, David

      Blair, Tony

      Anderson, Donald

      Blunkett, David

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Boateng, Paul

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Bradley, Keith

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ashton, Joe

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Barron, Kevin

      Caborn, Richard

      Battle, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Beckett, Margaret

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Beith, A. J.

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Bellotti, David

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Canavan, Dennis

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

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      66

      Cartwright, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Clelland, David

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Kennedy, Charles

      Cohen, Harry

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Corbett, Robin

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lambie, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Lamond, James

      Cox, Tom

      Leighton, Ron

      Crowther, Stan

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cryer, Bob

      Lewis, Terry

      Cummings, John

      Litherland, Robert

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Darling, Alistair

      McAllion, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

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

      McFall, John

      Dewar, Donald

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Dixon, Don

      McKelvey, William

      Dobson, Frank

      McLeish, Henry

      Doran, Frank

      Maclennan, Robert

      Douglas, Dick

      McMaster, Gordon

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      McWilliam, John

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Madden, Max

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Eadie, Alexander

      Marek, Dr John

      Edwards, Huw

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Enright, Derek

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Maxton, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Meacher, Michael

      Fatchett, Derek

      Meale, Alan

      Fearn, Ronald

      Michael, Alun

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Fisher, Mark

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Flannery, Martin

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Flynn, Paul

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foster, Derek

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Fraser, John

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Galbraith, Sam

      Mullin, Chris

      Galloway, George

      Murphy, Paul

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      George, Bruce

      O'Brien, William

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Gordon, Mildred

      Parry, Robert

      Gould, Bryan

      Patchett, Terry

      Graham, Thomas

      Pendry, Tom

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Prescott, John

      Hardy, Peter

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Radice, Giles

      Haynes, Frank

      Randall, Stuart

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Redmond, Martin

      Henderson, Doug

      Reid, Dr John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Richardson, Jo

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Robertson, George

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Home Robertson, John

      Rogers, Allan

      Hood, Jimmy

      Rooney, Terence

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Howells, Geraint

      Rowlands, Ted

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hoyle, Doug

      Salmond, Alex

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Illsley, Eric

      Short, Clare

      Ingram, Adam

      Skinner, Dennis

      Janner, Greville

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

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

      67

      Soley, Clive

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Stephen, Nicol

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Strang, Gavin

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Straw, Jack

      Wilson, Brian

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Worthington, Tony

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Wray, Jimmy

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Turner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wallace, James

      Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Cran, James

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Alexander, Richard

      Curry, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Allason, Rupert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Day, Stephen

      Amess, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Amos, Alan

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dicks, Terry

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Ashby, David

      Dover, Den

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Dunn, Bob

      Atkins, Robert

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Baldry, Tony

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Evennett, David

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fallon, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Farr, Sir John

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Favell, Tony

      Benyon, W.

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Forth, Eric

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Boswell, Tim

      Franks, Cecil

      Bottomley, Peter

      Freeman, Roger

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      French, Douglas

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

      Fry, Peter

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gale, Roger

      Bowis, John

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Gill, Christopher

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Brazier, Julian

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Bright, Graham

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

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

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gorst, John

      Burns, Simon

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Burt, Alistair

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Butler, Chris

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Butterfill, John

      Gregory, Conal

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Grist, Ian

      Cash, William

      Ground, Patrick

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Grylls, Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hague, William

      Chope, Christopher

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Churchill, Mr

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Hannam, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

      Colvin, Michael

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Harris, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Couchman, James

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      68

      Hayward, Robert

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Mudd, David

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Needham, Richard

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hill, James

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hind, Kenneth

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Norris, Steve

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

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Page, Richard

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Paice, James

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hunt, Rt Hon David

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Irvine, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Jack, Michael

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Janman, Tim

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jessel, Toby

      Portillo, Michael

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Price, Sir David

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Key, Robert

      Rhodes James, Sir Robert

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Knapman, Roger

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Knowles, Michael

      Rost, Peter

      Knox, David

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Latham, Michael

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lord, Michael

      Shersby, Michael

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Sims, Roger

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Maclean, David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Speed, Keith

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Speller, Tony

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Madel, David

      Squire, Robin

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mans, Keith

      Stern, Michael

      Marlow, Tony

      Stevens, Lewis

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Mates, Michael

      Stokes, Sir John

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Sumberg, David

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mills, Iain

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thorne, Neil

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Moate, Roger

      Thurnham, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Tracey, Richard

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Tredinnick, David

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Trippier, David

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Trotter, Neville

      Moss, Malcolm

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      69

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Viggers, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Wilshire, David

      Walden, George

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Waller, Gary

      Wolfson, Mark

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Wood, Timothy

      Ward, John

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Yeo, Tim

      Watts, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wells, Bowen

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whitney, Ray

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2

      ABILITY TO PAY
      '.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the council tax relates to the ability to pay of those liable to the tax.
      (2) As a result of the duty established under subsection I, the Secretary of State shall undertake a study of the circumstances in which people occupy and acquire their dwellings and how this relates to the level of the liability under the council tax.
      (3) Pursuant to the study undertaken as a result of subsection 2, the Secretary of State shall take whatever measures are necessary including introducing new or regional valuation bands or ensuring that the tax is directly related to persons' income.'.—[Mr. Wallace.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. James Wallace: I lbeg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Ability to pay (Scotland)—
      '. (1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the council tax relates to the ability to pay of those liable to the tax.
      (2) As a result of the duty established under subsection 1, the Secretary of State shall undertake a study of the circumstances in which people occupy and acquire their dwellings and how this relates to the level of their liability under the council tax.
      (3) Pursuant to the study undertaken as a result of subsection 2, the Secretary of State shall take whatever measures are necessary including introducing new or regional valuation bands or ensuring that the tax is directly related to persons' income.'.
      Mr. Wallace: New clause 2 goes to the crux of the council tax. The test that one should apply to that tax will be crucial and—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is too much sedentary noise.
      Mr. Wallace: I am glad to note that this new clause is attracting so much attention from those on the Government Front Bench.
      The test of whether the amount charged to an individual is related to that person's ability to pay should be applied to any tax. I cannot honestly say that paying taxes is something that one would put down as a recreation in "Who's Who" or something that one did with a spring in one's step. However, in a civilised, democratic society it is recognised that paying taxes is one of the responsibilities
      70
      that one must bear as a citizen. That obligation is bearable and tolerable only if the tax which one is asked to pay at central or local government level is seen to be fair.
      There was never any question of fairness in the community charge—the poll tax. It was never suggested that that tax should relate to one's ability to pay. At the outset, when the poll tax started on its parliamentary procedure in 1986—when we legislated for Scotland—a virtue was made of the fact that almost everyone would pay the same, bar those who would qualify for a rebate, and even they had to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax.
      The fact that everyone had to pay was justified on the ground of promoting accountability. However, by the time the poll tax reached its dying embers, even the pretence that it made local authorities more accountable was dispensed with, especially as just a small proportion of the revenue was raised by the local authorities themselves. In the Shetland part of my constituency, the poll tax for this year is 93p. It is difficult to be accountable to the electorate for 93p.
      The poll tax was unfair in principle, and it was perceived as such. Those who benefited from that tax were also unhappy, because they thought they should make a fair contribution. Ultimately, those factors have led to the demise of the poll tax. However, we do not believe that the council tax offers much more fairness, if fairness is measured by how that tax relates to a person's ability to pay. We believe that property taxes, by their very nature, tend to be unfair.
      Although, at first sight, there may be a rough and ready correlation between the size of a property and a person's ability to pay, there can be no direct correlation between the size and cost of a property and the income of those who occupy it.
      Mr. Robin Squire: The academic understanding—it is not a party political figure—is that there is an 80 per cent. correlation between the size of a property and a person's ability to pay. That correlation was also accepted under the old rating system. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that, in some cases, there may not be such a correlation, but he is overstating his case.
      Mr. Wallace: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I did say that it was a rough and ready correlation. I shall cite examples of people in different circumstances who would find that the value of the property they own, or perhaps rent, does not necessarily relate to their income.
      Some people may inherit a property. Given the expansion in home ownership in the 1980s, and even allowing for the tragic repossessions of the early 1990s, I suspect that that will be an increasing phenomenon. Some of those properties may not be particularly large, but they may be of great value in certain areas. Such a property may be a family's only means of acquiring affordable property in their home area.
      People may buy or rent a property and live in it for most of their lives. If that property is situated in an area where the value of property rises sharply, as happened in the south-east and in the north-east of Scotland, a family may find themselves in a high capital value property that does not match their income.
      It must also be remembered that some people rent their homes, often in high capital value, inner-city areas of London or Edinburgh. The very fact that they have rented

      71
      may show that they cannot afford to buy, but their council tax will be dictated by the capital value of the landlord's property. When the poll tax was introduced, many people whose rents had incorporated an element of their rates suddenly found that they then had to pay the poll tax in addition. Much injustice arose because of that, and I wonder what will happen as a result of this further change in local taxation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has often mentioned, both in Committee and in the Chamber, people in tied housing. Those in agricultural areas in particular may occupy valuable properties despite the fact that their incomes are relatively low. Manses and vicarages in many areas can be of considerable value, yet the clergy are not, by any stretch of the imagination, among the better-paid members of our community.
      7 pm
      When Mr. Speaker retires at the next general election, I wonder how many of those who may wish to take his job will be reluctant to take the Chair—I do not mean the traditional symbolic reluctance—knowing that they will occupy the most expensive tied house in the country. Mr. Speaker's income is not too bad, however, and that may be an extreme example.
      Last week, I received a telephone call from a constituent whose husband is in employment but not earning a significant wage. The lady concerned is confined to her house, is in receipt of a disability allowance and is currently applying for a mobility allowance. Under the present system, because of her husband's income, she does not qualify for a rebate. Even with a poil tax of £2, she pointed out that the system was basically unfair.
      I accept that, to the Government's credit, an amendment has been made so that houses that have been converted for disabled people will be put in a lower band, but if they are already in the lowest band, those concerned will receive precious little, if any, relief. Because of their disabilities, those people will be unable to earn a worthwhile income, yet they will not qualify for the same discount as people living alone.
      Property prices fluctuate, and people living side by side in properties that are almost identical from the outside may have very different incomes. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) hit the nail on the head in 1990, when he said:
      "What isn't right is the disparity between someone living alone living next to three or four earners".
      That applies particularly to people who live in London and the south-east. A widow in a family home acquired 40 years ago may live next door to a two-income couple. The houses will be valued at the same amount by the local estate agent but the widow could almost certainly not afford that house on the open market and, when she and her husband were just starting out in the housing market, they could not have afforded to buy it as their first option.
      In many areas, property is priced out of reach of traditional occupiers. They may have to work or stay in the area for family reasons, but the council tax may price them out of their family homes. What may be true in London and the south-east is equally true in areas such as Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Cambridge.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does not my hon. Friend's comment reinforce the fact that, in the current
      72
      crisis, people may be forced out of their homes in a market that will not bear extra property? They will not be able to sell the property at any price, so they risk losing their home and being unable to pay the tax.
      Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend strikes a note that is all too true in so many cases. People are caught no matter which way they try to go.
      We shall have an opportunity to explore the matter further in the next debate on valuation bands, and tomorrow we shall have an opportunity to discuss changes in discounts. However, any changes can improve fairness only at the margins. It is also likely that any such changes, while improving fairness, will nevertheless increase the administrative costs of the tax. Our new clause will oblige the Secretary of State regularly to face up to the issue of ability to pay and, ultimately, to work toward a system in which the tax is directly related to a person's income.
      Mr. Max Madden: I am having some difficulty in following the argument. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing for a local income tax, which is perfectly fair, he should have tabled a new clause on that. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may have tried to do that in Committee, but they could have tabled a new clause for discussion now. This new clause says that there will be a property tax called the council tax and that the income of the person or persons living within a property will somehow be taken into account. The Government and the Labour party considered that option, but it becomes so complicated that it is impossible to operate. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing for a local income tax or a property tax based on income?
      Mr. Wallace: If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) had read the list of new clauses and amendments——
      Mr. Maxton: I have.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman says that he has, but he obviously has not. Had he done so, he would have seen that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 tabled by me and my hon. Friends argue for a local income tax. The amendments were not selected—I do not wish to criticise Mr. Speaker—but it is important to put the record straight. The new clause seeks to push the council tax in the direction of a local income tax. The hon. Member for Cathcart suggests that a property-based tax, specifically the council tax—there is not much difference between Government and Labour proposals—is incapable of being transformed into a fair tax that relates to people's ability to pay. People will judge the Labour party's proposals and the council tax on the basis of that admission.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman seeks to argue that, whatever is done to help people's ability to pay under a council tax, it would not be as fair as a local income tax. Indeed, he sought to table an amendment on that basis. Was the amendment on local income tax based on——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss an amendment which is not before the House and which Mr. Speaker deliberately did not select. Let us return to the new clause before us.
      Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is sufficiently ingenious to put his question under another guise, and I await his doing so with interest.
      We want the Government to write into the Bill measures that will oblige them to move towards a tax that
      "is directly related to persons' income."
      That would be tantamount to a system of local income tax. I make no apology for that. It was the policy of the Liberal party and the SDP before the Liberal Democrats were established. The Liberal party has espoused such a policy since its submission to the Layfield inquiry in 1976. As a first step, we would require the Inland Revenue to produce a computer tape of one fifth of all taxpayers in each Inland Revenue area. The Secretary of State may be able to do that in a worthwhile fashion if he were trying to follow the duties imposed on him by the new clause.
      Information relating to postal codes and the taxable income of a sample of taxpayers could be recorded and sent to local authorities. That would get rid of one red herring—the idea that town hall snoopers would be able to find out everyone's income. The system would be anonymous. Each February and March, shortly before the local elections, authorities would be required to set local income tax rates to meet their commitments.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wallace: I think that the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to have another go.
      Mr. Hughes: My question relates specifically to what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Is it based on the work done for his party by Philip Truscott, or on the significantly understated figures that his party has been trying to use in an attempt to portray its policies in a rosier light?
      Mr. Wallace: I expected a Conservative Member to ask that question. As hon. Members will have read in The Times, Mr. Truscott has initiated actions against my party, which are now the subject of legal proceedings in the High Court and which will be vigorously defended. It would not be proper for me to say more about the matter, which relates to copyright.
      What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the press release that accompanied the publication of our figures set out fully and unequivocally the premises on which they were calculated. The figures for Wales, which were issued separately, were somewhat different from those calculated by Mr. Truscott—for the very good reason that we would wish to use the same proportion of revenue generated by local taxation as the Government. Mr. Truscott did not do that, as was spelled out in the press release.
      We believe that the additional amount of some £300 million could be more than covered by the savings that would result from the change from poll tax to local income tax. The Labour party's estimate is £1·8 million. The Conservatives were wildly wrong when they said, before the introduction of the poll tax, that it would amount to £200 per person: people have found that out to their cost. I will not accept any criticism of our estimates from Conservative Members; that is sheer humbug.
      Each payer of local income tax would be sent details of what he would be required to pay over the coming year. Once authorities had set their rates, the average would be calculated, the standard rate would be deducted and, at the
      74
      end of the year, an adjustment would be made. If a local authority had spent responsibly and was able to provide a rebate, that would be brought home to taxpayers. If it had overspent and would require more money, that too would be brought home to them. As we all know, the end of the tax year falls in April, a few weeks before the local elections. Surely the system that we suggest would drive home to voters the accountability of their elected councillors.
      Mr. Bowis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that 85 per cent. of the cost of local government comes from central taxation, which is based on ability to pay? There is a 25 per cent. discount for single-person households to allow for the lower incomes received by such households, and a sliding scale of rebate—from zero to 100 per cent.—for those on low incomes. Surely the only people who could benefit from the hon. Gentleman's proposals are those who could afford an accountant to help them to dodge the system.
      Mr. Wallace: I do not accept that. We shall debate the discount system tomorrow; the amendment that we have tabled would increase the amount from 25 per cent. We shall also debate the banding system. Although that will help to make the council tax fairer, we do not believe that it will entirely relate what is paid to the ability to pay.
      Let us make no bones about it: the poll tax had its winners and losers, but on a very unfair basis. The local income tax is bound to have its losers—not least as a result of the poll tax that preceded it—but it is underpinned by fairness. It relates what is paid to the ability to pay. As I have said, no one likes paying tax, but a semblance of fairness makes it much more acceptable.
      An equalisation system would have to be built in, so that low-income areas would not be faced with vast bills while wealthy areas received small ones. In previous debates, I have sometimes thought that Conservative Members were trying to apply equalisation grants arranged under the poll tax system to a local income tax system, without making any of the necessary adjustments. Every system of local government finance—be it council tax, the tax proposed by Labour, the poll tax, the old rating system or our proposed local income tax—has the appropriate equalisation arrangements built into it.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Martin M. Brando-Bravo: Let us assume that the Liberal Democrats can come up with a good equalisation scheme. Where will that leave the accountability that we all seek to preserve, to ensure that local democracy can function properly? If 85 per cent. comes from central funds, local government will be blown out of the water.
      Mr. Wallace: Every system involves an equalisation scheme. I do not recall its being suggested, when the poll tax was introduced, that such a scheme would undermine a system that the Government hoped would lead to greater accountability.
      Mr. Maxton: I think that we should clear up the question of the 85 per cent. from central funds. It is true that 85 per cent. is controlled by central Government, but that is a very different matter. Non-domestic rates are paid locally, although control and distribution takes place at the centre.
      Mr. Wallace: That is an important point. We also want to allow local authorities more control over local business rates. We have made no secret of that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) said in Committee, we want the balance to shift: we want national taxation levels to fall as local authorities become more responsible for raising revenue in their areas. The equalisation grant would then become proportionately smaller, which would lead to far more local accountability.
      Conservative Members may ask what we would do about capping. We believe that the most effective local income tax cap would be a fair voting system. It is the electorate who cap authorities in a democratic society. Even according to the figures that the Government recently published for Scotland, local income tax rates would be relatively low. Because the Government have been afraid to grasp that, the poll tax lingers on. When the new system is introduced, local authorities will be rigorously capped simply because the Government will not introduce a fair voting system.
      We believe that the only criterion for a tax should be whether it is related to ability to pay. The rates failed on that ground, and were therefore abolished; the poll tax never even pretended to be fair, and it had to go as well. Unless the new clause is accepted, the council tax will fail for the same reason.
      Mr. Douglas: Generally, I support new clause 2, but I want particularly to refer to new clause 4, which deals with Scotland.
      I do not want to offend the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), but the Scottish National party has no problems about copyright in its proposals for a local income tax—they are all our own work—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) seems to find this funny.
      Mr. David Blunkett: You have to laugh.
      Mr. Douglas: Life must be hard on the Labour Front Bench these days——
      Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend might be a Minister soon.
      Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman should not count his chickens.
      My fellow party members and I met Scottish Office Ministers and the Secretary of State for the Environment to talk about local taxation, which must not only approximate to the sum to be collected: it must be exactly equivalent to what should be raised either from the poll tax or from the council tax. I hope that I have the agreement of the House at least to that.
      In Scottish terms, we are talking of about £800 million. Adam Smith, whose views should hold some sway over the Conservative party, held that taxes should be related to ability to pay. Hon. Members think not in terms of random samples of the public but about themselves—how do they pay their taxes? I know no one who pays taxes out of capital, with the possible exception of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). He might have to sell some of his capital assets to pay his taxes, but most people would not. The touchstone of ability to pay is that people pay tax out of income.
      We understand that in Scotland it would cost about 4p in the pound to collect £800 million—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) keeps
      76
      shaking his head so hard in disagreement. he will fall off the Bench, but if he wants to intervene I should be happy to allow him to do so.
      Mr. Maxton: To judge from questions that I have asked the Government, even with the £140 reduction, the highest figure for Scotland would be about 7·5p.
      Mr. Douglas: Perhaps there is something to be said for standard tests in arithmetic. I have done my best to calculate, based on the £800 million figure. We calculate what can be raised for 1 p and multiply that by three or four to arrive at the relevant total. The hon. Member for Cathcart accepts the Government's figures, apparently having none of his own. I do not claim absolute accuracy for mine, but I am willing to allow an independent authority to examine them. No matter how we raise the money, we are aiming at the same global sum. The arguments are about how to raise it while relating the tax to ability to pay and keeping it cheap to collect.
      I have already said that the tax will raise £800 million, and it will cost £80 million to collect. Of course it will not be possible to collect 100 per cent. of that money, but the collection costs will stay the same. If that is not crazy, I do not know what is.
      I do not seek to disparage the Liberal Democrats' proposals, but we suggest that once a year, on 1 January, people should declare their residence so that local authorities could relate that to their tax-collecting base. National insurance numbers could also be given at the same time. Local authorities could then plug the information directly into Centre One, Scotland's computer system. That would involve no additional overheads, and no need to go into benefits or to examine discounts. This may be an underestimate, but I believe that it could be done in about three months——
      Mr. Maxton indicated dissent.
      Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman is at it again; it must be Christmas. Perhaps it will take four months, or even six.
      Conservative Members may ask about accountability. Nationally speaking, the standard rate of tax governs accountability. The Government have made great play of reducing that standard rate and if they form another Government it is likely that they will try to bring the rate down to 20 per cent. Indeed, if we reach the next Budget, there will be great pressure on the Chancellor to reduce the standard rate by 1p—a great signal of accountability.
      Mr. Barry Porter: The element of choice.
      Mr. Douglas: Perhaps; at any rate, it is a sign of national accountability. If, say, an authority in Fife wanted to raise the local income tax from 3p in the pound, the national average, to 6p or 7p, what a signal for accountability that would be! The Government should recognise this. The only reason why we cannot have a local income tax is that the Government, aided and abetted by the Treasury, are afraid to give up direct control of fiscal policy. They are all Keynesians now.
      Mr. Bowis: I realise that the hon. Gentleman does not speak for the Liberal party, but he is supporting a Liberal new clause. One of the main arguments advanced on ability to pay was the return to the rate equalisation system. Rate equalisation means that those in high rateable value areas subsidise those in low rateable value areas. Someone, irrespective of income, who lives in a

      77
      higher value property has to pay more for the property because of the higher bands, and now it is proposed that he pay a surcharge for rate equalisation. How would that help ability to pay?
      Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make me defend an argument that I am not using. In Scotland, we would look for some refinement of the grant-aided expenditure reviews carried out as between local authorities and the Scottish Office. It is not perfect but it is used by the Government in Scotland as a level playing field for services. They are prostituting that by using it for capping purposes. The Minister does not understand that and that is why a Scottish Office Minister should be present. The Government are taking the techniques that have been honourably agreed between local authorities and the Scottish Office for grant-aided expenditure purposes and are using them to create a level playing field so that all authorities provide equal standards of service.
      7.30 pm
      We do not suggest a one-off immediate reform of what is in place. If Labour comes to office and the hon. Member for Cathcart is a Minister—God help Scotland if he is—what will happen in June or July 1992? Labour intends to return to the rating system. How people will greet that! It will take two to three years for Labour to introduce its fair rating system with safeguards for those who cannot pay. That is a noble concept, but why should we have to go through all the paraphernalia of bureaucracy? Thal is not needed in Scotland, and it is certainly not needed to collect the equivalent of 93p in the pound for Shetland.
      The Scottish average is 14 per cent. and other regions such as Lothian would have to collect more than that. Smaller regions—and the island councils examplify this—have a higher average, and if they want to collect an equivalent amount of revenue they could levy a much lower rate of income tax. I know that I am not carrying the whole House with me on this argument, but I am sure that the Minister understands it. I do not want to wrong-foot any civil servant, but we have offered to have discussions with the Scottish Office at civil service level and put our experts with theirs to clarify the amount that a Ip local tax would raise in Scotland. The hon. Member for Cathcart was right to say that there are differences over figures.
      There are no Labour Back Benchers in the House, but I am not trying to score political points from that. Unless local authorities are to be asked to collect a much higher proportion—20 to 25 per cent.—from the domestic sector, we are going through a farcical procedure. The Conservative proposal for a local community tax or the Labour proposal for so-called fair rates would impose considerable burdens. Time does not permit me to go into the ramifications of the unfairness of the Government's proposals which strain at trying to allow for ability to pay in their discount system of 25 or 50 per cent. That has no real relationship to ability to pay, but tries to give that impression. Many issues will be raised in the coming election, but there is an overwhelming case for discussing the suitability for Scotland of a local income tax related to ability to pay. Such a tax would be fair and cost effective and would make all local authorities, irrespective of their size, accountable.
      Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I rise with some trepidation in a debate on local government. I cannot pretend to be an aficionado of local government
      78
      finance and perhaps it is a little significant that there are almost more officials in the officials' Box than there are Members in the Chamber. It is an arcane and difficult subject and we have to deal with it in an incredibly short time. Therefore, I shall merely seek to state what the position could be for my constituents in north-west London when they pay their council tax bills in the spring of 1993.
      The new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats are typically vague. They speak of matching the system to an ability to pay, but exactly how that is to be achieved is in no sense spelled out. Although the Liberal Democrats prefer a local income tax, I doubt whether my constituents would. They are taxed enough already.
      When considering the ability to pay, the Government have assumed that the people of London and the south-east are rich and can easily afford to pay the levels of council tax that will be set. I wish to disabuse them of that simplistic notion. They should bear it in mind that unemployment has risen in the south-east and in London relatively faster than in any other part of the country. The available statistics show a very real squeeze on living standards for my constituents in outer London.
      On Second Reading, several of my plain-speaking hon. Friends dealt with those matters. Most notable were my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who is in his place. In an interesting letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities wrote abut council tax, London and national banding. Those are issues of great importance when considering ability to pay. The letter is dated 11 December and with my hon. Friend's agreement I shall quote from it. It states:
      "In the Second Reading debate, you drew particular attention to the size of mortgage repayments in London. It is true that on average, people in London are borrowing three-quarters as much again to purchase houses as people in the North, … This fact, however, should be looked at in the context of the relative incomes of purchasers."
      That is fine if they are still in employment. The letter continues:
      "House buyers in London are borrowing an average of 2·36 times their gross income, while those in the Northern region borrow 2·08 times their income. Borrowing as a multiple of income is only 13 per cent. higher in London than the North, in contrast with the almost 75 per cent. differential in size of mortgage."
      It must be remembered, however, that the figures are being taken for London as a whole. They include low-value property in places such as Stepney and Bethnal Green and Bow, and in many others. In outer London, however, property values are immeasurably higher. The treasurer of the borough in my constituency has calculated that two thirds of households will be paying more under the new system because they will move into band E or above—in other words, properties with a value of over £88,000.
      In my constituency, we were extremely glad to have the poll tax. It was a system which brought great accountability. It undoubtedly helped to enable the Conservative party to regain control of the borough council in the spring of 1990. My party won four seats from the Liberal party and one from Labour, and thereby achieved a clean sweep of all the wards in the constituency. There was no evidence in my neck of the woods—Ruislip-Northwood—that the poll tax was unpopular. There were some anomalies and some things to be put

      79
      right, but the tax itself were not unpopular. It certainly matched the ability of people to pay in a way that the new system does not.
      The figures in the massive family expenditure survey produced by the Central Statistical Office, which was published on 6 December, show that the fares and travel costs of a London family are £12·18 a week, compared with £6·19 for the midlands and £4 for the north. For places in outer London, such as Ruislip-Northwood, travelling or commuting costs are infinitely higher than the average figure.
      The figures incorporate housing costs in London. Most of my constituents are owner-occupiers, and the London outgoings of £61·28 are nearly twice those of the people of Northern Ireland, on £33 a week. They are significantly higher than the national average of £48·02. Only 18 per cent. of Londoners have finished paying their mortgage compared with nearly a third of householders in Wales. In Scotland, the figure is 15 per cent. When the part of the United Kingdom that I represent is compared with Wales, which has a preferential banding, again it is worse off.
      I do not commend the Liberal new clauses, and I certainly could not vote for them. I wish, however, clearly to put it on the record that much as I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial team well—I hope that the new council tax does away with many of the unfairnesses, injustices and anomalies of the old poll tax—I do not believe that for Ruislip-Northwood it will match ability to pay as well as the old poll tax did. I speak only for my constituency, of course.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Barry Porter: As I so often do, I start by saying that I had no intention of speaking in this debate. I cannot compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on the percentages and anomalies that he presented to us.
      I know that the old rating system was unfair. I remember that when I first bought a house in 1965 the rates were about £1 a week. They were jolly unfair, but I did not care because the weekly outgoing was not very much. This debate is essentially about how much is to be paid at the end of the day, not about anomalies and unfairnesses. Arguments that are based on whether we should have rates, income tax or the new council tax are irrelevant, because the relevant consideration is how much an individual pays at the end of the day, and that must depend on what the local authority spends.
      I remember a Labour finance chairman of the local authority of which I was a member who was not dissimilar to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in appearance, attitude and politics. He would have had a fit if he had had to put tuppence on the old rate. In fact, he did not have to do so. I can recall that if at that time the Government of the day, whether Tory, Labour or, in odd dreams, even Liberal, had suggested some restriction on local expenditure, we would have accepted that. We have gone wrong in the past few years because local authorities have not accepted that advice. They have not accepted that there should be a limit to local authority expenditure, with the result that capping has had to be introduced. It would have to be introduced again if we had an Administration of a different colour, which is highly unlikely. It is the refusal of local authorities
      80
      to accept that there should be restrictions on local authorities that is the problem, not methods, fairness or amounts.
      It has been said already that people in Wandsworth did not concern themselves over much with the community charge because it did not cost them anything. I lived happily in Westminster and I did not care much about the charge because it cost me very little. People in the Wirral cared a great deal because their authority spent a great deal on many things that many of us considered to be entirely unnecessary. The people in the Wirral paid about £500 and I paid about £30. That is a jolly good thing!
      The new council charge is an attempt to be fair, and I think that it will probably work. It is only a variation of what the Labour party is saying about rates. I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is entirely right to have a system of banding. I hope that he will be able to ensure that correct valuations are made in the appropriate time, and I am told that he will be able to do so. I believe him, as I have always believed him. In the end, however, everything will depend on what local authorities spend, and on what, and whether they are prepared to be reasonable. If authorities are prepared to be reasonable, the people will be reasonable with them.
      I suggest that the House should reject this silly new clause.
      Mr. Maxton: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). I have known him for a considerable time, having been at university with him, but I was surprised to hear you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, call him as Barrington.
      I cannot ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the new clause——
      Mrs. Ray Michie: That is a surprise!
      Mr. Maxton: It may be a surprise, but I cannot invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause because of what it contains. It suggests that there should be a council tax—in other words, a property tax—with, presumably, discounts, a banding system and, somehow, an ability-to-pay mechanism. Such a system would create an administrative nightmare that would go beyond the poll tax and, to be honest, the council tax. Therefore, I cannot ask my hon. Friends to support the new clause.
      Liberal Members suggest that the new clause is a first step to local income tax. I cannot, therefore, ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support that.
      Mr. Bellotti: It appears that the hon. Gentleman is supported by only one other member of his party. I am wondering whether any more Labour Members will appear in the Chamber.
      Mr. Maxton: Only one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends was present during the previous debate for most of the time. I do not see why my right hon. and hon. Friends should enter the Chamber to listen to Liberal debates any more than Liberal Members should come to listen to Labour debates.
      I am not prepared to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support local income tax. I shall briefly explain my reasons for taking that approach. First, the Scottish National party and the Liberal party have suggested that such a system is practicable. There may come a time when it is practicable to introduce local income tax, but we have not yet reached it. If we are to have local income tax, the

      81
      Inland Revenue—both the SNP and the Liberals have admitted that it will have to collect the tax—will have to know in which local authority every taxpayer resides. That means that whether the tax is collected each week or month through salary or over one year on one basis throughout Scotland, and then allocating moneys to local authorities, a local authority will need to know where individual taxpayers live. The simple fact is that the Inland Revenue does not know where every individual lives because that is not part of its tax records.
      Mr. Douglas: I was going to use a harsh word and say that the hon. Gentleman displays his ignorance, but let me put it more euphemistically. He displays his total lack of knowledge of what the Inland Revenue knows. It knows where taxpayers live and has their national insurance numbers. I admit that there is a difficulty in relating that information closely to local authority areas.
      I explained the Scottish National party's proposals, and I am sorry for taking up time now. Under our proposals, one would be asked to disclose where one lived, which would be for the whole year, and one's national insurance number, and that information could be fed to the Inland Revenue in Scotland.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order—briefly.
      Mr. Douglas: You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If that point defeats the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), there is not much that I can do.
      Mr. Maxton: It does not defeat me. The Inland Revenue does not know where people live; that information is not part of its computer system. As the Inland Revenue computerises, that will be part of its information, and the system could be changed, but it will take a considerable period to reach that stage. The simple, harsh reality that the people who propose a local income tax are not prepared to accept is that, at this time, such a system is not practical. They do not want any form of council tax or fair rates, so they would have to have 100 per cent. Government funding. That is what the Scottish National party suggested for Scotland for 12 months, with all that that means for control over local government expenditure, leaving financing entirely to central Government. My party is not prepared to accept that.
      In principle, I see nothing wrong with taxing the use of property. The proposal is for a tax not on property but on the use of a property. Other services are taxed, and there is no reason why property should be exempt. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that the only taxation principle is one based on ability to pay. I disagree. That is one criterion by which one judges a tax, but by no means the only one.
      One criterion by which one judges a tax is its spread across people. One has to find a variety of ways of raising money, locally and centrally, and there is no reason why property should not be included in the basket of taxes that pay for services locally and nationally. That is one of the great weaknesses of the poll tax. There are tax benefits on the ownership and use of property but no tax on that ownership and use—we give mortgage tax relief, we do not have capital gains tax on the sale of properties, and we do not tax use. In principle, that is wrong.
      A tax should be visible to the people paying it and to the body to which it is paid, whether it is a central Government or a local government tax. Local income tax
      82
      would be collected not by a local authority but by the Inland Revenue. It would become part of the overall tax bill. The Liberal Democrats suggest a hare-brained scheme whereby everybody pays the same poundage on a local income tax and the money is redistributed. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that the poll tax in part of his constituency was 93p in the pound. Presumably, that means that the Liberal Democrats would have a local income tax of 0·00001 per cent., or something of that nature. But people will not be pleased if they have to pay it all to get back a lump sum.
      Mr. Wallace: There will be interest.
      Mr. Maxton: That is interesting: there will be interest; that is fine. What about my constituents in Glasgow who pay, say, 4p in the pound but find that they will have to pay 7p or 8p in the pound and make up that difference by writing a cheque for a lump sum payment? Will they have to pay interest on that as well, to make up for the other interest?
      The Liberal Democrats' scheme is hare brained and will not work. A local income tax collected in that way would not provide accountability. More particularly, if it were collected as one would hope—so that each local authority had its own rate and the money were collected on a monthly basis with the money owed to the Inland Revenue, which would be a fair way of doing it—it would not have visibility.
      The hon. Member for Wirral, South had a small exchange with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), whom I shall not call the Member for Nowhere, as the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) described him. We were told that the Treasury objected to control over any level of income tax being taken from it—far from it. In my view, a local income tax gives considerably greater power to the Inland Revenue and central Government, in two ways. First, an authority that collects the tax can say, "We will not collect that amount for you." Secondly, the figures which we have on the rate of local income tax do not take account of rebates.
      At present, everyone is liable to pay the poll tax. Under the council tax, everyone will be liable to pay the council tax. Under our fair rates system, everyone who is an owner or occupier will be obliged to pay and will be rebated—under the law, central Government will refund money to those people. Under a local income tax, those who are not liable to tax pay nothing, so the rebate system does not operate. The tax burden is placed on those who pay. If it is not, there is a reliance on central Government making up the difference, paying more to local authorities and, therefore, giving more power to them.
      The simple fact is that a local income tax system is unworkable. It gives central Government greater power over local authorities. In principle, it is not visible and it is not workable. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends not to support it.
      Mr. Portillo: Much though it pains me, I agreed with much of the critique of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on local income tax. But I shall begin with the speech of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who quickly passed over the ability to pay and how it related to council tax. I remind him that, under the council tax, we propose that rebates of

      83
      up to 100 per cent. should be available for those on low incomes—so, of course, we take account of the ability of the poorest in society to pay.
      We propose a tax that will need to raise only 15 per cent. of local authority spending in England, 12 per cent. in Scotland and 8 per cent. in Wales. The balance of those items has to come from national taxation. The national taxation which provides those funds is based largely on the ability to pay. on profitability and on other factors. I remind the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we are limiting the incidence of the tax so that those in the highest-value properties will never have to pay more than three times as much as those in the lowest-value properties in any one area and that we are taking account of the number of people in each household—something of which I know that, within the limits of the scheme, he approves.
      Happy was my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) who started his speech by saying that he was not an aficionado of local government finance—a very fortunate position in which to find himself. My hon. Friend and some of his colleagues were afraid that we would return to the sorts of bills that our constituents faced under the rating system. That would be intolerable. We recognise that the rating system had to go because of its manifest unfairness and because some people faced enormous bills because they happened to live in high-value properties and did not have the income to go with it.
      That is why the council tax sets out on a different basis. First, it sets out to collect less money than the rates did from local taxpayers. Secondly, it has a limitation in that those in the most valuable properties shall never pay more than three times as much as those in the least valuable properties. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned Mr. Speaker and the Speaker's house. How wise we are, therefore, to have the top band at £320,000 and how wise we are in general to set the bands in such a way that we shall not ask people to pay disproportionately higher bills. I repeat that if people are on low incomes they will come within the rebate system which is payable up to 100 per cent.
      If I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood was slightly confused about what he called the preferential bands in Wales. The existence of different bands in Wales means that people there reach the top band of payment earlier than people in England; or, to put it another way, there are fewer people in the lower bands in Wales, so I am not sure that those who have to pay will see the scheme in the same light as my hon. Friend.
      8 pm
      Mr. Wilkinson: Before my hon. Friend moves on, may I say that what exercises us is not so much the differentiation between the highest and the lowest but the fact that nearly all our constituents are in the top three or four bands. That is the problem. In my constituency, the humblest council house—if one can use that expression—would be valued at, at least, £88,000 which would put it into band E.
      Mr. Portillo: I understand my hon. Friend's point, although what he said during his speech proved why the solution to that problem—if it is a problem—is not to introduce a regional banding system. He said that there
      84
      was a tremendous variety of prices in London, which is true. There is also a tremendous variety within each region and if one substituted a regional banding system, one would be saying that there should be lower rates of tax in the areas with the highest property values, which might well also be the areas of highest incomes and of the greatest wealth, and that there should be higher rates of tax in the lower property value areas. That would be very difficult for my hon. Friend or for anyone else to explain.
      My objections to a local income tax are largely the same as those of the hon. Member for Cathcart. I believe that there would be immense disquiet if we were, in effect, to appoint a Chancellor of the Exchequer in every town hall. The control of the level of income tax and of fiscal policy should rest with central Government, not local government.
      The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we should have a variety and a spread of taxes. In general, the taxation system should lie so thinly and be so well spread that it does not distort economic activity more than is absolutely necessary. That means that we must have different types of taxes, each at as low a level as it is possible to achieve. Therefore, I do not accept that all taxes should be based on income. Value added tax, for example, is based not on income but on what people spend. Some taxes will be based on income, some on profit, some on property and some on what one spends. Such a variety of taxation is appropriate and is found in most countries.
      The naivety with which the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party tabled the new clause is pretty alarming. Hon. Members on the Standing Committee witnessed an hilarious debate lasting two hours in which the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) attempted to explain how a local income tax would work. On the question of equalisation—with which we have also dealt today—even he said with what I thought was stunning naivety:
      "The equalisation process is not something that we see central Government undertaking. It would be undertaken by local authorities in concert."
      The idea that local authorities would decide between themselves who would subsidise other local authorities is breathtaking. The hon. Member for Eastbourne went on:
      "We have published details—they are publicly available—of the actual rates that would have been in place in every constituency this year had a local income tax been introduced."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 November 1991; c. 89–91.]
      However, Mr. Philip Truscott—the researcher from Surrey university who has been alluded to already in this debate—said that the party had significantly understated the likely level of local income tax bills and that he wanted the party to withdraw the figures. He said that if the system were introduced, bills would have to be significantly higher than those suggested by the Liberal Democrats.
      The Opposition have significantly understated the bureaucracy that would be required. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) again mentioned the Inland Revenue. I repeat that at present the Inland Revenue does not hold the home addresses of the vast majority of taxpayers. That database would have to be increased and that would involve substantial bureaucracy. As I understand it, the Liberal Democrats are asking employers to keep track of where employees live day by day and, by contrast, the hon. Gentleman is proposing

      85
      that there should be an annual register for local income tax. Under his proposal we do not get away even from the need for a register of every taxpayer.
      Mr. Douglas: Is the Minister saying that Centre One in Scotland does not know the names and addresses and national insurance number of income tax payers? I want this on the record. Is he suggesting that his present proposals do not require a register or a list?
      Mr. Portillo: Certainly, the council tax does not require a register, and I reiterate that the Inland Revenue holds only a limited number of home addresses and to extend that database would take some years.
      Mr. Maxton rose——
      Mr. Portillo: I sense that the House wants to come to a conclusion.
      The reason why the Liberal Democrats hanker after a local income tax—they have put it on record before and have done so again this evening—is that they wish to increase the proportion of taxation that is raised locally. The only way in which they can see that happening is to introduce a local income tax and to hand over tremendous power to Chancellors of the Exchequer in town halls. We do not propose to increase the proportion of taxation which is raised locally because we believe that the proportion that is currently raised locally—it is now about 15 per cent. in England, 12 per cent. in Scotland and 8 per cent. in Wales—is appropriate. For that reason, the council tax is the appropriate instrument for raising the sum of money that needs to be raised from local tax payers.
      Mr. Wallace: I know that the House wishes to move on, so I shall reply briefly to what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, in concert with the Minister. It is not always a reliable rule of thumb, but we can usually assume that we are right when the two Front Benches agree and we are faced with a genuine alliance of British politics between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
      The attempt of the hon. Member for Cathcart to argue against a local income tax was uninformed when he suggested that the Inland Revenue could not compile a list. Any senior Inland Revenue official would say that if the political will was there, it could be done and that it could be done efficiently and quickly, certainly within six months to a year. The hon. Gentleman then suggested that the Inland Revenue would perhaps not carry out the task. I do not know whether he was suggesting that there was incipient anarchy or whether he had merely lost his place in his notes. He also suggested that it was not visible, but then proceeded to complain about its high visibility in terms of either a rebate or a requirement to pay.
      To put to rest the Minister's concerns, I can tell him that many countries operate an end-of-the-year tax return system with a form to be filled in. That would also be the case for any system of tax benefits or tax credits that we wished to implement. Indeed, it might be very much in people's interests to fill in that form, because it could remove much of the burden on small businesses.
      I dealt in an intervention with the Minister's point about the figures mentioned by Mr. Philip Truscott and I am sorry that the Minister could not depart sufficiently from his speech to take that correction into account. Even according to Government figures, the rate of local income tax in my constituency would be 0·1 per cent. in Orkney
      86
      and nothing at all in Shetland. Therefore, the figures are even less according to the Government than according to Mr. Truscott. Members of both Front Benches—especially the Government Front Bench—appear to be afraid of the genuine exercise of local democracy. Given a proper and fair proportional system of voting in local authority elections, there is no need to fear the will of the people. In a democracy, local control over a vast number of areas is desirable. It is worth remembering to trust the people. The Government are never really prepared to do that.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes

      Division No. 27]

      [8.09 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Maclennan, Robert

      Beith, A. J.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Salmond, Alex

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Stephen, Nicol

      Carr, Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Cartwright, John

      Wallace, James

      Douglas, Dick

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Mr. Alex Carlile and Mr. David Bellotti.

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Kennedy, Charles

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Chapman, Sydney

      Alexander, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Allason, Rupert

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Amess, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochtord)

      Amos, Alan

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Arbuthnot, James

      Colvin, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Ashby, David

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cormack, Patrick

      Atkins, Robert

      Couchman, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Cran. James

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Batiste, Spencer

      Curry, David

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Day, Stephen

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Devlin, Tim

      Benyon, W.

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dicks, Terry

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Dover, Den

      Body, Sir Richard

      Dunn, Bob

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Dykes, Hugh

      Boswell, Tim

      Eggar, Tim

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

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Bowis, John

      Evennett, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Fallon, Michael

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Favell, Tony

      Brazier, Julian

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bright, Graham

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

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

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Burns, Simon

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Burt, Alistair

      Forman, Nigel

      Butler, Chris

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Butterfill, John

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Forth, Eric

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Franks, Cecil

      Carrington, Matthew

      Freeman, Roger

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      French, Douglas

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Fry, Peter

      87

      Gale, Roger

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Gardiner, Sir George

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Gill, Christopher

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Maclean, David

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Madel, David

      Gorst, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mans, Keith

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Maples, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Marlow, Tony

      Gregory, Conal

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Grist, Ian

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Ground, Patrick

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Grylls, Michael

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hague, William

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mills, Iain

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hannam, John

      Mitchell, Sir David

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

      Moate, Roger

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Harris, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hayward, Robert

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Needham, Richard

      Hill, James

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hind, Kenneth

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

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

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Norris, Steve

      Hunt, Rt Hon David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hunter, Andrew

      Page, Richard

      Irvine, Michael

      Paice, James

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Patnick, Irvine

      Jackson, Robert

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Janman, Tim

      Pawsey, James

      Jessel, Toby

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Portillo, Michael

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Price, Sir David

      Key, Robert

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Kilfedder, James

      Rathbone, Tim

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfleld)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rhodes James, Sir Robert

      Knapman, Roger

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Knowles, Michael

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Knox, David

      Rost, Peter

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Latham, Michael

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lord, Michael

      Shersby, Michael

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Skinner, Dennis

      88

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Trippier, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Trotter, Neville

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Speed, Keith

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Speller, Tony

      Viggers, Peter

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Squire, Robin

      Walden, George

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Waller, Gary

      Steen, Anthony

      Ward, John

      Stern, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Watts, John

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wells, Bowen

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Stokes, Sir John

      Whitney, Ray

      Sumberg, David

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wilkinson, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wilshire, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wood, Timothy

      Thorne, Neil

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Yeo, Tim

      Thurnham, Peter

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tracey, Richard

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Tredinnick, David

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 9

      VALUATION BANDS
      '.—(1) Before specifying substituted valuation bands pursuant to section 5, and before making a local government finance report under section 78A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, the Secretary of State shall consider the effects in each region of England and in Wales of the amounts of council tax liability brought about by:

      (a) valuation bands in England;

      (b) valuation bands in Wales; and

      (c) the distribution of revenue support grant.

      (2) In this section "region" shall have the meaning of the standard economic region, except that Greater London and the rest of the South East shall be treated as separate regions.'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: new clause 15—Discontinuation of valuation bands—
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order discontinue the system of valuation bands established under this Act.
      (2) For the system of valuation bands there may by order be substituted lists which show for each dwelling its valuation.
      (3) The liability to council tax in respect of each dwelling shall be in direct proportion to the dwelling's value.
      (4) No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.'.
      Amendment No. 111, in clause 5, page 3, line 23, after 'England' insert 'apart from Greater London'.
      Amendment No. 86, in page 3, line 24, leave out from 'following' to line 40 and insert—

      TABLES—

      Greater London

      Range of values

      Valuation band

      Values not exceeding £52,000

      A

      Values exceeding £52,000 but not exceeding £68,000

      B

      Values exceeding £68,000 but not exceeding £88,000

      C

      Values exceeding £88,000 but not exceeding £120,000

      D

      Values exceeding £120,000 but not exceeding £160,000

      E

      Values exceeding £160,000 but not exceeding £210,000

      F

      Values exceeding £210,000 but not exceeding £420,000

      G

      Values exceeding £420,000

      H

      Amendment No. 3, in clause 5, page 3, leave out lines 39 to 40 and insert '240,000

      Range of values

      Valuation band

      Values exceeding £240,000 but not exceeding £320,000

      H

      Values exceeding £320,000 but not exceeding £480,000

      I

      Values exceeding £480,000 but not exceeding £640,000

      J

      Values exceeding £640,000 but not exceeding £800,000

      K

      Values exceeding £800,000

      L'.

      Amendment No. 112, page 3, line 40, at end insert—
      '—(3) The valuation bands for dwellings in Greater London are set out in the following Table—

      Range of values

      Valuation band

      Values not exceeding £52,000

      A

      Values exceeding £52,000, but not exceeding £68,000

      B

      Values exceeding £68,000, but not exceeding £88,000

      C

      Values exceeding £88,000, but not exceeding £120,000

      D

      Values exceeding £120,000, but not exceeding £160,000

      E

      Values exceeding £160,000, but not exceeding £210,000

      F

      Values exceeding £210,000, but not exceeding £420,000

      G

      Values exceeding £420,000

      H'.

      Amendment No. 16, page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '(3) The valuation bands for dwellings in Wales shall be as specified in the following Table—

      Range of values

      Valuation band

      Values not exceeding £15,000

      A

      Values exceeding £15,000 but not exceeding £30,000

      B

      Values exceeding £30,000—£37,000

      C

      Values exceeding £37,000—£45,000

      D

      Values exceeding £45,000—£55,000

      E

      Values exceeding £55,000—£70,000

      F

      Values exceeding £70,000—£90,000

      G

      Values exceeding £90,000—£120,000

      H

      Values exceeding £120,000—£150,000

      I

      Values exceeding £150,000—£180,000

      J

      Values exceeding £180,000—£210,000

      K

      Values exceeding £210,000—£240,000

      L

      Values exceeding £240,000—£300,000

      M

      Values exceeding £300,000

      N.'.

      Amendment No. 4, in page 4, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert '£150,000

      Range of values

      Valuation band

      Values exceeding £150,000 but not exceeding £200,000

      G

      Values exceeding £200,000 but not exceeding £275,000

      H

      Values exceeding £275,000 but not exceeding £350,000

      I

      Values exceeding £350,000 but not exceeding £425,000

      J

      Values exceeding £425,000 but not exceeding £500,000

      K

      Values exceeding £500,000

      L'.

      Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 24, at endinsert—
      '(4A) The Secretary of State shall establish an additional band to those set out in subsection 2 above that shall be for dwellings provided and occupied solely in respect of a person's employment.'.
      Amendment No. 32, in page 4, line 24, at end insert—
      '(4A) The Secretary of State may by Order, as regards financial years beginning on or after such date as is specified in the Order, make provision in respect of the Council of the Isles of Scilly—

      (a) substituting another proportion for that which is for the time being effective for the purposes of subsection (1) above;

      (b) substituting other valuation bands for those which are for the time being effective for the purposes of subsection (2) above.'.

      Amendment No. 33, in page 4, line 25, after '(4)', insert 'or (4a)'.
      Amendment No. 93, in clause 74, page 49, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert—
      'shall be based upon the value given to that dwelling in the valuation roll.'.
      Amendment No. 94, in page 49, line 11, at beginning insert
      'Values not exceeding £15,000 AA'.
      Amendment No. 10, in page 49, line 11, leave out 'Values not exceeding £27,000' and insert

      'Values not exceeding £20,000

      AA

      Values exceeding £20,000 but not exceeding £27,000'.

      Amendment No. 95, in page 49, line 22, at end insert—

      'Values exceeding £212,000 but not exceeding £260,000

      I

      Values exceeding £260,000 but not exceeding £320,000

      J

      Values exceeding £320,000 but not exceeding £400,000

      K

      Values exceeding £400,000 but not exceeding £500,000

      L

      Values exceeding £500,000

      M.'.

      Amendment No. 11, in page 49, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert '£180,000

      'Values exceeding £180,000 but not exceeding £250,000

      H

      Values exceeding £250,000 but not exceeding £400,000

      I

      Values exceeding £400,000 but not exceeding £500,000

      J

      Values exceeding £500,000

      K'.

      Amendment No. 96, in page 49, line 23, leave out £212,000'and insert'£150,000'.
      Amendment No. 97, in page 49, line 24, leave out '£212,000' and insert
      '£150,000 but not exceeding £212,000'.
      Amendment No. 12, in page 49, line 30, at end insert—
      '(3A) The Secretary of State shall establish an additional band to those set out in subsection 2 above that shall be for dwellings provided and occupied solely in respect of a person's employment.'.
      Mr. Blunkett: I had intended to appeal tonight to the massed ranks of Conservative Members representing seats
      92
      in London and the south-east, who I thought would be here to protect their constituents' interests and to press for a change in the banding structure, Unfortunately, however, there are fewer than a dozen of them here.
      Hon. Members: What about yours?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) to make comments and tell stories about Conservative Members when there is only one—Scottish—Labour Back Bencher present—and certainly none of those whose constituencies will be affected?
      Mrs. Fyfe: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should point out that there are two Scottish Back Benchers present—the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and myself.
      Mr. Blunkett: When all the jollity is over, the fact remains that the Labour party is committed to a fair system of taxation that would ensure the protection of those in high-price areas who happen to be on low incomes, and that, come 10 o'clock, Conservative Members will vote for a system that does not do that. That is why I had intended to appeal to Conservative Members representing constituencies in London and the south-east who it might be thought would have wanted to debate the issue.
      Mr. John Marshall: I note with interest the hon. Gentleman's concern for the charge payers of Barnet. Does he accept that, under Labour's local government reform proposals, my constituents would end up paying more than they would under the proposed council tax? Is that the sort of concern that the hon. Gentleman shows for my constituents?
      Mr. Blunkett: I should certainly be concerned if, under the proposed banding system, 46 per cent. of my constituents fell into the top band whereas only 6 per cent. fell into the bottom three bands, which is the case in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Such a situation is designed to make people in the area rightly feel that, having rid themselves of the poll tax, under which everyone was taxed the same amount, they are now to have a system under which nearly everyone is taxed the same amount. On those grounds, I should expect the hon. Gentleman vigorously to promote, and vote for, amendment No. 112.
      The Government's proposed system of valuation bands is likely to lead to greater unfairness, unworkability and unsustainability than the system that the Government are removing—and that is saying something. The proposed valuation system will lead to confusion and administrative difficulty. It is a Mickey-Mouse valuation system which taxes families whilst protecting individuals living alone, and which is based on the false premise that if one can make something cheap and make it look simple, it will be better. We do not believe that that is the case. We believe in fairness and equity and we want people to understand clearly the basis on which they are taxed. That is the principle that should be applied to any form of property tax, and it requires that people should have the right to

      93
      immediate access to information about the valuation of their property rather than having to appeal to find out the amount that they are to be charged.
      We believe that a valuation system whereby an average of £1·58 is paid out for the valuation of a property—with some people finding that the valuation of their property is costing less than the price of a KitKat—is a system open to considerable ridicule. We also believe that a system that does not take into account the circumstances of a property is likely to lead to the kind of upheaval that we witnessed under the poll tax.
      The fact that there are so few hon. Members in the Chamber tonight indicates that Conservative Members have learnt few lessons. They showed the same indifference to the difficulties and dangers and to the warnings that we gave when the poll tax was introduced. I exempt those representatives of the media who are present tonight when I say that the media—particularly the broadcast media—show the same indifference to the council tax as they did to the poll tax. That does not mean that, in its anomalies, difficulties and silliness, the council tax is not as dangerous as the poll tax; it clearly is. That is why we are intent on developing the debate tonight and on exposing some of those anomalies.
      If individual valuations do not take place and if properties are not treated fairly, we are bound to get the kind of anomalies that we exposed in Committee. Houses in the same street will be valued in the same way because they happen to be the same type of property, even though their environment and circumstances are completely different. One might expect a family living in a property located next to a discotheque to pay less in tax, because the value of occupation is less, than one living in a property of the same type in the same street overlooking the local park. With valuers undertaking valuations from their desks or by driving down the street, there is no way in which the valuation process can be undertaken fairly.
      There is no fairness in a system that fails to take into account the substantial differences that exist within properties—in terms of value of occupation or, for example, improvements, such as rear extensions. Such factors are very important in ensuring that people pay according to their means—in so far as that is possible with any property tax. The cost of the dwelling and the value of occupation of the dwelling relate to ability to pay, which is a firm and fair basis for levying a local tax.
      Under the Government's proposals—and the Minister of State boasted about this on the radio this morning—valuers will not have access to the properties.
      Under the valuation process that has just begun, valuers will be prevented from entering properties to undertake the valuation. They are discouraged from getting close to the property. Indeed, it is welcome if they do not actually see the property. If there is any doubt about whether there is an unfairness in looking only at the front of a property as the valuer passes in his car, the Minister told us in Standing Committee that valuers will be able to take aerial photographs. The Minister this morning claimed that he did not say that, but he did say it. He did not say, as he claimed this morning, that valuers will be able to use old mythical aerial photographs of houses which may no longer exist or may have been altered since the photograph was taken.
      The Minister said that, if there was any doubt, the old rating valuation list would be used. That is a real giveaway because that is what we proposed to ensure that we could
      94
      have got rid of the poll tax by April 1992. However, the Government rejected that and refused to accept our interim solution while a thorough individual revaluation of property took place.
      8.30 pm
      In parliamentary language, there has been a degree of duplicity. The valuers are not supposed to take a detailed look at the property. However, they are supposed to use old photographs or information on the rating list. Presumably, if that information is not available, they will take to a hot air balloon. They will not get much of a hot air balloon for an average of £1·58 a property, although there might be plenty of hot air from the Conservative Benches. If the council tax is ever implemented, the balloon will go up.
      The more we delve into the proposal, the less credible and more questionable it appears. Over the past few days, Ministers have boasted that they have saved £100 million because they had intended to spend £120 million on the valuation process. It will cost only £21 million because the guidelines were such that valuers were told that they had to undertake the process as cheaply, simply and as quickly as possible using as little information as possible. That is why we are not spending money that should be spent to save some people from being taxed unfairly.
      People will find that their properties will he placed in bands, but they will not be aware of the subtle differences in the valuation process. In areas such as London and the south-east, those differences might mean that a person with a property valued at £161,000 instead of £159,000 could be in the top valuation band together with someone with a house valued at £319,000. One cannot imagine a less fair system. In order to get the information to challenge that valuation and be put back into band G, and therefore save considerable sums of money, someone would have to appeal. However, that person will not be allowed to appeal until January 1993.
      The Government's proposal for the banding valuation process is likely to lead to a disastrous situation in which thousands of appeals will be made within three months of the system being brought into operation. There will be great disgruntlement and disagreement. Local authorities will be seeing the back of the poll tax and experiencing collection problems. They will also be trying to implement the new tax and having to deal with people who are aggrieved and concerned about the bands in which they have been placed.
      In addition, there is the inherent unfairness of the compression of the bands and the way in which in many areas—and I have already referred to London and the south-east—people will find that there are not really eight bands but only two, three or four bands for their area. In some areas nearly all properties fall into three rather than eight bands. Together with the discount system to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) will refer tomorrow, people will face a property poll tax, not a new system. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) referred to Barnet, which is a classic example of an area in which nearly half the properties fall within the top band.
      Mr. Portillo: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the people of Barnet. Will he confirm that, as he does not believe in compression, someone in a £200,000 property in Barnet would be asked under

      95
      Labour's system to pay five times as much as someone in a £40,000 house? Under our system, we believe that it should be limited to two and a half times because we recognise that some people in higher valued properties may not have the income to allow them to pay those high rates of tax.
      Mr. Blunkett: That shows that the Minister is allowing his antagonism to the old rating system to—and I am one of the people who can say this in the Chamber—blind himself to the reality of a normal individual valuation process.
      A valuation process should be linked to the amount that people will be expected to pay to the valuation placed on their property, not in bands or ratios to each other, but in relation to the worth of occupying that property. The spread of properties across a high-value district in England would ensure that people paid what was fair in terms of the differences between the prices of the properties. Some of us agree that there is a need for the relationship between districts and regions to be brought into line with each other.
      Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend the Minister is right.
      Mr. Blunkett: As the hon. Member for Hendon, South is suggesting that the Minister is right, someone in Barnet in a £200,000 house would not pay five times as much as someone in a £40,000 house under our proposed valuation process. The Minister knows that that is the case.
      Mr. Marshall: In answer to my hon. Friend the Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that the ratio would not be five times as much. He has obviously calculated the figure. What is it?
      Mr. Blunkett: It is a graduated rateable value. One cannot simply pluck figures out of the air. Our system involves carrying out a proper valuation of properties that would ascertain the resources base in the area. That base determines the pence in the pound that can be levied under a property tax system. That is fairly basic local government finance. It is not clever or something which must be invented at the Dispatch Box—we all know about it—and had the old rating system been updated, modernised and made fairer we would not be debating this nonsense now because we would never have had the poll tax. My colleagues and I know that not before too long we will be able to implement a much fairer system.
      I have been diverted from the compression of bands and the property poll tax that goes with it. That involves the unfairness inherent in pushing together people with very different incomes and types of property into sequence with each other so that they end up paying much the same. Westminster is a good example of that because the maximum that anyone can pay is three times the amount of the lowest band.
      The figures that have been predicted in Westminster are very low. People in properties worth £1 million will pay only £273 while people in the lowest band with properties under £40,000–I imagine that that would be a rabbit-hutch in Westminster, if people were lucky enough to have one—would pay £91 a year. If the person in the £1 million house happened to be living alone, he or she would receive a 25 per cent. discount. That person would not pay
      96
      much more than £2 a week extra in comparison with someone on the lowest income scraping to make ends meet. Nobody can truly defend a system that is as unfair as that, nor can a system be defended which ends up with regional disparities which have been recognised in the case of Scotland and Wales but not in the case of English regions.
      Although in London only 1 per cent. of households find themselves in band A—the bottom band—16 per cent. of Londoners find themselves in the lowest income bracket. Of course, in the north, the reverse is true—46 per cent. find themselves in band A. That is grossly unfair on people who live in a high property price area such as London. That is why some of us expected that hon. Members who represent London and south-eastern constituencies would have taken much more interest in what is going on tonight.
      The compression of bands is unacceptable and unfair. The 3:1 ratio to protect the rich at the expense of the rest of us is unacceptable and unfair. The process of valuation itself is cheap and nasty, and unacceptable and unfair. The whole predication of a tax which fails to recognise the ability to pay as a key principle, and fails to understand the importance of individual valuation for ensuring that people know, understand and accept the basis on which they are to be taxed locally is flawed and unacceptable. We need to return to a system that allows for sensitivity and for an equal share of the local tax burden to be carried by those who can afford it.
      At the beginning of the year, we understood that the Government appreciated the need—if they were to have a banding process, which we do not agree with—to have a wide spread of bands. On 22 February—I make no apology for repeating this, because it clearly has not got through to the media or to Conservative Members—the Government issued rating circular No. 53. They gave valuers five working days to come up with the spread of properties if 14 bands were to be used—14 bands which ensured that there were six bands at the top, that is, six additional bands to the seven bands that they told the public they were going to use—which would increase the spread to £500,000-plus, instead of the £160,000 that they were then proposing to use. They had an additional band at the bottom to protect the very poorest. In Committee, we dealt with the issue of people in many parts of the country who have very low-rated property, those who live in very small terraced houses, or those who live in caravans.
      That system at least had the merit of some sort of fairness, but, unfortunately, fairness smacked of socialism. The idea of 14 bands was rejected, presumably on the same principles as the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) rejected progressivity when debating the poll tax. It is no wonder that the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, who adheres to the principles of the poll tax, was keen to get rid of the 14 bands. The 14 bands went, even though they brought greater fairness and would have protected in some measure the people in the areas that I have described, as well as some people in some northern constituencies where the banding system again clusters in an unacceptable way.
      Band A residents in Wigan will be paying £339 a year, which is more than the top band in Westminster. [Interruption.] I hear a sedentary intervention, the text of which, unfortunately for me, I missed. It was from the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). I think that she mentioned 15p cemeteries as an example of

      97
      a valuation system done on the cheap. That is certainly less than the price of a KitKat and less than the price of a Mars bar, I should have thought. But that is par for the course. "If it is public, value it and sell it cheap," has been the attitude of Conservative Members on every occasion when they have privatised everything that had been built up over the years.
      So there we have people in Wigan—or, as the Minister reminds me, there we have it. That is a favourite phrase. We had it noted and published in The Daily Telegraph—one of the few points from the Committee that reached The Daily Telegraph, or, with the honourable exception of The Scotsman and the Financial Times, many other newspapers.
      8.45 pm
      The system is clearly at fault in the way that I have described. I mentioned circular No. 53. It would be remiss of me not to mention what happened after that. We then had rating circular No. 58, which was issued towards the end of April and which, having rejected 14 bands, did an exercise on nine bands. Nine bands were at least an improvement on seven bands, but, when we revealed that a nine-band system was being valued, the Secretary of State immediately denied it. In fact, Downing street took the trouble to deny that it existed. It was then found that it did exist, so it was admitted that it was actually happening, but, because it was an embarrassment, it was withdrawn.
      Fourteen bands embarrassed the Government because they were fair, we had nine bands because we were only a week from the local elections, and they were embarrassed that they had told an untruth and been found out, and we then went back to seven bands. Seven bands were immovable, in the words of the Secretary of State. If only memories were as long as the banding system that the Government had originally proposed, we would not be in quite this state. Seven bands were immovable. The Government then invented eight bands. However, during Question Time one Wednesday afternoon, the Secretary of State admitted that it was only a psychological measure and would not make that much difference anyway.
      So there we have it—again. Fourteen, nine, seven and—eight—we have been through it all, but we have not had any acknowledgement that the banding system itself is at fault and simply will not work and that the whole system is a mess. It does not matter how many hon. Members are present, the reality will be outside the House. The reality would be—if they ever had the chance—for the Government to implement the system. The reality will be that local government finance, instead of being a bore on the sidelines and much less exciting than some other things that go on, such as Esther Rantzen's quarter of a million or the important issues that pass for news, will be recognised as a critical issue that will affect people and British politics in the same way as the poll tax did.
      Local finance is a minefield, and all of us must tread carefully through it, but some of us have ensured that we have a map and that we shall use it. We advise very strongly that Conservative Members think carefully before they vote for their proposals and reject our new clause.
      Mr. David Harris: I am delighted that you are in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I want to address my remarks to a part of the country which you know well—the Isles of Scilly. If I may say so—and I thank
      98
      you for it—you are one of our regular holidaymakers to the islands. I have tabled amendment No. 32, which is an attempt to recognise a unique feature of the island—second homes—and the possible effect that they will have on the council tax and the amount borne by the Isles of Scilly. There are 933 domestic properties on the islands, 300 of which—nearly one third are second homes. In addition, 183 homes receive the one-person discount. That means that no fewer than 450 of the 933 homes—almost half—will be left to pay the standard rate. That means an extra burden on those who pay the standard rate.
      However, the position is even worse than that. As a result of the prevalence of second homes on the islands, there is a completely artificial market in property prices. I am told that the cheapest property that one could buy is a one-bedroom flat costing £100,000. The difficulty posed by those high property prices is compounded by the fact that the islands have a low level of income. That presents particular problems for the islanders and makes the island unique for council tax purposes.
      I have argued that case with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I took it up with him in correspondence as soon as I was approached by the Council of the Isles of Scilly. My hon. Friend responded in a long letter on 18 October in which he looked sympathetically at the matter, clearly recognising the problems facing the islands. However, he said that, rather than deal with the problem through legislation, he thought that the right way to tackle it was through the grants system. The concluding paragraph of his letter states:
      "The Department is, as you know, always willing to consider the individual circumstances of different areas; and the Island's Standard Spending Assessment does contain a number of adjustments to reflect factors where we recognise that special provision is needed. I do not believe, however, that we would be justified in making special provisions in the council tax legislation for the Scilly Isles."
      With respect to my hon. Friend, I must disagree with him on that point.
      I heartily acknowledge that the Government have been generous—that is the right word—to the islands in making special grant provisions to take account of their unique position. That is reflected to some extent in the present community charge rates for the islands. The community charge is £105 whereas the charge for the neighbouring district councils on the Cornish mainland are £225 for Penwith and £247 for Kerrier. On the whole, therefore, the islanders have done very well in terms of grant, and extremely well with European grants.
      However, the difficulty with grants is that there is no guarantee that they will be maintained in the future. If there were a different Administration, heaven forbid—I do not think that this will happen, but let us suppose that it did—that Administration might not be so sympathetic to the islands or recognise the problems that are faced by island communities. A new Administration's approach to grants might be somewhat different from that of this Administration. It is important, therefore, that the islands' position is recognised in the legislation.
      Despite the assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has already given me, I hope that he will look sympathetically at the amendments that I have tabled. I accept that the new clause that I tabled and the amendment that has not been selected are probably defective, but I look to my hon. Friend to recognise the problems of the islands and for assurances that he will

      99
      return to the issue in another place and will not rule out at this stage the possibility of including some special provision for the islands in the Bill.
      It is worth pointing out that the islands have a remarkable record on community charge collection. I think that I am right in saying that about 99 per cent. of the money has been collected. That is an extremely good record and shows that the islanders are law-abiding people. Although there was a problem because some people thought it unfair that the outer islands should pay exactly the same as the main inhabited island, St. Mary's, people nevertheless paid their community charge in remarkable numbers.
      For that reason, as well as for all the others that I have outlined, I hope that the Government will look again at this issue. Perhaps at the very least one of the Ministers would like to come to the Isles of Scilly——
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key) indicated assent.
      Mr. Harris: I see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is volunteering. As he told me earlier that his late father was a former Bishop of Truro, who probably confirmed half the population of the islands, my hon. Friend might well be the appropriate Minister for such a visit.
      I ask my colleagues on the Treasury Bench to acknowledge that, in this respect as in so many others, the Isles of Scilly are a unique case and should be dealt with accordingly in the Bill.
      Mr. Bellotti: Banding is at the heart of the Government's attempts in the council tax proposals to modernise what is really a property-based tax. In all attempts, they have failed. It is interesting that the Government have introduced different bands for Scotland and Wales. In Committee, we invited the Minister to explain why different bands were thought necessary for Scotland and Wales. Unfortunately, very little was forthcoming on that subject, but the answer that one would have expected to that question would have given the reasons why banding should be regionally varied throughout England. They are exactly the same reasons. The Government have failed in their attempt to make the property tax fair, because they have failed to examine the case for some form of regional banding for England.
      As has already been stated, the number of bands is not sufficient to meet individual cases in some regions. In London and the south-east, for example, many local authority property values enable the local authorities to use only the top two or three bands. It would be extremely helpful in such cases if the bands could be extended to a higher level. In other regions, property values are extremely low and the reverse applies. In those areas, it would be extremely helpful to have more bands at the lower end so that those with a property that should be valued at a price below the lowest band would pay less.
      I thought that the arguments that were advanced in Committee were fairly persuasive, but the Government did not change their proposals. They failed to make any response on the issue of regional banding. We encouraged Conservative Back Benchers in Committee to speak up, but it seemed that the hon. Members who had been chosen or who had volunteered to serve in Standing Committee
      100
      were singularly unable to do so. I hope that, during the debate tonight, some Conservative Back-Bench Members will comment on that. Indeed, one Conservative Member put a similar point in the previous debate on behalf of his local authority.
      The consequence of not creating more bands, with people in properties in the bottom bands paying less and people in properties in the bands at the top end paying more, is that the council tax hinges on the average-priced property. It hits the very people who may be less able to pay. The gearing of the tax means that a millionaire in an extremely expensive property will pay only three times what a person in the same local authority area will pay who occupies perhaps a one-bedroomed flat of low value.
      One must ask whether a millionaire has the ability to pay more than three times the bill of two people in a household on a fairly low income but who nevertheless pay some tax. The answer must surely be that the millionaire could well afford to pay more than three times what a standard couple on a fairly low income pay. That demonstrates why we need more property bands.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman and I both have constituencies in the south-east. Does he think that all people with properties worth more than £320,000 are millionaires? Do not those few people who earn a great deal of money pay a disproportionately larger amount through the tax system? Only a small amount will be collected through the council tax.
      9 pm
      Mr. Bellotti: We gave the hon. Gentleman the opportunity in a Division earlier this evening to show that people who live in high-priced property do not necessarily have such high incomes. He did not support that principle then. I agree with him if his point is that property can be expensive but that the person who occupies it might not have a high income on which to pay tax.
      I and my hon. Friends have tabled amendment No. 86, which sets out a different approach to regional banding in England. We have not yet heard an answer to our proposals. As the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) said a moment ago, London and the south-east would be hit hard by the Government's proposals in the Bill.
      In Committee we heard from one of the Ministers the argument that regional banding in England might create difficulties between one region and another. I failed to understand the logic of that argument, and it was probably the only argument we heard. Such difficulties will exist around the boundary between England and Wales, where there will be a tremendous variation between properties which are just a couple of miles apart. As a result of the Government's proposal to have a different banding system in Wales, people on the Welsh side of the border will pay a low council tax, and people on the English side will pay a high council tax.
      Mr. Alan Beith: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents will be able to look out of their window and see properties within a short distance on the other side of the river or just up the road in Scotland which are on a different and more favourable banding system?
      Mr. Bellotti: I am grateful for another example from a different part of the country of large variations between

      101
      properties. I suspect that there are many such examples. I hope that other hon. Members will shortly contribute their experiences and understanding.
      Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman will not know my constituency, because it is a long time since Liberals were seen there, but he might know some of the outer ring of London constituencies. If he would go on a journey through the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames, down the road through Surbiton towards Thames Ditton, he would find a road where there are houses next door to each other of the same size, occupied by the same sort of people on the same sort of income. Under his scheme, one would be in the London region and the other would be in the south-east region. The hon. Gentleman proposes a different band for those two houses. Can he explain the justice in that?
      Mr. Bellotti: That is exactly the same as the problem that will arise under the Government proposals on the boundaries between England and Wales and between England and Scotland. Once one starts on the road of a property-based tax, one always hits such problems.
      We are attempting to make an unfair system marginally fairer at every opportunity. There is no doubt that our amendment would more than marginally help a large number of people. Indeed, it would be seen to be fairer. I am sure that as people come to understand how the council tax will affect them, they will be annoyed when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, they look out of their window and see a household at a huge advantage to them. The dilemma is real. There is no doubt that more bands would mean a fairer system. The Government should accept that when they set out their proposals for Scotland and Wales.
      Amendments Nos. 5 and 12 are designed to help those who occupy tied or similar property through their work. If we assigned such people to a separate band, it would bring them the relief they need. That band could apply to ministers of religion, who often occupy by virtue of their job houses which they would be unable to afford to purchase on their own disposable income. A school caretaker may enjoy the benefit of a large house in the corner of his school grounds. Given the value of such a property and the relative size of a caretaker's income, it is clear that he would be unable to purchase such a house out of choice. That argument could apply to a number of other people—for example, police officers. A separate band for such people would bring enormous benefit.
      The banding proposals have been supported by many people outside the House and by some hon. Members of all parties. I hope that the Government will appreciate that the council tax, which they believe to be fair, could be made much fairer if they conceded the regional banding proposals. I look forward to hearing the reasons for the Government's eventual decision on the proposals.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) was right to say that the idea of regional banding has attracted support from hon. Members of different parties. However, when one studies the detail of what is proposed, the scheme starts to fall to pieces. The speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on behalf of the Labour party was very similar to someone jumping on a bandwagon and discovering that it had cracked wheels.
      102
      The idea of a regional hand for London and the south-east, or for London alone, is misconceived. I do not believe that it would work, because it would change the nature of the proposed tax, which is a property tax with a personal element. It is important to keep in mind precisely what we seek to establish.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: What my hon. Friend says causes me some concern, in addition to my hesitation about the merits of regional banding. I hope that my hon. Friend would not propose that there should be any regional banding to favour London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) has pointed out, my constituency abuts on London, and such a proposal would cause great dismay to my constituents, who already believe that London has too good a deal.
      Mr. Hughes: I am not sure that I can agree with the last sentiment that my hon. Friend expressed. We have been offered a pot-pourri of amendments—some favour London, some favour London and the south-east and others suggest carving up the country into all sorts of different regions.
      Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend and I are, in political terms, territorially contiguous. Does he at least recognise that there is a particular difficulty for outer London and the south-east where property values are high and where disposable incomes may not be commensurately great? Is it not the case that all the constructive criticism of the Bill has, by and large, come from right hon. and hon. Friends who represent outer London and the south-east? It is no accident that that is so.
      Mr. Hughes: It is no accident that that is so, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is a respected neighbour, is wrong.
      Mr. James Couchman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hughes: I wish to make some progress, because there are many points that I wish to raise. If we are to have a property tax, it must be logical, and the logic is clear.
      Mr. Couchman: I had not intended to intrude on my hon. Friend's speech, but does he consider that a schoolteacher, whose salary is fixed through national wage agreements by the independent pay review body for teachers and who lives in my hon. Friend's or my constituency in the south-east, is better able to afford the council tax on a higher band than a teacher who lives in Darlington or elsewhere in the north?
      Mr. Hughes: I do not share my hon. Friend's contention that one should support national wage bargaining. I support bargaining for London. My hon. Friend's point is interesting, but the argument for it does not lead one to support any of the amendments that have been selected. Regional banding could not be agreed to simply on the basis of national wage bargaining. That suggestion would distort a property tax with a personal element, because the aim of the amendment is that people living in an £80,000 house in the north should pay more than those living in an £80,000 home in the south.
      I do not understand the fairness of that. People should pay according to the value of their property, and it is therefore reasonable that there should be one national

      103
      band. If there were significant differences between regions, there might be an argument, but we all know that that simply is not the case. There is no typical region.
      There were two Yorkshire Members present when I began my speech, and there are now three. The number is growing by the minute. Property values in Yorkshire alter according to the part of the county. A single regional band could not be applied to Yorkshire, with council tax prices set against a regional band for, say, London and the south-east. A few weeks ago, several of us went to Langbaurgh, for obvious reasons. Those of us who visited the lovely market town of Guisborough know that the values of property there are very similar to those in my constituency of Harrow. How could Yorkshire be placed in a different regional banding structure from the one that applies in my constituency?
      Mr. Paul Murphy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have agreed on a separate system for Wales and Scotland and that, within Wales and Scotland, there are considerable disparities in property prices? How, then, can Yorkshire be any different?
      Mr. Hughes: I am part Welsh and part Scot, and I had understood that the argument was that Wales and Scotland are nations and therefore entitled to a different national system.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: They have a different system of finance.
      Mr. Hughes: As my hon. Friend rightly interjects, they have a different finance system. An argument must be made for that—it is not a reason to mess up the rest of the country.
      Mrs. Fyfe: As the hon. Gentleman agrees that Scotland is a different nation, why does he not accept that it should have its own system if it prefers, and allow it to have a fair rates system?
      Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Lady is simply trying to cause arguments within my family, she will not succeed. I am sure that she knows what I mean.
      Although only a few miles separate Richmond from Leeds and Beverley from Hull, prices differ enormously. Prices in north Yorkshire in general are very similar to those in outer London, but those in Leeds and Hull are not. Regional banding would distort the system, and produce many illogicalities and unfairnesses.
      9.15 pm
      I can make some revealing comparisons between my constituency and the neighbouring borough. Conservative Members may be in danger of creating an issue where none exists. My postbag, and trips around the constituency, suggest to me that—in general—people are relieved that the community charge is going, and consider the council tax fair, reasonable and decent.
      The last rates bill received in Harrow, in 1989–90, by a couple living in a 1960s-built, three-bedroomed semi averaged £549. This year's community charge bill for two people is £506: according to the indicative figures, this year's council tax bill will be £441. I do not consider that a ground for complaint.
      The last rates bill for a similar house in Brent, the neighbouring borough, was £1,550. This year's two
      104
      community charges come to £656, while this year's council tax bill will amount to £517. Again, I see no room for complaint.
      Mr. Blunkett: We had all this jiggery-pokery in Committee. I do not want the comparative figures to be distorted. The hon. Gentleman has not taken into account the £280 that a couple will have received this year because of the so-called flat-rate £140 poll tax reduction. Surely any comparison between past and present must take into account the £4.25 billion that was added to value-added tax.
      Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, for two reasons. I always wondered what made the big difference between the last rates bill for Brent and the present arrangements; now I understand that it was the £140 reduction. Personally, I had thought that it was the bunch of madmen from the Labour party who ran the borough in the old days.
      The hon Gentleman has described my figures as jiggery-pokery. That is all very well, but why does he not come clean and give us Labour's figures? I have challenged the prospective Labour candidate in Harrow, West to do so, but he has not bothered to reply.
      Mr. Maxton: The next Labour Member for Harrow, West.
      Mr. Hughes: That will come as a terrible shock to him.
      Labour will not come clean with its figures, so it is bound to describe ours as jiggery-pokery. Labour is simply trying to hide the awfulness that lurks behind its so-called fair rates system
      All the concern felt in local authorities in London and the south-east—which I well understand—really relates to grant. Two so-called alternative schemes have been suggested. [Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members whose constituencies are some distance from London are not interested in London's problems; they can continue to talk among themselves.
      Mr. Derek Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's constituency is not near London, but yes.
      Mr. Enright: It most certainly is not. If the hon. Gentleman, from a London constituency, would pay some attention to the problems that we face in Hemsworth, such as those with RECHAR, which is helping to keep rates in his area down, he would be doing us a service.
      Mr. Hughes: I referred to Yorkshire six minutes ago—it has taken the hon. Gentleman that long to work up a head of steam. The problem of RECHAR is that his political friends are stopping the money coming to this country. I refer to Bruce Millan, for instance.
      It has been suggested that a London equalisation scheme could be brought back. It could not be; it was predicated on the business rate. The London discount scheme would just be regional banding in another guise. We need to look at needs multipliers and area cost adjustments, particularly for outer London—they are not very generous this year. We want them improved for the coming year and certainly by the first year of the council tax.

      105
      We must always remember what people will have to pay. Judged by that, the council tax will be seen as a fair system.
      Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has been arguing against a regional band for London, thereby costing his constituents about £66 a year, based on average house prices in London.
      I had to cut short my attendance at the Hairdressing Council dinner to speak in this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "A fringe benefit?"] I can only say that the parting was such sweet sorrow.
      I am in favour of a regional band for London, based on average house prices. The application of the Government's national bands will mean a loss of grant for London of about £300 million a year, which works out in terms of people's bills at about £60 per adult per year and £100 in some constituencies. Such a loss of grant for local authorities will mean either a higher council tax in London or more cuts in services. The assumption behind the Government's imposition on London of a national band is that Londoners can afford to pay more, which is not true. That assumption does not take into account Londoners' real disposable income. They have high mortgage costs, high rents, high transport costs and high bills of many varieties. House prices are about 45 per cent. higher than the national average, and that should be taken into account.
      Londoners will be disadvantaged by the national band. It has been estimated that about 15·7 per cent. of them will be in the top two bands, compared with only 5·6 per cent. elsewhere. In the top three bands the contrast is even more stark: an estimated 55·1 per cent. are in this category in London and only 23£1 per cent. elsewhere. That means that Londoners will face higher council tax bills. The relationship between the council tax and people's ability to pay it was always shaky, and the imposition of a national band on London will make it even weaker. The very idea is absurd.
      The end result will be that Londoners and London local authorities will pay millions more each year. That will hit Conservative and Labour areas in London. If the Government go ahead with the legislation, Conservative Members in London and the south-east will find that it will be difficult to reverse after the general election no matter which party is in power. Now is the time to put the case for a special banding system for London. London's case is being ignored by the Government. Its special factors should be recognised and it should have a regional banding system more reflective of its house prices.
      Mr. Wilkinson: We have been privileged in the debate to hear some widely contrasting contributions. It is clear that the timetable is quite inadequate to deal with such important matters. I did not support the timetable motion and believe that my decision was right. It is quite preposterous that in 35 minutes we shall reach the end of this debate on banding, a matter of considerable interest to my constituents and, I suspect, to many other constituents in London and the south-east.
      The speech by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was trenchant and honest, as one would expect from the hon. Gentleman. It was also clear and to the point, the simple point being that property values are so high in London and the south-east that in all equity there
      106
      must be some special weighting to account for them. They are by no means compensated for by a disproportionately high level of real disposable income.
      People in outer London have high commuting costs. Many of them have inordinately high mortgages around their necks and they are finding it extremely difficult to service them in this unusually long period of high interest rates. Instead of taking a Gadarene rush at this important matter of the reform of local government finance, the Government should have taken more time. They could have published a White Paper or set up a commission of inquiry. They should have taken account of all representations and consulted adequately. That would have enabled us to announce in our manifesto that when we were returned to office at the election we would take the most sensible course of action.
      I am not expert enough to say which of the banding systems best fits the bill. Valuations should be individually conducted and a proper length of time should he taken over each one. If that were done, there would be far fewer appeals. There should be a weighting system to account for variations in house prices in different parts of the country and within different districts of the same region. The Department of the Environment purports to have knowledge enough at its fingertips to enable a standard spending assessment to be made that takes account of all sorts of individual circumstances in each local authority area. It is not beyond the wit of man to introduce a weighting system to deal with local variations.
      In all logic we have already sold the pass by having separate bands for Scotland and Wales, and I am most worried about the current matter. Not only do we have inadequate time to deal with important issues, but there is a real risk that unless the other place does its job properly the measures will reach the statute book fundamentally flawed in terms of banding and the special problem of high property values in London and the south-east.
      Unless my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench can produce a new formula to deal with this problem, I shall have to support the new clauses and I shall vote against the Government. I shall consider my position tomorrow on Third Reading in the light of what transpires when the House divides this evening.
      9.30 pm
      Mrs. Fyfe: There are some who think that there is no fun to be found in local government finance, but they can be proved wrong by this debate. I was at one stage tempted to forgo my chance to contribute to it because of the fascinating speeches of Members representing inner and outer London constituencies as they struggled to find some fairness, justice or logic in the banding system.
      There are to be different banding systems for Scotland, Wales and England to take account of the fact that they are separate nations. That is all well and good, but if separate nationhood is to be recognised when it comes to banding, the wishes of the separate nations should be heeded when it comes to the taxation that they want. The proposed tax will take no account of regional variations. It is clear that London is out of kilter with much of the rest of England, if not the whole of it.
      No hon. Member can pretend to be ignorant of London prices. After all, we all have to live in London in some form of property. My very ordinary London flat costs about half as much again as my flat in Glasgow, which is an

      107
      infinitely superior building in which to live in every respect. Everybody knows that London prices are out of line with prices in the rest of the country.
      The same could be said for many a flat in many English provincial cities. I am making a comparison not between Scotland and London but between London and most of the rest of the country. As I have said, London prices are out of line with those that prevail elsewhere. The answer does not lie in saying that London has some advantages that other parts of the country do not enjoy. Surely we should treat the entire country fairly when introducing a local taxation system. That fairness would ensure the awarding of Government grant on the basis of genuine calculated need and not on political prejudice against some local authorities while favouring others. If the Government were concerned to arrive at a proper system, they would accept that fairness was the answer.
      In Committee, the Government rejected our fair rates proposals. Our response was, "What about having more bands to take account of the difficulties that arise because of the differences in property prices in London compared with other parts of the country?" That approach was also rejected, because it was getting too close to a rating system, but it would have had some logic, a factor that is entirely outwith the system with which we are now confronted.
      In Committee, we asked how properties could be properly valued in the haphazard way that the Government proposed. We were told that properties would be valued a street at a time in England and Wales by estate agents. The Minister of State told us that aerial photography was the answer. He was talking about photographs that happen to be in the file, as it were. He did not propose that new photographs should be taken. I am not sure whether a distinction can be made between the two. The Minister seems to think that one can and that it is important, and I hope that he will explain his position this evening. Perhaps the explanation is that he does not want to have to face the electorate if it thinks that there is a spy in the sky taking photographs of people's properties. He knows that the public are likely to be more tolerant of existing photographs than the taking of new ones and the involvement of estate agents, for example.
      It is clear that aerial photographs would be useful if they showed, for example, that a property had been extended at the back, but we have still to hear how such photographs would tell anyone how a property had been divided internally. There has been no explanation. As we pointed out, behind the frontage of a street of typical Victorian terraces, there may be properties of widely differing sizes, yet estate agencies may value them alike because they look alike.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that there may be environmental differences even within the same street—one house may be opposite a gas works and another opposite a park. The Minister smiled then, but will he reply to that point? Any member of the public might say to him, "If you had to choose between two properties in one street which were described in an estate agent's window, one of which faced the gas works and the other the park, and both were the same price, which would you choose?" He would not have to think long. It is obvious that what we are saying is common sense which everyone understands.
      108
      There are bound to be many appeals. The Government have denied that and said that that is not likely, given the number of bands and the wide differences between them. People who have worked for years in assessors' departments know better than that. They expect a large number of appeals to be made.
      The banding system in Scotland is not adequate to meet property needs. Band H covers properties of £212,000 and upwards. Anyone can glance at the posh Sunday newspapers in Scotland and see the flattering photographs of the properties which get the biggest advertisements. Many are valued at about £150,000. Few people with properties in band H will pay three times as much as people with properties in the lowest band. This system is a tiny improvement on the poll tax. As the Secretary of State pointed out, the poll tax is unjust because a duke pays as much as a dustman. Now, that duke is to pay three times as much, but I do not think that many people will be impressed by that footling improvement.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: Not having sat through the hours that the Committee spent upstairs, I am slightly timorous about raising this subject on the Floor of the House but, having listened to speeches by some members of the Committee, I am glad that I did not sit through those hours.
      When the council tax was proposed, many of my constituents and I were worried about the impact on the south-east. Yet the more I examine the subject, the more I feel that it would be a mistake to introduce a regional banding system and that it would certainly not address my constituents' concerns. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is on the Treasury Bench, because I was one of those who pressed him in the early days to introduce a higher band. I am pleased that that has happened, and feel that, to a great extent, that has met some of my constituents' concerns. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that people in the top band were "compressed"—I am happy with that word—in relation to lower bands. The limitation on the multiple which they will pay is sensible.
      The point that I made in an intervention is equally important. Through the income and direct tax system, the people who earn the most will contribute more to the funding of local government than they have in the past. The amount raised locally through the council tax will be a relatively low percentage, and will certainly be lower than the percentage paid under the rates. That is important in an area such as mine.
      We have had a continual problem in constituencies in the south-east in persuading my hon. Friend the Minister how to treat higher regional costs in relation to standard spending assessments. He has always been willing to meet delegations, but the problems will continue, despite the introduction of the new tax. Nevertheless, I am satisfied with the way in which the county of Surrey has come out in the calculations for the forthcoming year, and I am sure that that will continue under the council tax. I am delighted that in areas such as mine the system of rebates for those on low incomes will continue.
      It is important to bear in mind that the differences between various parts of the country are often not as great as those within a particular constituency and we should consider that issue in our deliberations on the council tax. The ability to treat local variations is very important, especially in the current process of valuations, and I hope

      109
      that the amenity and other values of various local residences will be taken into account. Again, that is more in the interests of my constituents than the imposition of a regional system.
      A regional banding system would contain enormous anomalies. I represent a constituency outside London and I am glad that no part of it was under the old Greater London council. If the royal borough of Kingston will take its dirty hands off houses in Long Ditton which it is now trying to claim under the Boundary Commission, no part of my constituency will ever be within boundaries of the old or any new GLC.
      As the Minister rightly said in a statement on 20 November, there is no doubt that
      "in Kingston-Upon-Thames a couple in a four bedroomed house would pay £88 less than their equivalents in next door Elmbridge",
      part of which is in my constituency. That would be the effect of the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Such a difference is not acceptable. They are not the issues that we should discuss when considering the way in which the council tax will be implemented.
      It is important that a house worth, say, £200,000 should have the same bill throughout the country for a given level of services. I am not interested in the situation in Wales or Scotland as they have their own systems of delegated government and their own systems of finance. [Interruption.] I would not presume to speak on behalf of any Members of Parliament from Scotland. Therefore, I am not sure that I would wish them to presume to speak on my behalf.
      As a Member of Parliament for a constituency in the south-east, I believe that the main problems that I identified in the council tax and the way in which it would be implemented have been met by my colleagues on the Front Bench. The problems were of immense concern to my constituents. I have gradually been able to convince them that the issues that I have raised this evening—such as the new band of £320,000—were the correct ones to be resolved.
      When the council tax comes to be implemented, I beg my colleagues on the Front Bench to remember that we do not want any last-minute changes, such as extra help for London. Many of my constituents believe that Londoners get a good deal in many ways, as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). That may not necessarily be appreciated by hon. Members whose constituencies are in London, but it is certainly appreciated by hon. Members whose constituencies border on London.
      The key issue for any Government is to ensure that local councils do not overspend and the key issue for any local Member of Parliament is to ensure that the efficiency with which councils deliver services is of the highest quality. I believe that we can achieve that through Conservative councils across the south-east and I oppose the system of regional banding.
      Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has failed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but let it stand on the record that he has pursued privately with Ministers the interests of his constituents most assiduously.
      My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has pursued his constituents' interests by urging Ministers to visit the Isles of Scilly, which I had the pleasure of doing
      110
      recently. He believes that the problems of the Isles of Scilly, which have high property prices due to people coming in from outside, are unique. I am not sure that they are unique, but we are aware of them.
      I can tell my hon. Friend that, where a number of properties are owned by people from outside the islands and if those properties are second homes, the fact that only half of the tax will be payable by those taxpayers will be taken into account in the assessment of the tax base of the authority. That will, of course, be reflected in the amount of grant that the Isles of Scilly can receive. I hope that that will be some consolation to him.
      I say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) that ministers of religion and the Churches in general have made representations. Some of the Churches have suggested that they should be able to pay the council taxes of ministers of religion en bloc and then divide that by equal amounts among the ministers of religion so that people would not pay more for living in an especially large vicarage. We shall be interested in pursuing that point with them.
      The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is meant to be the finance spokesman for his party, showed a 100 per cent. misunderstanding of the system when he said that his constituents would look across to Scotland and see there a more favourable banding system. The system in Scotland is less favourable in that people will reach the higher band at a lower value of property, because there are more people in the lowest bands. The important point is that the amount that is contributed from local government finance in Scotland is less, and the amount contributed from local taxation in Wales is less again. Different bandings in those different places are therefore appropriate.
      9.45 pm
      A £50,000 house in Scotland would be in band D, but it would be in band B in England. However, the house in Scotland would pay £270, and the one in England would pay £311 because of the difference in the amount that is raised locally.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and for Esher (Mr. Taylor) were right to point out the difficulties of a regional banding system. How right they were to point out that it is not only in the south-east that there are expensive properties, and that there are often variations within regions which are as striking and as dramatic as the variations between them.
      If we gave discounts in London, that would be unfair. It would mean that in every band there would be lower bills for a standard level of service. It would mean, for example, that in the lowest band, in London, there would be lower bills for a standard level of service than there were anywhere else. It would mean that we would sweep to one side the fact that the variations within London are as dramatic as the variations between London and other places.
      Within one borough, between Mayfair and Paddington, for example, the difference in property prices is enormous. From the east of London to the west, the difference is enormous. I ask, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) whether it would be fair to give all Londoners a discount on that basis and for the people of London, uniquely, to pay less for their services in the lowest band while no one else had that benefit.
      Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Portillo: No.
      I argued in a letter to my hon. Friends that there are higher disposable incomes in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, who spoke in a previous debate, was kind enough to put part of that letter on the record.
      There used to be a rateable value discount in London, and I know that some of my hon. Friends hanker to go back to that. In the proposed council tax, we have put in place the idea that the amounts of tax that are paid should be compressed. We propose that only three times as much should be payable by those who live in the most valuable properties as by those in the least valuable properties in any area. The effect of the compression of ratios is expecially helpful to all the places, whether London or the Isles of Scilly, where property prices are unusually high.
      I sometimes think that my hon. Friends have not fully recognised the effect of that compression of the tax rates, although clearly my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow. West, when he began to compare the council tax bills that are in prospect with the very much higher rates bills that used to be paid by his constituents and, even more, by the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), he was firmly on to the point that the council tax achieves what is necessary—that is, higher bills for people who live in higher-valued properties, but not bills that are disproportionate or excessive, such as we had under the rating system and such as those to which the Labour party wishes us to return.
      Mr. Allen McKay rose——
      Mr. Portillo: I am afraid that we are under a time limit.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was less than straightforward with us this evening. He told us that he was committed to a system of fairness. As far as I am aware, the Labour party is not committed to a system of regional banding. The Labour party is certainly committed to the principle of unlimited tax bills in respect of the more expensive properties, and longs for a return to the sort of envy tax that we had under the rating system, whereby people in more expensive properties—whether they are widows or people living on their own and irrespective of whether or not they have high incomes—are made to pay in relation to the value of their properties.
      Not only does the Labour party propose an unlimited tax; it proposes an additional tier of government at regional level, and says that that regional tier of government should be able to raise income tax. God help us if we ever have the Labour party imposing regional income tax and unlimited bills on higher valued properties and—what is more—if we have no capping on local authorities, so that any authority is free to set whatever level of taxation it chooses.
      The hon Member for Brightside was very cross about the valuation exercise that we propose to conduct. He was cross that we intended to save £100 million on the valuation process because he loves public spending; anything that is good value for money is a disappointment to him. Just as he loves public spending, so he hates the private sector. Therefore, the idea that valuers should be
      112
      chosen from the private sector to conduct the valuation and so save the taxpayer money is anathema to him, and has excited him more than somewhat.
      The hon. Gentleman caricatured the valuation process as broad-brush. It will not be broad-brush. It will take account of local factors and of the difference between properties that overlook the park and properties next to the disco. By using private sector valuers who have local knowledge, we shall make it possible for such factors to be taken into account, to achieve value for money and to conduct the process quickly. That means that, for the Conservatives, the introduction of a new system of taxation in 1993 is a reality, whereas for the Labour party it is cloud cuckoo land, and Labour Members know that perfectly well.
      The hon. Member for Brightside was less than straightforward with the people of Barnet. I can tell him that they will not be consoled by his promise that they would not all be in the same band if they knew the truth, which is that he would sting them for vast sums of the sort that were dragged out of people under the rating system—the sums which brought the rates system down and which at one stage led his party and himself to denounce the rating system as unfair. We stuck to the belief that that system was unfair whereas the Opposition have jettisoned it.
      Let there be no doubt about it: the system that the Labour party proposes is massively unfair. The hon. Member for Brightside can only say that, for a property worth five times as much, the Bill would not be five times as high, just as he told us before that the number of Labour Members advocating non-payment was not 30. He cannot tell us how many times it was, and he cannot tell us how many times greater the bill would be in Barnet. He is the "not 30, not five" shadow spokesman. He cannot produce more precise figures than that.
      The tax that we propose is partly a property tax and partly a personal tax, and we believe that the property element should be a tax on the enjoyment of property, which can only be related to the actual value of property. We propose a fair system, with discounts to single people, students and student nurses and rebates for people on low incomes. We propose a comprehensible system and one that recognises that, while there should be a relationship to the value of the property, there should also be a compressing of the tax bands so that we ask more of people in higher-valued properties, but do not subject them to the excessive bills to which the Labour party would have us return. For all those reasons, I ask my hon. Friends to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Murphy: Not so long ago, the Minister spoke with equal passion about the merits of the poll tax. Even he has now accepted that the poll tax in Britain and Wales was an abject and complete failure because it was unfair and was unrelated to people's ability to pay. Worse still, from the Government's point of view, it was perceived by the majority of the people as being unfair and that, essentially, was its downfall.
      Earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said that the question of valuation bands was not an issue. What is an issue, of course, is the unfairness of any local government tax. The tax that the Government introduced three years ago was above all unfair and unrelated to people's ability to pay. With its banding and valuation lists, the council tax is equally

      113
      unfair. I am afraid that the credibility of local government will be put at risk because of the constant changes in local government finances that have occurred over the past few months and years.
      The eight bands that the Government have proposed for Wales are disproportionate. The highest band pays only three times more than the lowest band—although one property may be worth £240,000 compared with £30,000. We are proposing a 14-band system for Wales that reflects the ability to pay and is more closely linked to people's income. More importantly, it also follows the changeability of the housing market in England and Wales. The only fair answer to the question of valuation is that each property should be individually valued. That is the fairest way.
      In Britain, all the professional bodies, including the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors arid the Institute of Rating and Valuation, have all said that the valuation and banding system proposed by the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities is wrong. All the local authorities in Wales have said that the bands are unfair and unjust. That view was echoed by the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts. They specifically wanted a band lower than the £30,000 band and more bands between £90,000 and £120,000 and above £240,000.
      What logic and fairness is there in the present system which doubles from £120,000 to £240,000 in respect of the commencement point of the top band in Wales while only increasing the range of payment by one fifth between the bottom and the top bands? There is nothing logical or fair in that ludicrous system.
      The councils in Wales asked the Government to undertake a study of the relationship between capital values in Wales and household gross and disposable incomes. That study could easily have been carried out with the assistance—if they had agreed—of the Building Societies Association, the Inland Revenue and the valuation office. They could have compared purchase prices, incomes, deposits and capital values. However, the Government decided to ignore the wishes and fears of the local authorities in Wales and elsewhere.
      The Welsh Office refused to carry out the studies purely for electoral and dogmatic reasons. The Government still maintain the view that they held when the poll tax was introduced. The council tax is no different. Under both taxes, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.
      There are no practical problems with the introduction of 14 bands in Wales. There would be no increase in the workload of local authorities and there would be no delay in introducing a new system. The system would be fairer and there would be fewer appeals.
      The poll tax failed essentially because of its unfairness. It also failed because of the cost to people of this country. In Wales alone, £100 million was squandered on the poll tax to set it up, to maintain it, and to sweeten it. That was a disgraceful squandering and waste of public money. The Government might as well have dumped £100 million in the Bristol channel for what good it did to the people of Wales. The Prime Minister said that the poll tax was bad because of its uncollectability. The same can be said of the council tax.
      As the Government prefer to listen to their party managers rather than to local authorities, they are failing
      114
      to listen with regard to the council tax. As a consequence, they will fail to win the general election. I urge the House to support new clause 9 and the consequent amendments.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 329.
      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

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

      BROADCASTING
      That the draft Broadcasting (Programme Contractors' Additional Payments) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

      HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
      That the Clackmannan District Council (Vesting of Central Regional Council Land) (Scotland) Order 1991, dated 19th November 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

      EDUCATION
      That the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

      LEGAL PROFESSION
      That the draft Registered Foreign Lawyers Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 18th November, he approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      Question agreed to.

    PETITIONS

      Pensioners
      10.14 pm
      Mrs. Alice Mahon: I wish to present the following petition:
      The Humble Petition of members of Senior Citizens Clubs and residents of Aged Persons dwellings in Halifax and Sowerby Bridge in West Yorkshire showeth that they support Age Concern's Campaign for a better deal for Pensioners which asks for the Christmas Allowance to be increased to £50 and for free bus passes and TV licences for all old age pensioners.
      It is time to listen to the elderly of this country. With all the talk about citizenship, I hope that we can at least listen to our elderly citizens.
      Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House takes notice of this Campaign and urges the Government to take action as soon as possible.
      And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Cambuslang and Rutherglen
      Mr. Thomas McAvoy: In 1975 the royal borough of Rutherglen and the district council of Cambuslang lost their local independence when they were incorporated into the city of Glasgow district council. We have not adapted to that change and in the past couple of months we have had public meetings in the constituency which have been attended by more than 3,000 people. The petition before the House was signed, in the space of three weeks, by more than 12,000 people. Therefore, there is an obvious demand in our area for a more localised council which is not part of the giant set-up of Glasgow district council.
      Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to bring forward proposals for the establishment of a Local Council covering the communities of Cambuslang and Rutherglen.
      And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Poultry Industry
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Chapman.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The reason for this debate is to seek action for a major sector of agriculture.
  Poultry is the most popular meat in Britain, selling one and a half times more than beef and as much as pork and lamb combined. Last year, the poultry sector had a combined production value of £1,766 million. It employs about 50,000 people, mostly based in rural areas. It uses 30 per cent. of the total United Kingdom feed wheat harvest and therefore directly affects other sectors of agriculture.
  The poultry industry receives no direct subsidies or income support under the common agricultural policy. It is highly competitive within Europe, but, unfortunately, it is now suffering job losses and is threatened by cut-price imports from the third world. Of the poultrymeat now available in the United Kingdom, 18 per cent. is imported at a price that is between 5p and 6p in the pound below that obtained through British production.
  The problem is being exacerbated by European legislation on poultrymeat inspection charges, which has been implemented in five out of the 12 European Community countries. The United Kingdom is alone in failing to provide financial assistance to reduce the charges to its industry.
  Local authorities have been burdened with the responsibility for the regulations, for the collection of the charges for the inspections as well as for all aspects of food health. I submit that that system is not good for the local authorities or for the poultry industry. It has meant that the United Kingdom's cost burden on production is 4p per pound compared with our French competitors. I am told that the Food Safety Act 1990 has added another 1/2p in the pound to United Kingdom costs compared to those of the French industry.
  Government policy has created significant on-costs to the poultry industry, thereby widening the trade gap, encouraging lower priced imports and inhibiting the export competitiveness of British companies. Any loss in home production will be immediately replaced by imports, and 18 per cent. of United Kingdom poultry consumed already comes mainly from France, Denmark and Holland. There are ominous signs of import penetration of meat from eastern Europe, Brazil and Thailand at dramatically lower production costs.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Has my hon. Friend seen the letter from Mr. Stephen, the group director of Grampian Country Foods Ltd., one of the fastest growing and most enterprising poultry companies? Mr. Stephen argues that the imports from Thailand and Brazil are entering at about 60 per cent. of the production costs in the United Kingdom because those countries have been able to take advantage of access to exports of subsidised European Community grain.
  Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Those enterprising companies are now faced with unfair competition. They believe that, given a level playing field, they have the quality to take on any competitors and win.
  No information is available about the British Government's action to ensure that imported food products conform to United Kingdom safety standards.

  121
  Because of the extra burdens placed on the United Kingdom industry, as imports grow the Government's problem in maintaining safety standards will increase. The Government have rightly laid down those standards for our industry, but they are not on a level playing field.
  The Government's present policy gives us the worst of both worlds, especially in the context of a net £6 billion trade deficit in food and drink products. On the Government's insistence, the poultry industry has taken on board all aspects of food quality, hygiene and safety as required under the Food Safety Act 1990, as well as poultry inspection costs. They did so while recognising that those huge on-costs would rapidly lead to an uncompetitive position. Such a position has existed for the past 12 months, and unless a level playing field is created to allow that non-subsidised, professional part of the food sector more freedom to compete, there will be major redundancies and reduced job opportunities, and rural communities will be destroyed. The net result will be an inevitable increase in imported poultry.
  Is it the Government's desired policy to oversee the demise of the poultry industry? If not, will the Parliamentary Secretary explain what the Government intend to do about it? Animal welfare standards must be encouraged Communitywide. Severe welfare standards or those that are not replicated raise United Kingdom costs of production and lead to lost export markets, while home market competitors use methods and practices that have rightly been banned here.
  My sympathies rest with the animal welfare organisations, which also have a duty to ensure that reforms here do not handicap our industry, or encourage or reward bad practice elsewhere. What progress are the Government making with other Governments? Will they ensure that Europewide improvements are instituted at a pace that will not handicap our industry while it adjusts to improved animal welfare standards? Will the Parliamentary Secretary assure me that there will be a level playing field?
  The egg sector, too, is important, with an annual production valued at some £500 million. The egg sector has been particularly damaged by outside interference. The Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary association agreements have caused poultry levy reductions of up to 60 per cent. over a three-year period. Linked with large amounts of American inward investment, that will put enormous pressure on the United Kingdom poultry industry, which must result in severe cost-cutting exercises. It must mean redundancies, and knock-on losses for cereal producers—quite apart from the obvious problems that loom in regard to the GATT negotiations.
  Do the Government wish some 20 per cent. of all the eggs that are sold in this country to come from Poland or Hungary in three years' time? How will such imports be dealt with under the salmonella and welfare regulations? What tests will they undergo, and what security will British consumers be given?
  Despite higher feed costs, in most years the United Kingdom industry can compete effectively with its European competitors. It usually supplies 98 per cent. of the home market—or did, until that outburst from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), about which the less said the better: in 1990, the figure fell to 93 per cent., and the industry is only now managing to fight the imports.
  I question the basis of the Government's present policy. Let me refer the Minister to the evidence submitted by the
  122
  public health laboratory service to the Select Committee on Agriculture on 11 January 1989. Paragraph 17.3 refers specifically to the eradication of salmonella pullorum as the basis for similar flock destruction to eliminate salmonella enteritidis—PT4. Sir Donald Acheson, the Department of Health's chief medical officer, said that the solution lay less in end use in kitchen and cooking processes than in
  "control of the infection at source".
  If we combine those statements, it seems that the policy of flock slaughter is the Government's answer. As a result, an enormous burden of testing and inspection has been placed on the industry. The Minister's own departmental evidence to the Committee stated that salmonella enteritidis was ubiquitous. According to paragraph 18,
  "Salmonella organisms are present in many areas of the environment and are persistent. There is no technically sound method which is certain to eliminate them from laying houses. Even after very thorough cleansing and disinfection, salmonella may recur. Because of this, a policy of slaughtering flocks with the aim of eradicating salmonella would not have a realistic prospect of success. There would be a serious risk that even after an infected flock had been slaughtered out and the premises disinfected, subsequent flocks in the same building could become infected from the environment."
  That evidence, given to the Minister by his own Department, was ignored in the policy that the Government subsequently produced.
  That MAFF/Department of Health view, so clearly stated on 11 January 1989, leaves us wondering what has changed since then—apart from the fact that more than £4 million has been paid out in slaughter compensation for more than 2·5 million birds that have been slaughtered. The Minister ignored the advice of his own Department, and that led to a slaughter policy that is wrongly founded and bound to fail.
  Why did the PHLS use the example of a host-specific organism such as pullorum as the model to eradicate enteritidis, which is well documented as a non-host-specific and ubiquitous organism? Given that it is a specific phage type, on what evidence of phage-typing was it established that type 4 was specific to poultry? It is well documented that the phage type does not appear to affect the host specificity of other salmonella strains.
  For example, pullorum has several phage types, all specific to poultry. Typhi has many types specific to humans. There is no evidence that enteritidis phage type 4 is confined to poultry in the same way that pullorum is. It is perfectly logical to conclude that type 4 is widespread not only in other avian species but in other animals and in the general environment. If salmonella E affects humans, why does it not also affect poultry? After all, we are discussing living organisms with their own defence mechanisms.
  While more cases than hitherto of salmonella E in humans have been traced to foods containing eggs, usually uncooked or partly cooked, the great majority of these cases have involved food prepared outside the home and frequently associated with poor hygiene and/or handling practices.
  The incidence of naturally infected eggs is low. A 1989 survey of 300 flocks in Canada led Agriculture Canada to conclude that less than one egg in a million would be thus infected. The natural defences possessed by the egg militate strongly against widespread infection or multiplication of the organism in the intact egg. The risk to consumers of being infected with salmonella E as a result

  123
  of eating eggs at home is almost zero. That was never the impression produced by the massive public fuss following the statement by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South.
  The risk is somewhat increased outside the home, but it remains extremely low compared with many other risks to which consumers expose themselves daily. Given the scientific knowledge available, the eradication of any salmonella species, especially one as ubiquitous as this, is not feasible in the short term. Even if it were posssible, there is no assurance that such a reduction among laying hens would be reflected in lower numbers of outbreaks in the human population.
  Having disturbed the balance of natural immunity, the Swedes, who attempted such a programme, now apparently find that the level of salmonella in their population is higher than ever, and much higher than this country's.
  The eradication policy was based on a generalisation and a previous example that was invalid—it did not compare like with like.
  Will the Government abandon their slaughter and inspection policy and look again at a proper scientific investigation into these forms of salmonella? Now that the fuss has died down, in the calm and quiet that prevails, will they look again at the problem with a proper scientific investigation to find out the truth? It is crucial to get to the truth of the matter, because the egg industry may have been cruelly and unfairly misused on insufficient and hurried evidence.
  I have tried to highlight the dangers of an uneven playing field for this important industry. I have questioned the Government's policy on salmonella and eggs. I have questioned its damaging effect on poultrymeat and especially the effects of inspection charges. Both factors have been exacerbated by the fact that the Food Safety Act applies only to the United Kingdom.
  These aspects add major costs throughout the industry. That will lead to loss of market share and to imports that are not subject to similar impositions and safety provisions. The Government created this problem; what do they intend to do to provide solutions? The industry and I look forward to the Minister's detailed answers.
  10.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) has made a series of points about the poultry industry. I shall arrange for my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) to answer the points to do with public health if I cannot cover them this evening, and I shall attempt to deal with the points relating specifically to the industry.
  During the salmonella crisis, consumer confidence completely collapsed. There followed a catastrophic decline in sales. The Government were not able to work out a response at their leisure. We had a crisis that had to be dealt with and that is why the Government took immediate and far-reaching action. Failure to do so would have meant that the industry would have died in the water. It is significant that there has been a great recovery in confidence in the industry because of the measures that we
  124
  have taken. It is a credit to the industry that it co-operated in the implementation of those measures and that so many producers recognised the need for urgency.
  I recall the Select Committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers because I was a member of it. The evidence to the Committee and the Committee's report endorsed in broad measure the steps that were taken by the Government to deal with the crisis.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Why did not the Government feel confident enough to respond immediately to the crisis? Given all the information that was available to the Government, they should surely have been able to obviate the whole problem, which arose because of careless remarks by a junior Minister.
  Mr. Curry: The Government cannot respond at 10 minutes' notice to a collapse that spread across the industry and affected consumer confidence throughout the country. Most of the reproaches against the Government are that we responded too quickly with measures that were too far reaching. Most of the pressures from the industry were directed at trying to unwind some of the measures. As I shall shortly explain, in so far as the Government think it prudent to do so, we have pursued that policy.
  The hon. Member for Angus, East has raised some important issues. I accept the dilemma about animal welfare. We have a choice. We can say that we will do nothing until there is a Community-wide agreement. The result of that is that measures, which I am sure every hon. Member considers to be important, would not be taken. For example, if we had said that we would not outlaw veal crates until they were outlawed throughout the Community, they would still not be outlawed. If we had not taken measures on the tethering system for pigs until a ban was agreed in the Community, pigs would still be tethered.
  There comes a point at which we must ask whether these issues matter sufficiently to us to ask our industry to see to them, knowing that measures will not be taken elsewhere however hard we try to bring them about. The answer to whether we do our utmost to ensure that Community harmonisation produces the standards that we observe in the United Kingdom is yes. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot guarantee the outcome because matters are decided by majority vote. An animal welfare issue arose at a recent Council meeting and for the first time the United Kingdom voted against the package because the measures did not go far enough. I am unable to guarantee that we can deliver in such circumstances, but the dilemma is real, as the hon. Gentleman realises.
  Mr. Michael Lord: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Does he accept that, while we are educating the rest of Europe, our producers will be going bankrupt?
  Mr. Curry: Much depends on the circumstances. I do not accept that our producers necessarily go bankrupt. In some areas of activity our producers have a good marketing campaign as a result of our measures. I know from talking to supermarket groups that pork from animals reared in what I might call pig-friendly conditions is taking a growing share of the market. I appreciate that one can argue about the definition of free-range because the term is covered by a series of Community definitions,

  125
  but free-range chickens are selling in increasing numbers. One should not always regard such matters in a negative way, because there is often a marketing advantage.
  The hon. Member for Angus, East is a reasonable man. How do we deal with eastern Europe? It will not go away. The most logical way to help people there is to accept what they can produce. But we must strike a balance between what we can accept from that area and the impact of those imports on our industry. The hon. Gentleman represents a Scottish constituency and knows the difficulties that arose on Tayside in the soft fruit industry. In that example an association agreement has put down some firm signposts for a trade for which we had to rely on recent safeguard action by the Commission. None of us can ignore these dilemmas.
  I shall try to deal with the salmonella issue. The Government are keeping under review the whole package of measures to control the problem of salmonella in eggs and poultry. We have introduced some changes which have sought to ease the burden on producers without compromising the protection of public health. In particular, we have recently agreed, with the support of the Department of Health, to allow eggs from infected flocks to go for pasteurisation in approved plants under strictly controlled conditions. While we are satisfied that the pasteurisation process, properly carried out, is effective in producing a safe product, it must be for the producer and the industry in this country to consider the use that they wish to make of such arrangements. We are exploring the possibility of exporting eggs from infected flocks for pasteurisation abroad.
  It is important that the industry has its own decisions to take. The hon. Gentleman will know, for example, that we have banned the use of specified bovine offals in feed. The fact is, however, that the United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association, the feed compounders and the retail trade have introduced what is effectively a voluntary ban on the use of offals. That is not something that the Government impose. It is something that the trade has decided that the consumer would be reassured with and, therefore, it does not have a statutory backing. The trade decides at the end of the day that it needs to be able to reassure the consumer.
  Subject to the possibility of greater interest in pasteurisation in future, I have to say that at present we see no viable alternative to slaughter for infected breeding and laying flocks. It has yet to be established that antibiotic or other treatment can be effective in restoring an infected flock to a state in which it can safely be allowed to return to production. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the use of antibiotics brings its own problems of residues, for example. We are considering, with the Department of Health, what further work could realistically be done in this area.
  For the longer term, research work is in hand on the possible development of a vaccine to protect poultry flocks against salmonella infection throughout their laying period. Much work remains to be done before we can expect adequately to evaluate the practical feasibility of such an approach.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the actions of other member states. Several states have taken measures in recent years to tackle the problem of salmonella—especially salmonella enteritidis—in poultry flocks. There are similarities and differences with our own approach. In France, for example, which has been cited frequently,
  126
  controls have been operated through a voluntary scheme, which has been taken up by the vast majority of producers. Originally confined to breeders and hatcheries, the scheme has recently been extended to all levels of the laying flock. The individual producer undertakes to abide by specific codes of practice and to submit his flocks to regular tests. Should there be evidence of salmonella pullorum or salmonella enteritidis, he has to accept slaughter of the flocks concerned. In return, the state undertakes to contribute to the costs of the tests and to pay compensation.
  In the Netherlands——
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: There is a massive feeling in the industry that if salmonella enteritidis is ubiquitous, a host of inspectors will find it and slaughter. That is the point that I was trying to get across to the Minister. The fundamental premise on which the Government's policy is based is wrong. Pullorum was more specific. Enteritidis is ubiquitous. There is a strong feeling in the industry that if there is an extension to the whole of the Common Market, a host of inspectors will find and slaughter. I ask the Government fundamentally to examine the policy and to ensure that it is based on a proper scientific evidential basis.
  Mr. Curry: Our scientific advice is that we are pursuing the right policy. As I have been explaining, our colleagues on the continent appear to be pursuing the same course. France has a slaughter policy, as have the Dutch.
  Perhaps it will be helpful if I outline the proposals that are coming from the Commission, which in due course will be European-wide. The Commission has published a draft regulation for the control of salmonella and certain other zoonoses throughout the European Community. It has been drafted largely in response to pressure from the United Kingdom for salmonella controls to be introduced on a Community-wide basis. That is precisely because we recognise the validity of the demands that there should be a level playing field.
  There are, however, three important differences from the United Kingdom measures, and in some respects the Commission would go further than us. First, the proposals provide for the control of salmonella in commercial laying flocks, as in the United Kingdom at present, but not coming into operation until July 1994. Secondly, the proposal requires the testing of broilers and breeding flocks for salmonella and heat treatment of infected flocks whereas the United Kingdom's testing and slaughter measures apply only at parent and grandparent broiler breeder levels. Thirdly, the proposal requires the testing of poultry compound feeding stuffs for salmonella, which is not the case in the United Kingdom, where certain high-risk feed ingredients are required to be tested, with codes of practice operating for the control of salmonella in feeding stuffs and raw materials.
  Under the proposal, flocks which are found to be infected will be subject to movement restrictions and their eggs may be used only in the manufacture of pasteurised egg products.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Surely the one action that could be taken immediately is to alter the basis of meat inspection from local government to national Government. That happens throughout the European Community, including Northern Ireland. That measure

  127
  would remove the 4p in the pound disadvantage that the British producer faces compared with producers in the rest of the EC.
  Mr. Curry: As my hon. Friend knows, we conducted a review of the meat inspection system. That review has concluded and we are considering its proposals. I hope that, when we can make those proposals public, they will be well received by the industry. There is much work to do. The disparity in the charges of local authorities is of concern.
  The Commission's proposals are now out for consultation with the industry and other interested bodies. We shall take careful account of what they say when we begin to negotiate in Brussels. An agreement on an EC-wide arrangement is an important priority for the United Kingdom. We hope that the Portuguese presidency
  128
  will aim for discussions early next year, but I assure the House that it is amongst the top priorities for our presidency. In the meantime, for reasons which I explained, we do not consider that there is a viable alternative to the slaughter policy.
  We cannot compromise on matters affecting food safety. I recognise the problems that the industry faces. We are in constant touch with it. We listen hard to its concerns and do our best to respond to them, in terms of the way in which we manage activities and in response to the wider European issue. The argument for the level playing field is powerful, and we shall do our best to achieve it, provided it is borne in mind that in matters of overwhelming importance the United Kingdom must retain the discretion to act in the interests of public safety and the industry.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the normal retirement age for the post of director of the field operations division of the Health and Safety Executive; what is the age of the current occupant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The normal retirement age for the post of director of field operations is 60. The present postholder is being retained in the post for a year beyond his normal retirement date, to June 1992, to assist in the implementation and consolidation of the major reform of the field organisation.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish copies of(a) the spring 1991 review of the Health and Safety Executive and (b) the field operations division impact study 1991.

  Mr. Forth
  (a) The 1991 spring review was a series of meetings at which the Health and Safety Executive's senior management reviewed the performance of its divisions against plan in the 1990–91 financial year. A full account of HSE's performance is given in the Health and Safety Commission Executive annual report 1990–91, which was laid before the House on 12 December.

  (b) the impact study is an internal review of the ways in which the HSE's field force could improve the impact of its work. The question of publication will be considered when the HSE and the Health and Safety Commission has considered its recommendations.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many premises are registered with the field operations division of the Health and Safety Executive; how many were inspected thoroughly in 1990–91; what is the current backlog of inspections; and what proposals he has to clear the backlog.

  Mr. Forth
  On 28 September 1991 there were 653,397 fixed premises registered with the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division—FOD. Between 1 April 1990 and 31 March 1991, FOD inspectors made a total of 100,232 planned inspection visits to fixed premises.

  At 31 March 1991, a total of 107,486 fixed premises in the field for inspection in the period 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991 had not received a planned inspection visit in that year. The figure includes premises which have a low inspection rating based on inspectors' judgment of risks, site standards and management control, those which have been visited for purposes other than planned inspection and those for which records are held but may no longer exist.

  A reduction in the number of premises in the field for inspection and not visited continues to be an aim of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. As part of
  2
  this, FOD has carried forward and developed special inspection initiatives on a local or regional basis across a range of industries.

  Between 1 July and 31 December 1991, FOD is carrying out a pilot exercise to assess the feasibility of employing visiting officers to identify establishments for inspection. Two of the objectives of the exercise are to eliminate redundant records from the factory inspectorate establishment database and to provide data on establishments that make up the backlog.

  Additionally, a recent study carried out by FOD has addressed the question of improving the impact of the work of the field force, including the backlog of inspections. Recommendations from the survey are currently being considered by HSE.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the factory inspectors responsible for the inspecting chemical works do not have degrees in chemistry or chemical engineering.

  Mr. Forth
  There are currently 56 factory inspectors responsible for the inspection of chemical plants who do not have degrees in chemistry or chemical engineering. Inspection assignments for factory inspectors are not made solely on specialist technical qualifications; detailed technical support is available to field inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive's technical specialists.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the factory inspectors in the field operations division of the Health and Safety Executive are trainees.

  Mr. Forth
  On 1 December 1991, a total of 182 factory inspectors in the field operations division of the Health and Safety Executive were trainee inspectors.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factories registered with the factories inspectorate have not received a basic inspection for three, five, seven, nine and 11 years; and what were the figures two years ago.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 29 January 1991,Official Report, columns 782–83. To update this information would incur disproportionate cost.

  Baynards House
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost in the financial year 1990–91 and what it is so far for the financial year 1991–92 for fees paid by the Health and Safety Executive for private employment agencies for the recruitment of staff at Baynards house; and if he will end such expenditure henceforth.

  Mr. Forth
  No fees have been paid to private employment agencies in either financial year by the Health and Safety Executive for the recruitment of staff in Baynards house.

  Construction Sites
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent initiatives have been taken by the Health and Safety Commission's construction industry advisory committee in establishing new improved standards for site health and safety.

  Mr. Forth
  The HSC's construction industry advisory committee has taken a number of recent initiatives to promote improved standards of health and safety in the construction industry. The main initiatives are:undertaking a comprehensive revision of guidance on the management of health and safety in construction projects. This will support forthcoming new Construction (Design and Management) Regulations which will place clear duties on clients, their professional advisers, designers, and contractors to bring about a coherent structure for managing health and safety;
  meeting professional institutions to encourage their greater involvement in health and safety matters, including improved training for the professions. A major conference is also planned for senior representatives of construction companies on the role of the professions under the proposed new legislation;
  a review of the use of heavy building blocks to produce guidance and consideration of a weight limit for manual handling above which mechanical assistance would be required;
  revising guidance on the safe use of site dumpers; and publishing a long-term strategy to give its effort clear direction while remaining sufficiently flexible to respond to important immediate issues.

  EC Social Action
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made by his Department of British industry managers' views of the current proposals by the European Commission for action in the social area.

  Mr. Forth
  The United Kingdom is unique in the European Community for its wide consultation of industry on the proposals in the social area. The significant majority of responses from industry to the Department's consultation documents support the Government's view that a number of the proposed directives under the Commission's social action programme would impose damaging costs on employers, destroy flexibility and limit our international competitiveness. These views have been endorsed in many representations received from individual employers and from employer organisations.

  Youth Training
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from TECs over the lack of funds to meet the responsibilities to provide youth training in line with targets set by the Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has regular contact with all training and enterprise councils on a variety of matters. The Government remain firmly committed to their youth training guarantee.

  Disability Symbol
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a list of companies which have given firm commitments to the Employment Service's4
  disability symbol for employers; and how long a company can express a firm commitment without actually using the symbol, and still remain on the list.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for the staffing of training and enterprise councils in the longer term.

  Mr. Howard
  On 26 July 1991 I wrote to the chairmen of all TECs proposing that discussions should begin with TECs, with the relevant trade unions and with seconded staff about arrangements to secure the objective of freeing TECs to be the direct employers of their staff on terms and conditions decided by TECs.

  I am writing today to TEC chairmen setting out the broad arrangements for phasing out secondments to TECs from the civil service by October 1996. These will give TECs the freedom to offer secondees employment in their TEC. Secondees in turn will be free to accept TEC employment or return to the Department when their secondment period ends. TECs will be provided with the funding to offer former secondees pension provisions broadly comparable with the principal civil service pension scheme. Subject to normal parliamentary procedures for notifying the giving of non-statutory guarantees and indemnities, I also propose to meet the costs of redundancy entitlements for past civil service employment in the event of a redundancy arising as a direct result of Government action within the first five years of the start of former secondee's employment in a TEC.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mirror Group Newspapers (Pension Fund)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement in response to the representations made to him by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe on behalf of employees of Mirror Group Newspapers about the losses incurred by their pension fund.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have written to the right hon. Gentleman.

  EC Contributions
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 39, what was the level of the United Kingdom's liability for contribution to EC funds in each year since 1973 (a) gross and (b) net, in cash terms and after adjusting for inflation, before refunds or abatement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information requested is set out in the table:
  5

  Gross (before refunds and abatements

  Net (before refunds and abatements)

  Year

  Current prices

  Constant1 prices

  Current prices

  Constant1 prices

  1973

  181

  987

  102

  556

  1974

  179

  850

  29

  138

  1975

  342

  1,276

  -56

  -209

  1976

  463

  1,500

  167

  541

  1977

  737

  2,096

  369

  1,050

  1978

  1,348

  3,444

  822

  2,100

  1979

  1,606

  3,587

  947

  2,115

  1980

  1,767

  3,303

  804

  1,503

  1981

  2,174

  3,647

  1,090

  1,829

  1982

  2,863

  4,464

  1,625

  2,534

  1983

  2,976

  4,408

  1,454

  2,154

  1984

  3,204

  4,538

  1,184

  1,677

  1985

  3,940

  5,277

  2,035

  2,726

  1986

  4,493

  5,815

  2,273

  2,942

  1987

  5,202

  6,414

  2,874

  3,544

  1988

  5,138

  5,946

  2,956

  3,421

  1989

  5,585

  6,043

  3,469

  3,754

  1990

  6,355

  6,355

  4,172

  4,172

  Mecu Constant prices1 2

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Belgium

  1,631

  1,875

  1,987

  1,869

  1,764

  Denmark

  927

  946

  1,024

  895

  775

  Germany

  9,598

  10,115

  12,237

  11,488

  10,358

  Greece

  1,139

  539

  589

  680

  564

  Spain

  2,980

  2,072

  3,584

  3,370

  3,671

  France

  7,787

  8,057

  9,678

  8,856

  8,090

  Ireland

  396

  380

  357

  384

  368

  Italy

  6,063

  6,301

  7,572

  6,887

  6,098

  Luxembourg

  73

  82

  89

  75

  74

  Netherlands

  2,366

  2,518

  2,926

  2,785

  2,615

  Portugal

  446

  492

  515

  523

  502

  United Kingdom

  6,245

  7,062

  6,161

  7,107

  6,534

  1 Constant prices for the United Kingdom have been constructed using the GDP deflator at market prices.

  2 Constant prices for other Member States have been constructed using the GDP implicit price index. Source: OECC.

  Note: Gross contribution are given net of the United Kingdom's abatement and other Member States' contribution to it.

  Unitary Tax
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet in a position to announce the outcome of the Government's review of unitary tax with the United States Treasury.

  Mr. Maude
  The review of unitary tax conducted jointly by the Inland Revenue and the United States Treasury has now been completed and the Government have endorsed the conclusions reached in the report. A copy of the review report, which has been published today, is being placed in the Library.

  The report highlights the main points in a complicated issue. It identifies not only where progress has been made to date but also assesses the best practical means of taking matters forward.

  In accordance with the report's conclusions, both Governments take this opportunity to restate their commitment to work together to secure the elimination of the worldwide combined reporting method of unitary taxation.

  At present we believe that the best means of achieving this goal is to support companies litigating in United States courts against worldwide unitary tax. Both Governments will continue to give such support.

  In the meantime the British Government intend to retain the legislation contained in section 812 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. No further guarantee is contemplated as to the effective date of the
  6
  1 Constant prices have been constructed using the GDP deflator at market prices.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the contribution to EC funds in each year since 1986 made by each of the 12 members of the EC(a) gross and (b) net, in constant prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The gross contribution to the EC budget by each member state in constant prices for the years 1986–1990 is in the table. Details of member states' gross contributions for 1991 will be published in the "Statement on the 1992 Community Budget" early next year. Details of member states' net contributions are not published by the European Commission.

  legislation were it to be triggered, beyond the guarantee, previously given, that it would not apply to dividends paid on or before 31 December 1989.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Central Statistical Office will be taking in its assessment of the trend in retail sales and related indicators of activity to take account of the Sunday opening of many shops this December.

  Mr. Maples
  No action is necessary. The usual procedures for the compilation of the monthly retail sales index will ensure that Sunday sales are properly reflected.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for 1991–92 the number of(a) corporate taxpayers and (b) income taxpayers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Maude
  About 350,000 companies pay corporation tax and 25·1 million individuals pay income tax in the United Kingdom. Information for Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not separately available for 1991–92.

  Allowances
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people receive(a) the married couple's allowance, (b) the additional person's allowance and (c) the widow's bereavement allowance.

  Mr. Maude
  In 1991–92 the numbers of individuals benefiting from the specified allowances are estimated to be about(a) 11·1 million, (b) 600,000 and (c) 140,000.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the revenue yield from freezing the married couple's allowance, additional personal allowance and widow's bereavement allowance—but not the married couple's allowance for pensioners—(a) in the first year, (b) in a full year, assuming this is introduced at the beginning of 1991–92, (c) in the first year and (d) in a full year, assuming this is introduced at the beginning of 1992–93, with (i) the current system of tax allowances and (ii) restricting all tax allowances and reliefs except the single person's allowance to the basic rate.

  Mr. Maude
  It is estimated that, at 1992–93 levels of income, freezing the married couple's allowance for taxpayers aged under 65, the additional personal allowance, and the widow's bereavement allowance in 1992–93 would yield about £140 million in the first year and £180 million in a full year with the current system of tax allowances compared with the illustrative 4 per cent. indexation shown in table 4·2 of the autumn statement 1991. If all tax allowances and reliefs except the basic personal allowance were restricted to the basic rate, the yield from freezing the specified allowances would be about £130 million in the first year and £170 million in a full year. These allowances were not increased in the 1991 Budget.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the availability of special enterprise zone capital allowances—100 per cent. initial allowances or 25 per cent. writing down allowances—where a purchaser buys an unused building in an enterprise zone.

  Mr. Maude
  The intention underlying the enterprise zone capital allowances legislation is that the purchaser of an unused building should be entitled to initial allowances provided that the actual construction expenditure was incurred either within 10 years of designation of the zone or under a contract entered into during that period. Contrary to the Revenue's previous view and practice recent legal advice has indicated that the purchaser is not entitled to initial allowances, where an unused building is purchased after expiry of the 10-year life of the zone. The Government therefore intend to bring forward amending provisions in the 1992 Finance Bill to ensure that allowances remain available in these circumstances. The legislation would have effect from today. In the meantime, with my approval, the Inland Revenue has today issued an extra-statutory concession under which it will continue to apply its existing practice to past and current transactions. The impact of this measure on tax receipts will be nil. It simply gives effect to the tax treatment originally intended.

  The Government also intend to amend the regulations defining an enterprise zone property trust to ensure that
  8
  the measures I have described feed through to the investors in these trusts. Under the existing regulations investors in EZPTs only have the benefit of enterprise zone allowances where an unused building is acquired during the lifetime of the zone. The cost to the Exchequer of aligning with other purchasers the entitlement of these investors to initial allowances is estimated at £5 million in 1992–93 and £35 million in 1993–94.

  The Government intend to bring forward two further amendments to the enterprise zone legislation in the 1992 Bill, also with effect from today. The existing rule that a purchaser may only receive initial allowances where a building is sold unused, adversely affects developers who face a delay in securing a purchaser and who may want to let the building in the interim. This rule may act as a disincentive to the occupation of buildings and to business activity in enterprise zones. To mitigate that effect we intend to bring forward legislation providing that initial allowances will be available to a purchaser buying the building within two years of its first being used. The proposed provision would apply to buildings first brought into use after today. The basis for making any quantitative estimate of the effects of this extension on the yield of corporation tax in 1992–93 and 1993–94 would depend on many factors and be highly speculative. Any estimate of the total revenue effects and the impact on receipts as between individual financial years would therefore be very uncertain.

  Finally, the Government propose to curtail the existing open-ended nature of relief for expenditure incurred under a contract entered into during the life of the zone. In future, it is proposed that such expenditure would only be eligible for initial allowances if it is incurred within 10 years of expiry of the zone.

  These changes do not alter the Government's general policy towards enterprise zones announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment in his written answer of 17 December 1987, that there would not be a general extension of the enterprise zone experiment.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Liquidations
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms in the building trade and the furniture trade have gone into liquidation in each year since 1979 inclusive; and, in each year, how many of those firms in each category were based in Tottenham or Edmonton prior to going into liquidation.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information on company liquidations resulting from insolvency in timber and furniture manufacturing and in construction for England and Wales is as follows. Information is not collected by location; nor is furniture collected separately from timber. No sectoral breakdown is available for voluntary liquidations.

  Year

  Timber and furniture manufacturing

  Construction

  1979

  116

  789

  1980

  211

  949

  1981

  203

  990

  1982

  350

  1,422

  1983

  294

  1,776

  1984

  382

  1,831

  1985

  495

  1,975

  9

  Year

  Timber and furniture manufacturing

  Construction

  1986

  427

  1,914

  1987

  378

  1,490

  1988

  242

  1,471

  1989

  302

  1,638

  1990

  391

  2,445

  Car Imports
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the decision of the European Commission to clarify the role and activities of car intermediaries; and how his Department plans to monitor the activities of intermediaries to ensure that the Commission's regulations arc enforced.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government take the view that intermediaries should be free to operate within the EC car market. Intermediaries have a role to play in helping car buyers to obtain cars at the lowest price within the Community. Enforcement of European Commission regulations is a matter for the Commission. The EC Commission found that Peugeot had breached competition rules by upholding supply from Ecosystem. This case is now a subject of an appeal to the European Court of Justice.

  Christmas Paper (Recycling)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will issue guidance on the recycling of Christmas packaging paper before Christmas.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have no plans to issue guidance specifically related to the recycling of Christmas packaging paper. My Department continues to encourage recycling of materials for which there is a market. No material should be collected unless an outlet has been identified.

  Leg Irons
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information his Department has about the manufacture of leg irons in Britain, and the export from Britain of these products.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 12 December 1991]: The Department has no information on the manufacture of leg irons. I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave on this subject on 22 October 1991, Official Report, column 608.

  ECGD Insurance Services Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, columns 260–61, what policy considerations will govern the allocation of export credit cover for high-risk projects in vested countries to (a) the continuing Export Credits Guarantee Department or (b) NCM Credit Insurance with assistance from the Export Credits Guarantee Department under the national interest reinsurance facility; what the anticipated budget for each category of cover is for (a) the remaining months of this year and (b) the next two financial years; and if he will make a statement.
  10
  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 December 1991]: Export credit cover for project business in the vested markets will be given only by the continuing ECGD.

  NCM will provide cover in the vested markets for non-project business only. It will do this without any assistance from ECGD under the national interest reinsurance facility.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he received on his recent visit to Wandsworth prison on the level of post-release supervision of discharged mentally disordered prisoners.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has made no recent visits to Wandsworth prison.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners at present serving sentences in Her Majesty's prisons suffer from some kind of mental disorder; what percentage of these are receiving psychiatric treatment during their sentence; and what percentage receive specialist care upon release.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, Prison Service medical officers carry out medical monitoring at regular intervals within their establishments. The most up-to-date information held centrally is for September. At that time, approximately 3·5 per cent. of prisoners were receiving some form of mental health care.

  Where appropriate, arrangements are made for specialist care to continue after release. Short of an order under the Mental Health Act 1983, there are no powers to make medical treatment, or attendance for treatment, compulsory.

  Evening Betting
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to permit the opening of off-course bookmakers shops during the evening hours.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We issued a consultation document in October inviting the views of all interested parties on whether licensed betting offices should be open in the evenings and, if so, at what times. The Government will give careful consideration to the views received in response to that document before deciding whether to allow evening opening.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he gives to magistrates adjudicating cases of shoplifting carried out in stores during Sunday trading.

  Mr. John Patten
  It would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to give guidance to magistrates about the way in which they exercise their judicial discretion in cases before them.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to bring
  11
  forward the necessary statutory instrument to include the offence of illegal Sunday trading within the list of offences for which a confiscation order may be made under the terms of section 71 and schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current certified accommodation for Wandsworth prison while the two wings are closed for refurbishment.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The current certified normal accommodation for Wandsworth prison is 965. This compares with a certified normal accommodation of 1,275 prior to the closure of D and K wings for refurbishment.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the reduction on a like-for-like basis, of prisoner overcrowding at Wandsworth prison based on the figures for 1980 to 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The overcrowding at Wandsworth Prison over this period is shown in the table. The average percentage occupancy is based on the relationship between the certified normal accommodation figure—that is, the capacity of the prison without overcrowding—at the end of the year and the average population throughout the year.

  Year

  Average percentage occupancy

  1980

  114

  1981

  115

  1982

  109

  1983

  109

  1984–85

  115

  1985–86

  120

  1986–87

  121

  1987–88

  118

  1988–89

  128

  1989–90

  119

  1990–91

  109

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the variations between bail hostels as to regimes, curfews and emphasis on enforcement of rules, including the distinction between open and closed hostels.

  Mr. John Patten
  Bail hostels are not divided into "open" or "closed". All bail hostels have 24-hour staff cover and operate a night-time curfew which may in individual cases be amended by bail conditions attached by the court. Hostel rules set out what conduct is acceptable and residents are required to comply with these rules as well as the conditions attached to their bail. Residents who fail to observe the curfew or comply with the rules are liable to be brought back to the courts to determine their disposal.

  The regimes of individual hostels and their policy on enforcement of curfews and hostel rules are matters for local hostel management and such information is not held centrally.
  12
  National standards for the management of approved hostels will be introduced next year to ensure that good and consistent practice is applied in all hostels throughout England and Wales.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of locating bail hostels on the crime rate in the local area;

  (2) what publicly available research evidence has been produced either by, or at the instigation of, his Department on the social and economic effects of bail hostels upon the communities where they are located.

  Mr. John Patten
  None.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the extent to which bail hostel functions may be contracted out to private organisations in the future.

  Mr. John Patten
  A number of private sector organisations are already involved in the provision of new bail hostels in co-operation with probation and voluntary sector managers. For example, Greater Manchester probation service contracted with a private sector developer to deliver the new bail hostel in Oldham and Cheshire probation service are working with a housing association in the development of hostels at Sandbach and Ellesmere Port. The extent to which other bail hostel functions may be contracted out to private and voluntary sector organisations in the future is being considered following responses to the consultation paper "Partnership in Dealing with Offenders in the Community" which was issued in 1990. We hope to make an announcement early in 1992.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he has issued to the police in co-operating with management of bail hostels.

  Mr. John Patten
  No specific guidelines have been issued centrally, but local managers liaise with station sergeants, community constables and other police officers on such matters as breach proceedings and security systems.

  Channel Tunnel (Policing)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 November,Official Report, column 572–74, how many additional police posts were approved by the Kent police authority for funding for 1992–93; how many of those which he approved were for (a) channel tunnel duties and (b) motorway duties; and how many of these posts will be re-imbursed by Eurotunnel from January 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend has been asked to approve a total of 82 posts for Kent police for 1992–93. He has approved 42 posts to be funded in the normal way and 40 reimbursed posts. The 40 reimbursed posts are for the policing of the channel tunnel duties; 11 of the remaining 42 will be devoted to motorway duties. The chief constable will be able to deploy the remainder to general policing duties in Kent.

  Prison Service (Review)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet received the report of Sir Raymond Lygo's review of the management of the prison service.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I received Sir Raymond Lygo's report on 12 December and am today placing copies of it, together with Sir Raymond's covering letter, in the Library. It provides a wide-ranging set of recommendations and I am extremely grateful to Sir Raymond for the speed and thoroughness with which he has completed his task. I am also grateful to Lord Rayner for the assistance which he has given.

  The report acknowledges the particularly intractable problems with which the prison service has to deal, many of which are outside its control. Sir Raymond concludes, however, that it would be too easy to attribute all the problems of the service to external factors and that there are a number of fundamental managerial issues which need to be tackled. The most important of these is the relationship between the prison service and Ministers. Sir Raymond advocates a greater independence for the prison service from day-to-day ministerial oversight. This would be achieved by turning the prison service into an agency, appointing a part-time non-executive chairman of the Prisons Board, giving the board formal collective responsibility for the management of the service and establishing a supervisory board to advise me on major policy and resource issues. The post of director general would be filled by open competition.

  Sir Raymond also makes a number of other important recommendations on management and personnel issues. He proposes that the prison service should recruit people from outside into some of its senior management posts; that there should be more contracting out of support services such as catering, the provision of clothing, building maintenance and possibly workshop management; that prison governors should wear uniforms; that if industrial relations in the service do not improve legislation should he introduced to restrict industrial action; and that far more work should be devolved from headquarters to local level.

  A number of Sir Raymond's recommendations arc in line with developments already taking place within the prison service, but, taken together, they amount to a radical programme of change both within the service and for its relationship to ministers. I am therefore inviting comments on Sir Raymond's report before reaching decisions in the spring. Copies of the report are being made available to interested organisations, including the trade unions, with an invitation to submit comments by Friday 28 February to Her Majesty's Prison Service, Room 601, Abell House, John Islip Street, London SW1P 4LH.

  Category A Prisoners
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now considered the report of the security audit of arrangements for holding and managing category A prisoners and the inquiry into the workings of DOC1 division in prison service headquarters, conducted by Mr. Ronald Hadfield and Mr. Gordon Lakes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Lakes submitted their report on 1 November 1991. It covers a14
  wide field, ranging from detailed matters of physical security to wide-ranging proposals for collecting and disseminating intelligence. I am most grateful for the thorough way in which they have completed their work.

  The report is both helpful and reassuring. Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Lakes indicate that they have found no evidence of general complacency about security standards and that governors are alert to security needs. Where they identified improvements in procedural and physical security which needed to he made, they communicated these to individual governors in the course of their inquiry. Many of their broader recommendations have already been implemented. Some, with considerable resource implications, will need to be prioritised; some involving building work will need to he phased into existing prison building and refurbishment programmes; and others will need to be the subject of consultation with prison governors and others in the prison service and, in some cases, outside.

  There is only one recommendation which I have not accepted in its present form. With the aim of ensuring that attention is focused on prisoners posing the highest risk, Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Lakes proposed that standard risk category A prisoners in dispersal prisons should be re-categorised "category B (dispersal)". While I fully support this aim, I am concerned that re-categorisation in the form recommended could give rise to operational uncertainty or confusion whenever these prisoners need to be transferred or detained outside these very secure establishments. I therefore intend to consult the governors of dispersal prisons and others to see whether the underlying aims of the recommendation can be met in another way.

  As far as DOC1 division is concerned, Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Lakes found staff there to be hard working and well motivated. They have, however, made recommendations relating to the strategic management of the division and proposals for a more systematic approach to the collation and dissemination of information and intelligence. A feasibility study into this latter proposal is already under way. All other recommendations have been accepted.

  Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Lakes have prepared a version of their report which they have advised need not be withheld on grounds of security. I have accepted that view, and have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Prison Staff (Name Badges)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the target of December 1991 for the wearing of name badges by prison staff has been achieved.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Work is progressing on the commitment given in the white paper "Custody Care and Justice", to the wearing of name badges by all staff on duty in prisons. Necessary consultation with the trade unions on the detailed arrangements, and the procurement mechanisms necessary for the quantities that will be required, result in the need for a slower introduction than originally targeted.

  Chelmsford Prison
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to end slopping out in Chelmsford prison; when the practice is expected to end; and if he will make a statement.
  15
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Preparatory work on providing in-cell sanitation at HM prison, Chelmsford, is now in progress. The first cells with in-cell sanitation will be available early in 1992 and the programme will be completed by 1994.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners there were in Chelmsford prison on 1 December 1990 and 1 December 1991; what is the maximum number of prisoners meant to be in Chelmsford prison; and if he will make a statement on what actions are being taken to reduce overcrowding in Chelmsford prison;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the number of prisoners being held in police cells at Chelmsford police station; and what actions are being taken to alleviate the situation.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The readily available information for the period in question is as follows:

  Number

  Monday 3 December 1990

  376

  Monday 2 December 1991

  389

  The certified normal accommodation—that is the uncrowded capacity of the establishment—is 232 and its operational capacity is 392.

  The prison service has now arranged for young men awaiting trial to be moved from Chelmsford prison and held in Rochester prison. This had removed the need for Chelmsford prisoners to be held in police cells. On 11 December, the latest date for which figures are available, there were five prisoners in Chelmsford police station who should have been held in Bedford prison.

  My right hon. Friend and I regard reducing the number of prisoners in police cells as a high priority for the prison service. Every effort is being made to make the most efficient possible use of existing prison accommodation. New prison accommodation which will be provided in eight prisons which are due to open in 1992 should make a significant impact on this problem.

  Television Franchises
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure those television companies which have lost their franchises continue to broadcast a full range of locally orientated programmes for the duration of their licence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The ITV companies operate under contract to the Independent Television Commission until the end of 1992. It is for the ITC to consider whether the amount of local interest programming in each area is adequate.

  Immigration
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar can expect answers to immigration case letters to his Department of(a) 11 March 1990, relating to Musse Kinsi Abdi (Ref.: 095413); (b) 20 November 1990 and reminders relating to Yussuf Amina Hussein (Ref.: A 444158); (c) 12 December 1990 and reminders relating to Ahmed Hassan Jama (Ref.: H 353673); (d) 21 January
  16
  1991 and reminders relating to Arraleh Abdillarhi Dualeh (Ref.: A 132858); (e) 20 December 1990 and reminders relating to Mohamoud Mohamed Adan (Ref.: M 495545); (f) 23 January 1991 and reminders, relating to Mohamoud Saleh Mohamed (No reference number); (g) 21 February 1991 and reminders, relating to Farah Kin Abdi (Ref.: 095413); (h) 20 May 1991, relating to Mohamed Ilhan Farah (Ref.: N3/1581/261/11:/89); (i) 11 September 1991, relating to Mattan Ahmed Jama (Ref.: A 419816/A 437821); and (j) 3 October 1991, relating to Arrale Abdool (Ref.: A 132858/7).

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The hon. Member wrote to me on 15 November about each of these cases. I will be replying to that letter very shortly.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether owners of a monochrome television receiver and a video recorder are required to pay the licence fee applicable for a colour receiver; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  While the Home Secretary still has responsibility for broadcasting policy matters, it now falls to the BBC to interpret the regulations and to determine the licensing requirements in individual cases.

  However, I can confirm that a colour television licence is required for the installation or use of a video cassette recorder in conjunction with a monochrome television set.

  Emergency Planning Review
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if proposals for local authorities to carry out the duties of the Royal Observer Corps outlined in his answer to the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 10 July 1991,Official Report, columns 393–96, will include extending the VHF radio network to local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Local authorities have had a statutory planning responsibility for civil defence arrangements, including communications arrangements, since 1983.

  The Home Office is considering the re-allocation to local authorities of the radio equipment previously used by the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation and the Royal Observer Corps in order to improve the facilities already provided by the emergency communications network.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans exist at present for the monitoring of nuclear burst information and radiation levels; what provisions govern the issue of dose rate meters; how these functions will continue after the abolition of the Royal Observer Corps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend announced on 10 July that the arrangements for monitoring nuclear bursts and radioactive fallout in wartime must be restructured. The Royal Observer Corps has therefore stood down from its operational monitoring role at the end of September 1991.

  A radiation monitoring capacity has been planned and developed by local authorities since 1983. A total of 57,000

  17
  portable dose rate meters were issued to local authorities and the police and fire service in the mid-1980s and 22,000 meters have also been issued to other Government Departments. A further 9,000 are held in store to supplement existing issues stocks as necessary.

  We intend to issue further guidance, in the new year, to local authorities on the new monitoring arrangements which were outlined in my right hon. Friend's July statement.

ENERGY

  Miners Pension Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the British Coal Mineworkers Pension Fund is fully protected both now and in the future, following the proposed privatisation of the industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government have confirmed that the pension interests of both current and past employees of British Coal will be properly safeguarded, as has been the case with previous privatisations.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the present status of nuclear materials control and accountability at the Atomic Energy Authority's nuclear power development establishment at Dounreay.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Nuclear material control and accountability at Dounreay, as at other United Kingdom nuclear establishments, are carried out in accordance with carefully specified procedures and are subject to Euratom inspection. Those procedures identified a discrepancy and an investigation of the circumstances is now under way. It would be premature to anticipate the results of that investigation, which will be reported to my Department.

  Methane Generation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has to encourage the generation and recovery of methane from waste not destined for combustion for electricity generation by means comparable to present regime for the encouragement of electricity generation by waste-based methane combustion provided under the renewables subsection of the non-fossil fuel levy.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department's R and D programme on landfill gas provides information for both electricity generation and heat producing applications and projects of the latter kind have been supported under the programme. Future policy on renewable energy is being considered by the renewable energy advisory group under my chairmanship.

  Non-fossil Fuels
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to update or alter the Electricity (Non-Fossil Fuel Sources) (England and Wales) Order 1990 SI 1990, No. 263.
  18
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have no intention of updating or altering the Electricity (Non-Fossil Fuel Sources) (England and Wales) Order 1990 SI 1990, No. 263.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what his proposals are for his Department's research and development budget for renewable energy beyond the current year.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department's renewable energy research, development and demonstration programme will continue to follow the progressive development strategy published in Energy Paper 55, copies of which were placed in the Library of the House. The programme budget has risen from £20·8 million in 1990–91 to £24 million for the current year.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has for the encouragement of DEFBOT—design, finance, build, operate and transfer—financing for those constructors interested in developing renewable sources of energy under the non-fossil fuel order, but not interested in long-term commitments to management of non-fossil fuel plant.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Developers are proposing a variety of mechanisms for the construction, financing and operation of renewable energy projects which are included in orders under the non-fossil fuel obligation. Comprehensive packages including design, construction and financing may well be the best arrangements in many circumstances and are therefore welcome. We will be monitoring arrangements developers make for projects and will be able to see to what extent this route is followed.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the completion of his negotiations with the European Commission regarding the extension beyond 1998 of the Renewable Subsection of the Electricity (Non-Fossil Fuel Sources) England and Wales Order 1991 and levy procedure; what consultations he has held on this with the Director-General of OFFER and the chairmen of the 12 regional electricity companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Discussions with the Commission of the European Community about the extension beyond 1998 of the non-fossil fuel obligation for renewable sources of energy have begun. The results of those discussions will be announced in due course.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to increase the funding of the 'International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom's contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency for 1992 has already been fixed and will be paid in due course. Contributions in 1993 and 1994 will be determined by discussion with other member states and in the agency's board of governors in which the United Kingdom will play an active part.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Judges
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the names and ages of all the judges of(a) the Supreme Court and (b) the crown-county courts now aged 69 years or over.

  The Attorney-General
  On 1 December 1991, in addition to the Lord Chancellor and the four heads of divisions, there were 27 Lords Justices, 84 High Court judges, 457 circuit judges and 231 district judges. Those aged 69 or over represented about 19 per cent. of Lords Justices, 10 per cent. of High Court judges, 9 per cent. of circuit judges and 3 per cent. of district judges.

  The names of those judges, with their ages, at 1 December 1991, is as follows:

  Age

  Heads of Division

  Lord Lane

  73

  Lord Donaldson of Lymington

  71

  Lords Justices

  Lord Justice Watkins

  73

  Lord Justice Fox

  70

  Lord Justice Purchas

  72

  Lord Justice Gibson

  69

  Lord Justice Stocker

  73

  High Court Judges

  Mr. Justice Hollings

  73

  Mr. Justice Boreham

  73

  Mr. Justice Tudor Evans

  73

  Mr. Justice Hodgson

  74

  Mr. Justice Wood

  69

  Mr. Justice Eastham

  71

  Mr. Justice Sheen

  73

  Mr. Justice Mervyn Davies

  73

  Circuit Judges

  Judge Paterson

  73

  Judge David QC

  69

  Judge Francis

  70

  Judge da Cunha

  69

  Judge Barr

  71

  Judge Figgis

  73

  Judge Lovegrove QC

  71

  Judge Macnair

  72

  Judge Powell

  71

  Judge Monier-Williams

  71

  Judge Rutter

  72

  Judge Rubin

  71

  Judge Lymbery QC

  71

  Judge Willcock QC

  70

  Judge Wakley

  74

  Judge Hickman

  69

  Judge Starforth Hill QC

  70

  Date of appointment to Supreme Court

  Date of appointment to current post

  75th Birthday

  Heads of Divisions

  Lord Lane

  30 September 1966

  15 April 1980

  17 July 1993

  Lord Donaldson of Lymington

  30 September 1966

  30 September 1982

  6 October 1995

  Sir Stephen Brown

  30 September 1975

  11 January 1988

  3 October 1999

  Lords Justices

  Lord Justice Watkins

  19 April 1971

  15 April 1980

  11 November 1993

  Lord Justice Fox

  30 September 1975

  9 February 1981

  8 October 1996

  Lord Justice Purchas

  22 April 1974

  30 September 1982

  19 June 1994

  Lord Justice Stocker

  4 June 1973

  3 February 1986

  7 October 1993

  20

  Age

  Judge Bolland

  71

  Judge Martin QC

  72

  Judge Booth QC

  69

  Judge Beezley

  70

  Judge Hayman

  73

  Judge Woolley

  69

  Judge Leo Clark QC

  70

  Judge Morris-Jones QC

  69

  Judge Garfitt

  70

  Judge Sir Sanderson Temple QC

  70

  Judge Galpin

  70

  Judge Band QC

  72

  Judge Blythe

  74

  Judge Cosgrave

  71

  Judge Dobry QC

  73

  Judge Shindler QC

  69

  Judge Cooke

  74

  Judge Aron Owen

  72

  Judge Hunter

  70

  Judge Clark

  69

  Judge Medd QC

  72

  Judge Roberts

  70

  Judge Birks

  71

  Judge McCarraher

  69

  Judge John Davies QC

  70

  Judge Fox-Andrews QC

  69

  District Judges

  District Judge Hibbert

  69

  District Judge Freeman

  71

  District Judge Park

  69

  District Judge Barker

  71

  District Judge Vaughan

  69

  District Judge Radford

  69

  District Judge Bilmes

  71

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the names, with dates of appointment, together with last possible date of retirement, of all unretired judges of the Supreme Court and crown/county courts who have already acquired sufficient years of service on the bench to qualify for the maximum appropriate judicial pension.

  The Attorney-General
  Judges of the Supreme Court must retire on their 75th birthday. Normally, circuit judges and district judges must retire at the end of the completed year of service in which they attain the age of 72, but may be extended in office by the Lord Chancellor, where he considers it desirable in the public interest, up to the age of 75. The last possible date of retirement for each judge is therefore 75.

  Set out in the table, with their date of appointment and 75th birthday, are the judges of the Supreme Court who on 1 December 1991 had served for at least 15 years in that capacity, the condition necessary to qualify for an immediate pension on retirement of half annual salary:
  21

  Date of appointment to Supreme Court

  Dale of appointment to current post

  75th Birthday

  High Court Judges

  Mr. Justice Hollings

  19 April 1971

  —

  12 June 1993

  Mr. Justic Boreham

  10 January 1972

  —

  19 October 1993

  Mr. Justice Tudor Evans

  21 June 1974

  —

  20 June 1995

  Set out in the table, with their date of appointment and 75th birthday, are the circuit judges who on 1 December 1991 had served at least 15 years in that capacity and had attained the age of 65, the conditions necessary to qualify for an immediate pension on retirement of half annual salary:

  Appointment

  75th Birthday

  Judge Paterson

  30 September 1968

  10 July 1993

  Judge Robert David, QC

  1 May 1969

  30 April 1997

  Judge Francis

  7 July 1969

  19 March 1996

  Judge Heald

  6 February 1970

  19 August 1998

  Judge da Cunha

  1 June 1970

  6 September 1997

  Judge Barr

  20 October 1970

  20 November 1995

  Judge Figgis

  19 March 1971

  12 September 1993

  Judge Lovegrove, QC

  23 April 1971

  22 December 1994

  Judge Verney

  2 June 1971

  19 July 1999

  Judge Gower, QC

  1 October 1971

  6 November 2000

  Judge Head

  8 November 1971

  4 December 1998

  Judge Anwyl-Davies, QC

  1 January 1972

  11 July 1998

  Judge Irvine

  1 January 1972

  10 July 2000

  Judge Macnair

  1 January 1972

  27 February 1994

  Judge Powell

  1 January 1972

  29 July 1995

  Judge Monier-Williams

  1 January 1972

  29 April 1995

  Judge Lloyd

  1 January 1972

  3 January 1999

  Judge Rutter

  1 January 1972

  18 September 1994

  Judge Allarice

  1 January 1972

  18 December 1999

  Judge Hammerton

  15 May 1972

  18 June 2001

  Judge Rubin

  11 September 1972

  8 March 1995

  Judge Lymbery, QC

  29 September 1972

  14 November 1995

  Judge Willcock, QC

  29 September 1972

  22 February 1996

  Judge Harrison-Hall

  29 September 1972

  20 December 2000

  Judge Morgan Hughes

  10 November 1972

  20 January 2001

  Judge Norwood

  12 January 1973

  24 March 2001

  Judge Cotton

  12 January 1973

  6 March 2001

  Judge Wakley

  2 March 1973

  7 July 1992

  Judge Baker

  30 March 1973

  5 November 2000

  Judge Phelan

  1 July 1974

  25 July 1998

  Judge Hickman

  1 July 1974

  2 October 1997

  Judge Starforth Hill, QC

  5 July 1974

  30 September 1996

  Judge Bolland

  2 September 1974

  30 March 1995

  Judge Wickham

  3 September 1975

  22 September 2001

  Judge Arthur

  17 October 1975

  29 April 1998

  Judge Martin, QC

  12 December 1975

  26 November 1994

  Judge Robert

  12 December 1975

  19 November 1998

  Judge Stroyan, QC

  12 December 1975

  27 November 1999

  Judge Booth, QC

  13 January 1976

  20 August 1997

  Judge Beezley

  30 April 1976

  30 January 1996

  Judge Wooley

  30 April 1976

  28 November 1997

  Judge Hayman

  30 April 1976

  24 August 1993

  Judge Lea Clark, QC

  1 July 1976

  15 December 1995

  Judge Nina Lowry

  2 July 1976

  6 September 2000

  Judge Anthony Cox

  2 July 1976

  21 April 1999

  Set out in the table, with their date of appointment and 75th birthday, are the district judges who on 1 December 1991 had served in that capacity for at least 20 years and had attained the age of 65, the conditions necessary to qualify for an immediate pension on retirement of half annual salary:

  Date of Appointment

  75th Birthday

  District Judge Hibbert

  19 November 1962

  24 March 1997

  District Judge Dunford

  3 December 1962

  22 September 2001

  District Judge Elliott

  2 December 1963

  8 February 1999

  22

  Date of Appointment

  75th Birthday

  District Judge Lam

  2 December 1963

  3 March 2000

  District Judge Parmiter

  15 June 1970

  21 November 2001

  District Judge Horsey

  1 January 1971

  20 July 2001

  District Judge Jeffreys

  1 January 1971

  19 September 2001

  District Judge Freeman

  1 September 1971

  3 September 1995

  Separate arrangements may apply in certain circumstances to judges who have served previously in other judicial capacities.

  Ambrosia Creamery (Accident)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will request the Health and Safety Executive to provide him with information about the activities of the executive in connection with the accident to Holger Subir Majhi at Ambrosia creamery, Lifton, Devon, on 28 November 1990 with a view to requesting the Director of Public Prosecutions to initiate a prosecution under his powers under section 38 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.

  The Attorney-General
  I have received information from the Health and Safety Executive concerning the accident to Mr. Majhi on 28 November 1990 from which I have concluded that there is no basis for referring the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Magistrates (Poll Tax Briefing)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 10 December,Official Report, column 361, what was the date of the Coventry justices' seminar; how many magistrates attended; how many magistrates who did not attend have subsequently sat on poll tax cases; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the note referred to.

  The Attorney-General
  The Coventry justices' seminar was held on 19 June 1991; 123 magistrates attended. The number of magistrates who did not attend but subsequently sat on community charge cases could not be obtained without disproportionate expense. Notes passed between a justices' clerk and his justices are confidential and I do not have a copy.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Achievements
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the achievements of Her Majesty's Government over the past year.

  The Prime Minister
  Over the past year the Government have continued to pursue policies designed to remove barriers to choice and provide opportunities for all the
  23
  people of this country, to lay a sound basis for future prosperity, to play a full part in Europe and to contribute to international peace and stability.

  Our firm financial policies, reaffirmed by our commitment to the exchange rate mechanism, have reduced inflation sharply and permitted interest rates to be substantially reduced. The conditions necessary for resumed growth have now been established.

  We have brought forward a Bill to provide for a new council tax, to replace the community charge in financing local government spending. The Budget helped businesses, large and small. We have taken initiatives to encourage innovation in industry and improve export performance. We have initiated joint action with industry to help identify and pursue export opportunities. Its first use in Kuwait in March 1991 has already led to orders worth £480 million for the United Kingdom. We have opened up telephone services to allow consumers to benefit from more competition.

  We have continued to promote wider share ownership. National Power, PowerGen and the non-nuclear electricity companies in England, Wales and Scotland, have been privatised, and a second tranche of shares in British Telecom sold to the public. One in four members of the adult population now owns shares.

  We have provided more effective training opportunities and are now offering a wider range of help than ever before to assist unemployed people in obtaining new jobs.

  We attach the highest priority to ensuring that everyone, whoever and wherever they are, will have access to high quality public services. The citizens charter White Paper announced a progamme of radical initiatives to improve efficiency and standards in the public services and the privatised utilities. Measures to implement the charter feature strongly in our legislative programme for 1991–92, and we have published a number of charters relating to individual public services.

  In education we have taken action to raise standards and improve parental choice. The new School Teachers' Review Body for England and Wales provides the means of improving teachers' status. The development of the national curriculum will encourage concentration on basic skills. Our legislation to provide parents with more information about the performance of schools and to improve school inspection will give parents the basis on which to exercise the choices they are now able to make.

  We have also introduced legislation to widen access to an expanded higher education system, to abolish the distinction between universities and other higher education institutions, and to raise the status of vocational education and of further education colleges. Spending on science by the Department of Education and Science will top £1 billion for the first time next year and will rise in real terms for the remainder of the planning period.

  The Government's health policies have led to an increase in the number of patients treated, a reduction in waiting times and lists, better quality of care and greater awareness of health promotion. The consultative document "The Health of the Nation", setting out a comprehensive strategy for better health, has been warmly welcomed. Record levels of resources have been made available: spending on the NHS in 1992–93 will be nearly £36 billion, a 55 per cent. increase in real terms since 1978–79.

  The NHS reforms are already yielding tangible benefits for patients. Fifty seven NHS trusts have already been
  24
  established and 99 more approved for start-up in 1992. The growing enthusiasm for trust status within the NHS means that many more will follow. GP fundholding is also proving a success. The patients charter has set out patients' rights for the first time and the standards which will be set nationally and locally by the health service, including the first waiting time guarantees.

  We have maintained our determined efforts in the fight against crime. We have established a royal commission on criminal justice to examine the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in securing the convictions of those guilty of criminal offences and the acquittal of the innocent.

  In September we published "This Common Inheritance—The First Year Report" reporting progress on the whole range of environmental policies and concerns, and listing 400 separate measures taken during the year.

  We have continued to raise standards of food safety, ensure consumers are better informed, make environmental considerations central to agricultural policy, with significant extension of environmentally sensitive areas, as well as raising standards of animal welfare in Britain and taking the lead in setting higher standards throughout Europe.

  We have continued to invest record sums in the improvement of the United Kingdom's transport infrastructure, and to encourage greater private sector involvement in the provision of transport facilities.

  We have introduced legislation to enable the structure of English local government to be reviewed so as better to reflect the identities and interests of local communities.

  We have continued to work for the regeneration of our cities. The city challenge initiative encourages local authorities to work with their private, voluntary sector and local community partners, to regenerate key areas of their cities.

  In the housing field, the new emphasis on quality of performance will further improve the renovation and management of council housing in England and Wales. We have introduced pilot rent-to-mortgage schemes, to extend tenants' opportunities to buy their homes, and brought in new arrangements to ensure that tenants are actively consulted in local authorities housing plans. A special programme of hostels and permanent housing is reducing the numbers of people sleeping rough in central London.

  We have improved the position of children. We have increased child benefit, and pledged to increase it in line with inflation in the future. The Children Act, which came into effect this year, is a far reaching reform of children's rights. The new Child Support Agency, for which legislation was passed earlier this year, will improve the assessment, collection and enforcement of child maintenance. We are continuing to enhance the opportunities for disabled people to play an independent part in society. In 1991 we enacted legislation providing for two new social security benefits for disabled people.

  Nineteen-ninety-one has seen momentous events internationally. The United Kingdom's contribution to the liberation of Kuwait enhanced our standing in the world, strengthened the power of the United Nations and proved again the outstanding abilities of our armed forces. We responded rapidly to the Iraqi Government's persecution of their own people, proposing the safe-haven initiative to provide an effective response to the plight of ordinary Iraqis. Building on the experience of this we

  25
  launched the United Kingdom's disaster relief initiative in August to provide the capacity for an immediate informed response to disasters round the world.

  The United Kingdom contributed significantly to the successful outcome of the Maastricht European Council. We have fully protected the United Kingdom's right to take its own decision at the appropriate time on a move to the final stage of economic and monetary union. On political union, we have agreed a series of pragmatic reforms, many as a result of our proposals. which will make the Community more efficient, accountable and effective internationally. The new treaty on European union will also strengthen inter-governmental cooperation outside the framework of the Community in important areas like the fight against crime.

  We have continued to make steady progress towards completing the single market by the end of 1992 and to the conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round. The Government welcomed the determination confirmed at the Maastricht European Council to keep the Community open to our European neighbours who are eager for closer links and eventual membership. It was agreed that in 1992 negotiations would take place on applications from countries of the European Free Trade Area to join the Community, and, in due course, consideration would be given to the further possibility of expansion towards eastern Europe.

  I chaired the successful G7 economic summit in July and the historic meeting between summit leaders and President Gorbachev of the Soviet Union. The Government vigorously denounced the attempted coup in the Soviet Union and supported President Yeltsin's courageous stand against it. I have co-ordinated the G7 programme of aid for the republics of the Soviet Union.

  The Government played an important part in concluding the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe. We have continued to make a substantial contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, participating fully in adapting the alliance, and developing a stronger European defence identity in the Western European Union. We have taken steps to restructure the armed forces to reflect the changed international situation.

  We have made a determined effort to promote democracy and good government in the developing countries, as a means to improving the prospects for development and the reduction of poverty. My announcement at the Commonwealth conference in Harare in October that the United Kingdom would implement the Trinidad terms debt reduction initiative for the poorest and most indebted countries was widely and warmly welcomed. If all official creditors followed this lead, the total debt of the countries concerned would be reduced by some $17 billion. At our instigation, the European Community and the Commonwealth have taken a more positive attitude to the welcome developments in South Africa, and sporting links have now been re-established with that country.

  These policies will ensure that the United Kingdom is well placed and fully prepared to meet the challenges of the 1990s.

  World Memorial Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what contribution Her Majesty's Government intends to make to World Memorial Day on 1 January 1992.
  26
  The Prime Minister
  The Government note the inauguration of World Memorial Day on 1 January 1992 by the Memorial Fund for Disaster Relief. Her Majesty's Government will continue to do all they can to promote a safer and better world which is the stated object of the fund.

  Packaging
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to require Her Majesty's Stationery Office to use biodegradcable rice paper chips in place of styrofoam chips in packaging of parcels.

  The Prime Minister
  This question falls within the scope of the policy announced in Cm 1263: arrangements have therefore been made for the controller and chief executive of HMSO to respond direct. Copies of the letter will be placed in the House Library and with the Public Information Office.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Michael Welsh
  To ask the Prime Minister what evaluation has been made of which countries have the know-how for safely dismantling nuclear weapons.

  The Prime Minister
  The five declared nuclear weapon states have to dismantle and reassemble their own nuclear weapons in order to maintain their stockpiles. The break-up of the Soviet Union may pose a range of problems, including the safe disposal of nuclear warheads. We are addressing these problems, in consultation with our allies and Soviet and Republic authorities.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has yet received the supplementary report from the Doctors and Dentists Review Body on pay for out-of-hours work for junior doctors.

  The Prime Minister
  This report has been published today and copies are in the Vote Office. I am grateful to the review body for the work they have put into preparing it.

  The report recommends new rates of pay for out of hours working by hospital doctors and dentists in training, following the agreement reached earlier this year which introduced new working arrangements and set limits on contracted hours of duty for such staff.

  The recommended rates of pay are:—

  100 per cent. of the basic rate for full shift working

  70 per cent. of the basic rate for partial shift working

  50 per cent. of the basic rate for on call rota working

  The recommendations, which arise from a major restructuring of working arrangements, are estimated to increase the paybill for hospital doctors and dentists in training by 5·8 per cent., given certain assumptions about the proportion of staff who will be contracted under each working pattern.

  The Government have decided to accept these recommendations and we shall seek to implement them as soon as possible in order to help to deliver our objective of reducing the hours of work of hospital doctors and dentists in training. The costs of the award will be met by health authorities and boards from the resources which we have made available to them this year and which we shall be making available to them in future years.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Scientific Facilities (Germany)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the German Federal Minister of Science regarding the exchange use of large scientific facilities; and what was his response.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not received any formal representations on this subject from the German Federal Minister of Science.

  "Your Child and the National Curriculum"
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many requests for the booklet "Your Child and the National Curriculum" have been received from schools in Cleveland; how many will be distributed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend published "Your Child and the National Curriculum"—as promised in the citizens charter—on Monday 9 December. Sample copies have been sent to all schools in England and they have been invited to order as many additional copies as they need to distribute to parents. One school in Cleveland has already put in its order. We expect many more to follow suit over the next week and in the new year.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will require establishments of further education to conduct a multi-professional assessment of the needs of students with special educational needs as a basis for their education provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Colleges of further education already carry out assessments of their students' needs, seeking specialist support as necessary. These assessment processes are not prescribed.

  Trafford Park Schools
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what approaches he has received regarding the establishment of independent schools in the Trafford Park area of Manchester; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  A group of people interested in establishing an independent primary school in the Trafford Park area of Manchester met members of Her Majesty's inspectorate in March this year. In November, a deputation representing the optimum schooling project, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), came to see me about applying for voluntary aided status for any such school.

  No application has yet been made for registration as an independent school, neither have any proposals been made to establish a voluntary aided school.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out, by local education authority, the number of pupils taking free school meals for 1988–89 and 1989–90.
  28
  Mr. Fallon
  This information is available in table A15 of "Statistics of Education: Schools" 1989 and 1990 respectively, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken to make an assessment of the future capital requirements of further education colleges for new building and repairs.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department keeps under regular review the capital requirements of further education colleges for new building and repairs, in the light of information from LEAs and advice from HMI. Following the establishment of the new Further Education Funding Council, subject to the passage of the Further and Higher Education Bill, we shall look to the council for advice on colleges' future capital requirements.

  GCSE
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to hold further discussions with interested parties about the implementation of new GCSE syllabus following his recent announcement on coursework; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Officials of the Department and those of the School Examinations and Assessment Council and the examining groups are in close and constant contact about the implementation of my right hon. and learned Friend's recent decisions on GCSE coursework.

  Science and Technology
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has made any assessment of resources needed to implement fully at primary level the national curriculum in science and in technology; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  In determining education's share of the proposed local authority grant settlement an assessment was made of the broad range of pressures facing the education service, including the implementation of the national curriculum in primary schools. The proposed settlement allows for LEAs in England to spend £18,730 million on education in 1992–93. This represents an increase of 7·1 per cent. over last year's settlement, which was itself a 16 per cent. increase over the previous year. Within the grants for education support and training programme of support for the national curriculum in 1992–93, totalling some £176 million, £5·5 million will be earmarked specifically for training courses for primary science teachers, and £15 million will be made available for equipment.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all grant-maintained schools showing whether they were county, voluntary aided or voluntary controlled, indicating denomination where appropriate, before becoming grant maintained.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:
  29

  School Name

  Ex-status

  Denomination

  Adams' Grammar School

  VA

  —

  Arnewood School

  C

  —

  Audenshaw School

  C

  —

  Avon Valley School

  C

  —

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  C

  —

  Bankfield High School

  C

  —

  Baverstock Grant-Maintained School

  C

  —

  Beaconsfield High School

  C

  —

  Beechen Cliff School

  C

  —

  Bingley Grammar School

  VA

  —

  Bishopshalt School

  C

  —

  Bourne Primary School

  C

  —

  Bournemouth School

  C

  —

  Bridgewater Hall School

  C

  —

  Brindley Hall School

  C

  —

  Bullers Wood School for Girls

  C

  —

  Burgate School

  C

  —

  Caistor Grammar School

  VC

  —

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  VA

  RC

  Carre's Grammar School

  VC

  —

  Castle Hall Grant-Maintained School

  C

  —

  Chalvedon School

  C

  —

  Claremont High School

  C

  —

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  VC

  —

  Collingwood School

  C

  —

  Colyton Grammar School

  C

  —

  Coopers School

  C

  —

  Crossley Heath School

  VC

  —

  Dartford Grammar School

  VC

  —

  Ecclesbourne School

  C

  —

  Francis Bacon School

  C

  —

  Graveney School

  C

  —

  Great Barr School

  C

  —

  Guildford County School

  C

  —

  Handsworth Grammar School

  VA

  —

  Hardley School

  C

  —

  Haydon School

  C

  —

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  C

  —

  Hendon School

  C

  —

  Highams Park School

  C

  —

  Homewood School

  C

  —

  King Edward VI School

  VC

  —

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  C

  —

  Kingswood School

  C

  —

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  VA

  —

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  C

  —

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  C

  —

  Langley Park Boys School

  C

  —

  London Oratory School

  VA

  RC

  London Nautical School

  C

  —

  Long Field High School

  C

  —

  Manor High School

  C

  —

  Marling School

  VC

  —

  Moseley Park GM School

  C

  —

  Moulton Primary School

  C

  —

  Netherthorpe School

  VC

  —

  30

  School Name

  Ex-status

  Denomination

  Newton Bluecoat C of E GM Primary School

  VA

  CE

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  C

  —

  North Halifax High School

  C

  —

  Old Swinford Hospital

  VA

  —

  Oldfield School

  C

  —

  Parmiters School

  VA

  —

  Pate's Grammar School

  VA

  CE

  Queen Elizabeth's GM School for Boys

  C

  —

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

  C

  —

  Queensbury School

  C

  —

  Queensmead School

  C

  —

  Raines Foundation School

  VA

  CE

  Reading School

  C

  —

  Ribston Hall High School

  C

  —

  Rickmansworth School

  C

  —

  Sexey's School

  VC

  —

  Skegness Grammar School

  C

  —

  Small Heath School

  C

  —

  Southfield School for Girls

  C

  —

  Southlands Comprehensive School

  C

  —

  Southlands School

  C

  —

  St George's School

  C

  —

  St John the Baptist School

  VA

  RC

  St Helen's Primary School

  C

  —

  St Augustine RC School

  VA

  RC

  St George's CE School

  VA

  CE

  St Francis Xavier's College

  VA

  RC

  St Bartholomew's School

  VC

  —

  St James' CE School

  SA

  CE

  Stratford School

  C

  —

  Stroud High School

  VC

  —

  Thamesview School

  C

  —

  The Kings School Grantham

  VC

  —

  The Cornwallis School

  C

  —

  The Maplesden Noakes School

  C

  —

  The GS For Girls Wilmington

  C

  —

  Vyners School

  C

  —

  Watford Girls' Grammar School

  VC

  —

  Watford Grammar School

  VC

  —

  Westcliff High School for Boys

  C

  —

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys

  C

  —

  Wilsons School

  VA

  CE

  Wold Newton Primary School

  C

  —

  Wolverhampton Girls High School

  C

  —

  Woodroffe School

  C

  —

  Wymondham College

  C

  —

  Key:

  SA: Special Agreement.

  C: County.

  VC: Voluntary Controlled.

  RC: Roman Catholic.

  VA: Voluntary Aided.

  CE: Church of England.

  European Football Championship
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Football Association bid for the 1996 European championship to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Atkins
  On 25 November, I confirmed that I was happy for an exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall relating to the Football Association's bid to host the 1996 European championship. I understand that the exhibition is to be held on 9 March.

  Degrees
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the outcome of his consultations about degree awarding powers.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department is today writing to all higher education institutions in the following terms:

  "DEGREE AWARDING POWERS, FUTURE

  VALIDATION ARRANGEMENTS AND

  POLYTECHNIC DESIGNATIONS

  1. The Department's paper "Degree Awarding Powers and University Titles" consulted on the Government's proposals concerning:

  (a) criteria for the extension of degree awarding powers beyond the present polytechnics;

  (b) arrangements for the Secretary of State to secure advice on whether institutions meet those criteria; and

  (c) criteria for extending the university title beyond the present polytechnics.

  2. This letter sets out the Government's conclusions on the first two issues in the light of comments received on the consultation paper. It also sets out the Government's views on the related issues of future validation arrangements for institutions which do not receive degree awarding powers, and on whether there should he further polytechnic designations. The Secretary of State will announce his decision on criteria for university titles shortly (although this letter confirms one of the criteria in paragraph 17 below). These conclusions are subject to the passage of the FHE Bill currently before Parliament.

  Criteria for Degree Awarding Powers

  3. The Government's proposal was that the criteria for taught course degrees should be those recommended by the CNAA and the Academic Audit Unit of the C'VCP, and which are essentially those used by the CNAA now for the purpose of considering whether to grant institutions accredited status. The principal criterion would be that any institution seeking degree awarding power for taught courses would need to be a self-critical, cohesive academic community with a proven commitment to quality assurance supported by effective assurance and enhancement systems. Characteristics of institutions which met this general principle were that they would have:

  (a) a commitment to quality assurance and a demonstrably successful system for defining objectives and safeguarding standards. The system would be sufficiently rigorous to respond to changing circumstances including changes in senior staff;

  (b) systems for the identification and transmission of good practice. Staff would be exposed to developments and innovations in the work of others inside and outside the institutions;

  (c) appropriate external academic and professional points of reference so that standards were judged against those of the wider academic world. This was especially important in smaller and monotechnic institutions where limited breadth or volume of work would otherwise be a significant disadvantage;

  (d) suitable administrative systems supporting an institution's academic work.

  32
  4. This proposal has been unanimously welcomed. In the light of that, the Secretary of State has decided that it should he confirmed.

  5. The consultation paper proposed additional criteria which would need to be met for an institution to be empowered to award its own research degrees. These were that any such institution would need to demonstrate that the arrangements for the supervision of research students and the management of their programmes, and the extent to which students were exposed to a research environment, would need to he broadly comparable with the position in universities which already have such a power.

  6. In the light of a generally favourable response, the Secretary of State has decided to confirm this proposal as well. He does, however, attach considerable importance to the criteria being judged robustly. It should not be assumed that having research capability within an institution is a sufficient condition.

  7. It was drawn to the Department's attention in some responses that Clause 72 of the Further and Higher Education Bill as published restricted the power of the Secretary of State to confer degree awarding powers on institutions which are to be funded by the new Higher Education Funding Councils. A Government amendment to the Bill has been tabled which extends the Secretary of State's powers so that it covers all institutions providing higher education.

  Arrangements for Considering whether Institutions meet the Criteria

  8. The consultation paper proposed that during the period up to the formal dissolution of the CNAA. the Government would look to the Council to advise on whether institutions validated by it meet the degree awarding criteria, and would in parallel appoint Ad Hoc Committees to look similarly at institutions which are validated by universities. This approach was widely welcomed in the responses and is now confirmed by the Secretary of State.

  9. CNAA is already working on an accreditation programme. An announcement about the arrangements for the DES Ad Hoc Committees will he made early in the new year.

  10. As to securing advice for the Secretary of State in the longer term after the dissolution of the CNAA, some respondents supported the proposal that the Ad Hoc Committee approach should he retained if it works well. However, others saw this as a job for the Quality Audit Unit, while some other respondents considered that the Higher Education Funding Councils should have the main responsibility. This is not a matter which requires an immediate decision and the Secretary of State will reflect further on the options with a view to reaching a decision in the spring.

  The Dissolution of the CNAA and New Validation Arrangements

  11.The DES intends, in line with the CNAA's Strategic Plan of October 1991, that the CNAA will continue to operate until 30 September 1992. After. that date it will concentrate primarily on winding up its affairs in preparation for dissolution, which is likely to he at the end of March 1993. This means that the CNAA will not he able to register any students for taught courses or programmes of research after 1 September 1992, although it will confer awards to all successful students whose courses of study or programmes of research are completed in the 1991/92 academic year. Alternative arrangements for the making of awards and the validation of courses will therefore need to be put in place in time for the 1992–93 academic year.

  12. The Secretary of State has considered carefully the representations made that the CNAA should continue in existence until all then students presently registered with it have completed their courses of study. To achieve that, the CNAA would have to continue for at least three more years. Given that its other functions will have transferred elsewhere. the Secretary of State does not consider this to be a practical proposition. The Secretary of State does not believe it would be practical to transfer the CNAA Charter to another institution.

  13. Ministers accept that it will be essential for alternative arrangements to be made for thosc students to be able to

  33
  continue on the course of study on which they enrolled, in the institution at which they enrolled and with the expectation of receiving a degree or other award at the end of that course of similar standing to the CNAA degree or award for which they initially registered. The Secretary of State expects that to be achieved through institutions not empowered to grant thier own awards entering into a validation agreement with institutions which are so empowered, and awarding their qualifications. It is for institutions which arc not presently assured of receiving degree awarding powers to ensure that a suitable agreement is in place by next September.

  14. There are many current examples of university validation, and there arc now more potential validating institutions. The CDP and the CVCP have indicated their readiness to help in identifying suitable validating institutions in particular cases. In addition, the Open University is intending to offer a validation service for those colleges without degree awarding powers which for various reasons, do not wish to become associated with a local institution. I understand that the Open University expects this to operate broadly on CNAA lines. The Secretary of State recognises that there may be other degree awarding institutions which will also wish to offer a similar service. For its part, the CNAA has given an undertaking to assist all of the associated institutions needing to transfer validation from CNAA to another degree awarding body, whatever relationship they eventually choose.

  15. Against this background, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the necessary arrangements are capable of being made within the planned timetable.

  Polytechnic Designation

  16. At present. an institution which meets certain student numbers criteria, and has received CNAA taught course accreditation, may apply for polytechnic designation. The Secretary of State is advised by the PCFC whether an institution meets the criteria, and if so advised would normally expect to approve the application. The White F'aper announced that all polytechnics would be allowed to adopt the university title.

  17. The consultation paper included proposed criteria for extending the university title beyond the present polytechnics. These included the requirement that such institutions should have the full range of degree awarding powers. Powers to award taught course degrees will not be sufficient. In the light of the Government's plans for a new framework, Ministers do no expect to approve further applications for polytechnic status."

  Science Budget
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the distribution of the science budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have considered the Advisory Board for the Research Councils' recommendations on the distribution of the science budget, and have decided to accept the board's advice that the £1,050 million for 1992–93 should, subject to approval by Parliament of the Estimates in due course, be allocated as follows:

  Table 1

  £ million

  Allocations for 1992–93

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  107·3

  Economic and Social Research Council

  45·1

  Medical Research Council

  227·6

  Natural Environment Research Council

  129·7

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  520·8

  The Royal Society

  17·3

  The Fellowship of Engineering

  1·6

  ABRC (Secretariat and Science Policy Studies)

  0·5

  Centre for the Exploitation of Science and Technology

  0·1

  11,050·0

  34
  1 Including £48 million (1992–93), £125 million (1993–94) and £154 million (1994–95) consequent on the new arrangements for funding of scientific work in higher education institutions announced on 8 November 1990, Official Report, columns 27–28.

  I have also accepted the board's recommendation that for planning purposes the following indicative allocations should be adopted for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95:

  Table 2

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  110·1

  119·9

  Economic and Social Research Council

  53·9

  58·3

  Medical Research Council

  256·8

  275·2

  Natural Environment Research Council

  141·0

  148·6

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  587·0

  621·7

  The Royal Society

  18·0

  18·7

  The Fellowship of Engineering

  1·7

  1·8

  ABRC (Secretariat and Science Policy Studies)

  0·5

  0·6

  Centre for the Exploitation of Science and Technology

  0·1

  0·1

  Unallocated

  12·0

  25·4

  11,181·1

  11,270·3

  1 Including £48 million (1992–93). £125 million (1993–94) and £154 million (1994–95) consequent on the new arrangements for funding of scientific work in higher education institutions announced on 8 November 1990, Official Report. columns 27–28.

  The indicative planning figures contain an unallocated £12 million in 1993–94 and £25·4 million in 1994–95 on which I expect to receive further advice from the ABRC in due course.

  The science budget for 1992–93, excluding the dual support transfer, is 25 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979–80. By 1994–95 it will be over 30 per cent. higher. This represents a significant increase in provision for science, and I hope that the scientific community at large will see it as further evidence of the importance which the Government attach to civil science in the research Councils.

  I am particularly pleased that the rising profile of the science budget over the next three years will give the research councils a sound basis for their forward planning and enable them to launch a number of exciting new research initiatives. These include the M RC's neurosciences approach to human health, the AFRC's intracellular signalling in plants and animals, and the NERC's land-ocean interactions study. This increase will also enable SERC to give a substantial boost—an extra £40 million by 1994–95—to its programme of research grants to higher education establishments.

  I am publishing the board's advice today. Copies are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Voluntary-aided Schools
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on capital allocations for 1992–93 for voluntary-aided schools.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Local Education Authorities have today been informed of their allocations for capital spending by the governors of voluntary aided and special agreement schools in their areas for 1992–93. Overall grant for voluntary aided schools announced in the autumn
  35
  statement rises from £131·5 million to £151·6 million, an increase of over 15 per cent. A total of £55 million has been set aside for grant aid for expenditure on external repairs, up nearly 16 per cent. on the amount set aside in 1991–92. Grant for capital spending rises from £84 million to £96·6 million, an increase of 15 per cent.

  I have authorised work to start on 61 major building projects over £250,000, compared with 47 such projects in 1991–92, and 37 in 1990–91. A further 47 such projects have been put on the design list to enable detailed costed plans to be drawn up, compared with 29 such projects in 1991–92.

  Eight of the projects authorised for a start are to improve technology facilities, and form part of my recently announced technology schools initiative.

  I am allocating over £19 million in grant which will support £23 million of minor works improvement projects, costing less than £250,000, by formula to each LEA based on the number of pupils in voluntary aided schools in the authority. This is double the amount I was able to allocate for equivalent projects for 1991–92, and is being distributed by formula to all LEAs for the first time. I have also allocated additional funds for 35 specific minor projects to provide new school places or to achieve the removal of surplus places.

  During the course of the year work has also been approved to start on a further 27 projects which have been the subject of statutory proposals approved since my statement last December.

  Voluntary aided and special agreement schools—1992–allocations

  Note:

  1. Project Category codes as follows:

  S—Starts list

  MJ—Major work

  BN—(New school places)

  1-Approved statutory proposals

  D—Design list

  MN—Minor work

  SP—Surplus place removal

  2Ex 1991–92 design list

  IR—Improvement or replacement

  2. Figures in brackets following named projects represent amount allocated for expenditure in 1992–93 expressed in £ thousands.

  Local education authority

  Total allocation

  Allocation components

  Agreed projects

  Project category

  New named projects

  Project category

  1992–93

  Commitments

  Minor works improvement

  Major and minor projects

  ex 1991–92 or earlier design list or approved statutory proposals

  major starts and design lists and minor projects

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  (allocations shown in brackets £ thousands)

  (allocations shown in brackets £ thousands)

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  1,390

  335

  230

  825

  Maria Fidelis Sec, Somerstown RC S (163)

  MN, IR2

  Jewish Free School Sec (662)

  S, MJ, IR

  Greenwich

  144

  —

  144

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hackney

  309

  2

  152

  155

  —

  —

  Hackney Free and Parochial CE S (105) Skinners Company Upper Girls (50)

  D, MJ, IR

  Skinners Company Upper Girls (50)

  S, MJ, IR

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,822

  1,670

  141

  11

  —

  —

  Lady Margaret CES (11)

  D. MJ. IR

  Islington

  145

  6

  139

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,243

  1,638

  125

  1,480

  St. Thomas More RC S (1,480)

  S, MJ, IR12

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  217

  4

  167

  46

  —

  —

  St. Luke's CE P (exe nursery) (46)

  D, MJ, IR

  Lewisham

  813

  25

  187

  601

  Christ The King VI FM Centre (580)

  S. MJ, SP1

  All Saints CE P (21)

  D, MJ, IR

  Southwark

  996

  35

  236

  725

  St. Peters CH P (640)

  S, MJ, IR2

  St. John's and St. Clement's CE P (85)

  D, MJ, IR

  Tower Hamlets

  2,647

  2,462

  185

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  178

  —

  139

  39

  —

  —

  St. Joseph's RC P (39)

  D, MJ, IR

  Westminster

  849

  43

  210

  596

  St. Marylebone CE S (543)

  S, MJ, IR2

  St. Georges RC S (53)

  D, MJ, IR

  Barking

  482

  427

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barnet

  700

  32

  305

  363

  —

  —

  Hasmonean High J S (300) Christ Church CE S (63)

  S, MJ, IR

  Christ Church CE S (63)

  D, MJ, BN

  Bexley

  1,880

  1,778

  102

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brent

  219

  18

  171

  30

  —

  —

  St. Gregory's RC High (30)

  S, MJ, IR

  36
  The amount available for allocating to new improvement/replacement projects at voluntary aided schools in 1992–93 is up no less than 114 per cent. on the equivalent figure last year, at £36 million.

  The effect of this substantial increase in capital grant available for projects at voluntary aided schools, taken together with the increases of the last five years, which have seen capital grant allocations rise from £32 million in 1987–88 to £96 million for 1992–93—an increase of 300 per cent.—will have enabled work to go ahead at several hundred voluntary aided schools, including many which have been bidding for allocations for many years. The distribution of funds for projects under £250,000 means that all LEAs will be able to embark on a continuing programme of improvements at their voluntary-aided schools—the first time they will have been in a position to do this.

  These increases demonstrate the government's continuing determination to improve school buildings and underlines our commitment to the continuing partnership between Church and state in the delivery of education.

  The allocations to LEAs, together with a list of the projects authorised to start or on which design work can begin, and a list of projects approved as a result of statutory proposals since last year's announcement together with those projects which form part of the technology schools initiative, follows.
  37

  Local education authority

  Total allocation

  Allocation components

  Agreed projects

  Project category

  New named projects

  Project category

  1992–93

  Commitments

  Minor works improvement

  Major and minor projects

  ex 1991–92 or earlier design list or approved statutory proposals

  major starts and design lists and minor projects

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  (allocations shown in brackets £ thousands)

  (allocations shown in brackets £ thousands)

  Bromley

  84

  1

  83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Croydon

  1,090

  561

  179

  350

  —

  —

  Archbishop Tenison CE S (350)

  S, MJ, IR

  Ealing

  174

  —

  131

  43

  —

  —

  St. Saviour's CE P (43)

  D, MJ, IR

  Enfield

  1,260

  949

  197

  114

  —

  —

  St. George's RC JMI (11)

  S, MJ, IR

  Bp Stopford CE S (53)

  D, MJ, IR

  Winchmore Hill, St. Paul's Primary (50)

  MN. BN

  Haringey

  247

  82

  138

  27

  —

  —

  SS David and Katherine CE S Phase 1 (27)

  S, MJ, IR

  Harrow

  121

  —

  94

  27

  —

  —

  Wealdstone Salvatorian RC Coll (27)

  D, MJ, IR

  Havering

  196

  50

  146

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  230

  —

  118

  112

  —

  —

  Bishop RamseyCE S(112)

  S, MJ, IR

  Hounslow

  968

  9

  141

  818

  St. Mark's RC Sec (818)

  S, MJ, IR2

  —

  —

  Kingston upon Thames

  146

  —

  96

  50

  —

  —

  St. Lukes CE P (50)

  D, MJ, IR

  Merton

  131

  13

  118

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newham

  484

  390

  94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  150

  16

  106

  28

  —

  —

  Trinity High RC (28)

  D, MJ. IR

  Richmond upon Thames

  84

  —

  84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sutton

  1,770

  1,686

  84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  57

  —

  57

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  1,799

  859

  620

  320

  St. Ambrose Barlow RC P (300)

  S MJ IR2

  St. John Wall RC Comp (20)

  S MJ IR

  Coventry

  2,910

  2,725

  185

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dudley

  903

  689

  96

  118

  Jesson's CE P (26)

  D MJ IR1

  Bishop Milner RC S (35)

  D MJ IR

  Castle High (Phase III) (57)

  D MJ SP1

  Sandwell

  62

  —

  62

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Solihull

  405

  41

  114

  250

  Berkswell CE Combined (250)

  S MJ IR2

  —

  —

  Walsall

  137

  —

  137

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  336

  —

  97

  239

  Holy Trinity RC P (200)

  S MJ IR2

  St. Peter's Collegiate CE S (39)

  D MJ IR

  Knowsley

  330

  25

  205

  100

  Huyton CE Inf(70)

  MN IR1

  Whiston, St. Leo's Primary (30)

  MN SP

  Liverpool

  5,396

  4,080

  650

  666

  St. Lawrence CE P (Phase 2) (250)

  S MJ IR1

  St. Francis de Sales RC P (12)

  D MJ IR

  St. Finbar's RC P (250)

  S MJ SP2

  St. Nicholas Primary (56)

  MN SP

  St. Gregory's RC P (103)

  S MJ SP2

  Cardinal Heenan RC S (195)

  S MJ SP12

  St. Helens

  1,194

  980

  214

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sefton

  2,135

  1,398

  326

  411

  St. Luke's CE P, Halsall (400)

  S MJ IR2

  English Martyrs RC P(11)

  D MJ IR

  Wirral

  331

  100

  181

  50

  —

  —

  St. Anne's RC P, Rockferry (50)

  S MJ SP

  Bolton

  1,561

  1,328

  233

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bury

  434

  155

  154

  125

  Our Lady of Grace RC P (125)

  S MJ IR2

  —

  —

  Manchester

  1,836

  1,363

  439

  34

  —

  —

  Xaverian VI Form College (34)

  D MJ IR

  Oldham

  671

  106

  212

  353

  Crompton House CE S (300)

  S MJ IR2

  Blue Coat CE S (53)

  D MJ IR

  Rochdale

  395

  239

  156

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Salford

  547

  337

  181

  29

  —

  —

  Broughton Jewish Primary (29)

  D MJ IR

  Stockport

  136

  9

  127

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tameside

  205

  47

  120

  38

  —

  —

  St. Thomas More RC S (38)

  D MJ IR

  Trafford

  1,709

  1,571

  113

  25

  St. Anne's RC P (25)

  MN IR1

  —

  —

  Wigan

  1,498

  749

  459

  290

  Sacred Heart RC P (250)

  S MJ SP2

  Bryn, Downhall Green Primary (40)

  MN SP

  Barnsley

  180

  23

  57

  100

  —

  —

  St. Michael's RC S(100)

  S, MJ, IR

  Doncaster

  95

  —

  95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rotherham

  105

  32

  73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  1,169

  30

  103

  1,036

  All Saints RC S (1,036)

  S, MJ, IR2

  38 39

  Local education authority

  Total allocation

  Allocation components

  Agreed projects

  Project category

  New named projects

  Project category

  1992–93

  Commitments

  Minor works improvement

  Major and minor projects

  ex 1991–92 or earlier design list or approved statutory proposals

  major starts and design lists and minor projects

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  (allocations shown in brackets £ thousands)

  (allocations shown in brackets £ thousands)

  Bradford

  541

  298

  243

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Calderdale

  125

  12

  113

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kirklees

  917

  8

  130

  779

  St. John Fisher RC High (760)

  S. MJ. BN2

  Batley Parish CEP(19)

  D, MJ, BN

  Leeds

  5,830

  5,466

  364

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  351

  145

  121

  85

  Sandal Magna Endowed CE (27)

  MN, IR1

  St. Austin's J & I (5)

  MN, BN

  St. Mary's CE P (53)

  MN, IR1

  Gateshead

  271

  136

  98

  37

  —

  —

  St. Edmund Campion RC S (37)

  D, MJ, IR

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  512

  338

  146

  28

  —

  —

  Sacred Heart RC P (28)

  D, MJ, IR

  North Tyneside

  411

  —

  71

  340

  —

  —

  St. Thomas More RC S (170)

  S, MJ, IR

  WallsendCEP(170)

  S, MJ, SP

  South Tynesidc

  77

  —

  77

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  1,129

  986

  143

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Avon

  292

  28

  251

  13

  —

  —

  PortburyCE P(13)

  S, MJ, IR

  Bedfordshire

  438

  208

  188

  42

  —

  —

  Cardinal Newman RC High (42)

  D, MJ, IR

  Berkshire

  585

  265

  243

  77

  —

  —

  Windsor. Trinity St. Stephen First (77)

  MN SP

  Buckinghamshire

  1,057

  374

  153

  530

  Waddesdon CE S (530)

  S, MJ, IR2

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  835

  483

  152

  200

  Bury CE P (200)

  S, MJ, IR2

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  2,902

  2,180

  558

  164

  St. Mary's RC P Middlewich (105)

  S, MJ, IR2

  Bunbury. Aldersey Primary (47)

  MN, BN

  St. Nicholas RC S, Hartford (12)

  D, MJ, BN

  Cleveland

  1,281

  704

  345

  232

  —

  —

  Sacred Heart RC P (208) English Martyrs RC S (24)

  S, MJ, IR S, MJ. IR

  Cornwall

  262

  139

  123

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  1,938

  1,403

  332

  203

  —

  —

  Keswick Sec (143) St. Bernard's RC S. Barrow (60)

  D MJ IR D, MJ, SP

  Derbishire

  710

  459

  251

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon

  1,702

  1,176

  288

  238

  —

  —

  St. Boniface RC P (238)

  S, MJ, IR

  Dorset

  3,114

  2,156

  292

  666

  Dorchester Upper (300)

  S, MJ, SP1

  St. Edward's RC S (42)

  D, MJ, IR

  St. Mark's CE P (208)

  S, MJ, BN1

  St. Osmund's CE M (25)

  S, MJ, IR

  St. John's CE P (76)

  S, MJ, BN1

  St. WalburgasRC P(15)

  MN BN1

  Durham

  1,313

  1,070

  243

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  873

  141

  219

  513

  —

  —

  Bp. Bell CE S. Eastbourne (53)

  D, MJ, BN

  Cardinal Newham RC Sec (460)

  S, MJ, BN

  Essex

  709

  41

  486

  182

  Bradwell on Sea Endowed CE P (150)

  S, MJ, IR1

  Loughton. Davenant Foundation (32)

  MN, BN

  Gloucestershire

  1,897

  1,227

  203

  467

  St. Peter's RC High (300)

  S, MJ, BN2

  Hardwicke Parochial (150)

  MN, BN

  Mitcheldean Endowed (17)

  MN, SP

  Hampshire

  664

  250

  334

  80

  —

  —

  Milford-on-Sea CE P (80)

  MN, BN

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,119

  551

  336

  232

  —

  —

  St. George's CEP (176)

  S, MJ, IR

  Bp. of Hereford Bluecoat CE S (15)

  D, MJ, IR

  Ross on Wye. Lea Primary (20)

  MN, BN

  Evesham. St. Mary's (21)

  MN, BN

  Hertfordshire

  932

  175

  584

  173

  —

  —

  John F. Kennedy RC S (53)

  D, MJ, IR

  St. George's Sec (120)

  MN, BN

  Humberside

  399

  1

  158

  240

  —

  —

  St. Bede's RC Sec (240)

  S, MJ, IR

  Isle of Wight

  141

  95

  46

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  3,048

  2,154

  559

  355

  Bennett Memorial CE S (254)

  S, MJ, IR1

  St. George's CE M. Sheerness (81)

  D, MJ, IR

  Lancashire

  6,437

  4,642

  1,548

  247

  —

  —

  St. Joseph's RC P, Barnoldswick (13)

  S, MJ, IR

  St. Mary's RC High (88)

  D, MJ, SP

  Sacred Heart RC P(I2)

  D, MJ, SP

  Lytham St. Anne's, Lylham St. Peter's (30)

  MN, BN

  Over Wyre. St. Aidan's High (14)

  MN, BN

  Preston, Fulwood St. Clare's (30)

  MN, BN

  Blackburn, Holy Souls (30)

  MN, BN

  Tarleton, Hesketh with Becconsall (30)

  MN, BN

  40 41

  Local education authority

  Total allocation

  Allocation components

  Agreed projects

  Project category

  New named projects

  Project category

  1992–93

  Commitments

  Minor works improvement

  Major and minor projects

  ex 1991–92 or earlier design list or approved statutory proposals

  major starts and design lists and minor projects

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  (allocations shown in brackets £ thousands)

  (allocations shown in brackets £ thousands)

  Leicestershire

  1,091

  24

  217

  850

  —

  —

  Sacred Heart RC P (26)

  D, MJ, IR

  English Martyrs RC S (824)

  S MJ, IR

  Lincolnshire

  695

  —

  169

  526

  —

  —

  Butterwick. Pinchbeck Endowed (80)

  MN, BN

  Cowbit Endowed Primary (69)

  MN, BN

  Leadenham Primary (28)

  MN, BN

  Lincoln. Bp. King Primary (108)

  MN, BN

  Partney Primary (32)

  MN, BN

  Spalding Parish Church Primary (60)

  MN, BN

  Spalding Grammar (149)

  S MJ, IR

  Norfolk

  376

  —

  147

  229

  Archbishop Sancroft CE High (129)

  S. MJ, IR1

  Notre Dame RC High (47)

  D, MJ, IR

  King's Lynn, Whitefriars Primary (35)

  MN, BN

  Cromer. The Belfry Primary (18)

  MN, BN

  North Yorkshire

  884

  369

  257

  258

  St. Wilfred's RC P (258)

  S, MJ, IR

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  599

  —

  187

  412

  St. David's RC Middle (359)

  S, MJ, IR1

  Bp. Stopford CE S. Kettering (53)

  D, MJ, IR

  Northumberland

  659

  198

  135

  326

  St. Mary's RC P, Hexham (326)

  S, MJ, BN1

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  418

  106

  312

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oxfordshire

  2,353

  1,980

  196

  177

  Our Lady of Lourdes RC P (157)

  S, MJ, IR1

  St. Edburg's CE P, Bicester (20)

  D, MJ, SP

  Salop

  126

  12

  114

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  2,597

  2,173

  128

  296

  St. Augustine of Canterbury CE/RC S(l50)

  S, MJ, BN1

  —

  —

  Trull CE Primary. Taunton (146)

  MN, BN1

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  2,107

  1,456

  385

  266

  St. George's RC P, Stoke (100)

  S, MJ, IR1

  St. Peter's CE P. Stoke (120)

  S, MJ, IR

  St. Peter's CE High Stoke (46)

  D, MJ, IR

  Suffolk

  340

  183

  129

  28

  —

  —

  S. Lowestoft. St. Mary's Primary (28)

  MN, BN

  Surrey

  946

  362

  504

  80

  St. Nicholas CE P (36)

  S, MJ, IR1

  St. Peter's RC Comp. Guildford (44)

  D, MJ, IR

  Warwickshire

  920

  672

  238

  10

  —

  —

  St. Francis RC P. Bedworth (10)

  S, MJ, IR

  West Sussex

  649

  335

  314

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  769

  596

  200

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS

  108,073

  64,895

  22,993

  20,185

  3 V A school statutory proposals approved since December 1990—funds allocated as committed expenditure

  LEA and School

  Bedfordshire—St. John Rigby RC

  Bexley—St. Stephen's RC

  Birmingham—Erdington CE

  Bolton—St. Peter's CE, Smithhills Dean

  Cheshire—Newman RC. Warrington

  St. Gregory's, Warrington

  Devon—St. John's RC, Tiverton

  Rockenford CE

  Dorset—Verwood Emmanuel CE

  Enfield—New Jewish Primary School

  Lambeth—Archbishop Sumner

  Lancashire—Burnley Wellfield CE/Meth

  St. John/St. Michael CE

  St. Alban's RC, Blackburn

  Bishop Martin, Skelmersdale

  English Martyrs, Preston

  St. Oswald, Accrington

  St. James, Chorley

  Thornton Cleveleys, St. Teresa's (previously part of St. Bernadette's)

  Lewisham—St. Ursula's

  Liverpool—St. John's RC

  St. Gerard's RC

  Manchester—St. Andrew's CE

  Shropshire—St. Matthew's CE

  Tameside—St. Mary's CE

  Tower Hamlets—Blessed John Roche

  Bishop Challoner

  Technology initiative VA projects named to start in 1992–93
  Barnsley—St. Michael's Secondary
  42

  Birmingham—St. John Wall Comp, Hansworth

  Brent—St. Gregory's High, Kenton

  Cleveland—English Martyrs, Hartlepool

  Croydon—Archbishop Tenison's

  Hackney—Skinner's Company Upper Girls

  Haringey—St. David and St. Katherine

  Humberside—-St. Bede's, Scunthorpe

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Croatia and Slovenia
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of people who are refugees from the war in Croatia and how they are being cared for; and whether the United Kingdom will be providing any financial or other assistance to them.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The latest estimates suggest that 40,000 Yugoslays are currently in Hungary.

  UNHCR has a budget of US$2·9 million to provide assistance for 15,000 refugees for the period October to December 1991. The League of Red Cross Societies is also contributing and has just launched a new appeal to cover the needs of some 20,000 people over a further three-month period. Some 40 per cent. of the UNHCR budget is spent on food allowances, the remainder on

  43
  domestic items, heating allowances, sanitation and registration equipment. The 1992 UNHCR budget is currently being finalised.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 3 December at columns 96–97, to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) on 21 November at column 292 and to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 9 December at column 277.

  UNCTAD Report
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he received a copy of the United Nations conference on trade and development report 1991; and what contribution was made to the report by his Department's Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Copies of the 1991 report on the United Nations conference on trade and development were received by the Government in September. While the report is produced by the UNCTAD secretariat on its own responsibility, it also reflects discussion in UNCTAD's trade and development board. Officials from the Overseas Development Administration regularly attend sessions of the board and contribute to the discussion on a whole range of issues, including debt and sustainable development, as well as the crucial question of good government.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the position of Gibraltar in the proposed European Community convention on external frontiers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my noble Friend Lord Cavendish in another place on 21 November, Vol. 532, c. 1017.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Hong Kong Legislative Council on the proposed court of appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On 4 December, the Legislative Council passed a motion calling for greater flexibility about the number of overseas judges who might sit on the court of final appeal. My noble Friend the Minister of State discussed this matter with OMELCO members during his recent visit to Hong Kong. Our policy remains as stated in the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 4 December, Vol. 200, c.155.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current policy towards the remit and powers of the European Parliament.
  44
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The treaty on European union agreed at Maastricht includes a package of measures to extend the European Parliament's non-legislative powers, particularly to enable it to monitor the Commission more effectively. We also accepted a new procedure giving the EP a right to block legislation in a number of specified areas. A declaration attached to the treaty calls for closer contacts between the European Parliament and national Parliaments.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the recent report, "Options and Opportunities: The N.P.T. Extension Conference of 1995" by G. Bunn, C. N. Van Doren and D. Fisher.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This report has already been received in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources were committed by Her Majesty's Government to supporting the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe apparatus and secretariat in 1991; and what resources are earmarked for the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe support in 1992.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom contribution to the costs of CSCE institutions and meetings is set at 9·1 per cent. of the total. In 1991 the United Kingdom contributed £46,416 each to the costs of the CSCE secretariat and conflict prevention centre and £28,654 to the cost of the office of free elections.

  We have estimated that the United Kingdom's share of the costs of the above institutions in 1992 will he approximately £200,000.

TRANSPORT

  Highways
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total expenditure of all English local highway authorities for each year between 1980–81 and 1991–92 on(a) new construction and improvement, (b) structural maintenance and (c) current maintenence.

  Mr. Chope
  For the years 1983–84 to 1989–90 the information is published in tables in part 1 of successive editions of "Transport Statistics Great Britain", copies of which are held in the library. Information for 1980–81 to 1982–83 is not readily available in the form requested. Information for 1990–91 and 1991–92 is not yet available.

  Vehicle Immobilisation
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to meet the motor industry to discuss the immobilisation of vehicles to prevent theft of vehicles and joy riding.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met representatives of the motor industry a number of times, most recently on 11 December, to discuss a wide range of matters relating to car crime including the immobilisation of vehicles to prevent theft.

  Severn Tunnel
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what surveys have been carried out in the air purity and quality in the Severn tunnel; what system of continuous monitoring is in operation; what surveys have been carried out into the chemicals present in the deposits in the Severn tunnel; what chemicals were found and in what quantity; whether any of the chemicals and diesel fumes found to be present have been identified as a cause of cancer in humans; what was the last date on which environmental health officers carried out tests on the air and chemical content of the tunnel; what is the frequency of such environmental health tests; and if he will place in the Library copies of such reports on deposits, chemicals and air.

  Mr. Freeman
  The tunnel is equipped with a force ventilation system which gives a 5 to 12 mph wind speed throughout. The last extensive survey of air quality in the tunnel was carried out by British Rail Research, Scientific Services, in 1969. The survey report concluded that under normal running conditions no hazard existed if the fan stopped for short periods. Even under worse conditions, in which locomotives stopped in the tunnel, but with the forced ventilation running, conditions were not considered hazardous.

  The Health and Safety Executive undertook a survey in 1979 which found that the level of fumes in the tunnel did not constitute a hazard. Further surveys by BR between 1978 and 1980 reached a similar conclusion. There is no continuous monitoring, but British Rail tells me that a monitoring exercise, which has been planned for some time, is due to start next month.

  No hazardous chemical deposits have been found. I understand that the tunnel is drier now than at any previous time due to remedial works.

  Health and safety matters which arise within the Severn tunnel are the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate which carries out periodic inspections. Environmental health officers have no jurisdiction in the tunnel.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains carrying various fuel oils and chemicals pass through the Severn tunnel in the opposite or same direction during the time period that passenger services are operating each week and each day; and when it is proposed to change service times and timetables so that freight does not dovetail with passenger services in the tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  These are operational matters for British Rail. BR's operating procedures do not allow more than one train at a time travelling in the same direction to use the Severn tunnel. No train carrying dangerous goods is permitted to be in the tunnel at the same time as a passenger train. HSE's railway inspectorate sees no need to restrict further the passage of trains conveying non-dangerous goods.

  Trains
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to require British Rail passenger trains to provide positive pressure breathing air in passenger carriages when passing through or stuck in tunnels.
  46
  Mr. Freeman
  No. HSE's railway inspectorate advises that the natural movement of air within railway tunnels is sufficient to ensure the health and safety of passengers and staff.

  River Thames
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been conducted into the use of the River Thames as a mass transit system.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not know of any recent studies that have been conducted into the use of the River Thames as a mass transit system, other than some confidential market research carried out by the private sector.

  Airports (Luggage)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate the number of occasions on which passengers' unaccompanied luggage has been loaded on to aircraft at Scottish airports in the last 12 months; what steps he intends to take to stop this practice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Airlines are required to identify instances where passengers fail to join their flight, and to ensure that any bags checked in by those passengers are not carried without first being subjected to security controls. No useful purpose would be served by establishing the number of occasions on which such bags have been carried from Scottish airports in the last 12 months, nor in placing a total prohibition of the carriage of such bags.

  Recent press articles relate not to the above procedure but to a more sophisticated one involving identifying bags which are travelling unaccompanied because, for example, they have been misrouted. The technology necessary to achieve this satisfactorily in the complex environment of a major airport is only now becoming available. A number of promising systems are under development, but they have not yet reached the stage where it would be reasonable for us to set a firm date by which they must be in use.

  Workers' Transport
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will invite the European Commission to proceed with the proposed directive 4315/91 under article 75; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have expressed our concern to the Commission about the proposed treaty base. We will continue to press for the directive to be taken under article 75.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the details and address of the section and directorate within the European Commission concerned with the exclusion of non-workers from the proposed directive (4315/91) on transport of workers with reduced mobility.

  Mr. Freeman
  The proposal originated in directorate C of directorate-general V, employment, industrial relations and social affairs, Rue de la Loi 200, 1049 Brussels.
  47
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if taxi cabs are to be covered by the proposed directive 4315/91.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not clear from the text whether taxis are to be covered. We will pursue this point in discussions on the text.

  Licensed Vehicles
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department holds on the number of licensed motor vehicles in the north-west region.

  Mr. Chope
  The records kept at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency show that the total number of vehicles licensed in the north-west region as at 31 December 1990 was 2,563,825.

  Civilian Aircrew
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to provide for legal sanctions to be invoked against a civilian pilot incapacitated by alcohol from flying safely and to define on whose responsibility such a person may be denied the right to take over the controls of an aircraft.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Article 52(2) of the Air Navigation Order 1989 already provides that"a person shall not, when acting as a member of the crew of any aircraft…be under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to impair his capacity so to act."
  The penalty for contravening that provision can be a fine, or imprisonment for up to two years, or both.

  Article 95(1) of the order empowers the Civil Aviation Authority or an authorised person to direct the operator or commander of an aircraft not to make a flight, and to detain the aircraft, if it appears that the flight would be in contravention of the order and be a cause of danger. An "authorised person" is defined as a constable or a person authorised by the Civil Aviation Authority. In addition, article 54 of the order requires that "all lawful commands" given by an aircraft's commander for safety reasons should be obeyed; this may be of relevance to my hon. Friend's question if the aircraft has two pilots on board.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering legal provisions for compulsory testing of flight crew for alcohol in certain circumstances—such as after an accident—with associated penalties; he is advised that primary legislation would be needed.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information is collected by the Civil Aviation Authority on the number of civil aviation pilots and aircrew flying with British airlines who were disciplined for drunken behaviour in 1985 and in 1990.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Disciplinary action against pilots or aircrew is a matter for the airline concerned. All flight crew licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority must hold a valid medical certificate; I am advised by the authority that in 1990 two professional pilots were refused a certificate for alcohol-related reasons and five had their certificates suspended. Figures for 1985 are not available.

  Motor Cyclists (Helmets)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has undertaken of the effectiveness of compulsory helmet wearing for motor cyclists.

  Mr. Chope
  A study carried out when compulsory helmet wearing was introduced in 1973 indicated that it would result in a substantial reduction in casualties. The number of motor cyclists killed in 1990 was lower than in 1973, but it is not possible to isolate the contribution made by helmet wearing. Comprehensive studies carried out in the United States have indicated that the fatality rate for motor cyclists is twice as high in those States which do not require helmets to be worn—or require wearing only by young riders—as in those states where helmets were required to be worn by all riders.

  Ilkley Bypass
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what environmental matters he has taken into consideration in considering the alignment of the proposed A65 Ilkley bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  Appropriate environmental matters are being taken into account in considering the alignment of the proposed A65 Ilkley bypass. Specialist environmental consultants have been employed to work with the designers of the scheme and those national and local bodies having an environmental interest have been consulted.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account he has taken of the effect on the proposed Nidderdale area of outstanding natural beauty when considering the alignment of the proposed A65 Ilkley bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  When developing options for the proposed A65 Ilkley bypass, the Department of Transport was aware of the proposal to create a Nidderdale area of outstanding natural beauty. The Department was formally consulted by the Countryside Commission about this proposal.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the alignment of the preferred route of the proposed A65 Ilkley bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  Responses to the public consultation including technical and environmental aspects are still being considered. I shall not be able to announce a preferred route until this work has been completed.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with representatives of(a) the city of Bradford metropolitan district council, (b) Harrogate district council, and (c) North Yorkshire county council over the proposed A65 Ilkley bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  These local authorities were all formally consulted about the options for an Ilkley bypass as part of the public consultation.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the impending decision on the alignment of the proposed A65 Ilkley bypass.
  49
  Mr. Chope
  The Department of Transport received more than 4,000 responses to the public consultation on Ilkley bypass. These included representations from national and local bodies.

  Railway Signals (Warning Device)
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require British Rail to install an electronic warning device in railway signals that would sound an alarm horn in the train driver's cab if the engine were to pass a signal set at red.

  Mr. Freeman
  Most of the BR network is already fitted with an automatic warning system—AWS—which sounds a warning horn every time the train approaches a signal showing a restrictive aspect—double yellow, yellow or red. When the train approaches such a signal, the driver has to acknowledge the AWS by pressing a button which silences the warning horn and causes an indicator disc to display black and yellow segments as a reminder to the driver. If he does not acknowledge the warning within three seconds, the brakes of the train will be applied automatically. The AWS does not distinguish between the different restrictive aspects.

  BR is also evaluating two automatic train protection—ATP—systems which will automatically slow a train which passes a double yellow or yellow, to a speed which will enable it to stop at the next red signal. ATP will also automatically impose any speed restriction required, including temporary ones required for track maintenance.

  SS Richard Montgomery
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 13 November,Official Report, column 521, if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the findings of the most recent survey of the wreck of the vessel Richard Montgomery.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I will be making a full report on the SS Richard Montgomery early in the new year.

  Highway Assessment Programme
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with representatives from highway authorities concerning the feasibility of installing the multicriteria analysis of scheme options in transport systems into the highway assessment programme.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 12 December 1991]: None.

  M4
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport from what time the Severn bridge and the M4 were closed on Sunday 8 December; what stretch of the M4 was involved in total; at what time each was re-opened; and what was the cause of the closure.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 12 December 1991]: I shall write to the hon. Member.

HEALTH

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the maximum salary payable to the chief executive of each of his Department's executive agencies, including performance-related element, and the length of time of the chief executive's contract in each case.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The chief executive of NHS Estate Management and Health Building Agency (NHS Estates) was appointed on 1 April 1991 for a fixed term of five years.

  His salary is £55,000 plus an annual non-pensionable performance-related bonus of up to £7,000.

  The chief executive of the Medicines Control Agency was appointed as from 10 April 1989 for a fixed term of five years. His appointment for the remainder of his contract was confirmed when the MCA became a "next steps" agency on 11 July 1991.

  His salary is £65,993 plus an annual non-pensionable performance-related bonus of up to £13,150.

  Pregnancies
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into the living standards and health of pregnant girls under 18 years of age and into the outcomes of such pregnancies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department commissioned a wider study from the Institute for Social Studies in Medical Care. The findings were published by HMSO in 1986 in "Teenage Mothers and their Partners", a copy of which is available in the Library, and in a series of articles in professional journals.

  The Department has provided core funding to the national perinatal epidemiology unit since 1978. The unit continuously monitors and analyses data which are routinely collected by the Government Statistical Service and the national health service, to assess how the outcome of pregnancy and social, economic and medical factors thought to he associated with it vary both over time and from place to place within England and Wales. Analysis of the outcome of pregnancies in girls under 18 years of age is encompassed within this work.

  Patients' Money (Guidance)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to revise the guidance on the use of patients' money contained in HM(71)90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Officials are currently considering, in consultation with the Public Trust Office and other interests whether any further advice needs to be issued.

  Outside Tenders
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions exist on the freedom of a regional health authority, where a district health authority accepts an outside tender for architectural, ancillary or computer and training services at lower cost than the same services provided by the regional health authority, to penalise the district health authority financially by withholding other moneys or by continuing to charge for the overheads associated with the services concerned.
  51
  Mr. Dorrell
  There are a wide variety of circumstances in which a regional health authority could reasonably withhold money from a district health authority or charge for overhead costs properly incurred for the benefit of districts within the region. A regional health authority would not, however, wish to penalise a district health authority for contracting out a service at lower cost. On the contrary, in line with the Government's policy as set out in "Competing for Quality", a regional health authority would wish to facilitate such developments.

  Waiting Lists, Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by specialty the waiting times for referrals by general practitioners to consultants in the Yorkshire regional health authority before a patient is seen.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Bryan Askew, the chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority, for details.

  NHS Operations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority, and specialty, national health service operations that can be performed within six weeks waiting time.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The time patients wait depends on the severity and urgency of their condition and not on the intended treatment or operation. About half all patients admitted to hospital from the waiting lists are admitted in five weeks or less.

  Tattoos (Removal)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate has been made of expenditure involved in the removal of tattoos within the NHS for the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) what percentage of the in-patient waiting lists for 1990–91 were cases relating to the removal of tattoos; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what estimate he has made of the total number for the current year on NHS in-patient and out-patient waiting lists who require removal of tattoos; what percentage of total waiting lists these represent; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what information he has showing by region the numbers of patients waiting for tattoo removal in the NHS and the percentage of the whole waiting list represented by this group in each case in (a) 1990–91 and (b) the current year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Waiting list information is available centrally by specialty only and not by the intended method of treatment or operation. Out-patient waiting list information is not collected centrally. No estimate has been made of expenditure involving the removal of tattoos.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department proposes to put out to consultation its guidance to local authorities on charging for personal social services; and if he will make a statement.
  52
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Officials are already consulting the local authority associations on a new financial assessment for people in residential care, to take effect from April 1993. Preliminary work to produce guidance about charges for day and domiciliary services has also commenced, and will involve the local authority associations. For both there will be further consultation in 1992.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding local authorities have received from his Department to implement the Children Act 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 5 December at column 199.

  After-care Support
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding local authorities receive for after-care support programmes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) on 9 December at columns 331–32.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedure patients should use for activating the commitment in paragraph 9.6 of the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  District health authorities and GP fundholders are responsible for securing health services that reflect the needs and preferences of their residents and patients. They have the freedom to purchase services from provider units within their own or another health authority, from NHS trusts or from the independent sector. The choice of service provider will depend on a local assessment of people's needs, the relative quality and cost-effectiveness of the services on offer, and the views of local people. District health authorities will be able to establish people's preferences in a number of ways, including discussions with local GPs, community health councils and other local organisations, and local surveys. Patients will be able to make their preferences known direct to GP fundholders.

  Medical Records (Access)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the guidance issued by his Department on a patient's right of access to medical records; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The NHS Management Executive issued guidance to the NHS in August, entitled "Access to Health Records Act 1990—A Guide for the NHS", under cover of HSG(91)6. A copy of the guidance is available in the Library.

  National Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the estimated percentage change in real terms, adjusted for pay and price increases in the NHS, for hospital and community health services expenditure in 1991–92;

  (2) what was the estimated percentage change in expenditure in real terms, adjusted for pay and price increases in the NI-IS, on family practitioner services current in 1991–92;

  (3) what was the percentage change in estimated current expenditure in real terms, adjusted for pay and price increases in the NHS, on local authority personal social services in 1991–92;

  (4) what was the estimated percentage change in real terms, adjusted for pay and price increases in the NHS, in total NHS expenditure in 1991–92;

  (5) what was the percentage change in real terms, adjusted for pay and price increases in the NHS, for health and community health services current expenditure in 1990–91;

  (6) what was the percentage change in expenditure in real terms, adjusted for pay and price increases in the NHS, on family practitioner services current in 1990–91;

  (7) what was the estimated percentage change in current expenditure in real terms, adjusted for pay and price increases in the NHS, on local authority personal social services in 1990–91;

  (8) what was the percentage change in real terms, adjusted for pay and price increases in the NHS, in total NHS expenditure in 1990–91.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 9 December 1991]: Column A of the table shows the estimated percentage change in hospital and community health services current, family health services current, total national health service and total personal social services expenditure adjusted for changes in input unit costs. Figures on this basis for 1991–92 are not yet available.

  Changes in input volumes are however an inadequate guide to the level of services the NHS can be expected to achieve, since they do not reflect the continuing success of NHS management in increasing the efficiency with which it uses resources.

  Columns B and C therefore give the percentage change in expenditure for each of the programmes for 1990–91 and 1991–92 (estimated) in real terms that is after adjustment by the gross domestic product deflator.

  A

  B

  C

  Percentage change in expenditure in 1990–91 after having been adjusted for changes in input unit costs

  Percentage change in expenditure after having been adjuster GDP deflator in

  1990–91

  1991–92 estimate

  Gross HCHS Current

  5·0

  4·0

  6·2

  Gross FHS Current

  —0·6

  4·2

  3·0

  Gross NHS Current

  2·5

  3·3

  5·2

  Net PSS Current

  3·3

  3·6

  2·6

  Note:

  Calculated against the existing indicics of HCHS and FHS in service inflation. These are however currently under review.

  Dental Health
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will specify the various considerations which led the Health education authority booklet, "Enjoy Healthy Eating", to advise caution in the consumption of dried fruit in order to avoid the harmful effects on teeth, and to encourage the consumption of fruit with no reference to its effect on teeth;

  (2) what was the basis of tests carried out to determine the cariogenicity of the various foods, drinks and snacks referred to an pages 19 to 21 of the Health Education Authority's booklet.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 13 December 1991]: The advice provided in the Health Education Authority booklet is based on the expert advice of the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy. The COMA report "Dietary Sugars and Human Disease" (1989) stated that the experience of caries was positively related to the amount of non-milk extrinsic sugars in the diet and the frequency of their consumption.

  In order to reduce the risk of dental caries COMA recommended that consumption of NME sugars by the population should be decreased. The food items for which the HEA advised caution in consumption, including dried fruits, contain NME sugars. Epidemiological evidence suggests that fresh fruit, as eaten by humans, appears to be of low cariogenicity.

  The recommendations made by COMA have taken account of available scientific evidence as explained in the dietary sugar report. The report is available in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Kiosk
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans there are to extend the range of items on sale in the House of Commons kiosk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The range of souvenirs stocked in both kiosks is kept tinder continual review. The kiosk in Bellamy's holds a limited range of foodstuffs, pharmaceutical products and other useful items. There is little scope to extend that range, although there may be changes in individual items held in response to demand.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to secure the early debate of Select Committee reports.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have at present no proposals for any changes in the existing arrangements. Subject to pressures of business in the House I hope to find time for debate on some Select Committee reports during this Parliament.

  Working Hours
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the progress being made on reforming the working hours of the House of Commons.

  Mr. MacGregor
  A recent example of reforming the working hours of the House has been that, since they were
  55
  set up in January, the European Standing Committees have made a significant contribution to reducing the burden of late-night debates on the Floor.

  My hon. Friend will be aware that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have either submitted written memoranda or given oral evidence to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House.

  Special Standing Committees
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when a Special Standing Committee set up under Standing Order No. 91 last considered a Bill; and whether he will make a statement on this procedure.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The last Bill to be considered by a Special Standing Committee was the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill[Lords] in the 1983–84 Session.

  The Government will continue to consider the possible use of this procedure in appropriate cases where this is compatible with the overall management of their legislative programme.

  Visitors (Security)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if security arrangements for visitors to the Palace of Westminster are maintained at the same level during the parliamentary recesses.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It has been the long-standing practice of Leaders of the House not to comment on matters of security within the Palace of Westminster. I can, however, inform my hon. Friend that the security arrangements for access are the same whether the House is in recess or not.

DEFENCE

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the post, grade and maximum salary payable, including performance-related element, in each case where appointments from the private sector have been made at grade 7 or above in respect of each of the executive agencies in his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Excluding chief executive posts, appointments from the private sector at grade 7 or above have only been made in two of the eight agencies in my Department to date. The table shows the standard civil service rate for the grades specified including discretionary pay for performance.

  Agency

  Grade

  Numbers employed from private sector

  1991–92 maximum salary including performance element (£)

  Meteorological Office1

  5

  2 1st post

  39,402–52,122

  2nd post

  39,402–46,724

  7

  1

  27,819–33,175

  Defence Research Agency

  7

  1

  27,819–33,175

  1 The difference between the two grade 5 maxima relates to the number of range points and the performance element applicable in each case.

  56
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the last annual report was published and when the next one is due for each of the executive agencies in his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Meteorological Office and the Hydrographic Office were the first two agencies to be established in April 1990. Their reports for 1990–91 were published in July 1991. Their next annual reports, together with the first annual report for the other six agencies in my Department, are due to be published in July 1991.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many staff were in post on the date that each of the executive agencies in his Department were established as executive agencies; and how many staff are in post now in each case;

  (2) if he will list those new facilities for staff, including nurseries and health care schemes, which have been introduced since the establishment of each of the executive agencies in his Department;

  (3) how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of each of the executive agencies in his Department; and whether the cost was borne by the parent Department or the new agency.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This is a matter for the chief executives of the executive agencies and defence support agencies. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum salary payable to the chief executive, including performance-related elements and the length of time of the chief executive's contract for each of the executive agencies in his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Three chief executive appointments in MOD have been made following open competition. The details of these are shown in table 1. Chief executive positions in the five other MOD "next steps" agencies were filled by the existing head of the organisation. The details are shown in table 2.

  Table 1

  Chief executive appointed following open competition

  Agency

  Period of contract

  Salary £

  Defence research agency

  3 years

  140,000

  Meteorological office

  5 years

  165,000

  Service children's schools (north west Europe

  3 years

  255,417

  1 New chief executive appointed with effect from 2 January 1992. Within standard civil service range for grade 2, plus discretionary performance bonus of 15 per cent, of salary.

  2 Standard civil service rate for grade 4 which includes discretionary payments for performance. This post also attracts London weighting and foreign cost of living allowances.

  Table 2

  Chief executive posts filled by existing head of organisation without competition

  Agency

  Grade or service rank

  Salary £

  Hydrographic office

  Rear Admiral

  52,855

  Military survey DSA

  Major General

  52,855

  Maintenance group RAF support command

  Air Vice Marshal

  52,855

  Chemical and biological defence establishment

  Grade 3 civil servant

  157,000

  Directorate General defence accounts

  Grade 4 civil servant

  247,921

  57
  1 Standing civil service rate for grade 3 which includes discretionary payments for performance.

  2 Standard civil service rate for grade 4 which includes performance related elements.

  Trident
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answer of 15 November,Official Report, column 703, what is his estimate of the cost of cancelling (a)the entire Trident submarine programme, (b) the building projects at Coulport and Faslane, under the liquidated damages clauses in the contracts, if such cancellations took place (1) on January 1992, (2) on 1 April 1992, (3) on 1 July 1992, (4) on I October 1992, or (5) on I January 1993.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  As I advised the hon. Member on 15 November at column 703, cancellation costs would be based on an assessment of contractors' properly incurred liabilities at the time of cancellation. Such liabilities would need to be negotiated at that time with the companies concerned. It would not be sensible, therefore, to speculate on what these might he, especially as it is not this Government's policy to cancel the Trident programme.

  Nuclear Weapons Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to the United Kingdom of radioactive decontamination and rehabilitation of the sites where the United Kingdom has tested nuclear weapons, or conducted weapons-related tests, at(a) Christmas island, (b) Monte Bello island, (c) Maralinga, (d) Emu field, (e) Potton island and (f) Nevada nuclear test site; and what is his estimate of the further costs that will be needed to complete the environmental restoration of these sites.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The cost to the United Kingdom of decontamination and site restoration of the former United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear weapon test sites following completion of the programme in the 1960s could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  No further costs are anticipated in respect of either Christmas island or the Monte Bello islands.

  The Australian Government are currently seeking a contribution from the United Kingdom for additional work at Maralinga and Emu field, but the United Kingdom view is that the 1968 and 1979 agreements absolve the United Kingdom from any liability to contribute.

  There have been no firings involving radioactive materials at Potton island.

  No costs have been incurred for rehabilitation of the Nevada test site and the future management of the site is a matter wholly for the United States.

  NAAFI
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to implement the recommendations contained in the National Audit Office study of Management Services (Organisation) Division dealing with the financial relationship between his Ministry and NAAFI.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There has been no National Audit Office study into the financial relationship between my Department and NAAFI. An MOD efficiency scrutiny 58
  has been carried out, however, and some of its recommendations have been implemented. Others will be considered further when the effect that the restructuring of the armed forces will have on the NAAFI have been analysed.

  Regimental Memorabilia
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to satisfy himself that the President of the Service Institute and President of the Regiment Institute shops are abiding by their charter to sell only regimental memorabilia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  President of the Service Institute and President of the Regiment Institute shops do not operate under a charter, but are permitted to sell goods including, but not solely, memorabilia, providing they are not in competition with the NAAFI.

  Battalions
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the average costs of maintaining(a) a British foot guards battalion and (b) a battalion of the equivalent of the Royal Air Force Regiment in (i) London, (ii) the United Kingdom and (iii) Germany.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) on 15 November, column 703.

  Records are not maintained in a way which enables the other information requested to be provided.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what would be(a) the first year and (b) the full year costs of raising child benefit to £9·55 (i) for 1991–92 and (ii) 1992–93, including increases in linked means-tested and national insurance benefits, for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The rates of child benefit from April 1991 were £8·25 for the eldest eligible child and £7·25 for each other child and were increased to £9·25 and £7·50 respectively from October 1991. The estimated gross cost of increasing child benefit from those rates to £9·55 for each child throughout 1991–92 would be about £36 million. If the October 1991 rates had applied throughout 1991–92, the cost would reduce to around £29 million. The gross full year costs in 1992–93 of paying £9·55 for all children, instead of the rates of £9·65 and £7·80 which will be in payment from April 1992, would be about £21 million.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate for 1991–92 the numbers paying national insurance contributions in Northern Ireland, distinguishing(a) between the different classes of contribution and (b) between employees and employers.

  Mr. Hanley
  Social security operational matters are the responsibility of Mr. Alec Wylie, chief executive of the
  59
  Social Security Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies of his reply will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Daniel Doherty
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish details of the evidence that Daniel Doherty, who was shot dead by the security services at Gransha hospital in Londonderry on 6 December 1984 was, at that time, engaged in a terrorist operation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 5 December 1991]: It is not the practice to publish details of police investigations. The death of Daniel Doherty was fully investigated by the RUC, and the report passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who directed "no prosecution" of the soldiers involved.

  However, I believe that it is widely accepted that Daniel Doherty was engaged in terrorist activities when he was killed.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his reply of 11 November to the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Thompson) about resources for housing in 1992–93,Official Report, columns 397–98, if he will now announce the Housing Corporation's approved development programme, local authorities' housing investment programme allocations, the distribution of resources for estate action and housing action trusts and the housing revenue account subsidy determinations.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I am today making a number of dispositions for the use of housing resources in 1992–93.

  First, gross expenditure by the Housing Corporation will be £1,770 million, rising to £2,004 million in 1993–94 and £2,052 million in 1994–95. A total of 50,900 new homes will be approved next year, 25 per cent. more than this year, three times higher than in 1990–91. I now expect that completions next year will be 60 per cent. higher—at 43,000—than this year; this is an increase of 24 per cent. on previously published projections.

  The corporation expects a very much higher output than previously projected, partly because of falling construction costs and property prices, but also because of increases in the more cost-effective elements of the programme. Next year's rented programme is expected to attract double the amount of private finance secured in 1991–92.

  At least 27,000 of the newly approved units will be targeted to benefit the homeless. These remain our most urgent priority.

  Next year, the corporation will be introducing a major new programme of "do-it-yourself" shared ownership of which 80 per cent. will be targeted on existing local authority and housing association tenants. Its move into home ownership will release rented accommodation for immediate use in housing the homeless.

  As previously made clear, from 1992–93 resources for the corporation's new rented and housing for sale programmes will be allocated among the corporation's
  60
  regions using the housing needs indicator, without "damping" to reflect past shares. This will direct resources where they are most needed. Even with the removal of damping, all regions will gain compared with 1991–92, most substantially. Details of the programme are being published in the corporation's News Supplement Series, copies of which are being placed in the Library.

  Today I am informing local housing authorities of their housing investment programme allocations for 1992–93, some £1·7 billion in total. A total of £1,300 million of these resources are general-purpose allocations, or "annual capital guidelines". In October I confirmed to local authorities that 40 per cent. of these would be distributed on the basis of a statistical assessment of local housing needs, but this year, for the first time, authorities have competed for shares of 60 per cent. of the resources, with the Department assessing their performance and the quality of their proposals. My regional offices have scrutinised authorities' strategy statements and bids, against known criteria, meetings were held with authorities, and Ministers have reached decisions in the light of controllers' advice.

  We were particularly impressed by the resourcefulness and quality of some 50 authorities which were well ahead of the field in pursuing effective policies. However, 25—about 79 per cent.—were disappointingly poor and fell far short of the standards their tenants and other people locally have the right to expect. I am placing a list in the Library of the names of the authorities in each region who comprise these groups.

  In reaching our final decisions we also took into account other relevant factors such as specific problems or needs and allowed for commitments, and for peaks and troughs in expenditure. For up to 31 authorities these discretionary awards were topped up to honour assurances we had given a year ago as to the minimum allocations they should expect. Some of the more disappointing authorities have been saved, by this topping up, from the full rigours of the new performance assessment. Nonetheless, for about 90 per cent. of authorities the proposed allocations were greater than the minimum level we were committed to. For 90 per cent. therefore, the size of the allocation was directly affected by the performance assessment and the exercise of discretion.

  The Department's regional controllers will today be telling councils the broad assessments made and will offer follow-up meetings to discuss, where appropriate, the aspects of performance where improvements could be made.

  A further £400 million has been allocated to private sector renewal, in the form of "specified capital grants", to assist councils in their grant aid to private owners and in their expenditure on renewal areas, etc. Forty per cent. was allocated by statistical assessment of renewal needs; 60 per cent. was distributed mainly on the basis of authorities' spending patterns.

  I am depositing tables in the Library showing the 1992–93 allocation to each authority of the annual capital guideline and of specified capital grant. Together these comprise the housing investment programme allocations.

  I am also reviewing the scope for my Department's regional offices, which already advise me on these HIP allocations, to play a greater role in allocating other DOE resources to local authorities, on a more corporate basis.

  Substantially increased resources are given for estate action. A total of £364 million is available, an increase of

  61
  over one third—£96 million—on the £268 million made available this year. This demonstrates our commitment to the most rundown estates and confirms the strategy announced last July by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning.

  Almost £160 million is available for distribution to new schemes, of which £115 million will be set aside to start or speed up large-scale regeneration schemes next year. The remainder will support traditional small and medium-sized estate action schemes.

  I am, therefore, today inviting over 25 authorities to proceed with 32 large regeneration schemes and 80 authorities to work up a further 100 small and medium-sized schemes for approval. These schemes will involve over £900 million of public and private investment over the next few years. The names of successful authorities and schemes are set out in tables placed in the Library.

  Before I give final approval to any scheme I shall expect the local authority to demonstrate that its proposals accord with published guidelines, particularly with regard to housing management and the diversification of tenure and that they have been developed in consultation with tenants, the local community and the private sector.

  I have also provided for a major expansion of the programme of housing action trusts. A total of £215 million has been set aside for spending on HATs over the next three years, sufficient for the established HATs in North Hull and Waltham Forest, and for further HATs in four new areas.

  Preliminary discussions have taken place with authorities interested in pursuing the HAT option in Liverpool, Brent, Birmingham and Tower Hamlets. I am now satisfied that these should go to the next stage.

  As in Hull and Waltham Forest, the projects should be a co-operation between tenants, the local authority and central Government. Some of the feasibility studies are well advanced. Subject to the outcome of these, and after full consultation with tenants, there will be formal ballots of tenants in these areas. If tenants vote in favour, the House will be asked to approve orders establishing the trusts.

  As to the current expenditure, I have today issued the housing revenue account subsidy determinations for 1992–93. I am placing copies of the determinations in the Library.

  On subsidy allowances for management and maintenance, I confirm the proposals to increase allowances by 6·5 per cent. overall and to distribute the increase by a new system of targeted allowances reflecting the problems faced by different authorities. As a result about £93 million more will be directed to authorities with the greatest need. This is in addition to a general 3·5 per cent. increase in allowances which all authorities will receive.

  For rent guidelines, I am confirming the proposal for an average rent increase of 9·5 per cent. This will result in an average increase of guidelines of £2·44 a week over the guideline rents which apply this year with a range of between £1·20 and £4·50 in individual councils. Responsibility for setting actual rents however remains with individual local authorities. Housing benefit will normally meet the whole of any rent increase for the two thirds of tenants receiving it.

  These various allocations continue the redirection of resources towards the housing association movement and further develop our measures to help the most neglected
  62
  council estates. They give a fresh impetus to local authorities to work closely with the private sector, to involve their tenants, and to strive continually for the highest standards of management.

  Montreal Protocol
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding the current United Kingdom position in the Montreal protocol negotiations.

  Mr. Baldry
  The negotiations towards the 1992 revision of the Montreal protocol will begin in April 1992. The United Kingdom has first to reach agreement with other European member states. In view of the latest scientific findings on ozone depletion, the United Kingdom has proposed that the European Community position for the international negotiations should be: production and consumption of all CFCs and carbon tetrachloride to be phased out by 1 January 1996, with an interim cut of 85 per cent. by 1 January 1994; 1, 1, 1 trichloroethane to go by 1 January 1996, with a 50 per cent. cut by 1 January 1994; halons by 1 January 1995, with an interim cut of 50 per cent. by 1 January 1994. These phase-out dates, which would have a provision for essential uses, are the fastest which could be implemented internationally.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the indicators for standard spending assessments and the grant for each indicator for(a) the city of Durham and (b) Hove council for 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  A description of the indictors used in the calculation of standard spending assessments for all authorities for 1991–92 is contained in "The Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England)". A breakdown of SSAs by indicator for all authorities including Hove and the City of Durham is given in the "Standard Spending Assessment Handbook 1991–92". Copies of both these documents are in the House of Commons Library.

  Global Warming
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions of competing theories of global warming have taken in the European Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the principal international forum for discussion of the science of climate change. The conclusions of the EC joint Energy/Environment Council meeting in October 1990 referring to the forthcoming second world climate conference recorded the Council's wish that"the concern of the IPCC about the increase of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, 'resulting on average in additional global warming', be recognised."
  The IPCC will be producing a supplementary report for the international negotiating committee for a framework convention on climate change in February 1992.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the most recent scientific advice on climate change due to emission of carbon dioxide; what data he has received via satellites; and if he will make a statement.
  63
  Mr. Baldry
  The scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published last year, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, remains the most complete and authoritative statement of scientific advice available. The IPCC is currently preparing a supplementary report to be presented to the international negotiating committee on a climate convention in February next year. This will take into account information produced since the first scientific assessment including data from instruments on Earth observation satellites.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information and data his Department receives from satellites regarding the greenhouse effect.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information from satellite data studies was included in the scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published last year, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. New findings from satellite programmes will be included in the supplementary report that the IPCC will submit to the international negotiating committee on a climate convention next February. The Department commissioned a study on data requirements for climate change research which gives details of existing and proposed satellite missions, the instruments carried and the scientific questions to which they would contribute. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to give directions under section 50 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to require waste disposal authorities to draw up waste disposal plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have stated in their consultation paper on the Environment Agency issued on 3 October—copies of which have been placed in the Library—that they do not consider there would be a role for area-based waste disposal plans when the agency is set up. The Government are reviewing the need for waste regulation authorities to draw up waste disposal plans in the interim period before the agency is set up.

  Local Income Tax
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the level of income tax supplement which would be required to be levied by each local authority in Northamptonshire to raise the local revenue required for 1991–92 local authority budgets under a system of local income tax, taking into account variations in the tax base between local authority areas.

  Mr. Key
  The level of bills in a particular local authority area with a local income tax, would depend on the precise way in which such a system were introduced.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect the formation of an environment agency will have on the timetable for the introduction of 64
  waste management licences; when he expects an environment agency to be operational; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's proposals for the new Environment Agency are set out in the consultation paper issued on 3 October, copies of which have been placed in the Library. We hope to introduce a Bill early in a new Parliament and our aim is that the agency should be operational as soon as possible following Royal Assent. The Government recognise that the timing of the waste licensing provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, due to come into force on 1 April 1993, may need to be reviewed in the light of the emerging timetable for the new agency.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been requested from the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee since the terms of reference governing the remit of the committee were changed in July this year; and if he has yet received any of the studies requested.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 19 November 1991,Official Report, column 102.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman or officials of the National Rivers Authority to discuss the proposals for an environment agency.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are in regular touch with the National Rivers Authority on a range of issues. The NRA has recently put forward its views on the Government's proposals for the Environment Agency. We shall consider these carefully alongside all other responses to our consultation paper, which was issued in October.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many housing associations have expressed an interest in acting as agents for mortgage lenders under his Department's joint initiative on repossessed properties of 5 November;

  (2) how many repossessed homes have been brought into use for letting to homeless families through housing association management agreements under his Department's joint initiative with mortgage lenders of 5 November.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is too early for any such properties to have been transferred, but an encouraging 77 housing asssociations have expressed interest in the initiative.

  UN Environment Conference
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what women's non-governmental organisations are to be included in the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations conference on environment and development in 1992.
  65
  Mr. Baldry
  The Prime Minister has indicated that he hopes to attend the United Nations conference on environment and development. No decision has been taken on the composition of the rest of the British delegation.

  Housing, Waveney
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement indicating the Government schemes and other measures available to Waveney district council to increase and improve the housing stock in Waveney.

  Mr. Yeo
  Government schemes and other measures available to Waveney district council to increase and improve housing stock in its district include the use of basic credit approval, specified capital grant and capital receipts as specified together with housing revenue to maintain and improve the council housing stock, assist housing associations and provide grants to improve private homes. There is also scope to obtain supplementary credit approval under the initiatives for rural housing and flats over shops. The council may promote a scheme to provide council tenants with "portable discounts" to help buy their own homes and they can operate both shared ownership and "do-it-yourself" shared ownership schemes. By providing council-owned land free, or at reduced price, to housing associations, the council can encourage the inflow of Housing Corporation funds for the provision of more social housing, which can also be promoted by negotiation with private developers seeking to build in the district.

  Small Cetaceans
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent or allocated to research projects undertaken by his Department on the status and conservation of small cetaceans for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Baldry,
  The Department has allocated funds as follows:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  111,869

  1991–92

  43,840

  1992–93

  61,896

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the research projects undertaken by his Department on the status and conservation of small cetaceans and specify in each case the amount allocated, the duration of the project, and the body or institution conducting that work.

  Mr. Baldry
  Last year this Department, as part of its programme of North sea research, initiated three extra-mural projects in this area: a one-year study on contaminants in small cetaceans in England and Wales, to be carried out by the sea mammal research unit of the Natural Environment Research Council at a total cost of £58,626; a small cetaceans sighting and monitoring scheme, undertaken by the United Kingdom Mammal Society Cetacean Group for two years at a total cost of £24,000; and the three-year appointment of a veterinary pathologist at the Institute of Zoology to co-ordinate the 66
  investigation of marine mammal strandings in England and Wales, at a total cost of £86,000. A number of other bodies are involved in these contracts or are contributing practical assistance, including the Natural History museum and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  In addition, we expect in the near future to complete arrangements for the appointment of a parallel co-ordinator, to investigate strandings in Scotland.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what work has been undertaken by his Department to investigate the level of contaminants in small cetacean carcases retrieved in the United Kingdom; what budget has been allocated to this work for each of the years 1990, 1991 and 1992; and which body or institution is conducting the work.

  Mr. Baldry
  The sea mammal research unit of the Natural Environment Research Council was commissioned last year by this Department to carry out a programme of contaminant analysis on cetaceans found stranded around our shores in 1990 and 1991. A total of £58,680 was allocated to this work in the 1990–91 financial year.

  World Climate Conference
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department plans to be represented at the third world climate conference, organised by the Global Commons Institute in London on 13 to 16 April 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  The second world climate conference in November 1990 was organised by UNEP, WMO, UNESCO, FAO and several other United Nations and intergovernmental organisations. We are aware of the event proposed for April 1992 by this non-governmental group, but have not received an invitation to attend.

  Young People (Care)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funding his Department provides to local authorities specifically to house young people stepping out from care.

  Mr. Yeo
  The bulk of capital resources for local authority housing is distributed through a single housing investment programme allocation. The allocation of resources to particular areas of activity is mainly a matter for authorities themselves, although their duties under the homelessness legislation cover vulnerable young people. The Housing Corporation allocates resources to housing associations, who are now the main providers of new social housing. In 1990–91 the corporation spent £4·7 million on new housing schemes for young people at risk, including those leaving care. For 1991–92 the corporation has allocated £13·6 million, a 190 per cent. increase.

  Poll Tax Enforcement
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 9 December,Official Report, column 316, if he will arrange to place in the Library the minutes of the meetings of the local taxation working party at which the use of bailiffs in poll tax enforcement was discussed.
  67
  Mr. Key
  No.

  Estate Action
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the names of the successful estates in West Yorkshire who qualify for improvements under the 1992–93 estate action programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The following local authorities in West Yorkshire have today been invited to work up bids for estate action resources as part of the 1992–93 programme:

  Local Authority and Estate

  Bradford—Holmewood.

  Kirklees—Brackenhall/Riddings.

  Leeds—Ebor Gardens, Halton Moor.

  Calderdale—Ashenhurst, Elland.

  Wakefield—Simpson Lane, Kershaw Avenue.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he has made to publicise and distribute in England and Wales the guidance note recently published on the planning considerations deemed to govern applications for renewable energy generating stations.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 13 December,Official Report, column 554.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about claimants on income support who are in arrears of community charge payments being dealt with by bailiffs rather than by direct deductions from their income support; if he will issue new guidance urgently to local authorities to advise them to use direct deductions from benefit wherever possible rather than to send in the bailiffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have had numerous representations on the enforcement of the community charge payment. It is for local authorities to decide which is the most appropriate method of enforcement to pursue within the powers available to them.

  Planning Inquiries (Costs)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now implement the provisions of section 30 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  Section 30 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 enables appeals costs to be awarded, in an inquiry or hearing, where the unreasonable behaviour of one of the principal parties causes the cancellation of the inquiry or hearing, so that other parties incur wasted expenditure in making their preparations to be represented in the proceedings. These provisions are to be brought into force from 2 January 1992.

  To complement these provisions we shall also bring into force provisions, which are already in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, enabling appeals costs to be awarded in appeal "hearing" cases, as well as inquiries.

  The practical effect of these changes, and the various planning proceedings to which they apply, are fully
  68
  explained in a new circular issued today by my Department and the Welsh Office. The draft guidance in this circular was recently the subject of public consultation involving a wide range of interested bodies.

  We think these new cost arrangements should bring an increased sense of discipline to planning appeal proceedings. In the past, it has sometimes been too easy for a developer to maintain a planning appeal right up to the last moment, before an inquiry was due to begin, only to withdraw it without any liability to meet the wasted expense inevitably incurred by the planning authority and other interested appeal parties. These new provisions will help to deter any developers who may continue to think they can get away with such unreasonable behaviour.

  Unauthorised Development
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now issue revised policy guidance to local planning authorities about effective enforcement action against unauthorised development, in accordance with the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.

  Sir George Young
  We have carefully considered the comments of all the organisations who were consulted about the draft planning policy guidance note I announced on 24 July,Official Report, column 667. PPG 18, entitled "Enforcing Planning Control", is being issued today. The new guidance emphasises that the Government do not condone any wilful breach of planning control; and they encourage vigorous enforcement action where unauthorised development is plainly unacceptable and immediate remedial action is required. The guidance also suggests what factors planning authorities should normally take into account when they are considering whether enforcement action is expedient for small businesses or self-employed people.

  The main enforcement provisions in part I of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 are being brought into force on 2 January 1992. A Department of the Environment and Welsh Office circular, which is also being published today, gives procedural guidance to planning authorities about the new provisions.

  During parliamentary debates on the Planning and Compensation Bill earlier this year serious concern was expressed about the weakness of the present enforcement provisions. The strengthened and improved regime, now being brought into force, should enable every planning authority to take quick and effective enforcement action whenever it is justified.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial assistance is available to help landowners retain hedgerows in situ.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 13 December 1991]: In England assistance is available towards the cost of hedgerow management under grant schemes for wider purposes administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Countryside Commission and English Nature.

  In July I announced our intention to provide new incentives to promote improved care of hedgerows in ways which are environmentally beneficial. At present we are

  69
  discussing the terms of the proposed scheme with the Countryside Commission and others, and will make a further statement in the new year.

  Local Authority Powers
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to extend the powers of local authorities, under section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1976, to obtain information other than issues connected with land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 13 December 1991]: The Government have no plans to extend the powers available to local authorities under section 16.

  Sports Clubs (Rates)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 17, if he will publish a table showing for 1990–91 (a) the total number of applications for relief from non-profit making sports clubs (survey entry B(b)1), (b) the total number of sports clubs receiving relief after submitting an application (survey entry 13(b)2),(c) the total number of sports clubs receiving relief without submitting an application (survey entry B(b)3) and (d) the total number of sports clubs denied relief after submitting an application.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 13 December 1991]: The departmental survey to which my previous answer referred collected information about non-profit making recreational clubs; not only sports clubs. The table shows information for 1990–91, based on the returns received from 81 per cent. of local authorities.

  Number

  (a) Number of applications received

  10,000

  (b) Number of clubs receiving relief after applying

  9,000

  (c) Number of clubs receiving relief without applying

  1,300

  (d) Number of clubs not receiving relief after applying

  1,000

  These figures may not sum with those shown in my previous answer because of rounding.

  Public Conveniences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist)Official Report, 11 November column 395, he will (a) update his statement on the number of pennies received under the send-a-penny campaign to improve public conveniences and (b) state how he intends to spend the moneys received to date.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 13 December 1991]: No more pennies have been received. These are extra receipts payable to the Consolidated Fund.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the provisional level of total spend per adult at standard spending assessment in 1991–92 for(a) Wandsworth, (b) Westminster and (c) each of the 10 district authorities of Greater Manchester;
  70
  (2) what has been the total spend per adult at standard spending assessment in 1990–91 for (a) Wandsworth, (b) Westminster and (c) each district authority in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 13 December 1991]: A standard spending assessment represents the Government's view of the appropriate amount of revenue expenditure which would enable a prudent authority to provide a standard level of service, taking into account its physical, social and demographic characteristics.

  The SSAs for 1990–91 and 1991–92 expressed in £s per adult for all inner London boroughs and districts in Greater Manchester are given in the table.

  1991–92 SSA

  1990–91 SSA

  (£/adult)

  (£/adult)

  Camden

  1,403

  1,166

  Greenwich

  1,191

  986

  Hackney

  1,920

  1,569

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,335

  1,118

  Islington

  1,551

  1,267

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,178

  1,192

  Lambeth

  1,718

  1,392

  Lewisham

  1,295

  1,019

  Southwark

  1,455

  1,171

  Tower Hamlets

  1,872

  1,591

  Wandsworth

  1,262

  982

  Westminster

  1,548

  1,276

  Bolton

  970

  816

  Bury

  823

  681

  Manchester

  1,448

  1,170

  Oldham

  1,055

  879

  Rochdale

  1,024

  809

  Salford

  1,019

  855

  Stockport

  816

  678

  Tameside

  913

  730

  Trafford

  916

  754

  Wigan

  857

  716

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson),Official Report, 8 November, column 308, he will set out the reasons for the increased level of expenditure on advertising by his Department in 1989–90.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The increase in my Department's expenditure on advertising in 1989–90 arose mainly from campaigns to provide information to the public about the flotation of the 10 water companies in England and Wales, new legislation on local government finance and housing and to encourage the use of lead-free petrol.

WALES

  EC Projects
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount of money in pounds sterling allocated to projects in Wales by the European Community in 1990 and to date in 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Allocations of European regional development fund and European social fund money to projects in Wales in 1990 and 1991 are as follows:
  71

  ERDF

  ESF

  1990

  27·5

  10·8

  1 1991

  64·3

  13·3

  1 To date.

  Farming Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the average per farm management and investment income, net farm income

  Management and investment income (£'000)

  Net farm (including income BLSA) (£'000)

  Net farm (excluding income BLSA) (£'000)

  Type of farming

  Size of business (BSV)

  1987–88

  1987–89

  Per cent, change

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Per cent, change

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Per cent, change

  Dairy:

  Specialist

  All sizes

  9·5

  13·5

  43·0

  17·0

  25·0

  46·7

  17·0

  21·0

  25·7

  Mainly

  All sizes

  10·5

  13·0

  25·8

  18·5

  24·5

  31·8

  17·5

  20·5

  17·3

  All dairy:

  Small

  2·0

  2·4

  13·1

  10·0

  12·5

  28·8

  9·5

  10·0

  5·7

  Medium

  9·5

  14·0

  45·0

  17·5

  25·5

  45·1

  17·0

  22·0

  27·6

  Large

  35·5

  48·0

  34·9

  43·5

  64·5

  48·4

  42·0

  54·5

  30·1

  All sizes

  10·0

  13·5

  37·9

  17·5

  25·0

  42·4

  17·0

  21·0

  23·4

  Hill and upland:

  SDA

  Sheep

  All sizes

  4·5

  9·0

  99·5

  12·5

  18·0

  46·2

  10·5

  15·0

  42·4

  Cattle and sheep

  All sizes

  6·0

  9·5

  55·2

  15·0

  20·0

  34·2

  12·5

  16·5

  29·2

  DA

  Cattle and sheep

  All sizes

  ·1

  4·0

  52,74·0

  7·0

  12·5

  69·0

  6·5

  10·5

  61·0

  LFA livestock

  Small

  —2·0

  ·1

  5·0

  4·5

  —3·8

  4·0

  6·5

  66·0

  Medium

  8·5

  12·5

  46·8

  17·0

  23·0

  36·2

  15·0

  19·0

  28·5

  Large

  31·0

  48·5

  56·8

  42·0

  60·5

  43·4

  37·0

  54·0

  45·2

  All sizes

  4·0

  8·0

  105·6

  11·5

  17·0

  45·7

  10·0

  14·0

  40·8

  All dairy and livestock

  Small

  —1·5

  ·5

  5·5

  9·0

  45·7

  5·0

  7·0

  45·7

  Medium

  9·0

  12·5

  42·8

  17·0

  23·5

  38·0

  15·5

  19·5

  26·1

  Large

  33·5

  48·5

  45·0

  43·0

  46·0

  8·1

  39·5

  54·5

  37·2

  All sizes

  5·0

  9·0

  72·8

  13·0

  19·0

  45·2

  12·0

  16·0

  33·4

  Notes:

  Income figures are shown to the first decimal place and rounded to the nearest five.

  Percentage changes are however worked on unrounded figures.

  Emissions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish information on the per capita emissions of(a) agricultural CH4, (b) non-agricultural CH4, (c) CO2, from land use change and (d) CO2, from industrial usage;

  (2) if he will publish information on the gross emissions in Wales of (a) agricultural CH4, (b) non-agricultural CH4, (c) CO2 from land use change and (d) CO2 from industrial usage.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures specifically relating to Wales of CH4 (methane) and CO2 emission levels are not available. However, United Kingdom figures can be found in the Department of Environment publication "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" No. 13 1990.

  The latest published data on United Kingdom emissions of both gases relate to 1989. Based on an estimated current United Kingdom population of 55 million, the following estimates can be calculated:
  72
  inclusive and exclusive of breeding livestock appreciation, and percentage changes by farm type and size for 1990 and 1991 in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Management and investment income and net farm income per farm for 1990–91 are due to be published after Christmas. The latest available information relates to 1987–88 and 1988–89 and is as follows:

  United Kingdom emissions (Gross)

  (Thousand tonnes)

  Per capita kg

  Agricultural methane

  1·16

  21·1

  Non-agricultural methane

  2·29

  41·6

  (Million tonnes)

  tonnes

  CO2 from industrial usage

  101

  1·840

  CO2 from agricultural usage1

  1

  0·018

  1 No specific figure is available for land use change.

  Valleys Programme
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the expenditure to date under the valleys programme, by category of expenditure and by year, in constant prices, for the Cynon Valley borough council area, the Taff Ely council area and the Rhymney Valley council area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  South Glamorgan TEC
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan training and enterprise council concerning the expenditure undertaken to adopt, launch, promote and subsequently abandon its logo and title of ETCETERA; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the South Glamorgan training and enterprise council concerning the location of its new headquarters office.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Wentloog Lagoon
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will place a copy in the Library of the letter written to the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales on Friday, 6 December, concerning the construction of the Wentloog lagoon for wading birds.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Correspondence between the Countryside Council and my Department on the Wentloog lagoon has been at officer level.

  Cardiff Bay Development
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will agree a code of conduct with the chairman of Cardiff Bay development corporation limiting the use of advertising incorporating the proposed barrage during the passage of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Cardiff Bay development corporation observes the spirit of the conventions governing propriety and value for money which apply to all Government Departments.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning progress on the training centre of excellence.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy for the report from Mr. Roy Stoner, on the possible groundwater rise side-effects of the proposed Cardiff Bay barrage to be completed and published before the commencement of the select committee proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.

  Person/organisation requesting call-in and date of letter

  Contact date

  Date of letter informing decision not to call-in application

  Mr. Joe Wilson MEP

  21 October 1991

  8 November 1991

  Ms. G. Robson

  n/a

  11 November 1991

  Mr. Stuart Andrew, Chairman of Ynys Mon Young Conservatives and Secretary of Wales Young Conservatives

  14 October 1991

  13 November 1991

  The Bishops of Wrexham, Bangor, and St. Asaph (joint letter)

  5 and 17 October 1991

  13 November 1991

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones MP

  24 October 1991

  14 November 1991

  74
  Mr. David Hunt
  Mr. Stoner's advice to me following the consultation on the Hydrotechnica report will form part of the advice submitted to me before I make my decision. I shall be publishing my decision, together with the factors I have taken into account, as soon after the end of the consultation period as is consistent with proper consideration for all of the issues raised.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will instruct Mr. Roy Stoner to include in his report on the side-effects of the groundwater rise expected to be caused by the proposed Cardiff bay barrage, the expected effects of the barrage on sports grounds, gardens and allotments.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Mr. Stoner's terms of reference include advising me on representations made during the three months' consultation period. Since these include the issue of protection for open ground such as sports grounds, gardens and allotments, I would expect him to include this issue in his advice.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, further to his written answer of 5 November,Official Report, columns 53–54, if he will give for 1990–91 a breakdown of the total number of non-profit-making sports clubs awarded discretionary rate relief (a) after submitting an application, (b) without submitting an application and (c) which applied for discretionary rate relief and were denied such relief.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Discretionary rate relief was awarded by Welsh local authorities in 1990–91 to non-profit making clubs, including sporting organisations, as follows:

  Number of clubs awarded discretionary rate relief

  Category

  Number

  (a) After submitting an application

  620

  (b) Without submitting an application

  53

  (c) Applied but not awarded relief

  83

  Sewage Treatment Works, Llanfaes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those organisations, individuals, companies and parties that contacted him requesting that he call in a planning application for a sewage treatment works at Llanfaes, Ynys Mon; and how he communicated his decision to those listed, giving dates in all cases.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is as follows:
  75

  Contact date

  Date of letter informing decision not to call-in application

  Mr. Gwynn Price Rowlands—PPC, Ynys Mon

  Dr. Robin Jones—PPC, Ynys Mon

  Mr. Joe Wilson MEP

  24 October 1991

  19 November 1991

  Mr. S. Earnshaw, Vice Chairman, Beaumaris East Ward Action Group (joint letter)

  Mrs. Kathryn Pritchard Gibson

  7 November 1991

  26 November 1991

  Mr. Dafydd Wigley MP

  11 November 1991

  27 November 1991

  The Baroness Nicol JP

  14 November 1991

  29 November 1991

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students were recruited to courses of initial teacher training in Wales in 1991.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A survey undertaken by the Department shows that 2,195 students entered courses of initial teacher training in Wales in October 1991, an increase of nearly 28 per cent. over 1990. Intakes to primary training courses were almost 26 per cent. higher than last year and for secondary courses the increase was over 32 per cent. The figures for secondary teacher training are particularly encouraging as many of these student teachers are pursuing courses in the shortage areas, including Welsh.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales have been summonsed because of poll tax arrears in Wales to the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 5 December 1991]: The total number of summonses issued by Welsh courts for the period 1 April 1990 to 30 September 1991 was 442,988.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the costs of legal proceedings involving poll tax to the present.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 5 December 1991]: For the period 1 April 1990 to 30 September 1991, the estimated cost of legal proceedings to enforce the community charge through the magistrates courts in Wales was £315,000.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consult the Coalition for Badgers before finalising his criteria for the issue of licences under section 4 of the Badgers Act 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those persons and organisations he has consulted in considering the criteria under which section 4 licences may be issued under the Badgers Act 1991; and if he will publish a summary of the views each interest presented to him.
  76
  Mr. Maclean
  The consultation exercise on licensing under section 4 of the Badgers Act 1991 has not yet taken place; the consultation document is to be issued shortly. It is the standard procedure in such consultations to make available to the public all responses received unless specifically requested not to do so by the respondent.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that any licences issued under section 4 of the Badgers Act 1991 take into acount the rules of the National Working Terrier Federation on interference with badger setts.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 12 December,Official Report, column 550.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to announce sectoral fish quotas allocations earlier in the calendar year in 1992 than in previous years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Yes.

  Fruit and Vegetables
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the gross production figures for the major fruit and vegetables in the United Kingdom in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Gummer
  The latest estimates of the gross production ('000 tonnes) of the major fruit and vegetables in the 1990–91 and 1991–92 crop years is as follows:

  1990–91

  1991–92 (forecast)

  Cabbages

  665·8

  672·6

  Carrots

  550·1

  600·7

  Cauliflowers

  308·5

  365·4

  Lettuces

  252·1

  269·4

  Peas

  318·2

  314·0

  Tomatoes

  138·8

  141·8

  Apples

  310·5

  333·6

  Pears

  36·7

  39·1

  Raspberries

  19·2

  17·9

  Strawberries

  52·3

  52·9

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the figures for the amount of each different type of fruit and vegetable which was withdrawn from the market in the United Kingdom, indicating in each case how much was(a) delivered to institutions such as schools and prisons, (b) delivered to

  77
  charitable organisations, (c) ploughed into the ground, (d) used as animal feed, (e) processed into fruit juice or alcohol and (f) put to other uses, specifying the use, in (i) 1990 and (ii) 1991; and how much was spent on these withdrawals in the United Kingdom and EC.

  Mr. Gummer
  These arrangements are an operational matter for the chief executive of the Intervention Board executive agency, who will write to the hon. Member.

  EC Agriculture Expenditure
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken by the Agriculture Council and the EC Commission on the containment of agricultural spending within the budget of 1991.

  Mr. Curry
  The Council at this year's price fixing agreed a number of measures to reduce the level of EC expenditure on agricultural support. These included price cuts, a 2 per cent. cut in milk quotas and changes to the beef and butter intervention arrangements. The Commission took action under its management powers in a number of sectors. Expenditure on agricultural support in 1991 is now expected to be some £350 million below the level provided for in the EC budget.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what adjustments have been made to the budget of agricultural spending by the EC in 1991 to take account of inflation; and if he will further state the basis on which the rate of inflation is calculated and the responsibility for making such assessments.

  Mr. Curry
  No changes were made to the provision for expenditure on the common agricultural policy in the 1991 EC budget.

  Community expenditure on agricultural market support is legally constrained by the agricultural guideline which is adjusted each year to take account of 74 per cent. of the rate of growth of Community GNP and of inflation. The level of EC GNP, the general GNP deflator and the level of the guideline are calculated each year by the Commission on the basis of information supplied by the member states.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which crops were proposed for each acre of agreed set-aside land for each year since 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Detailed information on base year crops, cropping patterns in the year prior to the entry of land into set-aside and the green cover crops sown on fallowed set-aside land is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers in England and Wales have applied for the set-aside scheme for 1991–92; how many hectares of land are involved; what was the total expenditure for set-aside schemes for each year since 1988; how many farmers benefited; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is shown in the table:
  78

  Applications for the 4th year (1991–92) of the set-aside scheme

  Number of applications2 received

  Hectares set-aside

  England

  673

  24,396·98

  Wales

  6

  177·02

  Applications for the temporary one-year set-aside scheme (1991–92)

  Number of applications2 received

  Hectares set-aside1

  England

  742

  12,651·75

  Wales

  7

  94·81

  1 Approved to date.

  2 The figures shown in the table relate to applications received, they are provisional and liable to adjustment in the light of eligibility and withdrawals.

  Set-aside: Total expenditure by scheme year

  1988–89 £ million

  1989–90 £ million

  1990–91 £ million

  Expenditure (England)

  17·4

  115·30

  222·30

  Number of participants (England)

  1,241

  2,320

  3,064

  Expenditure (Wales)

  l0·129

  10·231

  20·355

  Number of participants (Wales)

  30

  41

  58

  1 Actual

  2 Estimated

  Small Cetaceans
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what work is being undertaken by his Department to assess the level of by-catch of small cetaceans in United Kingdom fisheries; and what measures are being taken to reduce this level.

  Mr. Gummer
  A national scheme to monitor accidental catches by fishermen of marine mammals will commence early next year. Fishermen will be asked to report details of such catches to fishery officers. The Fisheries Departments will be writing to all major fishery organisations, which have already been consulted about the scheme, to confirm the details. Special forms and identification booklets will be provided. The recent EC agreement to restrict the length of drift nets to 2·5 km should help to reduce the accidental catches of small cetaceans.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of expenditure in 1990–91 and 1991–92 by the Intervention Board executive agency and the Agriculture Departments on market regulation under the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 November, Official Report, c. 652]: Details of the outturn for 1990–91 and the latest forecast of outturn for 1991–92 in relation to market regulation are given in the table.
  79

  £ million

  1990–91 (Actual outturn)

  1991–92 (Forecast outturn)

  Expenditure by the Intervention Board executive agency

  Cereals

  120·8

  197·3

  Oilseeds

  236·4

  250·6

  Sugar

  110·7

  111·1

  Beef and Veal

  357·6

  341·0

  Sheepmeat

  126·5

  154·7

  Pigmeat

  6·6

  3·5

  Milk products

  203·9

  165·9

  Processed goods

  44·6

  54·6

  Others

  55·2

  54·4

  Total

  1,262·3

  1,324·1

  Expenditure by the Agricultural Departments

  Repayments of cereals levies

  19·2

  1·7

  Suckler cow premium scheme

  73·7

  70·4

  Annual premium on ewes

  201·8

  276·1

  Payments to producers giving up some milk production

  59·6

  54·5

  Beef special premium scheme (Northern Ireland)

  6·2

  7·3

  Orchard grubbing scheme

  —

  1·5

  Total

  360·5

  411·7

  Grand total

  1,622·8

  1,735·8

  Some of the expenditure shown benefits consumers and trade interests rather than United Kingdom producers.

  The figures for the Intervention Board executive agency are net of various receipts treated as negative expenditure. Receipts from levies on the production and storage of sugar and isoglucose and on third country exports, which are regarded as Community own resources, are excluded.

  Of the estimated outturn for 1991–92, £1,664 million is expected to be offset by receipts from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund including those in respect of financing intervention buying and the set-aside scheme; in 1990–91, the comparable figure was £1,584 million. However, because the United Kingdom is a net contributor to the European Community budget, the whole of this expenditure is attributable to the Exchequer. Receipts from the European Community do not always relate to expenditure in the period.

  This information, coupled with my previous answer which focused on grants and subsidies, provides full details of MAFF expenditure on market regulation under the CAP and agricultural grants and subsidies.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Pensioners
    16. Mr. Winnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received over the position of pensioners during the winter months.

    Miss Widdecombe
    We have received representations from various pensioner groups, and others, over the position of pensioners during the winter months. In June my right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced major improvements to the cold weather payments scheme, which include fast automatic payments, forecasts made by the Meteorological Office which can anticipate 80
    periods of very cold weather, and the removal of the old capital rule. These improvements will directly benefit many pensioners this winter.

    Mr. Roy Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next plans to meet the Pensioners Association in Wales to discuss additional assistance for the winter months.

    Miss Widdecombe
    We have no plans to meet the Pensioners Association in Wales. In June my right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced major improvements to the cold weather payments scheme, which include fast automatic payments, forecasts made by the Meteorological Office which can anticipate periods of very cold weather, and the removal of the old capital rule. These improvements will directly benefit many pensioners this winter.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Lawrence
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of British families have only one child; and how much such families receive in child benefit per week.

    Mr. Jack
    Over 40 per cent. of families have only one child eligible for child benefit. They currently receive £9·25 a week which will increase to £9·65 from next April, that is, equivalent to £500 a year tax free. For families paying standard rate tax and national insurance contributions this would be equivalent to additional gross earnings of £750.

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be(a) the first year and (b) the full year costs of raising child benefit to £9·55 (i) for 1991–92 and (ii) 1992–93, including increases in linked means-tested and national insurance benefits, for Great Britain.

    Mr. Jack
    The rates of child benefit from April 1991 were £8·25 for the eldest eligible child and £7·25 for each other child, and these rates increased to £9·25 and £7·50 from October. On the basis of our latest estimates, the gross cost of increasing child benefit from those rates to £9·55 for each child throughout 1991–92 would be about £895 million. If the October rates had applied throughout 1991–92, the cost would reduce to around £685 million. The gross full-year cost in 1992–93 of paying £9·55 for all children instead of the rates of £9·65 and £7·80 which will be in payment from April 1992, would be about £465 million.

    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of child benefit.

    Mr. Jack
    Child benefit is, and will remain, a strong element in our policies for family support. We are committed to index-link child benefit for future years.

    Income Support
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the level of income support for people living in residential care.

    Miss Widdecombe
    We have recently received a small number of representations about the proposed April 1992 increases, which have generally been welcomed.
    81
    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received following the computerisation of claims for income support; what information he has on the error rate in computerised assessments and on the number of checks by supervisors of the assessments of claims; and if he will make a statement.

    Miss Widdecombe
    The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Alison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the highest level of net earnings that a married man with two children can have and still qualify for family credit.

    Mr. Jack
    In the case of the family type my hon. Friend describes, the answer is £196, but both children would have to be aged 18 and still at school. The figure will be £209 when the benefit rates are increased next April.

    Mr. Waller
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many single parents are currently in receipt of family credit.

    Mr. Jack
    The latest available information is for April 1991, when there were 131,000 lone parent families in receipt of family credit, out of a total caseload at that time of 341,000.

    Mr. Ian Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many family credit awards have been made since this benefit was first introduced.

    Mr. Jack
    Since April 1988, when the scheme started, over 2·4 million awards have been made.

    Child Support Act
    Sir Trevor Skeet
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to consult on the regulations connected with the Child Support Act 1991.

    Mr. Jack
    On 1 November a consultation document setting out the proposed contents of the child support regulations was issued to interested organisations and made available to hon. Members. The formal consultation period ends today. The regulations concerning child support appeal tribunals and child support commissioners will be referred to the Council on Tribunals.

    Occupational Pension Funds
    Mr. Cran
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the need to review the legal basis of occupational pension funds.

    Mr. Newton
    Occupational pension schemes are mostly administered under trust law. In 1988 the Occupational Pensions Board recommended that trust law should continue as the legal basis of the law relating to occupational pension schemes. I have received representations in the last few days about various aspects of the legal basis of occupational pension funds.
    82
    Mr. Irvine
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to bring into force regulations restricting company pension funds from investing more than a specified proportion of their assets in their own company.

    Miss Widdecombe
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 12 December at cols.527–28.

    Attendance Allowance
    Mr. Ground
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people currently receive attendance allowance; and how many did in 1978–79.

    Mr. Scott
    The latest estimate is that, on average, 975,000 people will receive attendance allowance at any one time in 1991–92, compared to 265,000 in 1978–79.

    Cold Weather Payments
    Mr. Robert Banks
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about the changes to the cold weather payments scheme announced last month.

    Mr. Scott
    I have received representations from a variety of organisations about the changes to the cold weather payments scheme. The improved scheme meets the needs of those groups of people who are most at risk from very cold weather and also makes the most effective use of public resources.

    Mr. O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the amount of heat that can be purchased for the allowance to people who qualify under the cold weather payment; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Scott
    The amount of heat that could be purchased by a cold weather payment will vary depending on the type, and condition, of the heating system in use.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Hardy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were granted loans from the social fund from April to September 1991; and how many have been refused loans during that period on grounds which included an assumption that they lacked resources to ensure that repayment would be made.

    Mr. Scott
    Nearly 730,000 loans have been awarded from the social fund between April and October 1991. In the same period just under 19,900, or 1·7 per cent. of applications were refused due to the applicant's inability to repay.

    Residential Homes
    Mr. Simon Coombs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about the level of benefits for people in residential care and nursing homes.

    Miss Widdecombe
    I have recently received a small number of representations about the proposed April 1992 increases, which have generally been welcomed.
    83
    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have benefited from real increases in the income support limits for those in residential care and nursing homes over the last three years.

    Miss Widdecombe
    Over the past three years there have been four increases in the income support limits for people in residential care and nursing homes. Further increases, well above inflation in most cases, are proposed from April 1992. Some 265,000 income support recipients are expected to benefit from these increases.

    Mr. Peter Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the extra help which will be available to people in residential care homes from April 1992.

    Miss Widdecombe
    We have recently received a small number of representations about the proposed April 1992 increases which have generally been welcomed.

    SERPS
    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plan to modify the state earnings-related pension scheme.

    Mr. Newton
    We have no plans to do so.

    Community Care Grant
    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for community care grant have been received in each of the Liverpool offices.

    Mr. Scott
    The total numbers of applications for community care grants received by each of the Liverpool offices for the year to date up to the end of October are:

    Total

    Knowsley

    4,777

    Liverpool Central

    3,541

    Liverpool North

    3,832

    Liverpool South

    5,276

    Sefton

    4,027

    Disablement Benefits
    Mr. David Martin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what improvements he plans to make in benefits for disabled people.

    Mr. Scott
    From April next year we are intrducing two new benefits for disabled people. Disability living allowance which will bring extra cash help of at least £11·55 per week to around 300,000 people with the extra costs of their disability; and disability working allowance which will give help for the first time to up to 50,000 disabled people who wish to work, but have a limited earning capacity, by topping up their earnings. As well as these significant improvements we are also making other changes to benefits for disabled people: the residence conditions for severe disablement allowance will be aligned with those for attendance allowance and disability living allowance, making it easier for people coming to or returning to this country to qualify; families with children under 16 who will receive disability living allowance for care costs will, if the child has to go into hospital, keep that 84
    help for up to 12 weeks instead of four as under attendance allowance currently; and the earnings limit for invalid care allowance will be increased from £30 to £40.

    Local Offices
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will issue guidelines to local benefit offices to simplify procedures for claiming benefits, especially for individuals over the age of 60 years who are claiming benefits for the first time.

    Miss Widdecombe
    The administration of benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

    Pregnant Girls (Severe Hardship)
    Mrs. Wise
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pregnant girls aged 16 and under 18 years claimed income support on grounds of severe hardship in the latest 12 months for which figures are available; and how many were successful.

    Mr. Jack
    From December 1990 to November 1991 2,495 pregnant girls aged 16 and 17 claimed income support on grounds of severe hardship; of these less than one fifth of the claims were unsuccessful.
    Source: Severe Hardship Claims Unit records.

    Severe Disablement Allowance
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to publicise the change in regulations bringing the residence qualifications for severe disablement allowance into line with those for comparable benefits.

    Mr. Scott
    We shall bring the amending regulations before the House shortly. We are currently considering what steps will be necessary to draw those amendments to the attention of people who may be affected.

    Divorce
    Mr. Andrew Bowden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the law relating to the division of occupation pension benefits on divorce.

    Miss Widdecombe
    We have no such plans at present.

    Carers Premium
    Mr. McGrady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to pay the carers premium on the basis of caring responsibilities regardless of age.

    Miss Widdecombe
    The carer premium was introduced in October 1990 in the relevant income-related benefits on top of all other premiums, primarily to provide extra benefit to people of working age who are unable to work or whose employment is restricted because they care for a severely disabled person. It goes to carers who can establish entitlement to invalid care allowance.

    A person over pension age who commences caring for another cannot establish entitlement to invalid care

    85
    allowance. A person who has established entitlement to invalid care allowance and the carer premium before reaching pension age retains the carer premium beyond pension age, in recognition of the limitations on employment caused by the caring role. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

    Self-investment
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the report commissioned by his Department by Ernst and Young into the degree of self-investment by companies.

    Miss Widdecombe
    I am arranging for copies of the Ernst and Young report on self-investment to be placed in the Library.

    Spastics Society
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received a copy of the Spastics Society's 1991 annual review, entitled "Progress in Partnership".

    Mr. Scott
    We have recently received a copy of the document which we shall read with interest.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for 1991–92 the numbers paying national insurance contributions in Great Britain, distinguishing(a) between the different classes of contribution and between employees and employers.

    Mr. Jack
    The information in respect of class 1, class 2 and class 4 contributions is given in the table.

    Class of contribution

    Estimated average weekly numbers million

    Class 1 (employees)

    18·75

    Class 1 (employers)

    11·40

    Class 2 (self employed)

    2·25

    Class 4 (self employed)

    22·00

    1The latest available information is for 1990–91.

    2Class 4 contributors also paying class 2 contributions.

    In addition, some 250,000 individuals are expected to pay class 3 voluntary contributions at some point in the year, many of whom will also be paying another class of contribution.

    Hospital Visits
    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received since 1988 concerning provision of help towards the cost of visits to hospital for families not on income support, and on the difficulties of families on income support obtaining community care grants towards hospital visits; what plans he has to assist families who are finding it difficult to travel to hospital to visit their relatives; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Scott
    Since 1988 we have received various representations concerning help with the cost of visiting people who are ill. The hospital travel costs scheme run by the Department of Health provides help for patients to 86
    attend hospital. Community care grants from the social fund may be available to help someone in receipt of income support visit a person who is ill. These arrangements are designed to ensure that help is targeted on the most needy families.

    Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total amount of income support, or supplementary benefit, paid out each year to homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, for each year since 1979.

    Miss Widdecombe
    The information requested is not available.

    Widow's Pension
    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state for each year since 1979 the value of widow's pension for a widow aged 50 when her husband died, as a percentage of the index of average earnings.

    Miss Widdecombe
    The information requested is given in the table.

    Table

    A

    B

    C

    D

    Date

    Average Weekly Earnings

    Standard Rate of Basic Widows Pension

    Percentage C to B

    November 1979

    114·10

    23·30

    20·4

    November 1980

    135·10

    27·15

    20·1

    November 1981

    149·50

    29·60

    19·8

    November 1982

    160·60

    32·85

    20·5

    November 1983

    175·30

    34·05

    19·4

    November 1984

    187·40

    35·80

    19·1

    November 1985

    199·50

    38·30

    19·2

    July 1986

    210·90

    38·70

    18·3

    April 1987

    224·00

    39·50

    17·6

    April 1988

    245·80

    41·15 (26·75)

    16·7(10·9)

    April 1989

    269·50

    43·60 (28·34)

    16·2 (10·5)

    April 1990

    295·60

    46·90 (30·49)

    15·9(10·3)

    April 1991

    320·60

    52·00 (33·80)

    16·2(10·5)

    Note:

    Column A—Uprating Date.

    Column B—Average weekly earnings are taken from the New Earnings Survey and are for full-time adult males in April of each year.

    Column C—Standard rate of Widows Pension—age 50 (age 55 after April 1988) at husband's death. The figures in brackets show the rate paid to a widow age 50 at the time of her husband's death (after April 1988).

    Full-time Work
    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has carried out into the effect of the proposed change in the definition of full-time work from 24 hours to 16 hours; and if he will state(a) the number of families where the head of the household works between 16 and 24 hours a week who are likely to gain from this proposal and (b) the number of families where the head of the household works from 16 to 24 hours a week where the family will lose as a result of the proposed change.

    Mr. Jack
    Estimates of the effects of the change in the hours rules in income support and family credit are based on a model derived from research using family expenditure survey data carried out for the Department of Social Security by the Institute of Fiscal Studies.
    87
    We estimate that 65,000 families where a parent is currently working between 16 and 24 hours will be able to gain from the extension of the family credit scheme. No one who is working between 16 and 24 hours and is receiving income support at the time of the change next April should lose, because they will either be able to move on to family credit and be better off, or continue to receive income support.

    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families on income support who currently receive help towards their mortgage costs will be removed from the income support scheme entirely as a result of the proposed change in the definition of full-time work from 24 hours to 16 hours; and if he will make a statement.

    Miss Widdecombe
    No family working 16 or more hours a week up to April 1992 will be removed from income support as a result of the change in the remunerative work rule. We expect about 5,000 families with mortgages to move off income support on to family credit and be better off, even after paying their mortgages. All other families will be able to remain on income support and continue to receive help with their mortgages exactly as before.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the entitlement to housing benefit of a single person aged 18 to 24 years with an income of £2,845 who has taken a room at £40 per week.

    Miss Widdecombe
    The housing benefit entitlement of a single person aged 18 to 24 years not entitled to any premiums, with an income of £2,845 and a rent liability of £40 would be £28·20. This calculation is based on the assumption that the income quoted is net earnings to which a disregard of £5 per week is appropriate. It also assumes that the amount of rent for which the person is liable is fully eligible for housing benefit and is not considered to be unreasonably expensive by the local authority.

    Pensions
    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is in percentage terms the value of the state retirement pension for single people and couples, in relation to the index of average earnings, for each year since 1979.

    Miss Widdecombe
    Basic retirement pension is not a complete/relevant indicator of pensioners' well-being. What counts is their total income from all sources. Between 1979 and 1988 pensioners' average net incomes rose by 34 per cent. in real terms. However, the information requested is given in the tables.
    88

    Table 1

    Value, in percentage terms, of basic retirement pension for a single person in relation to average earnings 1

    Date2

    Average Weekly3 Earnings

    Standard Rate Retirement Pension

    Percentage

    £

    £

    November 1979

    114·10

    23·30

    20·4

    November 1980

    135·10

    27·15

    20·1

    November 1981

    149·50

    29·60

    19·8

    November 1982

    160·60

    32·85

    20·5

    November 1983

    175·30

    340·5

    19·4

    November 1984

    187·40

    35·80

    19·1

    November 1985

    199·50

    38·30

    19·2

    July 1986

    210·90

    38·70

    18·3

    April 1987

    22400

    39·50

    17·6

    April 1988

    245·80

    41·15

    16·7

    April 1989

    269·50

    43·60

    16·2

    April 1990

    295·60

    46·90

    15·9

    April 1991

    320·60

    52·00

    16·2

    1Average earnings are taken from the New Earnings Survey and are for all full-time adult males.

    2As at the date of uprating each year.

    3As at April each year.

    Table 2

    Value, in percentage terms, of basic state retirement pension for a married couple in relation to average earnings1.

    Date2

    Average weekly3 earnings

    Standard rale retirement pension

    Percentage

    £

    £

    November 1979

    114·10

    37·30

    32·7

    November 1980

    135·10

    43·45

    32·2

    November 1981

    149·50

    47·35

    31·7

    November 1982

    160·60

    52·55

    32·7

    November 1983

    175·30

    54·50

    31·1

    November 1984

    187·40

    57·30

    30·6

    November 1985

    199·50

    61·30

    30·7

    July 1986

    210·90

    61·95

    29·4

    April 1987

    224·00

    63·25

    28·2

    April 1988

    245·80

    65·90

    26·8

    April 1989

    269·50

    69·80

    25·9

    April 1990

    295·60

    75·10

    25·4

    April 1991

    320·60

    83·25

    26·0

    1 The index of average earnings used is the all adult male new earnings survey.

    2 As at the date of uprating each year.

    3 As at April of each year.

    Industrial Injuries
    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each year since 1979, what amount is payable under the industrial injuries and disablement scheme for a worker injured in the course of his employment who becomes 10 per cent. disabled for life.

    Mr. Scott
    The rates of disablement gratuities and pensions since 1979 are in the table. In addition reduced earnings allowance—formerly special hardship allowance—might have been payable for industrial accidents/diseases occurring prior to 1 October 1990.
    89

    For awards from:

    Gratuity

    Weekly pension (for pneumoconiosis, byssinosis or diffuse mesothelioma cases)

    £

    £

    15 November 1978 to 13 November 1979

    116,6·00

    3·19

    14 November 1979 to 25 November 1980

    1,391·50

    3·80

    26 November 1980 to 24 November 1981

    1,622·50

    4·45

    25 November 1981 to 23 November 1982

    1,765·50

    4·83

    24 November 1982 to 22 November 1983

    195,8·00

    5·36

    23 November 1983 to 27 November 1984

    2,029·50

    5·56

    28 November 1984 to 26 November 1985

    213,4·00

    5·84

    27 November 1985 to 29 July 1986

    2,282·50

    6·25

    30 July 1986 to 7 April 1987

    231,0·00

    6·32

    8 April 1987 to 12 April 1988

    —

    6·45

    13 April 1988 to 11 April 1989

    —

    6·72

    12 April 1989 to 10 April 1990

    —

    7·12

    11 April 1990 to 9 April 1991

    —

    7·66

    10 April 1991 to 7 April 1992

    —

    8·49

    8 April 1992

    —

    8·84

    Youth Training
    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the difficulties of placing 16 and 17-year-olds on youth training schemes and the consequent difficulties they face in claiming income support; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Jack
    I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on 9 December at columns 353–54.

  SCOTLAND Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why unreprocessed highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel is being put in dry storage at Torness and Hunterston; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Any firm proposal that spent AGR fuel be put in dry storage on Scottish Nuclear Ltd's generating sites would require the Secretary of State's consent in terms of section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. No application for such consent has been submitted.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made at the GATT talks regarding the textile industries of Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 December 1991]: The Government's aims in the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations take account of the interests of the textile industry in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom and of the interests of the economy as a whole.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many landowners in Scotland are currently receiving annual payments under the set-aside scheme of(a) between £5,000 and £9,999, (b) between £10,000 and £19,999, (c) between £20,000 and £29,999, (d) between £30,000 and £39,999, (e) between £40,000 and £49,999, (f) between £50,000 and £59,999, (g) between £60,000 and £69,999 and (h) £70,000 and over.
  90
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 December 1991]: For set-aside participants who joined in the first two years the number of set-aside agreements recorded centrally in Scotland involving annual payments within the bands given is as follows:

  Annual payment

  Number of agreements

  (a) £ 5,000–£ 9,999

  108

  (b) £10,000–£19,999

  55

  (c) £20,000–£29,999

  24

  (d) £30,000–£39,999

  11

  (e) £40,000–£49,999

  2

  (f) £50,000–£59,999

  3

  (g) £60,000–£69,999

  Nil

  (h) £70,000 and over

  1

  A further 317 agreements involved sums of less than £5,000. These figures include payments to both landowners and tenants. Information on payments to landowners alone and to participants who joined in the third year of the scheme is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Plutonium
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instigate an inquiry to ascertain the extent of the spread of plutonium traces from Sellafield in Cumbria along the west coast of Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 December 1991]: The levels of radioactivity in the Scottish marine environment are monitored regularly on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's directorate of fisheries research, and the programme includes samples from the west coast.

  The results are published annually in reports in the series "Radioactivity in Surface and Coastal Waters in the British Isles" and these are in the Library. They confirm that the levels of artificial radionuclides including plutonium in samples from Scottish waters are very low and well within the limits based on the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of (a) persons aged 16 years and (b) persons aged 17 years have been on youth training schemes in every year since youth training started in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 27 November 1991]: The percentage of (a) persons aged 16 years and (b) persons aged 17 years who have been on youth training schemes in every year since youth training started in Scotland is set out in the table.

  Percentage of Scottish 16 and 17 year olds on Youth Training schemes 1

  Year

  Age 162

  Age 173

  Autumn 19823

  16·5

  11·7

  19833

  16·1

  11·1

  1984

  18·0

  12·1

  92

  Year

  Age 162

  Age 173

  19854

  23·0

  16·5

  1986

  20·8

  16·4

  1987

  16·5

  19·7

  1988

  16·2

  22·0

  January 1989

  22·0

  19·2

  1990

  19·9

  17·3

  1The figures relate to the numbers in training at a point in time during the year not to the total numbers who took part in a training programme in the course of a year. There is no available data on total participants.

  2Age at the end of December up to 1988 and age at the end of August for 1989 and 1990.

  3Includes trainees on the Youth Opportunities Programme.

  4December 1985 extimate based on Youth Training figures for October 1985 and January 1986.

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

Work-related Training Schemes
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the number of workers on work-related government training schemes has been allowed to decline since September 1989.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, experience has shown that other measures such as jobclubs and the job interview guarantee have for some unemployed people been even more effective than training in helping them to get jobs. That is why we have refocused our provision in favour of these measures over recent years. At the same time demographic changes and a welcome increase in school staying-on rates in full-time education account for a reduction in the numbers in youth training.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he telling us that he is satisfied with the situation, in that after rising for three years, there is now a tailspin reduction in the number of workers on government-related training schemes, so that in fact the number has been reduced by 20 per cent. in two years? Can he say whether the Government are satisfied with the situation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the prime responsibility for training rests with the employers, who are actually spending over £20 billion per year on training. Recent CBI evidence suggests that overall employers are going to spend more on training next year than they have done this year. Between 1984 and 1990 the number of employees receiving job-related training in a given month has risen by 85 per cent.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a great many of these schemes have a very poor reputation among young people as they are not perceived as providing genuine training? Does he agree that the Government should be doing something about that?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. She mentioned in particular youth training. Sixty-six per cent. of all those completing their training gain a qualification. That is a great credit to the scheme. I know that those who have been interviewed suggest that the scheme was useful or very useful.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the Minister accept the principle that at a time of high and rising unemployment the Government should give a high priority to work-related training schemes in order to preserve the skills base of this country?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the basis of that question. As I said in my original Answer, we do not believe that training is always the most effective way of helping people to get a job. The Government have introduced a wide range of measures to help about 840,000 people this year and up to a million next year. For example, the employment action scheme which has just been introduced is specifically designed to help people with current skills to keep them up to date so that, with the welcome upturn in the economy which is about to arrive, those people will go straight back into work.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, has the noble Viscount taken into consideration some of the recommendations of the CBI which point out that the vast increase in the number of industrial bankruptcies means a massive reduction both in the number of apprenticeships and in other forms of work? In other words, does he agree that as more industries become bankrupt unemployment is affected and it increases?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in this Question we are dealing with training. I was able to quote the recent CBI evidence which suggests that more firms are undertaking more training.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend understand the charge made, I believe, by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that these schemes do not provide genuine training? If he understands it, can he say whether there is any answer to the point?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am distressed by any idea that training given either to the unemployed or to young people is not considered to be genuine. Most of it is work-related and is in place with employers. It is seen, especially for youth training, as a direct route into employment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that when the Government introduced these measures they called them "work related schemes" because they were related to the volume of work? Does he further agree that the volume of work has now fallen? Most people would expect that, as the volume falls, the schemes would expand, but they have contracted. Therefore, can the Minister tell us how far the Government expect the schemes to contract still further as the level of unemployment rises still further?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord considers that training is the answer to everything. The Government are concerned to get back into work those who have been unfortunate enough to become unemployed. We consider that there are many opportunities other than training for securing that end. About 414,000 people in all left unemployment in October, which is more than in any month in the past three years. I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that that is not related to the effectiveness of the Government's varied range of help for the unemployed.

Air Fares: UK/Scandinavia
2.43 p.m.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will initiate discussions with those concerned to reduce the cost of air travel between the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian and Nordic countries.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the European Commission's final aviation package will introduce a liberal fares regime and further open competition on Community routes involving Denmark from 1993. The other countries could also implement this package in 1993, under the recently agreed EEA accord. A separate EC arrangement with Norway and Sweden might be introduced in 1992. We maintain bilateral contacts with the aim of liberalising air services arrangements generally.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that partially satisfactory but generally rather depressing Answer. Is my noble friend aware that for many centuries we have had strong links with Scandinavia and the Nordic countries? Following the Maastricht summit does my noble friend agree that trade with countries such as Finland, Iceland and Sweden, which may well join the Community, is all important? While accepting that governments cannot unilaterally control matters, will the Government pursue talks with their counterparts with much more vigour in order to get something going about this nonsense of being able to fly to Sydney much cheaper, pro rata, than to Helsinki or Stockholm?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am disappointed that my noble friend should have found the Answer depressing in any way. No government in Europe have tried harder than this one to liberalise air travel and to make it more competitive between countries. We appreciate that trade with the Scandinavian countries is important but, as I said in my original Answer, should the EEA agreement go ahead then those countries will be fully involved with the third stage of European liberalisation. If for any reason that does not go ahead we would be willing, and wish, to engage in bilateral discussions with them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I must confess that I am not a great expert on air travel. I am glad to note that everybody agrees! Bearing that in mind, can the Minister say why it is that mile for mile the fares on the Atlantic routes are many times lower than those on the European routes?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the whole it is because there is more competition on the Atlantic routes. That is what we are trying to get in Europe.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend think that the manifest desire of the EFTA group to get closer to the Common Market may provide him and
1014
his colleagues with an opportunity to press this matter and relieve the excessive burdens on the number of people who wish to travel regularly to Scandinavia?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Certainly, my Lords. My noble friend is quite right. If the EEA agreement comes into force that will automatically mean that those countries have to abide by the European Community's liberal aviation policies.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, may I press the Minister to give an answer which he declined to give when a similar issue was raised on 5th December? In the light of the fact that the European Commission had condemned a large number of fares as being excessive—including those relating to British Airways—I asked him whether he agreed with the view of the chairman of British Airways that the market place should be allowed to set its own prices, or whether he agreed that the Commission was right to concentrate on what are, by any standards, excessive fares operating in Europe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I answered that question recently. It was our own Civil Aviation Authority that had referred these particular fares to the Commission. We were signatories to that agreement and obviously we appreciate Commission competence in this area.

London Transport Escalators
2.48 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in the absence due to travelling difficulties of my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal, at her request I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect London Transport to have all its Underground escalators in full running service.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it would be unrealistic to expect all of London Underground's escalators to be in full service all of the time. The need to carry out essential scheduled maintenance means that a small percentage must be unavailable to passengers for that reason. But London Underground has made very good progress in improving escalator reliability since 1989 when the Government set them an escalator availability target of 86 per cent. to be reached by April 1992. London Underground Limited has in fact already exceeded this target with 88 per cent. availability. New targets are to be set next year.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before asking the Minister two questions I should like him to know how grateful I was to receive a letter from the managing director of London Underground clarifying some of the points which I raised in a supplementary question on 16th May. I believe the Minister also received a copy of that letter.
Has the Minister seen a commentary on escalator performance over the 12 months period ending October 1991, including the performance statistics for period 7? With permission, I shall read this short commentary:

1015
"Escalator availability decreased slightly this period due to an increase in the time spent on defective escalators which outweighed the decrease in maintenance time".
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I was asking the Minister whether he had seen a quotation and therefore it was necessary for me to tell him what the quotation was about.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it is not up to me to say "Order" but I believe that the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip should do so. Has not this work on defective escalators and also the escalator programme been affected by the restructuring of London Transport's investment programme during the past year, about which the London Regional Passengers Committee has expressed some concern? Is the noble Lord aware that, in order to avoid this diversion of investment, the Labour Party has made a commitment to ring-fence moneys devoted to the escalator programme? Have the Government any intention of doing likewise?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks regarding the letter from London Underground which he received in response to a Question in the House on 16th May. Noble Lords will no doubt be encouraged to know—this partly answers the noble Lord's question—that since that Question was asked in May escalator availability has again gone up, to 88 per cent. Credit should be given to London Underground where credit is due.
The noble Lord referred to ring-fencing moneys to be spent on escalator repairs or renewals. I do not think we have plans to do that. I know that the extra money available as a result of the latest grant settlement means that London Underground is likely to be able to spend an extra £10 million on escalator refurbishment in 1992–93. As I said in my original Answer, we have set a target for escalator availability to which we expect London Underground to keep, and we shall be setting a new one in April.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, nevertheless is the noble Lord aware that posters are going up in London Underground saying that three escalators are to be taken out of action at Victoria in January 1992 and will be out of action for nine months? Passengers are advised to avoid using Victoria Underground station. Does the noble Lord agree that that does not seem to be a proper use of resources?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot comment on individual stations—
Noble Lords: Why not?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Because there are a great many of them and because I do not happen to run London Underground. I shall certainly look into the point. Obviously, if they are being taken out for that long it means that a major job needs to be done on them. I should have thought that the House would welcome such major investment.

Pension Funds: Trustees' Responsibilities
2.53 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to safeguard the assets of members of pension funds, and to make trustees more aware of their responsibilities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, safeguards already exist in trust law to protect the interests of members of occupational pension schemes. Trustees have a duty to act at all times in the interests of all the beneficiaries of the scheme in accordance with the trust deed.
In addition, the Government will bring forward, early next year, regulations to restrict to 5 per cent. the level of self-investment. Action is also in hand to produce a booklet for pension fund trustees, setting out their role and legal responsibilities.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for his assurance that the self-investment procedures will be covered in new regulations. I thank him also for the background paper in the Library, which I commend to your Lordships, on the Maxwell case and pension fund management. Have not the auditors a responsibility for seeing not only that the fund is prudently managed but also that there is a reasonable balance between the trustees representing employees—that is, pensioners—and management? Can he say too, since there is an ombudsman, how many people know of the ombudsman? Is it not time that publicity was given, first, to the responsibilities of trustees and their accountability and, secondly, to the rights of pensioners?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should certainly be prepared to look at the question of whether further publicity should be given to the role of the ombudsman. His appointment is still fairly new. He took up office earlier this year, so it is still early days in terms of whether people know about his role, his duties and responsibilities. The noble Lord asked whether the auditor should look to see whether there should be a reasonable balance of employees and pensioners appointed as trustees. The question of trustees is a matter for those originally setting up the trusts. We certainly would consider it good practice that there should be a reasonable number of pensioners and employees appointed as trustees. We do not believe that it would be a suitable matter for legislation but something that should develop as a matter of good industrial relations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a number of these pension funds are under the effective control of limited liability companies? Does the noble Lord agree that it would have been much better if the Government had followed the proposals put forward by noble Lords on this side of the House during the passage of the Financial Services Bill to secure the effective

1017
introduction of audit committees on all boards of directors and a far greater degree of legislation to prevent the misuse of funds of this kind?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in the main trusts are very well run indeed in the interests of the members and of the beneficiaries of the trust. We do not believe that it would be right to come forward with rather hurried legislation at this stage to deal with what might be perceived to be problems if, in trying to deal with those perceived problems, we created newer and worse problems.
Lord Jay: My Lords, would it not also have been better if the Government had not been using public money to bribe people to leave the absolutely secure state pension scheme and move over into private schemes?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally resist allegations of bribery. The entitlement of people who have moved out of SERPS into contracted out pension schemes will be protected by the guaranteed minimum pension.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why he believes that it is not a matter for legislation that there should be representatives of contributors and pensioners on boards of trustees? I should have thought that that was just such a matter for legislation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, this matter was considered by the Occupational Pensions Board in its report in 1989. It felt—and we agreed—that it was not a matter for primary legislation and would far better develop naturally as part of good industrial relations.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Occupational Pensions Board to which he referred made recommendations about self-investment two years ago? Is it not shutting the door after the horse has bolted to introduce them now, even though they are very welcome? Is he not further aware that the Occupational Pensions Board recommended that there should be independent trustees as well as employee trustees? Quite recently the TUC has also recommended that there should be an independent chairman of trustees to ensure that there is no misuse of the funds.
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords, the noble Baroness, who is a well respected member of the Occupational Pensions Board, is right that the board made those recommendations some two years ago. We then brought forward legislation—the Social Security Act 1990—to give us the power to make restrictions on self-investment. We then commissioned a report by Ernst and Young into the level of self-investment. We then made various recommendations which we put to the Occupational Pensions Board, which reported to us in July. We are now coming forward with proposals for regulations in January. However, I do not think it would be right to rush into an attempt to deal with the perceived problems of self-investment if in the process one, for example, bankrupted individual companies or
1018
individual pension funds. That would not be in the interests of either those companies or of the current or future pensioners.
As regards the question of independent trustees, my advice is that the Occupational Pensions Board considered it but judged it to be impractical in view of the number of occupational pensioners and of having to find a very large number—some 160,000—of independent trustees to take on that role.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am not suggesting that the Government should rush into anything. However, in the light of recent events, surely they are concerned and will take steps to set up some form of inquiry and take some sort of advice—albeit formal—to safeguard these pension funds. Surely that is a reasonable suggestion?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is correct; there are matters for concern. In the main we believe that most pension funds are very well run hut, in the light of recent publicity, it is possible that there have been abuses in some cases. We shall consider any representations made to us and, if necessary, come forward with proposals for reform.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister consider issuing to all trustees of major pension funds copies of the guidelines or the code which indicate their responsibilities and accountability? Further, does he accept that trustees are not appointed with sufficient care and attention, as they should be considering the very large sums of money which they handle and which affect markets as well as pensions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we intend to produce a booklet as guidance for those trustees. The booklet will be published in January and will be made available to all trustees.

Business
3.1 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 the adjournment eight social security orders will be taken.

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the taxation of chargeable gains. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to radioactive substances with corrections and minor improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 18th December
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to both this Motion and the other Motion standing in my name.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that, following the summit at Maastricht last week, it was only right that we should hold a debate in this House as soon as possible. After discussions through the usual channels, it was agreed that Wednesday of this week would be most convenient. However, as your Lordships will be aware, this Wednesday was the day in December which had been set aside under the Rules of the House for balloted short debates.
The first Motion tabled in my name is therefore necessary to move these debates to the first available day, which is Monday 20th January. I should tell your Lordships that this has been done with the full agreement of the noble Lords, Lord Molloy and Lord Jenkins of Putney. I am most grateful to both noble Lords for agreeing so readily to move their debates.
The second Motion tabled in my name applies five-hour debate rules to the Maastricht debate. Again, it was decided to do this after full discussions through the usual channels. As the two short debates on that day would have taken five hours, and as we have some business after that, it seemed right to avoid upsetting the timetable of the day as much as possible, especially in the light of the fact that we had a debate on Maastricht very recently. I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Motion allows for movers of amendments to the Motion to be allotted the same time as the mover of the Motion. I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is fair.
Moved, That Rule 1 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates be dispensed with for the purpose of moving the short debates set down in the names of the Lord Molloy and the Lord Jenkins of Putney from Wednesday 18th December to Monday 20th January.—(Lord Waddington.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that this Motion has been agreed through the usual channels, perhaps noble Lords will consider that the Developments since last Thursday are such that the House ought to have a rather longer debate
1020
on this most important topic, especially in view of the fact that the other place will be having two Sittings on it. I urge the noble Lord and the usual channels to reconsider the five-hour limitation which has been placed upon the debate. In view of the number of speakers in prospect, that limitation will allow only extremely small individual contributions to be made by many who are particularly expert or interested in the field.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to raise one further point. It is in relation to the debate being held on Wednesday at the same time as the debate in the other place. I should have thought that it would have been far better for this House to have had a debate following the Christmas Recess, after mature consideration of all the implications of the Maastricht summit. Even at this late stage, I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will give some thought to that possibility.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I have a secondary point to make; namely, that when this House has debates that are limited in time to two-and-a-half hours and five hours it is quite important that the Digital Clocks on both sides of the Chamber should work properly. Last week, the noble Lord the Chief Whip said that the matter was in hand and that he hoped the Clocks would be working very soon. However, they have not been working for nearly a week. In this technological age, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House say whether any progress has been made in the matter?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, on the last very important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I am assured that the Digital Clocks will be working by Wednesday. I hope that we are not let down in that respect.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I think that it would be for the convenience of all sides of the House to know when the debate will end. I believe that that was why the usual channels came to the conclusion that it would be desirable to time limit the debate. I see the force of the argument that more time may be required. But judging by the number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak, I believe that there will be eight minutes for each person in addition to the time for the movers of the amendments as well as the mover of the original Motion. I think that I have the feeling of the House if I say that we shall stick to what was originally proposed.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, the other place is debating the matter this week. I respectfully suggest that it would look rather odd if we were to postpone the matter. There is no reason for our not getting on with it. We have the time. For that reason, I suggest that we should stick to what we have proposed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debate, 18th December
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion for a resolution in his name set down for Wednesday 18th December shall be limited to five hours, but that the mover of any amendment tabled thereto shall be entitled to the same allocation of time as the mover of the Motion.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 11,

Schedule 1,

Clause 12,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 13 to 27,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 28 and 29,

Schedule 4,

Clause 30.—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 64 [Grants to councils]:
[Amendment No. 250 not moved.]
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 45, line 43, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2) below").
The noble Baroness said: At the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 253, 255A, 256, 292, 294 and 298. The other amendments in the group relate to two clauses, Clauses 64 and 77, and appear in the names of other Members of the Committee. This is an important group of amendments. On Second Reading, as I am sure my noble friend the Minister will recall, what is generally described as academic freedom was raised by almost every Member who took part in the debate. Anxiety about the two clauses was expressed from all parts of the Chamber.
I said at the time that I was puzzled that the Government had amended the Education Reform Act
1022
1988 in respect of freedom of the universities. I was puzzled, because I recall clearly the extensive debates during that Bill's passage. The wording of Section 134(7) of the eventual Act was the result of a government amendment. The question arises: why change what was agreed by everyone?
The purpose of the amendments is to put the position back to what it was under the Education Reform Act 1988. It is, after all, only a short time since the passing of the Act, and a short time in which to make the type of important changes which the Bill brings about.
Amendment No. 251 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 253 which is the substantive amendment. The effect would be to re-enact Section 134(7) of the Education Reform Act. The wording is almost identical. Perhaps I may explain the anxiety felt, I believe, by all universities and polytechnics, although I know that other Members of the Committee with far more detailed knowledge will explain how the Bill, if not amended, will affect higher education.
Clause 64(1) gives the Secretary of State power to attach terms and conditions to the grants which he makes available to the funding councils. To that extent, it re-enacts Section 134(6) of the Education Reform Act. There is no dispute about that. I believe that everyone who has taken part in the debates accepts the need for the Secretary of State to have longstop powers. However, Clause 64(2)(a) goes much beyond that position. It provides that the terms and conditions may impose requirements not just on each institution, but on each institution falling within a class or description specified, with which it must comply.
The wording of Amendment No. 253 is almost identical to the wording of Section 137(7) of the Education Reform Act. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to accept it. In case there should he any doubt about my interpretation of the matter, the Notes on Clauses confirm the point. They state:
"Subsection (2) provides that such conditions may impose requirements to be complied with by all institutions or by institutions falling into specified classes or descriptions".
That extends the Secretary of State's powers considerably beyond those contained in the Education Reform Act 1988.
I turn now to Clause 77. The general point is similar. The amendments relating to the clause are designed to put back the position to what we believed it to have been under the Education Reform Act 1988. The object of Amendment No. 292 is to delete Clause 77(2). That subsection does not appear in the Scottish further and higher education Bill. We are bound to ask why, if it is not required in Scotland, it should be required in England and Wales. The subsection gives the Secretary of State power to intervene, in detail, in individual institutions. That is of concern to those in universities and polytechnics. It does not suggest a power of last resort. Why does the Secretary of State now feel that he needs those further powers?
In case there should be doubt in anyone's mind, perhaps I may make it clear that no one questions the need for powers of last resort. I have been a Minister,

1023
and I know that no government, of any political complexion, will give enormous sums of money to higher education without there being some long stop powers. That is accepted. It was accepted in the 1988 Act. It is accepted in the two parts of the Bill which merely re-enact that position.
The real anxiety—this is what I hope my noble friend will understand—is that, as drafted, the Bill goes considerably beyond that position. It goes beyond the Education Reform Act 1988. As several Members said on Second Reading, it goes against the proposals set out in the Croham Report. It would appear also to go against what my right honourable friend Mr. Kenneth Baker, the then Secretary of State, said in Committee on the Education Reform Bill in another place. He said:
"The directions are, as Croham said, essentially a measure of last resort to enable the holder of my office to safeguard the taxpayers' interests if the councils or an institution are going completely off the rails. I do not expect them to do so, so I do not expect to have to direct them in that fashion. I would be the first to admit that to do so would represent a failure in the relationship between the councils and the departments".
That seems to go against what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said on Second Reading of that Bill. He said:
"Given the importance of higher education, the Secretary of State needs long-stop powers to direct the funding councils to take particular actions in the nation's interests. The Bill"—
that is, the Education Reform Bill—
"now provides for any such direction to be subject to parlimamentary negative resolution procedure, in other direct parliamentary control".—[Official Report 1364.]
Finally, Bill to be enacted as it stands, it would considerably weaken the authority of the funding councils. I said that I regarded the amendments as important. I know that other Members of the Committee will illustrate in detail what will be the effect of the Bill if it is not amended. I hope, of course, that my noble friend the Minister will feel able to accept the amendments. If that is not possible, I hope that he will bring forward amendments of his own at the next stage of the Bill. I must emphasise the strength of feeling that lies behind the amendments and the great importance attached to them by the universities and polytechnics. I find it difficult to believe that the Government do not agree with the principle I am enunciating, which will be made clearer as the debate proceeds. I do not want my noble friend to be under any illusions as to the strength of feeling and the importance attached to the amendments. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: It is only three years since the Chamber debated this issue—the freedom or power of the Secretary of State to intervene directly in the affairs of a specific educational institution. It is a longstanding principle of our educational system that universities enjoy academic freedom. That freedom is properly constrained. They are accountable to the funding council, and through the funding council—and only through that body—to the Secretary of State, and so to Parliament. That is the basis on which our higher educational system works.
1024
To the discomfort of many of us, the Government have introduced clauses which entirely subvert that principle. Clause 77(2) states directions made by the Secretary of State may,
"relate to the provision of financial support … in respect of activities carried on by any particular institution or institutions".
That means that, for the first time, the Secretary of State would have the ability to intervene in the affairs of an institution. He may, for example, decide he does not like a particular course and that he is not willing to fund it. The principle of academic independence was—as we have just heard—after much discussion, embodied in Section 134(7) of the 1988 Act which states:
"The conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to either of the Funding Councils shall not relate to the making of grants or other payments by the Council to any specified institution".
Therefore the proposed provision directly controverts what was inserted in the 1988 Act. Amendments Nos. 251 and 253 restore the wording of the original legislation.
The present Bill has the admirable primary objective of enlarging the higher education funding sector. In this respect it was widely welcomed on Second Reading. However, these provisions are distinctly illiberal: indeed they are authoritarian—it is not just a matter of one or two such provisions—and go far beyond anything required to fulfil the primary objective.
On a previous occasion we debated an amendment to Clause 58 which removes the obligation for active university teachers to be members of the higher education funding councils. Later today I shall introduce an amendment to Clause 71. As it stands that clause would allow the Department of Education and Science, through the Privy Council, to alter unilaterally, by fiat, the Royal Charter or the Act of Parliament governing each university, or the statutes which follow upon them.
Clauses 64 and 77 allow the Secretary of State altogether unlimited powers of intervention. I would not insist that these cumulative powers are introduced by Ministers with malice aforethought. However, many people would gain that impression. As a government supporter, I am saddened that the public impression given by what in its primary intention is so admirable a Bill is frankly repressive.
Amendment No. 291B has two useful functions. It excludes directions bearing on funds which do not come from the Government. That is a necessary provision. Another principle we debated earlier is that funds which do not derive from the funding councils should not be subject to constraints by the funding councils. The same would also apply to the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 291B also restricts the directions to the provision of funds as indicated in Clause 77(1).
Amendment No. 292A excludes the offending subsection whereby directions may relate to activities carried out by any particular institution or institutions. Amendments Nos. 294 and 298 follow from that. By these clauses the Government may have sought only to reassert the powers they thought they

1025
had under the 1988 Act. I know the Government have had difficulties in one case in applying those powers. If that is the case, the Government have introduced so great a degree of overkill as could, in other hands, be used to devastate the independence of the universities.
Lord Dainton: I shall be brief as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made a powerful and cogent advocacy on behalf of Amendments Nos. 251, 253, 292 and 294. On Second Reading I commented that Clause 64(2) was both a clear breach of the arm's length principle which has served this country so well in so many ways, and also represented a complete reversal of Section 134(7) of the existing Education Reform Act. Many other Members of the Chamber took exception to the power which Clause 64(2) would give the Secretary of State to impose any condition in respect of any activity mentioned in that clause carried out in every or any institution via a funding council when the latter makes a grant. There are no restrictions whatsoever on the Secretary of State's power as the Bill now stands. As we have heard, he would have the power to prescribe criteria for the admission of students, what subjects should be taught or not taught, who would be thought fit or unfit to teach or conduct research in a particular subject, how candidates should be examined and other matters.
I am sure some Members of the Committee would say that such interference could never happen here and that such censorship and intervention and such extreme dirigisme is unthinkable in our pluralistic and democratic society. However, I am not so sure. I have lived too long and can remember the malevolent absurdity of Bertrand Russell being pronounced unfit to lecture on philosophy in one of the colleges of the city of New York. Many of us must be aware of the prohibitions against teaching evolutionary theory in higher institutions in some of the states of the United States of America.
The threat implicit in this clause could also have a debilitating effect on the universities. It would lead to over-caution in academic policy, to a stultifying conformity and to playing safe rather than that exciting innovation which is the epitome of self-confident, autonomous institutions. Moreover, it can be safely predicted that some able academics who are independently minded and aware of this element in the Bill will go where they can teach what, how and whom their professional consciences allow. UK universities will be further impoverished.
In his reply to the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, expressed the Government's acceptance of the need,
"to safeguard the essential nature of higher education".— [Official Report, 21/11/91; col. 1122.]
He said the Government did not wish to attack academic freedom. Those were most welcome words. The Minister referred to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who gave an assurance during the Report stage of the Education Reform Act—that Act passed through this Chamber just three and a half years ago—that the Government would not interfere with particular universities "except in extreme circumstances".
1026
However, the fact remains that the Education Reform Act did not give any powers to the Secretary of State to intervene in the affairs of any university. Section 134(7) of that Act is quite specific. It states:
"The conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to either of the Funding Councils shall not relate to the making of grants or other payments by the Council to any specified institution".
It is of course true that the original form of the Education Reform Act would have given the Secretary of State that power, but in the event wiser counsel prevailed during the debates and the Bill was amended. I plead with the Government once again to listen to reason and common sense.
I have, of course—I expect this is the case with many Members of the Committee—wondered why the Government seek this power. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to,
"necessary accountability associated with the public funding of higher education".
Mr. Howarth, the Minister responsible for higher education, is reported as wishing to attain,
"the indispensable objective of protecting taxpayers money".
However, the Government already have all the safeguards they need through the accounting officer system. That system now extends to the institutional as well as to the council level, that is to say the chief executive of the funding council is an accounting officer, as is each individual vice-chancellor. Therefore they are subject to Treasury rules. The council itself can discipline universities The former University Grants Committee by only two sentences provided in a of 1919 which appeared to give it no However, that measure never inhibited me from applying any necessary financial discipline to a particular university. The Committee will not expect me to name the university here.
I cannot imagine why the Government buy such dogs and then want to bark themselves. I plead once again that the principle underlying the amendments be accepted by the Government and that Clause 64(4) be altered as suggested in the amendment and Clause 77 be omitted.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to support the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Young that, in the light of the debate in your Lordships' Committee, the Government should reconsider the matter and return to it at a later stage of the Bill with their own amendment. I say with the greatest respect to Members of the Committee that this is not a question which can be dealt with by tinkering with amendments; it is fundamental. That applies to Clause 64, Clause 77 (which, as my noble friend Lady Young said, raises a similar point), and it applies to Clause 53 which is concerned with further education. Should the situation arise at Report stage the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will move that Clause 53 do not stand part of the Bill. The fact that it was agreed to on Thursday night raises a matter of considerable concern.
Fortunately, my noble friend Lord Renton sees the important point. The matter was dealt with

1027
tangentially in Amendment No. 218. In connection with that amendment my noble friend Lord Renton said:
"we shall find similar provisions relating to higher education in Clauses 54 and 77 whereby the Secretary of State is to be given power to give directions affecting specific places of learning … in relation to both further and higher education. I cannot see the need for that either in relation to higher or further education".—[Official Report, 12/12/91; col. 960.]
I turn to the Government's terror of misconception. At col. 962, in his reasoning, my noble friend Lord Belstead said:
"Therefore, the Government believe that it is essential that Clause 53 should provide not only for general but also for institutions' specific directions."
The issue will not go away. It is a matter of fundamental disagreement on which I should have supported the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, if there had been a Division on Clause 53. I have put down my own Motion that Clause 77 do not stand part of the Bill, which I shall move in due course. This is a matter of fundamental importance which has to be dealt with as such and should not be subject to tinkering. It is a matter of principle.
Having made that point I accept two points without qualification. First, the concept of academic freedom is cherished not only by the universities but also by polytechnics. I also accept that a central government which propose to dispense some £5 billion a year in support of anything, and in particular education, would wish to retain some reserve power in case of possible misappropriation. My noble friend Lady Young made the point and I very much doubt whether any Member of the Committee would dispute the fairness of that proposition.
However, as my noble friend Lord Limerick and the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, said at Second Reading, Clauses 64 and 77 go far beyond what is necessary That point has just been made in relation to the effect of the overkill of the 1988 Act. In a moment I shall deal with the crucial misconception in the mind of the Government as to the effect of the 1988 Act. The noble Lord has just dealt with one of the amendments which saved a form of interference, and in due course I shall deal with another section to show that the Government's position under the 1988 Act is wholly dissimilar from that now proposed under the new regime. It is not a question of whether or not that is intentional; the point is that the result is overkill and strikes at academic freedom.
The link between Clauses 64 and 77 was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. He said at Second Reading:
"When I first read Clause 64, especially subsection (2), I was unclear as to the precise intention. Did he"—
the Secretary of State
"wish to impose specific requirements on individual institutions? When I read Clause 77 there was no longer any doubt. Under subsection (2) he can instruct the funding councils as to how much money they should give to particular institutions for particular activities. That is monstrous. It totally undermines the general convention whereby the Government do not interfere in the affairs of individual institutions".—[Official Report, 21/11/91; cols. 1072–1073.]
I weary the Committee with a verbatim quotation because who could have put it better? Who could have put it more objectively? And who could have put it
1028
more objectively and with greater persuasive force? That is the principle at stake, but the Government do not appear to understand that.
I must not take up the Committee's time, but the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said at Second Reading that Clause 77 is a dangerous provision and that it should not be amended but should be scrapped. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, (col. 1081 refers) found it quite astonishing:
"a scandalous piece of work. Perhaps it is a Civil Service idea of a joke".
It was also criticised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and my noble friend Lord Beloff on grounds of ministerial interference.
As I understand it the purpose of Clauses 64 and 77 is to define the Secretary of State's condition and decision-making powers in relation to the new councils, as was explained by my noble friend Lord Belstead. My noble friend said that he was doing no more than retaining the careful balance of responsibility between the Secretary of State, the funding councils and the institutions which this Chamber debated extensively during the passage of the 1988 Act and that Clause 77, as drafted, does not exceed in scope Parliament's intention in voting through the direction-making power in the 1988 Act which provided in terms for directions to be institution-specific. That is so important that I shall give the Hansard references for the speech of my noble friend: cols 1024 and 1123.
With respect to my noble friend, that is wrong advice to your Lordships because on any objective analysis the contention that Clause 77 merely restates the law as accepted by Parliament during the passage of the 1988 Act cannot be accepted. Section 219 of the Act of 1988 deals with those powers of the Secretary of State as well as the section to which the noble Lord just referred. That is the obverse of the coin. Section 219 dealt with those decision-making powers in three categories. The first category was to determine disputes and questions. That arose under Section 67(1) of the 1944 Act which is still extant. It is the principal Act. The second category was to prevent unreasonable exercise of functions. That was under Section 68 of the principal Act. The third category related to the exercise of powers in default where there had been a failure to discharge a statutory duty. That was under Sections 69(1) and 69(2) of the principal Act.
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor truly said—reference has been made to this point—the Government would not interfere in relations between universities and funding councils except in extreme circumstances. That truly reflected the position as it was under the 1988 Act. However, those circumstances fell within the limit of those three categories as defined under the principal Act. One has only to compare the drafting of Clause 218 and the obverse of the coin clause with the clauses in this Bill to conclude that the powers of direction sought by the Secretary of State under these conglomerate powers—Clauses 64, 53 and 77—are far more extensive. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to call them an overkill.

1029
In effect, if the Bill is passed in this form, the Secretary of State will have been afforded by a House of Parliament absolute discretion and absolute decision-making power to direct as he wills. A direction such as that should never appear in any statute passed by either House of Parliament under any Government. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take the matter back in the light of the debate in Committee.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: I intervene only briefly and on this occasion not primarily in my capacity as a party leader but as Chancellor of the University of Oxford.
The provisions in Clauses 64 and 77 have aroused the deepest anxiety in the university. It was the unanimous decision of the hebdomadal council that the vice-chancellor should write to heads of houses and ask them to approach their Member of Parliament on the issue, as in the case of some heads of house to write individually to their Member of Parliament is still quite a heavy burden. That was about the strongest step that the university could take.
There is also great mystery as to why the Government wish to go back on the position that was arrived at after great difficulty in relation to the 1988 Act. The 1980s were in some ways a rather abrasive decade for relations between the Government and the universities and there has been some hope that the 1990s might be a happier decade, with a greater feeling of confidence from both sides on the issue. However, I can assure the Government that if they try to get the Bill through with Clauses 64 and 77 unamended, it will be the worst possible foundation for a happier decade of relations in the 1990s.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: I rise to speak briefly for two or three reasons. The first is to express my hope that if the Minister rises to defend the clauses as they now stand, he will not argue that there is a financial necessity for them. There is no evidence for that and there is a good deal of evidence against it. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that when the University Grants Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred, was set up in 1919, it was responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must surely have been somewhat concerned about expenditure from the public purse yet, to the best of my knowledge, he never claimed or exercised any power of intervention in what the University Grants Committee did with the funds entrusted to it. It therefore seems to me that we must look at the matter in the light of the transfer of the funding system to the Department of Education and Science, which appears, and has for some time appeared, to take a different view. It was in my view one of the greatest blows ever struck against our education system when that transfer was made.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, will remember a conference at Toronto some 30 years ago when he told an assembly of education Ministers and academics from a number of countries that Britain had the ideal
1030
system. That system enabled public support to go to higher education without the intervention that often went with it in many other countries. As a much junior academic to the noble Lord, I then ventured to say that, once the funding was in the hands of a government department, one could not rely on the piper not calling the tune; but even I never thought that the tune would be as harsh as that in the present proposals.
My second reason for rising is that, as some of your Lordships will no doubt remember, I took some part in the debates on what became the 1988 Act both in your Lordships' House and in discussions with the responsible Ministers. I then received in private the assurances which had been quoted in public that the clause would be amended—it was amended into the form in which it now stands in the 1988 Act—in such a way as to preclude direct intervention in the affairs of a particular institution.
The noble Lord must therefore not merely defend the clauses. He must also defend the Government against the charge of breaching an undertaking, because, I remind him, it was that undertaking which enabled the Bill to be passed. If we had held it up any longer, the summer recess would have come and the 1988 Act would not be on the statute book. It was a bargain: you give us this clause—the clause that now stands in the Act—and we shall then see that the Bill reaches the statute book.
My third reason is a curious and, if I may say so, a personal one, shared I think probably only by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who is the Chancellor of the University of Buckingham with which I used to be connected. If the Bill is passed unamended, the University of Buckingham will be the only independent institution of higher education in the United Kingdom not subject to directions as to whom it employs, whom it teaches, what it teaches and how it examines. I had great ambitions for the University of Buckingham, as no doubt did my noble and learned friend, but we never hoped, and we do not hope now, that it would stand in a unique position as the only independent university in the country.
Lord McCarthy: I should like to focus on a narrow but important point that so far has not been fully developed; namely, the event from which this problem arises. I understand that it arises largely from a decision given in a case before Mr. Justice Simon Brown in July 1991, when it was found that the words of Section 134 of the 1988 Act did not cover what the Government had done. It therefore behoves us to consider what the Government did, as presumably that is what the Government want to have the power to do. They want to change the words in the Bill because the judge decided that the words in the 1988 Act do not cover what the Government wish to do.
Members of the Committee may know the relevant circumstance. It arose because the Government wished to introduce a system of appraisal into academic life in British universities, colleges of further education and polytechnics. As a result, they withheld 1 3 million of the national pay agreement and stipulated in a very precise way what the colleges had

1031
to do in order to receive that money. In effect the colleges had to make sworn statements that the heads of the colleges would apply the discriminatory appraisal system and not pay the money across the board. They received commitments from individual lecturers. In effect, there was a ballot of individual lecturers to see whether they would apply the appraisal system to themselves and to their subordinates. Sworn statements were received to the effect that they were operating the scheme introduced last year and that they would accept further intervention of a similar kind next year. That is what the Government did. But the judge said that that did not come within the provisions of the Act. That is why the Government have come back and want to change the words.
Many Previous speakers have envisaged very well how that principle could be extended to any aspect of a course, any teaching method, any part of a rubric or syllabus which the Government do not like. The lecturers and the god-forsaken professors would have to vote not to teach it and if only 50 per cent. of them said that they would do so, only 50 per cent. of the money would he received.
Both the defences put before the judge by the Secretary of State were struck. That is the Government's problem. It is quite remarkable that on behalf of the Secretary of State it was said that it was all right to impose conditions because it was done before he handed out the money. Precedent conditions were all right but subsequent conditions were quite wrong. The learned judge said that that was sophistical and not true and that he could not accept it; in effect it came to the same thing. It was said for the Secretary of State that it was only indirectly intended to affect particular institutions and not to affect them directly. The judge replied that that was sophistical, not reasonable and not plausible. Therefore, the Government have come back to Parliament; they have to have a form of words.
I ask the Minister whether it is still the Government's intention to practise in that way. Will they do it, for example, in respect of further pay awards? Is that the intention, even though the judge said that it would not work? Is that why there are these new words? Is it the Government's intention to have further ballots on other aspects of academic life? Is that what all this is about? If the Minister can say that that is not what it is all about, I do not understand why he wants the Bill to be different from the 1988 Act.
Lord Flowers: I must shortly leave the Chamber so perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to make a brief speech now. I shall return at about 7 o'clock and I shall greatly miss what happens in the meantime. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for effectively making my argument very much better than I could have done. I wholly agree with what he said and hope that the Government will pay due attention to it.
The only other point that I wish to make is in support of the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, to the effect that each university has an accounting officer. He is known as the vice-chancellor.
1032
Each university, on the terms under which it presently operates from the Universities Funding Council—the funding councils generally in future—has a financial memorandum which sets out precisely how the university is to be accountable for the government funds that it has been given. As the accounting officer, the vice-chancellor is personally responsible for ensuring that those funds are spent correctly, in the manner laid down in the financial memorandum.
The chief executive of the funding council, as accounting officer for the funding council, in turn is accountable to the department, thence to the Treasury and thence to Parliament. There is a precisely defined chain which exists already, essentially under the 1988 Act, for accounting from the university to Parliament through Government. All the powers that the Government need for dealing with a recalcitrant university (if there should be one) can be found in that chain. I do not believe that any other powers are necessary. I support the amendments which are now being discussed and especially support the idea that Clauses 64 and 77 should be dropped altogether.
Lord Belstead: I wonder whether it would be helpful for me to intervene at this point. This is a Committee of the Whole House and Members of the Committee—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who has taken an interest in all stages of the Bill—will not be prevented from continuing the debate until it is finished.
Before considering ways in which the clause might be dealt with, perhaps I may just say a few words at this stage about the reason for Clause 64. Members of the Committee have put forward different views as to how this clause might be dealt with. They range from those who do not wish to have the clause at all to those who feel that it ought to be amended. Incidentally, the amendments moved by my noble friend Baroness Young include those which hang upon Amendment No. 286, tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, dealing with Clause 77.
On Clause 64, perhaps I may emphasise, as I did at Second Reading, that the Government regard this clause as doing no more than securing the intended effect of existing provisions governing the relation-ship—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Will the noble Lord say by whom it was intended?
Lord Belstead: It was intended by the Government. I shall go on to explain why we feel that. I repeat that the Government regard the clause as doing no more than securing the intended effect (intended by the Government) of existing provisions governing the relationship between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.
The wording in Clause 64 certainly is different from that in Sections 134(6) and 134(7) of the Education Reform Act because of doubts cast on whether those provisions had the effect that we intended, following a judgment in a case brought by the Association of

1033
College and Polytechnic Teachers against the Secretary of State, to which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy referred in his intervention.
As a matter of principle, the Secretary of State, who is answerable to Parliament for the Government's funding policies, needs to have effective means of implementing those policies through the flow of public funds to the funding councils and institutions. It is that which underlies his powers to attach conditions of grant to the funding councils established by the Education Reform Act and continued in this Bill.
In furtherance of those policies, the Secretary of State might earmark part of the funds made available to the councils for particular purposes. For example, in the past my right honourable friend has earmarked a small portion of his grant to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Councils to service what is known as a restructuring fund. That kind of condition is quite a normal part of the relationship between a government Minister and the body to which he is making available public funds. That is why Clause 64(1) is the same as Section 134(6) of the Education Reform Act. That is why, as I understand it, my noble friend Lady Young, and indeed other Members of the Committee have not quarrelled in any way with Clause 64(1).
As I ventured to say at Second Reading, Section 134(7) of the Education Reform Act was included specifically to fetter the Secretary of State's power by precluding him from attaching conditions in relation to the funding of individual institutions; from setting as a condition that university X or polytechnic Y should receive a particular amount of funding. Setting conditions in relation to named institutions is most certainly not a feature of the Secretary of State's normal higher education policy although he does need, in relation to Clause 77, a last resort power.
However, what is firmly part of the Secretary of State's legitimate policy in higher education is, for example, an interest in securing satisfactory pay and conditions settlements, a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Speaking from this side of the Chamber, I believe it right that the Secretary of State should have such an interest, given the level of public funding made available to higher education.
The way in which my right honourable friend has sought to exercise influence in this field has been through holding back grant to the funding councils until a satisfactory settlement has been reached. That has operated for three years in relation to the polytechnics and colleges and the universities. The gains in terms of flexibility and efficiency in the final settlement have been considerable. It is an approach known as setting conditions precedent.
So far the Secretary of State has released all the withheld funds to the councils each year for distribution to institutions because satisfactory settlements have been reached at the national level. But it cannot be ruled out that national negotiations break down and local settlements need to be made. In those circumstances my right honourable friend needs to be able to say to the funding councils that they may release funds to those institutions which reach
1034
satisfactory settlements but not to those which do not. Another example of the use of a conditions precedent might be for the Secretary of State to say to the funding councils that they should not release a particular portion of funding to institutions which do not over time receive a satisfactory report from the unit which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics will be establishing to look at institutions' internal quality control systems.
The crucial point about such conditions is that while they may impact differently on different institutions the Secretary of State certainly does not know which ones in advance. That is the difference between those conditions and a condition which would specify a particular level of funding for a named institution.
It is in order to enable a condition to be made which exercises influence but is not designed to affect a particular institution that Clause 64(2) (a) has been introduced. To delete that clause and return to the wording of the present Act would introduce the very considerable doubts of the Secretary of State's power to exercise influence. That is why I cannot accept Amendments Nos. 251, 253, 254, 255 and 256, which have that effect.
I have been referring to what I call management issues which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, made clear when we debated Clause 7, are legitimately within the scope of the Secretary of State's higher education policies. However, as my noble friend Lady Young said, the basic issue is academic freedom. I know that what most concerns noble Lords is the prospect that the powers in Clause 64 could be used in support of policies which would be unacceptable; for example, setting conditions under subsection (2) (a) that institutions could not offer a particular course or programme of research or that a specific subject must either he taught or assessed in a particular way. I emphasise that that is not the Secretary of State's intention. It would not be his intention to use the powers under the clause in such ways. Nonetheless, before any Member of Committee says it, I recognise that it is what is on the face of the Bill that matters. I recognise the very real anxieties expressed by the Committee over the past hour.
I have therefore discussed the matter with the Secretary of State. As a result I can respond to my noble friend Lady Young's wish that I should bring forward an amendment at the next stage of the Bill. Having listened to the Committee—and the messages have been loud and clear—I can give an undertaking that I am ready to bring forward an amendment at Report stage in your Lordships' Chamber which will put beyond doubt on the face of the Bill that the condition-making power may not be used to set conditions for the purposes that I have described.
I repeat that it would not be possible under Clause 64 to set conditions that higher education institutions could not offer a particular course or programme of research. Nor would it be possible to interfere with the way in which a specific subject is taught or assessed.
That leaves the matter of Clause 77. Perhaps I may say a brief word about the background. There are two

1035
features of the discussion which took place in 1988 on the Education Reform Act to which I wish to refer in this context. First, the statutory framework established by the Education Reform Act 1988 represented a diminution of the powers which the Secretary of State had vis-à-vis the funding of individual universities. The Secretary of State's funding powers were theoretically unlimited before 1988 because the University Grants Committee was an advisory body. Therefore, allocations of funds to individual universities were for the Secretary of State who would have been technically within his rights to overturn the UGC's advice and substitute his own judgement. That is often forgotten.
The second issue was whether the Secretary of State should have an institution-specific power of direction in the new framework. There have been several quotations in the past hour. Perhaps I may add my own. When these matters were debated three years ago, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explained why Section 134(8) of the 1988 Act was intended to encompass a power of institution-specific direction I remind the Committee of the words of my noble and learned friend during the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill when he said that amendments moved on Report in another place had made it plain that the Government would not interfere between the Universities Funding Council and particular universities except in extreme circumstances. In other words, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made it clear that Section 134(8) was intended to he a long-stop power.
There are other instances of that intended feature of Section 134(8) being made clear both by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State at that time, Mr. Kenneth Baker, in another place. 11 is not possible to distinguish between institutions, as Amendment No. 286 seeks to do. That potential power must extend to all those who receive public funds from the higher education funding council. The Government accepted that in order to demonstrate the long-stop nature of the power it should be made subject to annulment by either House of Parliament. However, we have now been given advice that Section 134(8) is defective. Set within the carefully constructed provisions in that section as a whole, and in particular alongside Section 134(7), we are advised that clearer words are needed for the Secretary of State to make an institution-specific direction even as a matter of last resort or as a long-stop power. Clause 77(2) is intended merely to put that power beyond doubt. Removing subsection (2), as Amendment No. 292 seeks to do, would in practice rule out any institute-specific directions.
Perhaps I may repeat that this is a necessary power of last resort. It is to be used if relations with the funding council break down and in order to provide a long-stop protection for the taxpayers' interest in considerable sums of public funding.
My noble friend Lady Young fairly quoted words which were spoken by my right honourable friend Mr. Kenneth Baker, then Secretary of State. I suggest to my noble friend that the position now is no different from that described by Mr. Baker when he was
1036
Secretary of State. He referred to the council going off the rails, or to the danger of the council going off the rails, in taking particular decisions. But he also referred to institutions going off the rails. It is those circumstances which Clause 77 is designed to meet. Mr. Baker also made clear that he did not expect to have to use the power; nor does the present Secretary of State. However he, like Mr. Baker before him, considers it necessary to have a power of direction that can be institute specific as well as being general. If the Secretary of State did not have that power his ultimate responsibility in the other place for the Government's higher education funding policy would be at risk should there arise what I might call a nightmare scenario in which either the institution concerned or the funding council appeared to go completely off the rails in taking particular decisions.
Perhaps I may also repeat that I recognise the fears voiced by Members of the Committee in relation to this power. They are similar to those voiced about the condition-making power in Clause 64. The fears are that under Clause 77 a Secretary of State could issue a direction that institutions could not offer a particular course or programme of research, or that a particular subject must be taught and assessed in a particular way; in other words, that the provision strikes at academic freedom. The Government understand those fears. As with the condition-making power under Clause 64, I undertake to bring forward an amendment on Report which I believe will put those fears to rest. It will make clear that a direction under Clause 77 cannot prohibit an institution in higher education offering a particular course or programme of research and cannot direct that a particular subject is taught or assessed in a particular way
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the Minister for intervening and giving the Committee an explanation of the reasons for inserting these new and different clauses into the Bill. They are clauses which do not exist in the Education Reform Act. I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for promising to come forward on Report with amendments to Clauses 64 and 77. He said that the amendments will make clear that it will not be possible to intervene in issues such as the nature of particular courses and, I hope, in the nature of assessment, the type of students to be recruited and the type of staff to be appointed. We have a long list of areas in which the Government must guarantee not to interfere in order to satisfy the considerable anxieties that exist throughout the higher education system in respect of the new proposals.
I shall first respond to what has been said about Clause 64. I had intended to follow up what was asked by my noble friend Lord McCarthy about the purpose of the clause. I, too, had assumed that it was concerned with intervention on pay. It is perfectly reasonable that a Secretary of State who is responsible for the spending of substantial sums of public money should be able to satisfy himself or herself about

1037
general matters concerned with pay and conditions. However, I remain unconvinced that the clause is necessary as regards specific institutions.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the Secretary of State might need powers to intervene should national negotiations break down and individual settlements be needed. He said that the Secretary of State would also need to exert influence on those matters. I am somewhat surprised by that statement. It appears to me that under existing legislation it is perfectly possible for a Secretary of State to exert considerable influence on just such matters. Indeed, the present Secretary of State and his two predecessors have exerted just such influence in introducing proposals for a proportion of the salary bill to be retained for discretionary purposes and, indeed, in imposing them. Does the Minister believe that it is right to give such powers to the Secretary of State in respect of higher education? I believe that for the Secretary of State to make such individual interventions rather than to have influence on general aspects of pay and conditions, as he already has, is totally incompatible with the status of higher education institutions as independent organisations responsible for managing their own affairs.
I turn to Clause 77. The Minister has made something of the fact that Section 134(8) of the Education Reform Act 1988 is defective, even as a matter of last resort. He went on to illustrate what is meant by the phrase, "problems of such magnitude that powers of last resort must be introduced". He referred to institutions going right off the rails. I suppose that it is possible that institutions in higher education might occasionally do so, although I hope and expect that that would be incredibly rare. However, I do not find credible the suggestion that the funding council might go off the rails at the same time. That is what appears to me to be so extraordinary. Given that the chief executive of the funding councils is the accounting officer and has the powers and the duty to intervene, if that happens it appears that the status quo is working perfectly well.
In the light of what I have said, Members on this side of the Committee have not been entirely convinced that the new powers for the Secretary of State are required. However, I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that on Report we shall see some amendments, which we shall wish to examine most carefully, relating to the preservation of academic freedom. We all regard that aspect to be immensely precious and it must be protected with the utmost care.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Minister has made a concession. I hope that I am not ungracious in saying that it is a great pity that he has not today brought forward his own amendment. He was asked to do so on Second Reading by his noble friend Lady Young and several other Members of the Committee. It would have been far more convenient if we could have seen that amendment today. However, having reverted to the untrammelled path of the 1988 Act as presented, he said instead that the Government had not been able to devise an amendment but they would
1038
consider any put forward from the body of the Committee during the Committee stage. Obviously that was an impossible demand.
It will rest with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to say whether or not she is content to wait until Report stage. I merely draw attention to two points. The first point was made by my noble friends Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers, that the power of last resort is unnecessary in view of the responsibilities of the accounting officer. I take leave to say that such Treasury experience as I had bears that out. No doubt that point will be considered.
The other point is this. The noble Lord the Minister skated lightly over the degree of Parliamentary control involved. He rightly said that under the 1988 Act it is the negative resolution procedure; but that was based on an implicit bargain. It was pressed in another place in Committee that the power should be the affirmative resolution procedure. In view of the concession made by the Secretary of State at the time, that demand was dropped. However, the Government having reopened the whole matter, it falls for reconsideration as to what should be the degree of parliamentary control.
The criteria were clearly set out in the report of the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1972–73. According to no less than two of the criteria propounded, this should be done by affirmative resolution, as is demanded in Amendments Nos. 192 and 198. That, again, will fall for consideration at Report stage, when the Committee discovers—if the noble Baroness permits it—what the Government propose in the way of limiting these virtually unchannelled powers.
Lord Kilmarnock: As Amendment No. 293 is in my name and grouped with Amendment No. 251, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word. I shall not detain the Committee for long.
When we debated similar clauses in Part I of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, gave an undertaking that Clause 7—the equivalent clause in that part of the Bill—would not impact on named institutions. He again repeated that assurance this afternoon and undertook to bring forward an amendment at the next stage of the Bill. I am not clear whether that will take the form roughly of what was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew—that the word "each" should be removed, as I said it should be—but we shall wait to see.
Now that the noble Lord has given the undertaking my specific question is: does it apply also to Part I? We are all aware that Clauses 7 and 53 in Part I of the Bill are the analogues of Clauses 64 and 77 in this part of the Bill. They are not only similar, they are in fact identical. Therefore, it will be interesting to know from the noble Lord whether he proposes to bring forward amendments of a similar or identical nature to Part I, to which I also attach importance.
My second point is that, as everybody recognises, Clauses 64 and 77 hang together. In the debate on Clause 53—the equivalent in Part I of Clause 77—the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that he would draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, on an amendment of mine that, as drafted, the clause

1039
enables the Secretary of State to intervene in the teaching of specific subjects. The noble Lord drew the point to the attention of the Secretary of State and seems to have offered us something which may be of some comfort. However, what I do not find of comfort are the words, "reserve power", which continue to fall from the noble Lord's lips. That phrase is not statutory language; it does not appear on the face of the Bill and in statutory terms means nothing. A power is a power is a power.
If Clause 64 were properly drafted to give the Secretary of State certain powers in relation to financial and managerial but not educational matters—the sorts of power to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred and which the Secretary of State might legitimately require—I cannot see why Clause 77 is required at all. I understand that the Secretary of State was upheld in the referral to the court to which reference has been made. He seems to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I do not believe that the Committee will be satisfied with anything less than the removal of Clause 77.
I urge the Committee to amend Clause 64 so that it gives the Secretary of State the powers he legitimately requires and no more, and that Clause 77 be dropped from the Bill.
Lord Renton: Every speech that we have heard this afternoon, except that of my noble friend Lord Belstead. besides saying other things established the view that we should not have any interference with the affairs, syllabus or workings of any specific academic institution.
My noble friend Lord Belstead acknowledges that argument but says that the power is needed as a last resort. To leave it unqualified in the Bill, even after he has fulfilled his undertakings to reconsider the wording of the two clauses, would be dangerous. We must not have a reserve power which might be used in an unreserved way.
I took the liberty of tabling two amendments, one to Clause 54 and the other to Clause 77. Each was inspired by the memorandum attached to the letter from the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford to the head of the college to which I belong. If we wish to eliminate the power to interfere with academic freedom in specific institutions, these two amendments will achieve that object in the simplest possible drafting way and without going into any elaborate detail. Amendment No. 255A amends Clause 64. I was heartened when my noble friend Lord Belstead, in saying that he cannot accept the group of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Young, did not mention that amendment. I therefore hope that he is keeping an open mind about it.
I should like to say a brief word about Clause 77. I appreciate the argument that it may be possible to do without that clause altogether if we merely wish to leave the matter open. But having thought about it and heard what was said by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others, I feel that a difficulty would arise if we did not have something that modified subsection (2) and confined it to general
1040
power. I say that partly because it must be made to dovetail with Clause 64. Therefore I think we must keep Clause 77 in one form or another.
I had hoped that we could avoid a Division today—it may be misinterpreted—in the light of the undertakings given by my noble friend Lord Belstead. I hope that in considering the matter he will realise that he has not impressed the Committee by saying that a special power is needed as a last resort. We should avoid that.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: This debate has generated an extraordinary amount of interest. The last time I found as much difficulty in contributing to one of your Lordships' debates was on Lord Chelwood's amendment to the poll tax Bill.
I am grateful to the Minister for the care and courtesy of his reply and for the promise of a forthcoming amendment on Report. It is a gift horse. But it is the duty of this Committee to look a gift horse in the mouth. I understand that the noble Lord offers us an assurance that the powers will not be used on academic matters, nor will they be used to cover the intellectual content of a course. I am grateful for that assurance. Those fears were not rugatory and I believe that the noble Lord has dispelled them. The problem is that there is a grey area where one must consider what the boundary is of an "academic matter". In particular, the daily life of an academic matter is where the academic and the financial meet. It is there that I would particularly like to probe the effects of the clause.
For example, take a decision by an academic department that it cannot expand the number of its students beyond a certain figure on the books it has available. Is the decision on how many books will be needed for how many people an academic decision and protected by the noble Lord's forthcoming amendment or not? Is the decision how many undergraduates we can properly teach in one group without diminishing the quality of our teaching an academic decision and protected by the amendment or not? I could multiply those questions, but I shall not.
The phrase "off the rails" is, to borrow the term of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, not a statutory phrase. What is off the rails is in part a subjective question. It would help the Committee a little more if we could have clarification of what is meant by "off the rails". Most of the ways of going off the rails that I can foresee are already covered by other powers. I think in particular of the laws against fraud and those dealing with bankruptcy. If academic matters are not covered and those two are already covered, then I do not see what is covered.
I should also be grateful for an answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about the improbability of the funding council and the institution going off the rails together. I wonder whether the Secretary of State is not, in the good old 17th century phrase, keeping a dog and barking himself.
Lord Milverton: I have listened with interest to the many strong arguments for the amendment which are therefore not sympathetic to the Government. My noble friend Lord Renton said that no voices had been raised with sympathy for the Government. I am afraid that he is wrong because I have sympathy and I should like to have explained to me even better why there is this academic fear from the universities. I have listened to and read material and I honestly do not believe that Her Majesty's Government are trying to interfere with academic freedom. Therefore, until someone is able to convince me about that, my sympathies are with the Government. I hope that the Committee will allow the Minister to take this matter away and bring forward the amendment which he proposes.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I rise to discuss what the Committee ought to do because sooner or later we shall have to make up our minds on the practical point. I know that the peacemakers are blessed and, if I did not, I see two right reverend figures on the Bishops' Bench who would quickly remind me of that fact. I am bound to say that my experience of political life is such that the peacemakers usually have rather a rough ride.
I listened to the speech of my noble friend Lady Young with great pleasure. I wish to say to her and to my other noble friends who have taken part in the debate something along the lines of the remarks of my noble and learned friend on the Cross Benches, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We must make up our minds at what stage this interesting series of questions—it is not one question—should be brought to a head.
I come to the conclusion, after listening carefully to everything that has been said in the debate, that it would be better to bring the matter to a head at Report stage than in our present state, which may not be as clear as it will at the later stage. If we do not postpone a decision to that stage, we may perhaps be in a worse position than we are now to come to a final conclusion.
I share the view of my noble friend Lord Milverton. I believe that there is no basic difference between the Government and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals as to the necessity, at almost any cost, of preserving academic freedom in the country. I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was perfectly correct in pointing with regret to a certain amount of suspicion which exists between those two admirable bodies. I only wish that that suspicion could be dispelled and I hope that it will be. I do not believe that there is any fundamental difference between them.
Therefore, between now and Report stage, in the light of what my noble friend Lord Belstead has said, we may well suggest that those two eminent bodies should get in touch with one another to discuss frankly their real positions. I am not sure that either is quite clear about the position occupied by the other.
The only other point I wish to make which is designed to reinforce this hesitant conclusion is this. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale may have been on to rather an important point. The powers—whatever they be—in the latter group of amendments which have been under discussion are
1042
subject to parliamentary control but only by way of negative resolution. I am not always as persuaded as are some people in the House that there is much difference between the two because it is the business of both Houses to invoke parliamentary control, even in matters of negative resolution.
I make a point to the Committee which is worth consideration. We have too many and too elaborate provisions, in my judgment, which is one of the difficulties of the working of our constitution at present. The purpose of putting down elaborate provisions in Acts of Parliament is not to reduce the accountability of Ministers to Parliament but to shift the responsibility of Ministers from Parliament to the courts. That is why we put provisions, as the cant phrase is, on the face of the Bill.
My view is that there are areas of policy in which Ministers ought primarily to be accountable to Parliament and not to the courts. I say to three or four respected and beloved noble and learned friends on the Cross Benches that there are areas of public policy in which Parliament is a better judge of what ought to be allowed and what ought to be prohibited than our professional judges, most of whom at present have never had experience of either House of Parliament or of political questions.
Therefore, I suggest as a practical proposition, first, that the question which the Committee has to decide, subject to whatever my noble friend Lady Young proposes, is whether we bring matters to a head now or give the parties a chance to come together. Secondly, in the last resort, do we want to make it a matter of judicial control or are we anxious that it should be subject to political control through the Houses of Parliament? I venture to believe that that is rather similar to the point put by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I put it in the context of what we have now to decide.
Lord Annan: I wonder whether the noble Lord can help on one point. It was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. She put it extremely well when she said that we shall need to know in more detail what it is that the Secretary of State is alarmed about. I do not know whether the noble Lord read on Friday the recent edition of the periodical called the Higher. It contained an interview with the Secretary of State. When the Secretary of State was asked why he was so worried and why Clause 77 was needed, he said "What would happen if a department of architecture in a university decided that it wanted seven years for its degree? We must have reserve powers to stop that kind of thing". Is that the kind of interference which we have to expect when the noble Lord brings back his amendment?
Perhaps we may take another point. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has often spoken about the great success of the University of Buckingham which grants a degree in two years. But in each of those two years the university has four terms: so it is a case of eight terms as against the normal nine in other universities. In addition, in that university each academic is able to have a term off for research. Let us suppose that in the very difficult situation in which the Secretary of State finds himself of trying to expand the number of

1043
students in higher education, he is advised that one solution would be to compel universities to institute a new structure of that kind into their degrees. Is that the kind of thing in which the Secretary of State could direct the universities under the present draft?
I ask these questions because in the past, as my noble friend Lord Dainton, said, such matters were always dealt with by hints, nods and nudges by the Secretary of State to the chairman of the University Grants Committee or the chairman of the vice-chancellors committee. When Mrs. Thatcher became Secretary of State for Education she thought it monstrous that there should be quotas for women in medical schools. Some people, quite rightly, thinking of days long gone by, said that there would have been no women in medical schools at all unless quotas had been instituted. On the other hand, the time for that had gone. Although there was considerable opposition to abolishing quotas, nevertheless, as a result of conversations through the normal channels, the vice-chancellors committee invited those universities which had medical schools and were operating quotas to change their practice. That is the way things were done.
There is a suspicion of government within universities which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, wishes to dispel. It is the suspicion that government no longer believe that quangos—whether the University Grants Committee, the governors of the BBC, the IBA or the trustees of museums and galleries—do their job. There is a suspicion in the air that government no longer believe that these bodies, as they once did, decide what is right for the nation as a whole. It may well be that some of those bodies became too used to defending their own bailiwick rather than considering the question, "Has not the time come for a change?" I believe that the noble Lord will need to convince the Committee and say precisely what he is hoping that any power he requires for intervention is intended to do.
We are, all, I am sure, aware of one reserve power in the Government's hands in broadcasting. The Home Secretary has the power to prohibit the transmission of any programme. He does not of course exercise that power. However, a maladroit Home Secretary can, by giving nods, nudges and hints, create a furore as happened some years ago over a programme which the BBC wanted to transmit. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will tell the House at Report stage that that is the kind of power he wants. But he will need to convince us that it is on very specific points in respect of which he can see that power being used and, equally, that it will not be used on other points.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: It may help the noble Lord and Members of the Committee if I speak briefly as to where the Opposition stand on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, is not here at the moment, but I would like to deal with his intervention first. I believe that one could make the matter very clear on the basis of what he said. He said that he trusted the good intentions of this Government and, I presume,
1044
specifically the Secretary of State. I too do not wish to argue about the good intentions of the Government. I take it that we write legislation not on the assumption that our governments always have good intentions. The whole point about the fear of academic freedom is that alternative governments may have less good intentions.
I hope that noble Lords opposite are not seeing this matter in terms of whether one is for or against the Government. That would ruin the nature of the debate which has happily been rather non-political. I hate to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, but I believe that this is not an occasion for the Committee to divide. I did not believe that originally but now I feel that it is premature to take a decision. The reason is that I am not clear that it is easy to produce proper amendments. Therefore, the alternative of simply rejecting all these matters remains with us. If Members of the Committee will forgive the cliché, I want to wait and see.
However, I have a specific question for the noble Lord the Minister. It was not clear from what he said whether the amendments that he wishes us to consider have already been drafted and that therefore in his view the problem is solved. That would really interest me because I do not believe that I could draft such amendments. Alternatively, is the Minister saying that at some time between now and January his department will come up with a solution to the problem? We need to know the answer. It will not change my mind about not wishing to vote on the matter now. I simply want to know what is the Minister's position. Can he assure us that we shall see the amendments in good time?
Perhaps I may draw to the Minister's attention a fact which I am sure has not escaped his notice; namely, that it is Christmas next week and that we return not long afterwards. This is a deadly serious subject. I want time to look at whatever the Government are proposing. I ask the Minister specifically and repeat the two questions: has he the amendments in his pocket now, in which case can we see them now? Alternatively, is the Minister saying that his department is still trying to produce such amendments? If the latter, can he guarantee that we shall see them in time to scrutinise them properly? I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will rise to her feet fairly soon. I believe that we can reach the end of this matter in the very near future.
Lord Beloff: I should like to put the point that I was going to put to my noble friend, because it is part of the peace-making process which has been commended to us. I understood my noble friend the Minister to suggest that his amended Clause 77 would be by the addition of exclusions—excluding the content of courses, the methods of examination and so on.
I should like to point out to my noble friend that that might prove to be a very difficult task, for the reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. For instance, one would certainly need to exclude the power to dictate the choice of students or the categories of students to be chosen. It would need to deal with the appointment of staff. If one looks at the

1045
interference by governments in less happy countries—some state legislatures in the United States come to mind—there is a whole range of matters upon which financial power has been used to impose provisions that all of us would agree are hostile to academic freedom. I ask my noble friend whether it would be possible to have a clause which did not need exclusions but which was itself so precise that no possible doubt could arise.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask one specific question following on from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I am pleased he has recognised that this is an issue seen on all sides of the Committee as a question of academic freedom. I hope he knows that that is seen even more deeply within the academic world. Here, as at Second Reading, I can associate my own university—the University of East Anglia—through the Vice-Chancellor with the opposition given to these two clauses by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
When the noble Lord saw the opposition from all sides of the Committee he produced a list of the changes that he would try to include within the new amendment that he intends to bring forward. It dealt with courses, resources, and so on. As has just been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, the list did not refer to interference with staff. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, recalled that Bertrand Russell was prevented from teaching in a university in this country. I can speak from personal experience. My university work was stopped in another continent by state interference with the university.
When the noble Lord gives the Committee some indication of what he proposes to do, can he say that he recognises that in addition to excluding any state interference in courses and resources he should also include the exclusion of any state interference in the appointment or conduct of staff and students?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Having heard what Members of the Committee have said, I shall not oppose the Question that Clause 77 shall stand part of the Bill. I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for his very important concession in this regard because although technically it will stand part today, it will not stand part in any statute which receives Royal Assent.
As Members of the Committee have said, there are some very serious difficulties and matters of principle involved with which it would not be possible to deal today until we have seen the draft of the amendment. However, whatever comes forward in place of Clause 77 I expressly reserve the right to move an amendment to remove it at a subsequent stage.
Lord Belstead: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for what he said about his intention concerning the Clause stand part debate. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for not coming to the Chamber with an amendment actually in my pocket, or at least on the Marshalled List. The Department of
1046
Education and Science has looked at the drafting possibilities but it is not necessarily easy to put into legal language exactly what I undertook to do. However, my undertaking remains firm. As I said, it is my intention, and my undertaking to the Committee, to come forward with an amendment of the kind that I proposed.
Perhaps I may make one brief point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to the desirability of the affirmative resolution procedure. The noble and learned Lord might consider, on reflection, whether an institution's specific direction—if subject to an affirmative resolution procedure—would have to go through all the hoops of the hybrid instrument procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked whether the undertaking that I gave applied to Part 1 of the Bill. We laboured long and earnestly the other evening on that particular matter. In fact, we had a very long debate indeed. I ended that debate by giving an undertaking that I would discuss the matter with my right honourable friend so far as Part 1 is concerned. That remains my position.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, both pressed me to say more about what I meant about going off the rails. I think I am right in saying that it is a fact that, sadly, three higher education institutions in recent years, all with accounting officers, have got into serious financial difficulties. Therefore, what I am endeavouring to say—indeed, I said it the other evening—is that what can happen buttresses the need for the case which I have sought to make today.
My noble friend Lord Renton referred to the drafting of the Bill. At the end of a very long debate I do not want to cross swords with my noble friend on his interpretation of the use of the word "each", but rather to give him an undertaking that we are certainly prepared to look again at the wording of that part of the Bill.
That brings me back to the crucial point. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, it depends on what is in the amendment. All I can do today is to say that on Second Reading I voiced my intention to listen carefully to what was said by the Committee. So far I believe I have fulfilled those intentions in the sense that I have given the Committee an absolute undertaking that I shall bring forward an amendment to deal with matters which I believe strike at the heart of academic freedom. I have repeated that twice and it is on record. Therefore, if the Committee will at least trust me to do that, I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will take the advice given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, and other Members of the Committee including my noble friend Lord Renton, and see fit to withdraw the amendment so that we may return to this matter after Christmas.
Baroness Blackstone: Before the Minister sits down I should like to ask one question. He did not answer my noble friend Lord Peston on when we shall actually get these amendments. Since the Report stage of this Bill is within two or three days of our return after Christmas, may I ask whether it will be possible

1047
to have the amendments before Christmas so that we can take them away and examine them with proper time?
There is one other point I should like to make in response to what the Minister said about the higher education institutions that have got into financial difficulties. There are, of course, very few and it is a rare occurrence. However, am I right in saying that in all cases those problems have been resolved under existing legislation without the need for the Secretary of State to intervene with these new powers?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before my noble friend replies, may we have a little longer to consider this matter? Christmas will be here pretty soon. We are dealing with a matter of fundamental principle and anxiety to all sides of the Committee. How on earth are we to give our minds to it immediately after Christmas? There are so many other matters to attend to. Can the Leader of the House perhaps postpone the date for a week to let us regain our breath?
Lord Belstead: The question of the dates for Report stage are a matter for the usual channels. I can only assure the Committee and the noble Baroness that I shall certainly try to produce the amendments as quickly as possible. What I cannot do is give an undertaking that they will be produced before Christmas. We shall certainly do our best and there are ways of sending things through the post direct to Members of the Committee who are interested in the matter. However, with the best will in the world that is as far as I can go this afternoon.
5 p.m.
Baroness Young: I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this long and important debate. In particular I thank my noble friend Lord Belstead, who started by saying that he now understood the strength of feeling in all parts of the Committee. If anything has made that clear, it is the debate that we have had this afternoon. He responced, as always, with great courtesy and care. I should like to place on record my thanks to him for his undertaking to bring forward amendments to Clauses 64 and 77. I know how much work he has put into this and I am grateful to him.
I am sure that he will study Hansard carefully as an enormous number of detailed points were raised by among others the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, my noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Lord, Lord Peston on matters of definition and on what any kind of amendment to secure academic freedom would mean. I am sure that my noble friend will consider all these matters. I do not regard them as matters for debate at this stage across the Floor of the Chamber. I echo what has been said—it would be helpful to have the amendments as soon as possible. I know only too well the difficulties that arise but we shall lose a week because of Christmas and a best part of another week with the New Year. We return shortly after that. These are matters of great importance. Therefore I underline
1048
what my noble friend has undertaken to do which is to send the amendments to all those who are particularly interested. That would be very helpful indeed.
When I moved the amendment I did not say that it was not my intention to press it this afternoon because I felt it was right to listen to what the Committee had to say. However, in view of all that has been said, I shall not press it. That would be quite wrong. We all need time to reflect on the debate. Above all, we need time to consider the amendments that my noble friend has undertaken to bring forward. We shall study them with care, and then we can, if necessary, return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 251A:
Page 45, line 43, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 66 (1B) below").
The noble Baroness said: I regret to disappoint the Committee but this amendment was grouped with the first group of amendments. The first amendment in that group, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was not moved and therefore my noble friend Lord Pearson and I would like to speak briefly to this amendment and to Amendment No. 268ZA which was grouped with it. We believe that they address the specific procedures with regard to possible mechanisms for quality control and therefore we do not wish this opportunity to pass by. We could not speak to them during the long debate that we have just had because they were not grouped with the amendments under consideration.
Amendment No. 251A is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 268ZA. The amendments attempt to suggest one or two constructive ways in which procedures for an academic quality assurance control might be built into the Bill. In speaking to the amendments we wish briefly to address the concept of academic freedom with regard to accountability and the procedures for quality assurance.
I begin by emphasising that, like every other Member of the Committee, I believe passionately in the principle of academic freedom. That is why I have challenged instances where I have seen it being violated in this country and why I have worked in a small way with colleagues in totalitarian regimes, such as Poland during the dark years of martial law, suffering from systems which tried to crush freedom of all kinds.
Perhaps I may give some examples of where all is not well and where situations have gone off the rails in this country with regard to the track record of academic freedom and academic quality assurance. These are not unproblematic in our own country. I suggest three kinds of violation which we might wish to take into account if we are thinking of building in the safeguards that are implied in our amendment. The concerns relate to violations of freedom to pursue knowledge and truth, freedom of legitimate access to academic institutions and freedom to speak on campus.
My position in regard to academic freedom in education is premised on the belief that education, especially higher education, must enshrine the

1049
principle of freedom to pursue knowledge and truth, wherever that pursuit may lead. In a previous incarnation, when I was head of the department of sociology at the Polytechnic of North London, I consistently challenged colleagues who required students to accept a specific, predetermined, Marxist version of "the truth" and who used tactics of intimidation against students who refused to write politically acceptable papers or to accept Marxist interpretations of their research. These concerns were fully documented in a book written by myself and two colleagues, John Marks and Keith Jacka, called The Rape of Reason. They have never been refuted. I shall always be grateful to Bernard Levin who devoted a trilogy of articles in The Times, one of which summed up in his own inimitable style the essence of our situation at that college, with the heading "In all its brutality, the making of an intellectual concentration camp". I suggest that that may be one example of a situation that has "gone off the rails", to quote the phrase that has been used.
When that book was published my co-authors and I received numerous letters of support from academic staff in other institutions, who were so frightened that they begged not to be identified but who described similar situations. Where were the guardians of academic freedom and quality then? How did the academic community condone such violations of the rights of students to freedom to pursue knowledge and truth, even if it was not the ideologically or politically popular truth? I know that I am speaking about the 1970s, but the issues are timeless and the dangers to academic freedom are still with us. Much more recently Professor David Marsland documented systematic bias in university and polytechnic sociology courses throughout the country in his book Seeds of Bankruptcy, with a comprehensive analysis which has not been refuted. I have a final example. I recently received a letter from a lecturer in English in one of the colleges of London University. He was dismayed by great pressures being applied for Shakespeare to be taught in terms of neo-Marxist political analysis; for example, "The Tempest" was to be taught in terms of political power. In the United States many academies are suffering from restriction of academic activities to those which are "politically correct"—the so-called "PC" phenomenon. This concept is just beginning to appear as a small cloud on the British horizon—at present no larger than a man's hand—but may prove to be a test of British academies' willingness to protect genuine academic freedom.
My colleagues and I were originally goaded into writing our book by grave dismay at seeing the effects on students of the violations of academic freedom incurred by violent occupations of the colleges. Those occupations epitomise my second concern: denial of access by students to the education and other facilities to which they were entitled and for which they, or others, had paid. Many were mature students who had given up careers in order to study and were desperate in their frustration at this violation of their freedom to study. It was disingenuous of student leaders to claim
1050
unanimity of support for their occupations. In my experience, those "unanimous" decisions were often taken at student meetings attended by a fraction of students, while others were working hard or had to leave the college for family or work commitments. I know that there are now students feeling the same kind of frustration about recent occupations, when they have been denied access to their studies. But they are intimidated or too busy with responsibilities in the world outside the academy to be able to challenge the student leadership.
My third concern with regard to accountability, quality of educational provision and academic freedom is censorship. I believe that academic freedom is essential for a free society. The academy must be a market place for the free discussion of ideas. There is legal protection against unacceptable situations such as incitement to racial hatred. Apart from that, there must be freedom for the expression of any viewpoints; if ideas are uncongenial to some, their fallacies should be exposed in free discussion; they should not be censored off the campus. But recent years have seen too many instances where speakers have been refused permission to speak on the campuses of our universities and polytechnics. I am not talking about speakers who might infringe the law; I am talking about democratically elected government Ministers and courageous individuals like Mr. Ray Honeyford. The situation is totally unacceptable. I believe that such censorship on the academies of our campuses is pernicious. It is a basic violation of academic freedom and could be likened, in an embryonic form, to the kind of repression experienced in Nazi Germany or under communism. Yet it has happened recently in this country. I believe that it is a matter for grave concern.
I have spoken about these unpleasant realities because they are not fictitious. They demonstrate the vulnerability of academies to pressures from those who exploit the principle of academic freedom and turn it into a travesty of itself. The colleagues who taught Marxism, to the detriment of any other welatanschauung, claimed academic freedom to do so. I do not begrudge them the right to teach Marxism; indeed, I do so myself as a social scientist. However, I challenge the use of intimidation to require students to accept only a Marxist position. Students who occupy academies claim a democratic mandate; but many students suffer a serious interruption of their right to study. Those who imposed censorship claim a twisted form of academic freedom in the argument that they wish to avoid "offensive" speeches. They set themselves up as judge and jury, with no appeal or redress.
I am deeply concerned about the problems of protecting academic freedom. I know that the issues are complex. But, during subsequent debates at later stages of the Bill I hope to hear advice from those who are more experienced in these matters about ways in which academies may reassure the public about their methods of protecting this fundamental principle.
But because there is public concern, I suggest that the intentions of the Bill in its endeavours to build in mechanisms for accountability and quality assurance

1051
and ultimate safeguards against abuse of taxpayers' money are legitimate and worthy of very serious consideration as the Bill passes through its various stages.
I must express support for my noble friend Lord Pearson who always succeeds in stimulating Members of the Committee with his forthright views. I suspect that he engenders such animated opposition because there is a good deal of uncomfortable truth in what he says. From my own experience, I can vouch for the fact that there certainly were considerable opportunities for, if I may use a colloquial phrase, "ripping off" the system. As head of a department, I remember academic colleagues with salaries which, if not princely, at least compared favourably with other professiols, who had the burdensome load of two hours student contact a week and who did not spend the rest of their time on research, administration or other academic activities. When I made mild inquiries about their right to this way of earning a living, I was reminded of the key words "academic freedom" and "tenure".
I know that circumstances have changed. I doubt if I would find identical situations today. There is much less surplus in the system now; indeed, in many places it may be pared to the bone, at least by British standards. But the point is simply this: the academic community did not call those colleagues to account; external factors and tightening budgets did. Therefore, my concern—and it remains with me—is that I can see no reason why academics should not be prepared to be accountable to the Government and to the society that finances them in very clearly laid out measures of quality control.
I do not believe that the wording of the amendments tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Pearson is ideal. However, I hope that the spirit behind them will not be laughed out of court. I am of course aware that there is an intention in the Bill to establish a quality assurance committee. But I am worried about potential resistance by the academic community in the name of academic freedom being of such a kind that it may prevent any such committee from doing an effective job.
I know many dedicated academics pursuing academic excellence. I have unbounded respect for them. But I have raised these dreary examples of less-than-excellent situations—situations which I believe have gone off the rails and about which there was some discussion in the earlier debate but which I did not wish to prolong—to explain the rationale for these amendments. They seek to enshrine the principle of accountability at the level of the academies themselves, in ways similar to those which the Government have already enacted, to their great credit, in ether parts of the education system.
I know from my experience of working with the CNAA, and as a governor of a polytechnic, that many academies are operating increasingly stringent quality assurance procedures. I welcome that. I do not envisage any problems of principle or practice if information about the mechanisms and results of these procedures were to be made, and be required to be made, available to the funding council; and, in
1052
appropriate form, to the public who support, use and, after all, finance our academies. Such an approach to accountability would be democratic, it would not violate the fundamental principles of academic freedom to which we are all deeply committed and might satisfy any government of the day that the nation's money was being well invested in the precious resource of our national academies. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising these matters. The concerns of which she spoke are indeed timeless. They certainly go back as far as Socrates and, I suspect, if our records permitted us to say so, a great deal further. The noble Baroness is complaining about a form of original sin. I believe that it is as old as humanity. It is at all times objectionable.
What the noble Baroness said about freedom of speech is quite right. The last time the issue came directly my way was at a meeting in an institution to which I belonged. It was to be addressed by Mr. Enoch Powell. We received a report that there was a risk of disruption. I immediately cancelled every commitment I had—they were numerous—and went along to attend the meeting as an ordinary member of the audience. When it is necessary, I shall do so again.
I agree with the tribute that the noble Baroness paid to her noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I do not agree with everything she said about exactly what sort of solution is required. But the general principles are agreed. I hope that we can work together to defend them.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for that encouragement. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 251A and 268ZA which are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Cox. The amendment is designed to be helpful to academic quality and to academic freedom. Those who oppose Clauses 53, 64 and 77 do so more because they fear interference from the Secretary of State in academic matters than because they fear the proper scrutiny of the use of public funds. Therefore, the amendment deals exclusively with academic quality and, if accepted, would go some way to assuring the Secretary of State that quality control was working and was seen to be working in all our higher education institutions.
The amendment really follows on from what I said on Second Reading when I doubted whether the polytechnics were ready for the degree of academic freedom envisaged by the Bill. I doubted that because the CNAA took much on trust when it granted accreditation. I am afraid that there are current examples, to which I shall return, where that trust clearly has not been justified.
It must also be true to say that the universities have much less obvious quality assurance mechanisms than the polytechnics. On Second Reading I suggested to my noble friend that if the Government got into trouble on these clauses, he might achieve much the same safeguards for academic quality by requiring on the face of the Bill our higher education institutions to continue with perhaps two of the CNAA's excellent

1053
quality assurance mechanisms: first, that institutions should be required to publish detailed profiles of the courses that they offer, together with their reading lists; and, secondly, that they should publish the names of the external examiners for each of their courses and the reports of those external examiners.
The amendment does not go so far as those specific proposals. It certainly cannot be said to interfere with academic freedom. It does not attempt to prescribe what should be in the course profiles. It would merely display the course content for scrutiny by students and the wider public. Such glasnost would make the proposed academic audit unit's job much easier than if it had to deal with the universities' present reticence in that regard.
I fear that noble and academic Lords, particularly those who work in the university sector, may object to such open quality assurance. But I do not see how they can do so justifiably. After all, huge sums of public money are being spent on these courses. It seems perfectly reasonable for the public, and more particularly the students intending to take the courses, to be told what is on offer.
Members of the Committee who work in higher education, and others, may feel that that type of quality assurance can be left to the institutions themselves; in other words, to our old friend self-regulation. My experience tells me that they would be wrong.
My noble friend Lady Cox has explained a number of areas of concern where academic freedom has not led to academic quality, as we in this place understand that concept. I have said that I will give other examples, although for obvious reasons I should prefer not to give the names of the institutions involved. My examples tend to be from the subject areas of the humanities, social science and teacher training which is where the worst abuses seem to occur. The examples also tend to come from the polytechnic sector because that is my area of experience and because in the CNAA the polytechnics have a mechanism which does much to bring that type of problem into the open and so to limit those abuses of public funds and academic freedom.
Indeed, in the first of my examples, I shall not give the name of the institution because I have promised the student who has told me about the teacher training course in question that I shall not do so until he or she has finished the course in July. I respect that, because I know that the hobgoblins who inhabit the secret garden of teacher training in this country can he vindictive against those who challenge some of their cancerous traditions. Be that as it may, students on the teacher training course in question have to put up with a lot in order to be politically correct, and thus be awarded their degree. On their first day they are obliged to join one of the three teaching unions and they are taught that competitive sports breed inequality and are insulting to those who do not win.
The students are forbidden to use terms such as "first" or "second" during games or other lessons, because those terms are elitist. Instead, words such as "cabbage" or "cauliflower" are to replace the elitist
1054
concepts of winners and runners-up. From the start of the course "correct language" is forced upon the students. Students who use terms such as "caveman", instead of the correct "cave person", are marked down and told that they will fail their exams if they persist in using such outrageously sexist language.
My informant was marked down last month for using the term "his" when talking about an imaginary teacher in a presentation. The course is aimed at child-centred learning; children should not have to show their writing to their teachers unless they wish to; children do not need handwriting lessons; and good grammar and spelling are not to be encouraged. When the students come to geography or history, they are told that facts are worthless, and that what matters are "historical concepts" and their relationship to social issues. When they come to mathematics they are taught that children must not be forced to learn anything: outdated multiplication tables have no place in the modern classroom.
As to classroom discipline, the future teacher is taught that any criticism or punishment is counterproductive. Bad behaviour must be ignored because there is almost certain to be a social explanation for it. That course is running now in a respectable institution. It has been validated by the CNAA. It has been accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education; it has been inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate, and its products are licensed to teach by the Department of Education and Science. That is the type of course that the amendment is designed to display for public comment.
My second example refers to another polytechnic. This time it is a whole institution where the quality control mechanisms have clearly broken down, especially in the area of so-called independent studies. The polytechnic in question has just assured the CNAA that it has,
"initiated major changes to the management and oversight of quality throughout the polytechnic".
The CNAA is to review those changes next February, when all the institutions' quality assurance arrangements, together with their external examiner systems, will be reviewed. That is a case where an entire institution has slipped through the net of the CNAA's accreditation process and our other quality assurance mechanisms. Again, the amendment would help the proposed new academic audit unit to discover that type of problem in a more timely fashion in future. I am sure that there will be other such examples with which to deal.
My third and final example relates to a whole subject discipline. where the present quality control mechanisms do not appear to be working. Apart from teacher training, upon which I have tried the patience of this place often in the past, I should tell the Committee that cultural studies, often allied to media studies, have always been, and are still, far too narrow in their scope. Cultural studies were recently described in the polytechnic which gave birth to that subject as,
"A Marxist critique of British history".
When I visited a well-known polytechnic to decide whether it should receive accreditation from the CNAA, I queried with some members of the academic board whether their system for screening their external

1055
examiners was working satisfactorily. Had it, for instance, I asked, rejected any external examiners proposed by a course team? "Yes", I was told, "there had been an example, but the screening had not worked for other reasons". When I probed further, one of the professors present, who represented a respectable hard discipline—chemistry, I think—confessed openly that they had tried to change an external examiner for their cultural studies course because they wanted someone who was not a Marxist. They had not been able to find any examiners in cultural studies who were not Marxist and so gave up the struggle. I was of course unhappy that that institution should have been accredited. I suggested that they might have found a philosopher, or someone else; but as the lone non-academic voice in the process, I was, I am afraid, easily overridden.
I hope that those three examples add to what my noble friend Lady Cox said, and show why we believe the amendment on the face of the Bill, or something similar, would be helpful to academic quality in higher education. Many Members of this place rightly insist that academic freedom should be defended at all costs. I join them wholeheartedly. But academic freedom can be hollow indeed and may even be used dangerously unless it discharges its sacred duty to academic quality. That is why the amendment should be accepted by all sides of the Committee.
Lord Peston: I believe in freedom of speech. I have believed in it since my mother first told me to shut up and added, "If you do not shut up, I shall smack you". I must say, however, that my belief in the freedom of speech is tested to the limit by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. But those things are meant to be tested to the limit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, eventually reached the amendment which is on the Marshalled List, after making a long speech upon which I wish to make a few remarks. This is a sensible amendment. I see no connection between it and academic freedom. I assume that we are entitled to interpret it as coming under Clause 64, as amended by the Minister when he comes forward with some amendments. But, subject to that, it is sensible that such documents should be drawn up and published. Institutions publish annual reports. It would be admirable if they were to publish annual reports about what they think they are doing by way of education, including the quality of the education, It all sounds fine to me. My only caveat is that in those reports the photographs should at least be true to life and should not consist merely of the one student who was wearing a suit or a dress. Photographs of the building should not be taken on the only day of the year upon which it is not raining. What I mean is that it should be an honest annual report.
I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to the amendments, although I guess that he will say, "Why put it on the face of the Bill? I am sure that we can rely upon the funding councils". The spirit of the amendment makes good sense and I see no problems with academic freedom in relation to it.
Let me say on the whole freedom question that I do not believe that freedom is a complex matter. Either
1056
one believes in freedom of speech and freedom of publication, including the freedom of speech of those whose views one finds hateful, or one does not. Those people who try to suppress views that they do not like are mistaken. They are mistaken on other grounds too. I am an optimist. I believe that correct views will out, and I want noble Lords to talk the nonsense that they do. I argue that point with my students when they try to prevent people from speaking on campus. I find such attempts wholly deplorable. I want nonsense to be expressed, so it may be exposed. I believe one should take that position as regards freedom of speech.
I say slightly cynically that I wish Members of the Committee would apply views of that kind to, for example, their friends in the Tory press. They might point out that it is a good rule to give more than one view on a topic. However, I only say that slightly cynically as I know they take the same view themselves.
I believe that the examples given by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are idiosyncratic. They do not apply to the overwhelming majority of cases. It is easy to find cases which may be exaggerated. I would have no difficulty in finding a moderate Left wing economist who would pronounce that every economics course in the country was biased in favour of the market mechanism. He would declare such courses were Right wing and unacceptable. I would argue that such criticism was unacceptable as the speaker did not understand the nature of freedom. I believe the noble Baroness could take a slightly more judicious view of these matters.
I believe the student referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was, to say the least, having the noble Lord on slightly. I could almost certainly find another student on the same course who would give the noble Lord a view at the other extreme. The noble Lord should not be taken in in that way. I am not saying for one moment that there are not courses that are not satisfactory, but the concept of freedom includes the ability to get things wrong. One must face that fact. The concept of freedom includes the ability to make a mess of a course. I might be persuaded occasionally that I have got things wrong, and I am not the only academic who can be persuaded in that way. I did not wish to have a debate on academic freedom at this point. However, I wished to respond to those who have spoken. I wish to support the previous speakers in persuading the Minister that, in my judgment, what they are proposing is neither incompatible with the Bill nor devastating to all the causes of good education we believe in.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has mentioned nearly everything I intended to say so I can make my speech short. I feel bound to say that, although I greatly enjoyed, as I always do, the vigorous and lively speeches of my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the first line of the amendment simply will not do in the light of the discussion that took place in the first hour and a half of the debate this afternoon. If there is to be annual

1057
reporting of the kind envisaged, it should be made to the funding council and not to the Secretary of State. I wonder whether my noble friends have considered that under Clause 66(1) (a) as it stands, a great deal of what they have in mind can already be achieved. It is just a question of how it is done.
Lord Desai: Like my noble friend Lord Peston, I too cannot envisage much of a connection between what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said and the wording of the amendment. I entirely agree with the wording of the amendment. We would be proud to publish reports on the quality of education we provide in universities.
I have written on the subject of Marxism. I might even be called a Marxist economist, at least every other day of the week. I have never considered that the country is terrorised by too much Marxism. Indeed, as has been pointed out, it is hard to find more than about two such people to conduct any examinations in Marxist economics. However, what matters above all is the principle of peer group review. If we are to judge course content, quality of teaching and the selection of examiners, those matters should be judged by the peers of the academics involved. That is an important principle.
If the Secretary of State, the DES or anyone else started to dictate who the examiners should be, whether they be High Keynesians, anarchists, Marxists, or whatever, or if we were told what courses we could or could not teach, that would be the end of academic freedom. Academics have already felt not overt but subtle pressures when we have been told that certain courses are not viable in the marketplace and therefore they should not be taught. I accept that that is not an overt attack on academic freedom but we feel that increasingly economic pressures are being placed on universities—that has been the case for the past 15 years—which make it difficult to teach the kind of courses we have been teaching. I recognise that we are spending public money and that we must be accountable. I ask that the principle of peer group review should be preserved in the context of preserving academic freedom. If we lose that principle, I do not know what will happen.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I hope that my noble friend Lady Cox will tell the Committee whether she feels this amendment and her comments in support of it conflict with the arguments that were deployed in the previous debate in Committee. She and I listened carefully to every word of that debate as it concerned a delicate matter and we must be realistic about it. I hope my noble friend will be able to say whether she feels this amendment conflicts in any way with the view that was expressed by all but one of the speakers in that debate.
Lord Belstead: This is an interesting debate, but we must begin to look at the clock. My noble friends have introduced an amendment with which—the noble Lord, Lord Peston, mentioned this—it is not possible to disagree, irrespective of on which side of the Chamber one sits. The amendment proposes that each
1058
institution should publish its arrangements for monitoring and reporting on the quality of its education and should publish an annual report on that for the appropriate funding council.
I cannot disagree with the general thrust of the amendment. However, I wish to make a point that is similar to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We need to look at the quality assurance provisions in the Bill, both as regards assessment and audit. Those provisions concern the means of achieving scrutiny on the part of external bodies in the public interest. I have no doubt that that aim would be helped by the publication of annual and other reports by institutions. They already publish annual reports. In the interests of not including every provision that we would like to include in the Bill, I believe we must regard this amendment with a quizzical eye. My noble friend Lord Renton referred to Clause 66(1) (a) which provides for assessment facilities. I believe that that goes a long way to satisfying the requirements of my noble friend Lady Cox.
I listened with interest to the example given by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I have no doubt that that example was genuine but—as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said—it was possibly of an idiosyncratic nature. At any rate I trust that such an example would not be found elsewhere. However, I move closer to my noble friend Lord Pearson in saying that it was precisely because there was concern over the kind of example my noble friend gave that the Government decided to introduce the national curriculum and assessment systems in schools, to require in the Citizen's Charter the publication of exam results, and to encourage the production of prospectuses by schools. If a teacher training course arises such as my noble friend described, those who undertake such a course will not last long in the schools of our country where the serious matters of life are taken seriously.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend sits down I should mention that the word "idiosyncratic" has been used by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and—I regret—by my noble friend the Minister. I admit that being in this position is sometimes akin to standing on the shores of Loch Ness and being convinced one has seen the monster. Nevertheless I assure the Committee that, particularly as regards teacher training in this country, the course I have referred to is not as idiosyncratic as should be the case.
Lord Peston: I did not want to intervene, but I must insist on this point. As an academic I have had similar experiences. At my college I have taught graduate students who have had other undergraduate experience and who have said, "Thank goodness we are not being brainwashed any more". I have turned on them in great anger and said, "No, you have had a good economics education by economists I disagree with, but 1 think it has done you some good. Now you are being taught by me as well". I object strongly to the fact that some people whose political views are different from mine cannot distinguish between disagreement and legitimate expression of opinion. I

1059
do not know the case in question, but I say of that particular student that I should be careful about giving such ad hoc examples. That is all I wish to say.
Baroness Cox: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate on these amendments. I am grateful for the support in principle of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
In response to the exchange about the typicality or otherwise of the examples which my noble friend Lord Pearson and I gave, perhaps I may say that in this Chamber we have the benefit of representatives from the very best of academe. It falls to lesser mortals such as myself who have worked in some of the less salubrious areas or who have friends who work in areas where some of those more dubious situations occur and who have had the courage to challenge them, often at great personal cost, to feel it incumbent upon us to raise the issues, which we believe are of deep professional and academic importance and which raise matters of academic freedom.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that censorship on the academy is a serious matter. That has happened. It has happened far too often in this country to be compatible with the principles of a free society. I very much welcomed the reassurances of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the stand which he took when confronted with such a situation. I wish that all our academies and academics had taken that stand. In that case there would have been no academic censorship and the situation would be very much healthier.
I thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his wise advice, from which I always benefit, and I accept it. When I moved the amendment I said that we were not sure that the wording was right and that we were not committed to that wording but wished merely to air the spirit of the amendment.
I should like to assure my noble friend Lady Carnegy, who asked me whether the amendment would be incompatible with the thrust of what was agreed during the debate on the previous amendment, that we see no incompatibility. We are trying to ensure that systematic procedures for quality assurance are generated by the institutions themselves and that the mechanisms and results of those quality assurance procedures will be made available to the funding councils and also to the public, who have a legitimate interest in the matter. Therefore, it is a bottom up rather thin a top down approach. Nevertheless, it relates to the key area of the interface between academic freedom, accountability and academic quality. I1 was in that spirit that we proposed the amendment.
I am grateful for the support in principle from Members of the Committee who have spoken and for the wise advice 1 have received. I can assure my noble friend the Minister that we have no intention of pressing the amendment at this stage, but we may wish to return to the matter with a refined version at the next stage following consultation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 252 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): If Amendment No. 253 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 254, 255 and 266.
[Amendments Nos. 253 to 256 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 257:
Page 46, line 8, at beginning insert, ("Subject to section 66(2A) below").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No.257 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 272, which I understand is consequential upon it.
Lord Belstead: Amendment No. 257 was grouped with Amendment No. 250. Although no one can fetter the noble Earl in what he wishes to do I ask him to recognise that that is the case.
Earl Russell: I should be grateful for some clarification. I saw the provisional groupings on Sunday. Amendment No. 272 stood on its own. That seemed acceptable. I was teaching all morning but when I arrived here today I saw that that arrangement had been altered. I sent a note to the Minister to ask whether I could speak to the amendments together. I heard of no objection and took it that it was acceptable. However, if it is not, I shall move Amendment No. 272 in its place on the Marshalled List.
Lord Belstead: I apologise if I misled the noble Earl when he passed me his note. I should have thought that the amendment should be moved in its place on the Marshalled List. In a sense the group has been dealt with, but I leave it to the noble Earl to do what he thinks best.
Lord Renton: Both of the noble Earl's amendments happen to be simple paving amendments which do not get us anywhere.
Earl Russell: Has the noble Lord, Lord Renton, any advice for me? If he has I shall take it. I shall move the amendment, as I gave notice to the Minister that I would. I agree with the Minister that we have to watch the clock, but for me this is the single most important amendment to the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I take a little time over it.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl so that I know what is happening. Is he speaking to Amendment No. 257 and Amendment No. 272?
Earl Russell: Yes, that is correct. In relation to the amendment I speak also on behalf of your Lordships' petitioners, the students of King's College, who prayed that in any expansion of higher education the quality of degrees be maintained.
When I look at Clause 66, which relates to the quality assessment committee, I am reminded of the 17th century cloth industry. That was a highly cyclical industry which suffered extreme booms and slumps. During slumps unemployment would rise rapidly. The Privy Council, fearing riots, would forbid employers to lay off labour. The employers, whose market had disappeared, would therefore look anxiously for other

1061
methods of cutting costs. The method on which they tended to fasten was reducing quality. They sold the cloth by the yard. The method they regularly used was what was known as "tentering", which involved hanging the cloth from tenterhooks and stretching it so that the amount of cloth which was sold for a yard was a great deal less. The Government, having created the situation which placed the employers under such pressure, then used to submit them to show trials in the Star Chamber.
The Committee will understand why the quality assessment committee, as presently constituted, reminds me of that story for the committee is an umpire which can give only one side out. There are such umpires. I shall not abuse parliamentary privilege by naming them. It would be a mistake to establish one in the Bill.
The central point of the amendment is that it gives the quality assessment committee power to give either side out. Where it observes a decline in quality it is to be given the power by this amendment to decide whether that is or is not the result of a mismatch between the amount of money the Secretary of State has provided and the objectives which he has set for it.
There is a good deal of division of opinion in the academic community about the quality assessment committee. The view is expressed strongly that defining quality is not proper to the Secretary of State. I sympathise profoundly with that view. However, I am not afraid of scrutiny. It appears to me that the threat to university quality comes in the first instance not from direct intervention in the principle of autonomy but from doing the same thing by the rather more effective route of reducing the level of funding and therefore forcing people to take for themselves decisions which they would resist to the death if they were imposed upon them by the Secretary of State. We are regularly—indeed daily—in that position ourselves.
I said last Tuesday in Committee that many of my academic colleagues perceive the gravest threat to quality as being the Secretary of State. I saw in The Times Higher Educational Supplement on Friday that the Secretary of State had chosen to take notice of that. I am glad that he has noticed. I had the impression that I was creating a general surprise in the Chamber when I said that. That perplexed me. I could think of a great many reactions that might have been appropriate—scepticism, dissent and even outrage—but not surprise. That is what we have all been saying for years. If it has not got through, there will have been a real breakdown in communication.
There used to be two among my academic friends who dissented from that view. One of them has changed his mind as a result of this term's unfunded expansion. He is now looking for a non-academic job. So now there is one. People should not have been that surprised. That is the view held by most of the colleagues to whom I talk daily. I ask the Minister in that context—I have given him notice of this question—what is the duty of an academic who believes that he has a choice between voting for the closure of his institution and reducing the quality of the degree that
1062
he has to offer? Many of my friends believe that they face such a choice. Clearly, the Government do not wish us to take either of those options, but, if we believe that there is no other left, we must take one of them. We are entitled to ask which of them the Secretary of State finds less offensive.
In 1985 during university finals, a letter appeared in the Independent from an academic unknown to me, saying in effect, "This year's graduates will have received an education of approximately the quality that we were used to before 1979. They are probably the last year of which that will be true". That seemed to me at the time to be just about right, and it still does. Since 1985, with the squeeze on funding, there has been a steady but at first slow decline in the quality of the degree and this term, with unfunded expansion, there appears to have been a positively precipitous decline. Indeed it seems to be very near the point of no return. All that appears to me and to every colleague with whom I have discussed the matter to be the result of the pressure on unit costs.
I should explain what I mean when I talk about quality. In the first place, I talk of the union of teaching and research. The Secretary of State is mistaken if he thinks that undergraduates do not want that. Those who are concerned with academic freedom are mistaken if they think that it is not essential to quality. As recently as last Friday I was listening to a first-year undergraduate explaining to me with great courtesy why he thought that my book had thrown out the baby with the bath-water. I think that he learnt something out of that process and I am certain that I did. That is part of what I mean when I talk about quality.
When I talk about quality I also mean that teaching must involve a meeting of minds. That means that it must take place in a group small enough for a meeting of minds to be possible. Perhaps I may give an example of why that is so important. I was once listening to an essay on the causes of inflation in the 16th century which, although it sounded a little pompous, appeared to have got on top of the subject. But, listening to it further, I got the smell of reading the brief. The person concerned talked about the circulating medium at great length. I asked him what the circulating medium was and received the reply of disarming frankness, "I haven't the first idea. It's all Greek to me". If I had simply had that essay in front of me on paper, I should have had to give it some kind of second-class mark. It was only by the individual contact and the power of conversation that I was able to find out that that was not the case.
The pressure to reduce unit costs means the pressure to increase teaching groups and to make that kind of encounter more difficult. It means a reduction in the amount of work done. According to a survey published in the Independent two weeks ago, 25 per cent. of undergraduates are now doing jobs during full term. Almost every university in the country is now discussing how far it can, without loss of quality, reduce the number of essays that it requires from students. There is at least the possibility that that may threaten the quality. There is the certainty that it will do so in a case about which I was told last weekend

1063
involving a university department which is considering the possibility of making attendance at all its undergraduate teaching voluntary. Does that shed any light on why I have some doubt whether the money spent on battery higher education is worth the expenditure?
We have talked many times about books. People do not realise the scale of the problem. It is not simply a matter of occasional inconvenience. It is sometimes a matter of sheer basic inability to do the work. I was recently told about another university which has established the rule that people taking out books, which may be up to 400 pages long, may have them only from 9 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. on one day. That is not a quality way of reading a book. Education must involve a critical reading of conflicting written accounts and you must draw the line at the point at which that disappears.
The fundamental point here is that we have a classic distorted market. The Secretary of State quite properly controls the amount that he spends, but he also controls the decision as to how much that money shall buy. That is not a proper decision for him. It creates a distorted market quite as much as the market in Russian airlines and, if we are not careful, it will end up in the same kind of mess. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The noble Earl has given us a wide-ranging insight into aspects of problems in the education system which he has clearly prepared with great care. I am sure that we are grateful that the fruit of his preparations was not lost to us.
As the number of students in the higher education sector increases, we may all worry that there is a risk that quality may not be maintained or may be diminished. It might be helpful if some provision in the Bill would allow attention to be focused on that issue, but the amendment tabled by the noble Earl is not entirely practicable. He asks the quality assessment committee to monitor whether the resources made available by the Secretary of State to the funding councils are sufficient for their purpose. It might haw: been an interesting amendment to suggest an insertion into the Bill for some body—a committee or council—to have that function, but, after all, the quality assessment committee is to be set up by the funding council and, according to the usual convention, it should therefore report to the funding council.
Moreover, provision is made in Amendment No. 272 that all reports by the quality assessment committee should be published. I can well see the merit of advocating that the quality assessment committee should produce reports of a certain kind which should indeed be published. But we must assume that the quality assessment committee on occasion will want to make to the funding council confidential reports which will be personal and critical of the level of quality in certain departments. It may wish to indicate in personal terms some of the reasons why that quality is not what it might be. Clearly such reports should not be published if they are to be framed with the candour that would be useful to the funding council.
I feel great sympathy with the noble Earl's
1064
observations. I understand that he is rightly concerned about the risks of reduction in personal contact if the unit of resource is diminished. However, I feel that it might be more appropriate to set up a mechanism by which the unit of resource could be in some manner reviewed. But this is too heavy a burden to put upon the quality assessment committee as it is framed within the context of the Bill.
6 p.m.
Lord Desai: I support the spirit in which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, moved the amendment. As a practising academic I have no doubt in my mind that over the past 10 years the quality of education that we provide has declined. I am sorry to say so, but it has declined.
It strikes me that there is a paradox. The public at large have not understood a very simple proposition. Perhaps the unit of resource used by the universities—that is the only system that I know—was thought to be rather high; but people did not see the quality of the output. At the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out that when Professor Robin Marris examined the quality of output in relation to the cost, he found that the university system funded on the old rules (somewhat more generous than they are now) was a highly productive system and that cutting the money would make it less productive.
It is a false economy to believe that to cut the unit of resource in higher education will improve matters. Yes, it would save money; but it is false economics to consider only the money spent and not take into account the quality of output obtained. At the time I pointed out that I am teaching twice as many tutees as I did when I first came to this country. I support what the noble Earl said. I see less of them and speak less to them; and they have no time to talk to me.
We shall end up with the Continental system of education: not much money spent, lots of students, ostensibly undertaking higher education, but far fewer of them finishing that education and a large degree of wastage. The quality of education will be poor. The students will take much longer to finish. That is what will happen. When people say that they want to look at quality, they mean that they want to minimise the amount of money spent, regardless of the quality of output.
The noble Earl talks in paragraph (d) of Amendment No. 272 about:
"the likely effects of any terms and conditions imposed by the Council … on the quality of education".
Unless we examine that question, we are heading towards a situation in which the universities will not only be as poorly funded as the polytechnics have been in the past 15 years but they will be funded as are the Continental universities and we shall lose the one critical edge that we have, which is the production of high quality graduates.
Lord Renton: I must apologise to the noble Earl, and do so gladly, for saying that the two amendments were paving amendments. The truth is that I misheard him. I thought that he referred to Amendment No. 273 whereas he spoke of Amendment No. 272. I agree

1065
very much with my noble friend Lord Renfrew on Amendment No. 273. I should like to add that Clause 66 (1) (b) states that:
"Each council shall … establish a committee, to be known as the 'Quality Assessment Committee', with the function of giving them advice".
In the amendment we find that the committee is to report to the Secretary of State and Parliament on various matters concerning the work of the funding council; in other words, the noble Earl wishes the quality assessment committee to become a watchdog instead of an advisory committee.
The noble Earl nods his head in agreement. That would be a fundamental change and one which would require very careful consideration by this Chamber and especially by the Government. I should not have thought that the amendment could be made as an addition to Clause 66, as that clause stands at the moment. However, in any event, although I understand and to a great extent agree with the views expressed by the noble Earl about improving the quality of legislation—that is what everyone is trying to do—I am doubtful about having that body in effect to report to politicians, the Secretary of State and Parliament.
I believe that it is much better that the people who are given the statutory responsibility—the funding councils which are responsible to the Secretary of State who, in his turn, is responsible to Parliament—should act in the way envisaged by the Bill and not in the direct way suggested by the noble Earl's amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I should like to return briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and challenge one or two of the assumptions that he made. Although there is a limiting point at which the funding per student in higher education becomes too low to preserve quality, we are a very long way from that point. Nor is the direct relationship which the noble Lord suggested between a diminishing unit of resource and the quality of higher education at all proven. Indeed, it would be most unfortunate for the generation of graduates of the past few years should this House go on record as believing that they were of any lower quality than any of their predecessors. It would be no justice either to them or to the teachers who worked hard to teach them.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I did not say that the students were of lower quality but that the education that they were receiving was of lower quality.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank the noble Earl for his interruption. It was the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who mentioned that the quality of education had declined in the past few years.
Lord Desai: I did not say that the quality of students had declined; I referred to the quality of the education that we are providing.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: The Committee will forgive me but I believe that if the quality of the
1066
students' education has declined, that must say something about the quality of the graduates. Otherwise, why are we in the business of educating them? In that case the education that we give them bears no relation to the quality of output. I find that a very strange thesis.
I should like also to take issue with the comparison made with our Continental counterparts. It would be extremely arrogant if we in this country were to claim that our graduates were somehow innately superior to the graduates of our European partners. They have produced a magnificent record both in their scholarship and their contribution to the economy. To say that our higher education system is moving in the direction of the European system might indeed be considered a compliment rather than a criticism.
Lord Beloff: I am afraid that the noble Baroness mistakes the point made by the two noble Lords opposite. It is not a matter of the merit of the graduates produced by either system. Because most of the students who begin also graduate, our system is economically and socially superior to a system in which every young person registers at a university and intermittently attends it without ever graduating. It is a point about the economics of education. It is no reflection on the product of Continental systems which we all know and admire.
Lord Belstead: I understand from the noble Earl's amendment, Amendment No. 272, that he is asking the quality assessment committee to monitor whether resources are efficient in various different ways—there are about five indents to the amendment. My noble friend Lord Renfrew was right in his intervention. There will be scope, through the publication of quality assessment reports and quality audit reports, for quality to be monitored.
Unit costs and the relationship between funding and quality are reviewed each year as part of the public expenditure survey, with all the external advice which is offered and all the reporting that goes on when the announcement is made.
The noble Earl was good enough—I thank him—to give me notice of the specific question that he would ask about the straight choice, as he sees it, between lowering standards of a degree and closure of a college. I do not accept that that choice faces a university. Without being boring about it, public funding for higher education is at record levels. The latest settlement gives the Universities Funding Council £144 million more in fee income and capital in recurrent grant for 1992–93 than the estimated out-turn in 1991–92.
One could go on about it, but I bring the matter to a conclusion by saying that available recurrent funding for the two sectors in 1993–94 and 1994–95 will be £4.2 billion and £4.4 billion-17 per cent. and 22 per cent. more than they were in 1991–92.
Earl Russell: With respect, I did not ask the Minister to accept that the choice faces any academic. I did not ask for miracles. I asked the correct course of conduct for an academic who, rightly or wrongly, believes himself to be facing such a choice.
Lord Belstead: The answer is to consider the facts which I give the noble Earl. The fact is that universities are enrolling more students than ever, thus indicating their confidence that they have spare capacity. I realise that there are those who believe that more always means worse. However, HMI has reported that the quality of education in polytechnics and colleges, where growth in student numbers has been more rapid than in universities, has been maintained and advanced. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Desai, protesting that it is easy to say these things from this Box. However, the noble Earl has to explain why, in the light of the figures that I have given him, he believes that that choice faces a particular academic.
Earl Russell: I am happy to do so. The unit of resource per student since 1984 has fallen by 12 per cent. There is, I admit, more money. However, the number of students grows above that proportion—and that is what the Secretary of State means by efficiency!
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for his support. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Desai, for the point they both made about the Continental system. I agree with them both. My college teaches, either on a visiting basis or on a more permanent basis, large numbers of students from countries in the European Community. Many of those students have told me that they have come to the college precisely because the quality of teaching that they receive is so much better than that available to them in their own countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested that we continue the system envisaged in the Bill. If I had believed that that system had shown the least sign of working effectively I would not have put down what I agree with him is a rather unusual amendment. However, I believe what I said about the decline in quality having been precipitous this term. I speak on the matter from personal experience. We cannot simply wait and allow a mechanism which has failed many times to continue to do so.
I listened with a great deal of care to the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew and Lord Renton, about the technicalities of the amendment. I confess that I am not wedded to every detail of the drafting of the amendment. However, my objective in putting it forward in this way is to find a body to which one can appeal in which the Secretary of State has expressed confidence. That was precisely the advantage to me of the attraction of the quality assessment committee. The Secretary of State cannot say that this is a packed jury. It is a jury in which the Secretary of State has expressed confidence and to whose finding, therefore, he should be prepared to listen.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said about the possibility of constructing an alternative mechanism for a review of a unit of resource. If the noble Lord were to offer to get together with me before Report stage to draft such an amendment and to find ways of picking a body which the Secretary of State would accept, I would not press the matter to a Division. If he can find a better way of
1068
doing that, I shall listen. I have not found a better way. The matter must be accomplished in one way or another.
The Minister spoke of spare capacity. I have had discussions in many places in the past two weeks where expansion has already reached a point which is illegal under the Factories Act 1961. If the noble Lord speaks of spare capacity he is giving an incentive to break the law. I thought that that could only be done on Sundays!
We referred to books. I was told today of an institution in London where the teachers have taken the books into protective custody. They allow them out only to selected students whom they trust to look after them. That is a degree of unfair advantage that I do not believe we should accept. I heard of another institution which has given up teaching from books. That is the point at which we should draw the line. Where that happens we should recommend closure. Rather than wait until that point, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
6.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 257) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Avebury, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mayhew, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Desai, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Grimond, L.

Zuckerman, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Aldington, L.

Denham, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Annan, L.

Elles, B.

Arran, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Astor, V.

Elton, L.

Auckland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Flather, B.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bethell, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blatch, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Blyth, L.

Harrowby, E.

Boardman, L.

Henley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Holderness, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Butterworth, L.

Howe, E.

Caithness, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Limerick, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Long, V.

Cox, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Dainton, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

1069

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Macfarlane of Beardsden, L.

Renton, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Renwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Rodney, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Albans, Bp.

Mancroft, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Marlesford, L.

Sharples, B.

Merrivale, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Milverton, L.

Stockton, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mountevans, L.

Swansea, L.

Munster, E.

Swinfen, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Teviot, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nelson, E.

Trumpington, B.

Newall, L.

Ullswater, V.

Norrie, L.

Vivian, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Waddington, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Warnock, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wharton, B.

Pender, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Wise, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wynford, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.25 p.m.
[Amendment No. 258 not moved.]
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Supplementary functions]:
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 46, line 19, after ("require") insert ("and in such manner as he may determine, and").
The noble Lord said: Recently we have heard a great deal about quality assessment and how it should be dealt with. At the end of the day the funding councils will proffer to the Secretary of State any observations which arise from their experience of assessment if the quality of higher education is diminishing. My amendment is intended to liberate the councils so that they may offer advice of any kind in any form that they wish.
Clause 65 states that each funding council:
"shall provide the Secretary of State with such information or advice … as he may from time to time require",
and in the form in which he requires it. The clause further states:
"Each council … may provide the Secretary of State with such information or advice relating to such provision as they think fit".
However, it does not state that it should be in the manner that each council thinks fit. My amendment is intended to make it possible for the councils to proffer such advice in any manner that appears reasonable to them.
The obvious point is that the Secretary of State cannot know the precise form in which the information or advice from the funding councils should come forward if he is not the originator. It is right that when seeking advice or information on particular matters the Secretary of State should prescribe the form that that should take. However, I submit that if there were such a degree of freedom on the part of the councils they could raise any matter which appeared to them to be germane and necessary to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State.
I hope that the Government will give favourable consideration to the amendment. It will free up the system in the manner that I have described and enable an easy interchange between the Secretary of State and the funding councils in both directions. That is the sole purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I support the amendment which is also tabled in my name. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has put forward the main points and I wish to add only two. First, anyone who has had any experience of the government machine would wish to see the provision as a possibility without necessarily encouraging the councils continually to take such action.
Secondly, I believe that the addition of the words in the amendment will solve the problem about which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was so exercised; that is, about unitary resource, total resource and so forth. I notice that the noble Earl is not present in the Chamber. However, under such a heading the councils might feel obliged to say to the Secretary of State, "We do not believe that the financial problems of the institutions with which we are dealing are being tackled properly on your side". They will also be able to say that in public.
This amendment appears to be a more satisfactory way of dealing with the problem. I hope that the Government will take it seriously. It is not a matter that can be taken for granted. It is an amendment which, correctly, should appear on the face of the Bill; those words should certainly be there.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: Both the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Peston, are persuasive in the way in which the amendment is tabled and supported.
Clause 65(1) preserves the balance struck after considerable debate in your Lordships' Chamber in 1988 in providing for a free flow of advice to the Secretary of State from the funding councils, but for the Secretary of State to be the final arbiter as to the manner in which the advice is conveyed. The amendments seek to alter that balance.
A successful partnership between the councils and the Secretary of State must be based on mutual confidence. There will certainly be some examples of advice which is properly made public. But in other cases it will be sensible for advice to remain confidential.
The report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Croham, was surely correct in its analysis of the role of an intermediary funding body such as the higher education funding council. The committee rightly said that the Government need independent advice on policy objectives, on the capabilities of higher education institutions and their capacity to meet those objectives, on the level of funding which would be required, and on the consequences for higher education of different levels of funding. It is precisely that sort of independent advice which the funding councils are equipped to provide.
But the committee went on to say that,
"Any advisory body will retain the Government's confidence only so long as it is seen to be both competent and

1071
independent; its usefulness vanishes if it acts, or is thought to act, as a stalking horse for special interests … In the political sense of lobbying, petitioning for public funds and seeking to influence public opinion, it is for higher education institutions, individually and collectively, to make their case".
I do not think that the difference between political lobbying and independent and objective advice can be exaggerated. Both have a role to play in the annual consideration of higher education funding. Giving the funding councils discretion over whether to publish their advice would inevitably mean pressure from institutions to do so. That, in turn, would inevitably place the councils in the position of having to justify to the institutions either why they did not propose to publish the advice or the nature of that advice if it was published. In the latter case, the advice would be bound to be affected. I believe that the funding councils welcomed the protection from lobbying that the Education Reform Act provisions gave them, and I suspect that their advice has been more effective for that.
Clause 65(1) strikes the right balance between the responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the funding councils, whereas Amendments Nos. 259, 260, 262 and 263 would upset that balance. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for sounding trenchant on the issue. But on behalf of the Government I feel that in this case the amendment is not acceptable.
Lord Dainton: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, introduced the word "publishing" which I refrained quite deliberately from using. I always envisaged that, as in my time as chairman of the University Grants Committee, 90 per cent. of the advice—indeed I cannot recall 1 per cent. myself—to the then Secretary of State (and I believe I served three) was proffered by the funding council, if one can call the UGC that, on a non—publishable basis, unless the Secretary of State declared otherwise. Therefore the question of publication is a red herring.
I find quite shocking the suggestion that a funding council should be a lobbying device. Its duty is not that of a lobbyist; its duty is, as part of the machinery of government, to do the job laid down in whatever Bill ultimately becomes an Act. I cannot accept the notion that it is a lobbying body and I hope that we will clear our minds of that. It is obscuring the straight issue in front of us; that is, that the flow of information and advice between the Secretary of State and the funding councils, in both directions, shall be on the basis of complete trust on either side so that nothing shall be lost for reasons of lack of trust or the feeling that one partner is able to constrain the advice and the form of it which it receives from the other. That is the simple point at issue.
Lord Belstead: I apologise to the noble Lord if I have got the wrong end of the stick. As I read Amendment No. 260,—it is talking about the power—when it says information and advice shall be provided "in such manner" as the funding councils think right, it presumably means, among other things, to decide either to publish or not to publish.
Lord Dainton: Of course that must come within it. Presumably the same applies to the Secretary of State. But I doubt whether the power would be used by either side. In the light of what the noble Lord said I find it difficult to withdraw the amendment and therefore will not do so. I beg to move.
6.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 259) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 67; Not-Contents 89.

Division NO.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Adrian, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Annan, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Beloff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Carter, L.[Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nicol, B.

Dainton, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Sherfield, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollick, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Warnock, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wharton, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Astor, V.

Elton, L.

Auckland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Bauer, L.

Flather, B.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bessborough, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bethell, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Harrowby, E.

Blyth, L.

Haslam, L.

Borthwick, L.

Henley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Brentford, V.

Holderness, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howe, E.

Butterworth, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Limerick, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Lyell, L.

Colnbrook, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Craigmyle, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Denham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

1073

Marlesford, L.

Renton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Renwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Rodney, L.

Milverton, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Mottistone, L.

Sharples, B.

Mountevans, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Munster, E.

Stockton, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Nelson, E.

Swinfen, L.

Newall, L.

Teviot, L.

Norrie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Trumpington, B.

Pender, L.

Ullswater, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Vivian, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wise, L.

Reay, L.

Wynford, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.43 p.m.
[Amendment No. 260 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before calling Amendment No. 261 I must inform the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 262 or 263.
[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 262 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 263.
[Amendment No. 262 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 263 and 263A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 264 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 265 not moved.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Assessment of quality of education provided by institutions]:
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 47, line 13, after ("shall") insert ("following consultations with the organisations representing higher education institutions").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 297. Clause 66 deals with the duty of the funding council to make provision for assessing the quality of education in institutions which they fund. As the previous debate made clear, the assessment of quality is a matter of great importance to the health of the higher education system, to the freedom of academics within it and to the aspirations which students in the wider community have as regards the nature of teaching and research in higher education. I welcome the consultation which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already undertaken with higher education institutions about quality assurance and the plans for auditing the quality assessment. Amendment No. 266 asks for an assurance that this consultation will continue and specifically will take place in relation to the detailed arrangements for the assessment of quality in individual institutions.
Amendment No. 297 relates to the provision in Clause 78 of reserve powers for the Secretary of State for the assessment of the arrangements for quality assurance within institutions. I find it reasonable that
1074
such reserve powers should be available to the Secretary of State as a last resort, if there were evidence that existing alternative arrangements had broken down. However, again, I seek reassurance that, before such powers are used, appropriate consultation will take place with the higher education institutions. In the light of the length of the debate so far, it is not my intention to press the amendment, but I ask for that reassurance from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I wish to support Amendment No. 266. It seems to me desirable to continue a practice that has been going on for some years that the CVCP and the CDP should be consulted on these matters. In future, we expect there to be a single organisation representing higher education institutions. We on this side of the Committee hope that consultation on these matters will take place with whatever the organisation may be.
Baroness David: As my name is on Amendment No. 297, I wish to express my support for the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Lord Belstead: The difficulty with Amendment No. 266 is that it would focus the scope of consultation on the handful of organisations which represent further education institutions. My understanding is that the practice of both the UFC and the PCFC has been to consult each and every institution on major policy issues before reaching a view. In that way the voice of the smallest as well as the largest, the minority as well as the majority, is registered and considered. I think that the new funding councils would want to carry out a similar widespread consultation process with all institutions on the procedures for quality assessment.
The voice of the institutions will also be heard by virtue of subsection (2) of this clause which requires that the majority of the members of the quality assessment committee will be experienced people from higher education institutions. Therefore, the PCFC and UFC are already involving representations from institutions in arranging pilot assessments in universities, polytechnics and colleges next year. At each level of decision making, institutions will be fully involved, therefore. I hope that that is a reassurance, although I resist the amendment.
I am a little unsure of my ground on the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that it had been normal practice in the past for the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the CDP always to be consulted. I wish to take advice on that and perhaps write to the noble Baroness. If there is something which we or I have got wrong and on which I should have given a different reply, I shall write to the noble Baroness and also to my noble friend Lady Perry.
In addition my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 297, the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, being attached to that amendment. That is covered. The only circumstances in which the Secretary of State will use his reserve power to issue a direction to the funding councils to establish quality audit arrangements is if for some reason the institution's own efforts

1075
fail. I know that very considerable efforts are being made at the present time. If that were to happen—it is very unlikely to come to pass—consultations with the institution would have already taken place to establish that failure had occurred and the reasons for it. There would be no point in having a statutory requirement for yet more consultations. I hope that the noble Baronesses will not think that I am in any way brushing the matter aside. It is important, but I believe that it is covered by what will happen in real life.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply and for his assurance that the practice of consultation with the individual institutions and, as is currently the case, with the bodies representing the institutions, will continue. In the light of my noble friend's reply I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 47, line 18, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
("(b) establish such expert competent committees as they think fit to give them advice on the discharge of their duty under paragraph (a) above and such other functions as may be remitted to the committees").
The noble Lord said: We have already heard a very great deal about Clause 66 and the assessment of quality. It has been a theme running through our debate. Curiously enough, the aim of my amendment is not to oppose what the Government propose in the sense of insisting that in the Bill there should be something which refers to quality assessment. On the contrary, it is to strengthen the means by which that should be done. I attach enormous importance to the maintenance of quality, as I imagine do all Members of the Committee and the Secretary of State. The poorer the information available to a council on this score the lower will be the quality of its decisions.
Moreover, the range of educational activities of any higher educational institution is now so vast that I do not believe that any single committee such as that specified in Clause 66(1) (b) could, unaided, possibly arrive at reliable judgments on the relative educational qualities of different institutions. What is needed are several committees of the council, each dealing with a major faculty area—for example, medicine, dentistry, the arts, humanities, science, engineering and so forth—and each acquiring information from every university possessing such a faculty and meeting the representatives of the universities, including students, at each university.
As I know from experience, this is very sensitive work requiring vast experience and the good judgment of knowledgeable people who are respected—that is enormously important—by those with whom they have to deal and who can penetrate the mass of opinions, statistical and quasi-numerical data with which they will be confronted and perceive the inwardness of opinions and data and thereby arrive at sound judgments.
The councils will need those judgments not just once in a single quality assessment but will need them to be available to inform many of their decisions whether concerned with general policy matters or, and most importantly, with resource allocation. I do not
1076
see how the councils can possibly succeed in their duty or command the respect of the universities without such a strong committee infrastructure. One quality assessment committee alone cannot possibly suffice. Many committees are necessary; hence the need for this amendment. I commend it to the Committee.
Ideally, and in order to ensure the closest possible connection between the council and its committees, the chairman of a subject committee should be a member of the council. However, I recognise that however important the principle, the small size of the committees, limited to between 12 and 15 members of the council, may preclude that from always being the case. For that reason I did not extend the amendment to include the point. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My name is attached to the amendment. There are two things I want to say. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, but I am not certain that he will agree with what I shall add although he cannot be held responsible for the remarks that I make. As a matter of good practice it seems that the noble Lord is entirely right in what he says and that the amendment is also right. The correct statement to be on the face of the Bill is contained in the amendment; namely, that the council shall set up all such committees as it thinks will help it discharge its job. I have no difficulty with that at all, and that is why I am glad to support the amendment.
I wish to take the opportunity to express my doubts about the particular role given in the Bill to the quality assessment committee. That is not because I do not believe that quality is important, quite the contrary! My doubts arise, first, because the implication seems to be that somehow the universities have failed in the past as regards quality. Why is this committee being put forward? Is it because we have not met the quality standards required? The Government cannot have it both ways. Only a few moments ago they argued, in attacking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that there has been no decline in quality and that there is no resource problem. The same point was made to my noble friend Lord Desai.
If there has been no decline in quality why are we suddenly being directed to that subject? I can only say tartly that perhaps the Government themselves know that their own future policies will lead to the danger of falling quality and that they had better see to it that a committee is set up to prevent that. I do not believe that the central quality assessment committee is the way to ensure quality. As I have argued before, the people who assure quality are the academics who teach in the institutions. They do not need to have committees to tell them about such things or to prompt them to deliver the quality of higher education that is required.
There is a difference between saying that quality is important—I am certainly happy about setting up the relevant set of committees and the funding councils asking them questions about quality—and the Government or more generally outsiders and taxpayers believing that the setting up of a committee of this kind achieves anything in the way of quality. To believe that is not to understand how any institution works let alone a higher institution.

1077
My final point is a party political one. My view and that of my noble friends is that what is absolutely vital in quality assessment is that it should be undertaken by an independent body. One of the reasons why I had some difficulty with the earlier amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that I wish the quality assessment body to be independent of the body that deals with resources. I want an outside and independent body to say that something has gone wrong or, more to the point, that higher education teachers in both the existing and the new universities are having enormous difficulties in delivering quality because of the pressures put on them. I want that undertaken as an independent exercise.
I emphasise that that is a party political point. It is the view of my own party and that of my noble friends. It is not the view of the Government. That is why I was very careful to say that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, would not necessarily agree with everything I said. I do not want that to detract from the merits of the amendment as it stands. I simply thought that Members of the Committee would like to know where I and my noble friends stand on these matters.
Lord Annan: I am sure that the noble Lord remembers how these expert committees arose. When Sir Edward Parkes was chairman of the University Grants Committee, for the first time he really had to make some decisions about priorities between universities. He had to say that certain universities should have their grants cut and others should perhaps have their grants augmented. There was a furore. As a result, his successor, Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, as I remember, set up expert committees to, as it were, rank departments in all universities and say how they stood in relation to each other. That was a defence which the UGC had to make so that it retained the confidence of the universities.
The committees made their reports and again there was a furore. It was argued that this department had been totally underestimated; that that department was living entirely on its past and that anyone who knew about these matters realised that it was on a downhill path and so on and so forth. Two or three years later Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer did the exercise again. It bore a remarkable resemblance to the one before it. This time there was comparatively little dissent. He could not have made the allegation that he did without the advice of those expert bodies. However, it was not one body which was there, as it were, to put a facade before the public. These were expert bodies composed of people whom everyone respected. Pretty well all the academics were respected by their peers. I should like to ask the noble Lord why the Government have decided that the system which was used successfully by Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer is to be replaced by something which has no possible hope of success unless it reproduces the same system as a series of sub-committees?
7 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When my noble friend the Minister speaks on this amendment I should like him to tell me whether Clause 6 as it stands would enable the funding councils, United Kingdom-wide, to have a common assessment of quality and, if it does not, whether the amendment would help. I spoke about this at Second Reading. I know that the principals of the universities and colleges in Scotland are anxious that it should be possible to make a common assessment of quality so that quality does not vary too much across the United Kingdom. I wonder whether this amendment may be one way of achieving that in specific areas. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, probably knows the answer to that. I am sure my noble friend does, too.
Lord Dainton: Perhaps I may respond now to the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 295 is directed, among other things, to enabling funding councils in Wales, Scotland and England to combine, if they wish, in exercises of this kind by appointing the same person.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: So the noble Lord's amendment would not preclude that.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Clearly assessment will be of great importance in the new system. Many of us would acknowledge that that is necessary while not welcoming the enormous amount of labour that it will involve both for the universities and for the committee structure that is set up. It might be argued that the clauses in the Bill relating to assessment are perhaps more concise than one might have anticipated in the light of the considerable attention devoted to the subject in the White Paper where the quality audit unit is explicitly spoken of which is different from the quality assessment committee. I was a little surprised not to see the relationship between these two bodies more clearly set out in the Bill.
I have a specific question to ask the Minister. I rather suspect that given the emphasis on assessment the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton—although I am happy with the sense of it—may scarcely be necessary. I assume that a quality assessment committee would indeed set up sub-committees in the various subject areas. I believe that it is useful to have a quality assessment committee which will regulate the work of those sub-committees. One would not want different sub-committees or different committees going off in different directions, as it were, without some unity in their approach. It makes perfect sense to me to have a hierarchical system with the quality assessment committee, as the Bill proposes, with its subcommittees very much along the line suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. However, I am not sure that it makes sense to demolish the quality assessment committee, as his amendment proposes, and set up a multiplicity of other committees. I believe that a central committee with subcommittees would be the ideal arrangement.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to confirm that the quality assessment committee will

1079
be in a position to set up sub-committees that would operate much as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, suggests.
Lord Annan: May I ask why tier upon tier is necessary
Lord McCarthy: I intervene now because this is the first opportunity we have of asking the Government what they mean by quality. I understand what the Government might mean by standards—maintaining and improving standards—and I understand what the Government might mean by ranking universities in order of excellence, but what is a "quality" committee?
In the world outside academe total quality management is a "buzz" phrase. Everybody is after total quality management. It is a new word for a new form of participation by small groups consulting small numbers of people. It is all very Japanese. It is very fashionable. I cannot think that that is what the Government mean, so why do they call it a quality committee?
Earl Russell: On behalf of these Benches I should like to support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, is quite right. Quality assessment is a more expert matter than many suppose. What the noble Lord is much too modest to tell the Committee himself was that the system described is one he worked when chairman of the University Grants Committee. I still remember as a junior lecturer being ushered in, much in awe, before him. It worked very well and since it ceased to operate decisions have much more often been made in ignorance than they were before.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I should like to support the amendment. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, may I comment upon the fact that in my view it will be the responsibility of the higher education funding council to ensure that the quality of education provided throughout the higher education sector is sufficient and indeed of a very high standard.
A few years ago, in a notable lecture, Professor Ralf Dahrendorf talked about professional self-regulation. He said that professional self-regulation was one of the glories of a free, learned and civilised society. He pointed out that in his view the alternative regulation of professional activity and education by the state was fearful. He spoke with some authority having been, as he then was, a German citizen and having seen the effects of the regulation of professional activity by the state.
Certainly my belief is that the universities and other higher education institutions of this country have increasingly in recent years embarked upon what some call audit, some call quality assurance and others call performance review. It is vital that all such institutions embark upon such activity not only in order to examine their own procedures but to ensure that they are producing the highest standard of education which this country and its people deserve. Having made that point, I believe that there must be—as the Government suggest—an arbiter to examine those
1080
institutions which may be achieving high standards and those which may be falling below the standards that the country expects of them.
My anxiety is, as also pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that a single quality assessment committee, answerable only to the higher education funding council in question, simply could not conceivably undertake the task that this Bill as it stands would remit to it. For that reason I support the amendment. It will clearly be necessary to have a range of committees examining the subject areas throughout the whole sector of higher education. I believe that it would then be unnecessary to interpose between those subject committees a single quality assessment committee and the higher education funding council. I believe that they should report directly to the higher education funding councils in question. For that reason I warmly support this amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: From the other side of the binary line I should also like to support the concept of this amendment. In the CNAA we certainly found it essential to have, first, subject committees and then, later, widening more generally into faculty committees. It is very hard to see how the work of the quality assessment committee—or possibly the quality audit unit—could work without splitting itself into subject or faculty committees.
Depending on the final shape of the quality audit unit, and how it organised itself, it might be that the quality assessment unit could actually rely on and refer to the faculty or subject committee set up by the quality audit unit. However, that remains to be seen. I can certainly say from my experience that one needs expert people in the subjects concerned who are respected by their peers throughout the system.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked whether there was a definition of what we mean by quality assessment. Of course there is no absolute definition—certainly not in the Bill. However, we are talking about quality audit, by which is meant scrutiny of institutions' own internal systems. We are talking about process, the quality of teaching and learning, its management and organisation and accommodation and equipment; and we are talking about output. There will be statistical indicators in these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked why the Government had suddenly alighted on quality assessment. Clause 66 of the Bill places on the funding councils the duty of securing assessment. We believe that the quality assessment responsibility should lie with the funding councils because it is they who have the duty to secure that money is spent where it can achieve the best results. As we have already discussed, the councils will be advised by essentially independent committees on how they should exercise their responsibilities and the actual assessments would be carried out by experts.
That leads me to the amendment and to how one does this. I realise from what has been said that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has great experience of this matter. Perhaps I may set out briefly how the Government feel. The assessments will need to be

1081
carried out by experts in their field. They must include full-time professional staff with suitable academic backgrounds. Assessors will be recruited initially in part from staff with responsibility for higher education in the inspectorate, of which a proportion has a background mainly in the university sector. The remainder of the staff of the units will be recruited mainly from the academic world. In addition to permanent staff, the councils would be free to make arrangements for bringing in experts at particular times for particular purposes.
The Bill is deliberately non-prescriptive—this is the difficulty so far as concerns the noble Lord—about how the councils should fulfil their role of securing arrangements for assessment. But they can certainly set up sub-committees in subject areas, the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. Under the Bill as drafted they can do so. But having said that the Bill is deliberately non-prescriptive about how the councils should fulfil their role, the Bill is rightly prescriptive about there being quality assessment committees, comprising a majority of institutional representatives to advise on those arrangements. How those committees are constituted will be a matter for the funding councils, which will want to consult institutions. But securing an institutional voice in this way is the paramount requirement. If, over time, further committees or sub-committees are felt to be necessary, the funding councils will be perfectly at liberty to establish them. And that is how it should be as the duty to establish proper mechanisms for carrying out assessment rests with the councils.
I find this difficult, possibly because I do not know enough about it, but what I am trying to say is that the Government are wary about setting up in statute what could become a huge bureaucratic structure. That is why Clause 66 as drafted facilitates a variety of possible approaches to assessment, with a core staff employed by the council but with a range of alternatives available to the council as advised by the quality assessment committee if that is considered necessary. Undoubtedly there will be areas—shortage areas—where the funding councils will have to make the proper arrangements for proper advice. I know that that sounds a little as though we are advancing without preplanning but I say quite openly to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that it is because we are wary of setting up in statute what could be a large bureaucratic structure when we feel that the councils should be at least able to decide how they should plan this themselves that I do not support the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can clarify the point made by his noble friend about sub-committees, a point with which I have considerable sympathy. Is he prepared to say whether he approves of sub-committees? The clause states that the committee—the one committee—will have the function,
"of giving them advice on the discharge of their duty under paragraph (a) above".
1082
One Member of the Committee said that he would prefer the committee to report direct to the council. That is somewhat different. As I understand the position, a number of sub-committees would have to report to the main committee. It would put its own interpretation on those reports, add to them or subtract from them before reporting to the council. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether he approves—I repeat myself for emphasis—of the setting up of sub-committees as he also said that the Government are against a large bureaucracy. I suggest to the noble Lord that he cannot have it both ways.
Lord Belstead: I do not think that I would want to move from what I have already said. It is perfectly open under the Bill as drafted for sub-committees in subject areas to be set up. Let us not forget that there is the advice from the quality assessment committees, comprising a majority of institutional representatives, to advise on what the right arrangements ought to be.
Lord Dainton: I find myself with a problem—not being a philosopher I do not know whether it is Occam's Razor or some other problem which philosophers face—in that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the Government were anxious to be non-prescriptive. What could be more prescriptive than one quality assessment committee. My problem is that it is too prescriptive. I understand perfectly that the funding council can establish any kind of committee it wishes to look after particular subjects. But what I am anxious to achieve by this means is that those who are chairmen of these committees, if they are set up by the funding councils, will then become the advocates of the arguments and the transmitters of the information from those committees at the meetings of the councils. That was the point which I particularly stressed. If the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can give me an assurance that every encouragement will be given to the higher education funding councils to establish a form of assessment by the subject areas which will find its way to the main funding council, I shall be content. The other could be left to evolution. Necessity will force what I have recommended in this amendment and experience will ensure that the funding council will have to go down this route.
Lord Belstead: I do not think that I can go as far as that on my feet this evening. I wonder whether I might write to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Dainton: I thank the noble Lord. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe: This may be a convenient moment to break for dinner. Perhaps I may suggest that we return to the Committee stage at 8.15 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Disability Working Allowance (General) Regulations 1991 Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1991 Social Security (Introduction of Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991 Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991 Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1991 Social Security (Contributions) Re-rating (No. 2) Order 1991 Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No. 2) Order 1991 Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) (No. 2) Order 1991
7.18 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Henley, rises to speak, I wish to raise a point of order. The Companion to the Standing Orders states:
"No Motion to approve an affirmative instrument (as defined for this purpose in S.O. 69) may be moved until there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and, in the case of a hybrid instrument, the proceedings under S.O. 216 or 216A have been completed".
I have checked with the Printed Paper Office and the Minute Room. The Joint Committee reports have not been published and laid before the House, although I gather that they have been reported on. Is it in order for us to debate these measures tonight?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my understanding is that it is entirely in order to debate them. I understand that there was some query about this in another place when they debased the regulations last week but that largely related to the negative instruments. All these have been laid before the House. All of them have been before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Four of them have been reported on by the Fifth Report of the Joint Committee and the others by the Sixth Report of the Joint Committee. Therefore, I hope that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, will bear with me in debating these orders on this occasion.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Lord give me a definition as to the meaning of the words "laid before the House"? Should not the reports be available to us in the Printed Paper Office?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my understanding is that the fact that the Joint Committee has reported on the orders is sufficient and that it is perfectly in order for the House to debate them on this occasion. I intend to move the Motion standing in my name at this present time.
Lord Carter: My Lords, what the noble Countess said is correct. I have been to the Printed Paper Office. Usually, if the Joint Committee's report has not been printed there is a typed script copy available. In neither case—that is, in respect of the fifth or the sixth report—is there even a typed script available to us. As I said, I believe that the noble Countess is quite correct. According to the Companion to the Standing Orders, I do not think that we should be debating these regulations.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is simply not the case. The noble Lord will know that it takes some time for the Joint Committee to produce its reports. I understand that it is the practice of the Printed Paper Office to prepare, as the noble Lord said, an extract from the report but only when an instrument has been drawn to the special attention of both Houses. None of today's instruments have been so drawn to the attention of both Houses. Therefore, I see no reason why we should not proceed with the business and debate these orders this evening.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is not the first time that this has happened. The point was been drawn to the attention of the House by my noble friend Lord Airedale in respect of an order dealing with the growing of mushrooms. I drew it to the attention of the House in respect of the student loans regulations. Reports from the Joint Committee can be of great assistance to the House. I think that they should be made available. But they have not been in the past. As this is not the first time that this has happened, I do not know what we must do to ensure that such reports are laid before the House in future.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can only return to what I have already said. The Joint Committee did not think that there was anything that needed to be brought to the attention of both Houses. Therefore, it was not necessary for the Printed Paper Office to prepare an extract from those reports. In the circumstances, I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to debate the orders on this occasion.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if the report is not brought to the attention of both Houses, which I believe is what the Minister just said, what is the purpose of it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there are occasions when the Joint Committee wants to bring the attention of the House to certain comments it may have made about the statutory instruments put before it; for example, as to whether they are ultra vires, and so on.

1085
If the committee felt that there was nothing which needed to be brought to the attention of the House there would be no need for a report. Of course, there may be other comments not relating to ultra vires, and so on. On this occasion the committee felt that there was no need for a report to be brought to the attention of the House. In the circumstances, therefore, I think that it is quite legitimate—
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, surely this is a matter for the House to decide. There may be certain points for consideration. The Joint Committee may feel that there is nothing upon which it wishes to comment, but I am sure that the history of both Houses of Parliament has shown that such reports have been subject to comment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is the purpose of debating these orders this evening. If the House wishes to make comments on the eight statutory instruments on the Order Paper, as I said, that is the purpose of the debate. Members of the House are quite at liberty to make any comments they wish. That is why I intend—that is, as soon as the House is prepared to listen to me—to move the eight instruments tabled in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend on the Front Bench. As I understand it, the Joint Committee exists only to act virtually as a watchdog to alert either House if a statutory instrument is proposed which is ultra vires. There is not much point in the committee reporting every time that nothing is ultra vires; but there is every point in it reporting when something is ultra vires.
We need some procedure whereby your Lordships can be reassured, before an intervention occurs on the Question as to whether an order should be discussed, that no report has been made by the Joint Committee but that it has considered the matter. I am sure that the usual channels will take note of these exchanges and ensure that that is done in the future. I do not think that we should further delay matters this evening.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Order Paper actually refers to the fifth and the sixth report "from the Joint Committee". Therefore, they are connected to the regulations. I suppose that we must take the Minister's word—which I am sure is correct—that there is a fifth and sixth report. But do they actually exist? Is the noble Lord saying that there is, or that there is not, a fifth report?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am prepared to give the noble Lord the assurance that there is a fifth and a sixth report.
Lord Carter: My Lords, do they both say nothing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, neither of them made any comment on these particular regulations which needed to be brought to the attention of the House. Obviously, if the House is unhappy with what is happening here I am quite prepared to suggest that the matter should be reopened with the Procedure
1086
Committee. However, in the meantime I think it would be far better for us to continue with the business. Perhaps I may now move the eight Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we are in the hands of the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I congratulate her on bringing the matter to our attention. But, for myself, I am prepared to leave the matter where the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short exchange. I have done a great deal of chasing around this afternoon. Can it be made clear in the future in respect of any such debates that, where such reports are required, they are made available to us? We should at least know that we are in the clear, so to speak. I am quite happy now to allow the noble Lord to continue.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I repeat the assurance that I gave earlier that the matter can be brought to the attention of the Procedure Committee so that it may examine such matters.
I now beg to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th November and the draft orders laid before the House on 4th December be approved [5th and 6th Reports from the Joint Committee].
I start with the SS (Contributions) Re-Rating (No.2) Order 1991. For the ninth year running we do not propose to increase the rates of Class 1 contribution but, as usual, the lower and upper earnings limits will be raised to £54 and £405 a week respectively. The effect is that most employees will pay a little less in Class 1 contributions. I am sure that the House will welcome that. For employers, we propose as usual to increase each of the earnings limits for employers, below which they pay lower contribution rates.
For self-employed people, we propose to increase Class 2 contributions by 20p to £5.35 a week from next April. Once again, we do not propose any change to the profits related Class 4 contribution rate paid by many self-employed people; however, the profits limits between which contributions are payable will be increased to £6,120 and £21,060 respectively.
I turn now to the Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) (No.2) Order, which provides for the lower rate of SSP to be increased by £1.80 a week from £43.50 to £45.30, an increase of 4.1 per cent. in line with the movement in the retail prices index over the 12 months ended in September 1991. The higher rate of SSP remains unchanged at £52.50 per week. The order also proposes that the earnings threshold, which governs when the higher rate becomes payable, is increased from £185 to £190 per week.
Even though the higher rate of SSP remains unchanged, the vast majority of employees will receive no reduction in the total amount they receive when sick because the difference will be made up by their employers occupational sick pay scheme. Those who

1087
are not covered by such schemes are mainly those low paid and part-time workers who will be fully protected by the RPI increase in the lower rate of SSP.
Before I tell the House about the uprating order and the regulations prepared for the new disability benefits, I must briefly mention the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No.2) Order 1992. It requires occupational pension schemes that are contracted out of the state earnings related pension scheme to provide post award increases of GMPs earned on or after the 1988–89 tax year by 3 per cent. with effect from 6th April this year.
I turn now to the Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No.2) Order 1991, which follows the announcement made in October by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on the social security rates payable from next April. The order provides for increases of 4.1 per cent. in retirement pensions and most other contributory benefits. The increase reflects the low rate of inflation in the year up to September of this year.
I shall now say something about child benefit, which remains a strong element in our policies for family support. From next April each of the rates which came into force in October will rise by the full 4.1 per cent. RPI increase. These increases—the third in a year—mean that the rate for the eldest eligible child will rise to £9.65, and the rate for other children to £7.80.
Many of those on benefits are keen to work, and I am happy to announce some useful changes to assist such people. The earnings limit for invalid care allowance will be increased from £30 to £40 per week, which means a further significant improvement in the opportunity to combine working with caring. From next April we shall introduce a disregard of the first £15 of any maintenance received in calculating entitlement to most income-related benefits which reduces the amount of take home pay needed to make them better off in work.
I move now to income related benefits. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicated last month that the Government did not propose to make a reduction in the value of income related benefit recipients because they will no longer have to pay the 20 per cent. minimum contribution to local taxation when council tax is introduced in 1993. That will mean that from April 1993, income support levels will be at least £1.40 a week higher for single people, and £2.80 a week higher for couples than they might otherwise have been. Those benefits will therefore be worth some £680 million more, in 1992–93 terms, than already provided by normal upratings since 1989.
I should like to briefly touch on the Rossi index, which is used for uprating the main income related benefits and is based on the RPI figure less certain items relating to housing. That has long been accepted as a fair method, as housing costs are provided for elsewhere in the benefit system. In this uprating, for the first time, the Rossi index will take into account the effects of water and sewerage charges, 20 per cent. of the community charge, and certain other miscellaneous housing costs. At next year's uprating, the Rossi index will need further adjustment to reflect
1088
the fact that there will be no minimum contribution to the council tax. Water charges and miscellaneous housing costs will of course continue to be taken into account in that uprating.
Income-related benefits will be uprated next April by 7 per cent., nearly 3 per cent. more than the current increase in the RPI over the same period. In addition to that increase, the level of benefit provision for those over 80 years old, and disabled pensioners over 60 will be increased to the tune of £60 million in a full year with more than 1 million pensioners gaining from the proposed increases. The total expenditure for all income-related benefits will rise to more than £22 billion during the next financial year.
The draft up-rating order re-enacts the current rates of non-dependant deductions in housing benefit and income support for housing costs where a claimant shares his or her home with another adult who may reasonably be expected to contribute to the cost. As the House will recall, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in his uprating statement that he proposed to lay separate amending regulations to introduce a new structure for those deductions from April 1992.
Separate amending regulations introducing a new structure will shortly be laid. They provide for the existing two rates of deduction, set at £5.70 and £13.50, to be replaced with four, ranging from £4 to £18. There are also some minor beneficial changes. The regulations provide that where a non-dependant is temporarily absent in prison, and therefore unlikely to have any income from which to contribute to housing costs in his normal home, no non-dependant deduction is to be made. The same will apply to non-dependants who have been in hospital for more than six weeks.
Overall, those changes will reduce benefit expenditure by about £50 million. However, they establish a more equitable structure and respond to criticisms about the level of contributions assumed from those on low incomes. I believe that those changes should be welcomed by your Lordships' House, and indeed the Social Security Advisory Committee decided not to consult formally on the draft regulations.
I turn now to the social fund. Since the initial allocation of funds to the discretionary social fund in April the Government have added £43 million to the budget. That additional funding has taken the total budget for the loans and grants element of the scheme to £271 million for this year. This means that the money available to the fund is over 21 per cent. higher than last year's expenditure and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has announced that the budget for next year will be in the order of £300 million.
I know that the House will want to hear about the financial help given by my department to people in residential care and nursing homes. For both residential and nursing homes the majority of limits will increase by £15 a week, well ahead of inflation, but will be even more for those in residential care homes.

1089
For the very dependent elderly and the mentally handicapped in residential care homes, the increase will be £20 a week—more than a 10 per cent. increase on the current limit.
The limit available to those who claim the terminal illness level of care will also be increased, this time by £5 a week, bringing that limit to £280 a week, reflecting an emerging concern that the terminal illness limit is often not helping those who are terminally ill within the accepted definition of this term. Further to help that group of people, £1 million from the social security budget will be transferred to the Department of Health for the direct funding of hospices, which will ensure funds are specifically directed at those who are terminally ill. That is in addition to the £17 million already announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health.
The supplement in Greater London will go up to £25 for residential care homes and £35 for nursing homes on top of the applicable limits.
The new limits will range from £175 to £245 for those in residential care homes and from £270 to £305 for those in nursing homes, plus any Greater London addition, making an extra total annual cost of £190 million. That underlines the Government's unswerving commitment to those in the community requiring residential or nursing care.
I turn now to the four orders which pave the way for the introduction of two new disability benefits next April. The House will recall that these new benefits are DLA and DWA. I shall deal briefly with each of the four sets of regulations in turn; first, the two more technical sets—the adjudication regulations, and the DLA introduction regulations. Those are, I am afraid, necessarily difficult for the House to follow: the adjudication regulations, because they amend heavily an existing order; and the introduction regulations, because the transition from two old benefits with entirely different assessment systems to a single new benefit with a completely new method of assessment, is not a simple matter.
The key part of the adjudication regulations is the introduction of new appeal rights to a new form of tribunal—a disability appeal tribunal. Those tribunals will stand at the pinnacle of the new adjudication system. The House will recall that the whole emphasis of that system is on self-assessment. Disabled people will be given for the first time an opportunity to tell us about their everyday needs and to enlist in support of their claims evidence from people involved in their care who are best placed to know about their needs.
Those new tribunals too put the emphasis on practical experience and knowledge of disability. Every tribunal will include a person with experience in the needs of disabled people, and we hope that many will include a member who is himself or herself disabled.
The DLA introduction regulations are also complex, but the intentions behind them are simply expressed. The regulations enable us to transfer people who are already receiving one or both of the existing benefits automatically onto the new benefit. There is
1090
therefore no question of us reviewing, removing or down-rating people's benefit because of the changeover.
The key sets of regulations are of course in many ways the DLA and DWA benefit regulations. The DWA regulations do, I am conscious, look like a formidable bundle of paper. But I hope that the House will be impressed by what it finds, because much of the space is devoted to the radical new functional disability test which underpins DWA. That test covers a comprehensive range of difficulties which will qualify people for DWA. I should of course remind the House that the majority of claimants will not even have to fill in the claim form which sets out that test, because someone who is on a disability benefit, or who has recently been getting an incapacity benefit, will be accepted automatically as being at a disadvantage in getting a job.
The disability living allowance benefit regulations are much shorter than their DWA counterparts, largely because the conditions of entitlement are clearly set out in the primary legislation which the House debated extensively earlier in the year. We shall need to see how each of the new conditions for the new lower rates of DLA come to be interpreted in practice, but I can of course undertake that the Government will be monitoring closely to assure ourselves that the substantial number of people to whom we wanted to see this new benefit go do in practice gain from it.
The Government have again fully backed their social security commitments to the community. We have not shirked our responsibilities. The total expenditure in the next financial year will be £67 billion. We have honoured our pledge to uprate long-term benefits for the elderly, the long-term sick and widows. Once again we have directed funds at those in need. Next April two new benefits, both aimed at helping disabled people, will become available after careful consideration and consultation. In this country we have a social security system which is fully resourced and carefully targeted to those in need. We can all be proud of that system. I commend all the orders and all the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th November and the draft orders laid before the House on 4th December be approved [5th and 6th Reports from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have heard an important statement from the Minister tonight. It is important in so far as it affects 17 million people. It would be churlish for us on this side of the House not to recognise some of the improvements in the benefit system that are proposed for April 1992. There is the useful addition to the income support level for residential care. That is up by £15 or £20, even though, following the Price Waterhouse report, there remain real fears that that increase will be inadequate to cover a shortfall which that firm estimates to be something closer to £60 in many parts of the country.
We also welcome the principle of self-assessment in the disability living allowance highlighted by the Minister. In the light of the disability living allowance and disability working allowance debates, we welcome

1091
the extension—this was not mentioned by the Minister—from four to 12 weeks in the payment of the care element when disabled children go into hospital. However, we wish that was longer. Following those debates, we welcome the extension of the higher mobility component to people with severe learning disabilities and challenging behaviour.
We also welcome the increases to the Independent Living Fund. Drawing on other reports and the comments made by the Minister this evening, we welcome the news that, when the council tax replaces the poll tax, there is to be no withdrawal of the deemed 20 per cent. contribution. Perhaps the Minister would care to make it clear that income support levels will be fully upgraded in future years and not frozen, either in whole or in part, until the older benefit catches up in real terms.
I wish to discuss national insurance and pensions. As the noble Lord has said, they are up by 4.1 per cent. or £2 a week. That is pitifully little and it is less than the underlying rate of inflation excluding mortgage costs—I understand that that rate is currently running at 5.7 per cent.—although, as few pensioners pay mortgages, they would not have gained the financial benefit of the reduced mortgage interest rates. What is perhaps more significant, they have received far less than would have been the case had this Government retained the link made by the previous Labour Government which ensured that pensions should rise in line with earnings, or the retail prices index, whichever was the higher. I am sure my figures are known to the Minister, but they are worth restating. Had that been the case, the state retirement pension for a single pensioner in April 1992 would be not £54 but nearer £70. For a couple, it would be not £86 but nearer £111. In other words, it seems clear from everything that researchers into poverty have estimated, that two-thirds of the Government's income tax cuts have been paid for by the breaking of the link between pensions and the rise of earnings.
As the Minister has said, unemployment benefit is up by £1.80 for a single person and by £2.85 for a couple. That increase is considerably lower—by one-quarter to one-third—than would have been the case without the 15 cuts in benefit, worth £1.5 billion a year, that this Government have introduced since 1979. That is before one takes into account the narrowing of eligibility, whether that concerns the 26-week rule or the cutting out of student eligibility. Now, at one-seventh of average earnings for a single person, unemployment benefit is one of the lowest in terms of its ratio to earnings to be found anywhere in Western Europe.
In the context of Maastricht it is clear that the British Government have rejected any support for the Social Charter. Therefore I believe we shall see sweated wages and in that case it is even more important to ensure a floor of adequate benefits. After all, these are contributory benefits to which people have rights and for which they have contracted. The temporarily unemployed and the retired elderly are entitled to a share of the country's prosperity through their contributions, but that is being denied.
1092
It is the same story as regards child benefit. We have seen that with pensions the Government have broken the link with wages. As regards unemployment benefit, there have been cuts in eligibility and rates. Child benefit has been frozen for three of the past 12 years and has not been properly upgraded for a fourth. As with pensions and unemployment benefit, the average family has lost out. In the case of child benefit the average family has lost £2 a week per child, or £6 a week for three children. That again means that, compared with the situation in 1979 or compared with the situation in the rest of Europe, we have one of the least generous and most impoverished child benefit systems. The system offers the least to the largest families—that is, the families in greatest need.
Worse still is the case of the 200,000 families where a parent is widowed, sick, disabled or retired and eligible for the child dependency addition. Here in 12 of the past 13 years—I know a Labour Government did this once—what should have been an addition for vulnerability has been offset at every increase in child benefit. But for such straight cuts, the level would have been £6 per child a week higher. It would not have been £19.40 but £25.50. In the October increase the Government said for this round the increase would not be deducted. Will the Minister say whether the same undertaking will be observed in April 1992?
I now wish to discuss the disabled. As these are new benefits, it may be worth exploring them a little further. It is already clear that some of the worries expressed in previous debates on DLA and DWA have been met in part, while others have not been met at all. We all accept that being disabled is the point at which extra costs and lower income intersect with higher need. There are extra costs, whether these be costs for housing, for aids and appliances or for diet, heating and laundry. The Spastics Society has estimated that even at the lower levels of disability the costs are worth at least £25, and rising. There are costs for those disabled people who have to employ someone to do what they cannot do for themselves, be it hiring taxis, cleaning, household maintenance or changing a plug.
Disability involves real extra costs estimated at some 10 per cent., or higher, than those of the average family. We also know that two-thirds of disabled adults live in households where there are no earners; in other words, they are households on benefits. Therefore, on average, the disabled family has only 70 per cent. of the income of, and 10 per cent. higher costs than, the average able-bodied family. Therefore there is an intersection of needs, costs and low incomes.
The passport to DLA is the attendance and the mobility component yet the disability lobbies are rightly worried that the benefit levels for those eligible for DLA and DWA are low. The lower level for DLA starts at £11.55. I understand that that will only pay for three hours of care, or possibly two taxi rides. Many of the more costly items such as additional heating and laundry needs are not reflected at all. Therefore people whose disability is based not on the need for personal care and not on the need for mobility have no passport access to further additional income.

1093
I do not believe anyone would begrudge the estimated further 300,000 people brought within reach of DLA. That is a total of 1.9 million in all. However, the OPCS has estimated that, of the 6.5 million disabled, less than one-third will receive that allowance. The disability groups are also concerned about a residual unfairness, in that DLA will not apply to those over 65 for whom attendance allowance will continue. I know that the Minister will perhaps argue—possibly correctly—that there is a greater income gap between the younger disabled and those not disabled than there is between older folk. However, I rather doubt whether that applies between the ages of 64 and 66. It is surely not right that the level of entitlement depends not on the degree of one's disability but on the timetable of that disability's occurrence.
Every Member of the House must surely accept that the disability working allowance was well intentioned. We welcome, for example, the two-year link and self-assessment. However, there are real fears that the intention of DWA cannot be realised within the financial and technical regulations as so far determined. It is, after all, meant to be a benefit to aid by virtue of their disability those who are disadvantaged when they are seeking employment.
However, the definition of that disability, as was insisted in Committee, has been too narrowly drawn. It excludes those with respiratory problems—and approximately one in 10 of the unemployed suffer from respiratory problems. It excludes those suffering from urinary and incontinence problems, which are also very real disabilities in certain forms of employment. It excludes disfigurement and other forms of disability. As a result, although it is estimated that 3 million disabled people are capable of working, DLA will probably reach only 50,000 of them.
The second problem which DWA will engender is that of the poverty trap. With the loss of housing benefit, poll-tax and related benefits it appears that there will be a marginal tax rate for those moving on to DWA of 94 pence in the pound, possibly rising to 97 pence or 99 pence in the pound once the taper comes into effect under the council tax. Those claiming the new allowance will immediately become ineligible for other benefits such as mortgage interest payments, free prescriptions and free school meals. Therefore, couples with mortgages, those with children and those receiving invalidity benefit may well be worse off claiming DWA under the present regulations. The disability groups would have much preferred a proportionality arrangement rather than the taper system.
We all know that the greatest problems in relation to benefits are the adequacy of levels, the complexity of the scheme and therefore the poor take-up rate, and the problems of the poverty trap and taper. We fear that both DWA and DLA fail all three of those tests.
I turn finally to income support and means-tested benefit. On this side of the House we are obviously pleased that for once the ROSSI index works in claimants' favour. I should like to raise five points with the Minister. First, will Ministers reconsider their
1094
denial of benefit to 16 and 17 year-olds? Only 30 per cent. of them now have access to benefits. There are 115,000 who are not receiving education or training and who are without jobs or income support. They are on the streets, sleeping rough, they are sexually vulnerable and are begging and thieving. Many have no homes to return to. They have come out of care and too often have been damaged as a result, for reasons which the courts have so recently explored. Their income support is not an insurance benefit. It is not contributory. It is meant to relate to need. The needs of those 16 and 17 year-olds are acute and urgent and are sharpening every night of this year.
My second point to the Minister concerns the ROSSI index and water rates. I notified him of the point in advance. It is a problem which I believe will loom ever larger. The old supplementary benefit included an element of £1.65 for water rates. What is the assumption within income support? Already water rates are running at between £3 and £4 a week and are rising by between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. a year—several times faster than the rate of inflation. That is before taking into account the environmental clean-ups which are to be expected. It is before the introduction of metering, which will fall very heavily on the disabled, families with large numbers of children and families in which the wage-earner has a physically laborious and dirty manual job. It is estimated that in a couple of years' time water rates will top-slice approximately 15 per cent. off income support. What does the Minister propose to do about that? Clearly the ROSSI formula cannot take account of water rates which are rising so sharply in excess of the rate of inflation.
My third point stems to some degree from the previous point. Does the Minister accept that top slicing is leading to increasing problems, as a result not only of the recovery of water rates, of poll-tax arrears, of fuel arrears, of housing benefit and of the recovery of social fund loans but also, from April 1992, of fines—all at £2.15 a time. Together they can take £15 or more from the single person's income support of £33.60, pushing those people well below the poverty floor—the minimum amount needed in order to survive—and thrusting them further into debt. As we know, 44 per cent. of those serving prison sentences of less than six months have defaulted on fines. Such people fell into debt because their income support level was inadequate for their needs. By top slicing to recover those debts the Government are ensuring that they create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fourthly, I should like to comment on the reduction from 24 to 16 in the number of hours worked for employment to be regarded as full time. Under the old supplementary benefit system an individual was regarded as being in full-time work for benefit purposes at 30 hours. In 1988 that was reduced to 24 hours. From April 1992 that will be reduced to 16 hours. Incidentally, that is regarded as full-time work if one is able-bodied but part-time work if one is disabled, which is a somewhat perverse reading of what constitutes full-time work.
That means that single people and childless couples who are not eligible for family credit will lose their

1095
right to income support at 16 hours of work a week, whereas if they are low paid they will be better off on income support with the £8.15 disregard. Many of those who are eligible for family credit—those with children—will lose their rights to mortgage interest relief: the current figure of 90,000 repossessions is already a matter of anxiety to us all. They will lose their passport to free school meals, prescription charges and their access to the social fund if they claim family credit at all. Unlike income support, which has a claim rate of almost 100 per cent., for family credit the rate is barely 50 per cent. I acknowledge the existence of transitional arrangements, but can the Minister tell the House how many people will lose entitlement to income support under the 16-hour rule and what assumptions about take-up he is expecting to make?
Finally, is the Minister satisfied with the working of the social fund? I noted the extra sums being paid into it, but what would he say to a diabetic of my acquaintance receiving unemployment benefit who, presumably because the local office was running out of funds, was refused a grant for a fridge in which to keep his insulin and refused a loan because it was estimated that he could not pay?
The Prime Minister has said that benefit claimants must know where they stand and what service they have a right to expect in terms of the Citizen's Charter. What would the Minister say about the uncertainties, inconsistencies and sheer random cruelties which too often underlie the effect of the social fund as presently constituted?
This is not the time to talk about patterns of poverty and pathways out of it, but, some minor and welcome improvements aside, this package, together with the rejection of the social charter, means that low-paid and part-time workers will continue to be underpaid and exploited in the labour market; the benefit levels which should help to underpin a wage floor will continue to drop further below average earnings; major areas of need are inadequately met on income support or denied altogether to 16 and 17 year-olds; and modest gains such as the higher pensions premium are simply recycled from other means-tested benefits. There is no new money and the poor are helping the poor.
Harold Macmillan said:
"It is only so far as poverty is abolished that freedom is increased"
The evidence is around us. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the poorest 10 per cent. had seen a rise in their living standards of only 2.6 per cent. through most of the 1980s—half the national average. By European definitions we now have more poor people than any other European country. One in four of all EC households defined as poor is in Britain. That is either a comment on the Government's economic record of the past 13 years or a comment on the level of social security. Which alternative does the Minister prefer?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, as the Minister is probably aware, in the normal course of events his noble kinsman Lord Russell would respond and would comment on the orders and regulations.
1096
However, my noble friend is busy on the Further and Higher Education Bill and even he has to eat. I feel particularly inadequate to replace him and the noble Lord may feel that he is to have an easy run. I am therefore particularly happy and relieved to follow the noble Baroness, who has covered very many of the points most eloquently and comprehensively, and perhaps I may be forgiven for concentrating my remarks mainly on the plight of the elderly, of which most noble Lords have some knowledge.
Were we in a position to do so, we on these Benches would immediately raise the pension by £5 for a single person and £8 for a couple. The noble Baroness mentioned the problem of average earnings rising faster than inflation. The gap between pensions and average earnings grows daily. Average earnings are currently £263 a week. Even after the increase, pension rates are, by comparison, at a derisory level: £54 a week for a single person and £86 for a married couple. No one would disagree—I am sure that the Minister himself would not disagree if it were not for the constraints of being in government—that it is not a happy position for an elderly person in the community today, no matter what his or her means, and particularly in the present climate.
There is great hardship for those people who are short of money, and that means the great majority of elderly people. It seems to us on these Benches that we should be ashamed that so many of our old people live in poverty. Given the present severe weather, surely the Minister's department could do more about severe weather payments and heating allowances for the elderly. The noble Baroness referred to the 20 per cent. poll tax payment. I am sure that that should have been abolished completely this year. It is an extraordinary position and an extraordinary penalty to impose on the elderly at this time.
From my experience of elderly relatives, I know that standing charges are one of the most punishing costs that old people have to bear. I do not seek to make a political point—the noble Baroness showed great restraint in not saying this—but, given the extreme hardship faced by elderly people and the higher standing charges and bills, it is almost insulting to read in the newspapers about the astonishing rises in the remuneration of chief executives of newly privatised companies in the energy field. The press has quite rightly taken up the matter and more and more people in this country are feeling uneasy about it. We are told that it is to ensure that the people in charge of those important services are paid the market rate. We are not entirely convinced by that when we see, at the other end of the scale, the hardships suffered by people having to pay the increased charges. As everyone knows, the cost of living today—the cost of food and heating—has grown to such an extent that it is extremely difficult for anyone on limited means to live, let alone the elderly.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the disability living allowance regulations. I agree with the noble Baroness that one should not be churlish—I think that that was the word she used—and that one should graciously welcome any increase in benefits. However, knowing that I would have to deal with the matter this evening,

1097
I grappled with the disability living allowance regulations. It was a hard job. I do not know how an elderly or handicapped person would deal with the complexities of the new regulations or how they would avoid being discouraged from claiming by not knowing whether or how to claim. There have been attempts to make matters simpler. In the Social Security Act of 1986, the Government attempted to make it simpler for people to claim those sums to which they were entitled. But it is extremely daunting for people to work out how to claim and to know, if they claim, whether they will prejudice certain other benefits to which they would be entitled. That is a worry shared by many elderly people.
I have here a letter from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. Blindness and partial sightedness is an area covered by the new disability living allowance regulations. There are particular features about being blind or partially sighted which make the disability living allowance inadequate. Certainly, the lower levels are much too low. The matter has been discussed in this House. I remember a point being raised about the allowance being applicable only to people under 65. There was an unsuccessful attempt to amend the legislation in that respect. Most disabled people tend to be over the age of 65 and there are many people, particularly partially sighted or blind people, who are over 65 and are living on very low incomes. The range of costs in relation to disability do not appear to have been taken fully into account by the people who have drawn up the regulations. For people who are blind or partially sighted, some simple functions of everyday life are extremely difficult. Understandably, there is concentration on care and mobility needs, and areas of additional expenditure which are often of importance to blind or partially sighted people appear to have been underestimated. As to the disability working allowance, I am particularly anxious about people's ability to understand what is now happening and to know how to claim.
Having said that, I should like to associate myself and my noble friends on these Benches with all the points made by the noble Baroness. I wish also to make a particular plea that the Government should, either themselves or by seeking outside help, urgently try to find a way of making matters simpler and more easily understood. I have concentrated on that issue today. I put all my Christmas cards and other worries aside and tried to understand the matter, but I found it extremely complicated and daunting. I dread to think how someone much older and in pain would have coped. I therefore make a plea to the Government to find a way of making the system much more comprehensible and easier to use so that the right people may claim and understand what they are claiming rather than being put into a state of anxiety as to how to proceed.
8.7 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I heartily endorse the closing remarks of the noble Viscount. Matters seem to become more and more complicated as time
1098
goes on. We are discussing a diverse range of social security regulations. I shall touch on some aspects of the administration of two of them: the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance.
I read the Hansard account of the debate on these regulations in another place on 11th December 1991. Questions were asked that I wish to raise with the Minister. I did not find the response given by his right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People entirely satisfactory. I understand that new applicants for disabled living allowance complete what is known as a filter form which they send to a warehouse in Heywood, Lancashire. A full claim form is then sent to the applicant, stamped with the date of receipt of the filter form at Heywood, and another date, six weeks' ahead, by which time the claim form must be returned to the claims office in Blackpool.
Will the Minister explain the necessity for a filter form? What claims are being filtered out? As there is apparently to be no record kept of filter forms received at Heywood and no advice of their receipt is to be sent to Blackpool, why cannot the full application forms be made available to all the specialist workers who deal with the disabled, including local social security offices, instead of just to citizens' advice bureaux which have comparatively limited contact with the disabled in that context? I am thinking of social services departments, hospital social workers, special schools and advice agencies. Does the Minister realise that, under the system as currently set up, specialist workers will need to see their clients twice—once to complete the filter form and again, within six weeks, to complete the main application form? Many of the applicants will have learning difficulties and will need help to complete the very daunting forms. It is widely known that claimants often do not return to their advisers. The drop-out rate is likely to be enormous, unless the advisers make a note of each person to whom a filter form has been issued and follow it up with a personal visit within the six weeks. That seems to be a ridiculous waste of scarce resources.
I believe that both the policy division of the DSS and the benefit agency are aware of the possibility of fraud open to claimants because of the lack of recording the receipt of filter forms at Heywood. What is the Department of Social Security doing to prevent it? What will happen if the main application form goes astray in the post between Heywood and the applicant or between the applicant and Blackpool, and the six-week claim period is exceeded?
I understand that application forms are to be made available in January for claims to be processed from February onwards. As the training by the benefit agency at Blackpool of DSS supervisory staff does not commence until January and of clerical staff in February and March, how are the claims to be processed efficiently? Will there be an initial backlog? Social security officers at local benefit agency offices will receive little or no training, despite the inter-relationship between disabled living allowance and income support premiums. Social security officers will not be able to give local assistance. Will the Minister look into that matter?

1099
I now turn to disabled working allowance. This new allowance is very welcome in theory but I believe that there are a number of practical difficulties. Again, the advice agencies are finding it very difficult to train their staff because the department has made so little information available. Disablement resettlement officers employed by the employment agency have no information to enable them to advise disabled, unemployed people whether and how to apply for disabled working allowance. The allowance is plagued with the problem of complex "better off' calculations. Each potential claimant will need personal advice on the effects of obtaining work which relies on DWA to make up his or her income.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out, a disabled person currently on invalidity benefit may lose free school meals for children of the family, entitlement to free prescriptions, and travel and local authority concessions. I understand that Ferret Information Services are writing a computer software program which will assist disablement resettlement officers and employment agency staff with those "better off' calculations, but the program will not be available until March 1992 and may not be enough to meet the individual needs of each client. There is a danger that disabled people will not discover that they are worse off until it is too late.
If a disabled person gives up invalidity benefit, accepts a job supplemented by DWA and then finds that, because of his disability, he cannot cope with the job, he will have no difficulty in returning to his former benefit status. Can the Minister give an assurance that claimants who give up employment because they are worse off will have their previous benefits reinstated? Or will they be penalised because an adjudication officer has decided that they are capable of work and must therefore continue in employment?
I have asked a number of quite complex questions. If the Minister finds that he is unable to answer them all this evening, I should be grateful if he would write to me.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly with regard to the mobility component. The noble Lord will know that I have taken an interest in this matter almost since I have been in the House in order to secure an extension of the mobility allowance, as it used to be, to the deaf and blind and the severely mentally impaired.
I congratulate the department on the drafting of Regulation 12 of the disability living allowance regulations. In the light of the drafting of that regulation, which is very comprehensive, what is the department's latest estimate of the numbers likely to qualify for the higher and lower rates of the mobility component? If the Minister does not have the answer now, perhaps he will write to me.
Lord Henley: My Lords, certainly I shall start by promising to write to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He will be aware that a great many questions have been put to me and, bearing in mind the time and the demands of other business, it might be better if I press on.
1100
I very much welcome to social security debates the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I was surprised when he told me that my noble kinsman needed to eat. I was not aware of it, but if that is the case, so be it. Perhaps I may also say that I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, finds the whole of social security very complicated, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Necessarily the administration of the social security system must be complicated but we do our best to keep it as simple as possible. Certainly in terms of the changes that we have made to DLA, we have taken great steps forward in simplifying matters whatever people might say or whatever the noble Countess, Lady Mar, might have said. It may be best if I write in some detail to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, about her detailed questions on the administration of DLA and the claims for it. I can assure her that there are very good reasons for it. In writing to her I shall certainly make copies available to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and either to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, or possibly to my noble kinsman.
I am glad to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, welcomed the improvements for income support for those in residential care homes. She went on to say that they were not enough, which is what I should have expected of her. She cited the recent report by Price Waterhouse which followed the report that we commissioned from Price Waterhouse some time earlier. The report that she mentioned was a much smaller one than the report that we commissioned. We feel that the selection and size of the sample means that the information that it produced cannot be accepted as a fair reflection of the costs across the country, compared with our document which was a fully comprehensive report into the costs in some 700 homes of all types in all areas. The results from the second report gave higher capital costs than in the earlier report but that may easily have been caused by the distortions inherent in the small selective sample. That has to be considered alongside the more stable running cost figures at which we looked in the report that we commissioned last year. I must also suggest that interest rates have fallen since that date.
The noble Baroness went on, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to complain about the level of pensions. She said that we must restore the link with earnings and prices rather than continuing to maintain our promise to upgrade pensions in line with prices. What is relevant is not the level of the state retirement pension but the growth in the pensioners' total income. Since 1979 the average total net income of pensioners has increased by some 34 per cent. That is over 3 per cent. a year. Under the last Labour government pensioners managed just 3 per cent. in Labour's entire five years of office. That is 0.6 per cent. per annum. Along with that, savings have increased by 110 per cent. Under the last Labour government they fell by 16 per cent. Seventy-four per cent. of pensioners now have savings or occupational pensions and the average income from occupational pensions has nearly doubled. Overall, expenditure on benefits for the elderly has risen by some 29 per cent. in real terms.

1101
Moving on briefly to income support, I was glad that the noble Baroness welcomed our announcement that changes would be made to take out of it the community charge. She asked for an assurance that in future years income support would be uprated. I can make it quite clear that we have promised that future upratings will be revised on the basis of the Rossi index.
Again, the noble Baroness welcomed the increases in unemployment benefit, but again predictably she said that they were not enough. I should like to know from the noble Baroness or her party whether they want unemployment linked with earnings. Is that another Labour promise? If it is another Labour promise, does the noble Baroness have permission from her honourable friend the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury to make such a promise in the run-up to the election?
I reject totally the allegations from the noble Baroness that our child benefit is the least generous in Europe. That is simply not true. To start off, the rate of child benefit for families with just one child is at the moment the highest in Europe. If one takes the average child benefit payable for those with two children under six years of age, we are the fourth highest, and so it goes on. Different countries take a different approach to their child benefit in terms of where they put their money.
On disability, again the noble Baroness said that she did not wish to be grudging about the extra £300 million that we promised. That was exactly what she then proceeded to be—grudging. She said that needs other than care and mobility should be taken into account. We have always made it clear that DLA will provide help to people with a very wide range of needs. The OPCS surveys showed that entitlement tests based on personal care mobility problems were a simple way of targeting all those with the most commonly occurring and most costly disabilities.
She also suggested that there are disabilities which will be excluded from the disability working allowance tests. Most people with respiratory problems or urinary disorders will be picked up by one or other of our tests.
The noble Baroness asked about Rossi. She asked whether Rossi could have water charges excluded so that water could be included in housing benefit. The new Rossi includes the appropriate amount for water charges. Any increase in the cost of water, as with any other goods and services, will now be fully reflected in that new index. We see no reason to allow housing benefit to move on to cover those costs, just as costs for other utilities are not included. I stress that the weight attached to water in the Retail Prices Index is 0.8 per cent. In Rossi the figure is slightly higher at 0.9 per cent.
I turn to the question of alleged high marginal tax rates in DWA and the taper. I stress that the important point is that disabled people will be better off for every extra pound that they earn whereas at present disabled people have to choose between total incapacity for work or finding a job which will pay
1102
them enough fully to replace their benefit. That is the problem which we hope that the disability working allowance will remove.
The noble Baroness raised the question relating to 16 and 17 year-olds and the changes in the hour rates for income support and other benefits. I prefer to leave the changes in hour rates to another occasion. We have no plans to reconsider our position on 16 and 17 year-olds. The issue was debated in this House some months ago, and the House came to a conclusion.
I apologise to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for not being able to answer her detailed points on the procedures relating to applying for DLA and DWA. I assure her that they are not complicated. They are as simple as possible. I assure her that I shall write in some detail to her on the matter.
I believe that I have made it clear that the Government have made great steps forward over the past 12 years in social security provision. They have protected the very obvious interests of the taxpayer. However, at the same time we have been able to increase expenditure on social security by about 40 per cent. in real terms. Spending on the elderly has increased by about 29 per cent, and spending on the long-term sick and disabled by far more than 100 per cent.
The orders, in particular the uprating order, exemplify our commitment to the less well off in society. I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
8.25 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 66.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 47, line 21, at end insert:
("(c) provide for that committee terms of reference which take into account—

(i) the need for higher education to enhance capability in the application of knowledge, and

(ii) the importance of ensuring that the quality of educational outcomes is assessed.").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment again addresses the quality assessment committee. There are no terms of reference for that committee on the face of the Bill. I understand that any such amendment at this time is inadequate because if it were to contain terms of reference, they would have to include many more items than I suggest. This is a probing amendment in the hope that the Minister will give some reassuring replies on the two items included.
The first asks that the committee's terms of reference should include,
"the need for higher education to enhance capability in the application of knowledge".
Having spent many years of my life involved in the assessment of quality in higher education as one of Her Majesty's inspectors, and now as a member of the steering group for the pilot assessment of quality in universities and polytechnics, I am conscious that it is vital that those assessing quality should have a broad definition in their minds of what quality consists of. It is not sufficient that it should be defined only in terms

1103
of intellectual and academic excellence but also of the capability of students to apply that excellence in a practical way in the world of work. It is a frequent criticism of the higher education system made by employers that its products are ill equipped for employment. I hope that the need for the higher education system to enhance capability will be agreed by all Members of the Committee. I hope that we shall hear a reassuring reply from the Minister on the importance of this enhancement of capability in application.
The second part of the amendment seeks to ensure that the assessment process also addresses the importance of outcome from the higher education system. It is all too easy within the system of care assessment, and indeed of professionals assessing the quality, to concentrate on the excellence of the input and of the process and to forget to ask whether the outcome is of adequate quality. There are various morals about the proof of the pudding which I need not quote in this context.
I should like to hear some assurance from the Minister that when the committee sets about its work, it will bear in mind the importance of the quality of the final output; and that the work of the assessment committee will not concentrate too much on an assessment of the professional processes—the sitting in classrooms listening to lectures, and so on—but will consider the end result of the process. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The Government envisage that there will be full consultation by the funding councils over arrangements for assessing the quality of education in institutions. Among the issues to be addressed will be how assessment for quality can best take account of the wide variety of institutions in the higher education sector. Pilot assessments will be carried out next year jointly by the UFC and the PCFC which will provide a first opportunity to consider those matters. In the longer term the funding councils will look to their quality assessment committees to advise them on a wide range of quality issues.
Once the system is up and running, in addition to the reports of assessors on their visits to institutions, the Government will look to the councils and institutions to develop a variety of statistical data which will indicate the success of institutions both against the performance of others and in relation to their own missions.
As my noble friend Lady Perry knows from her extensive experience in this area, quality in education is a difficult concept to define. It has many strands. Those may evolve over time. For that reason it is difficult to accept the amendment because we should be putting in the Bill almost in concrete form matters which are being considered at present. As my noble friend rightly said, the two particular terms of reference for assessment could be interpreted as excluding other particular terms of reference. However, the two important aspects that she has identified will be among those which need to be considered.
I hope that answer provides the reassurance for which my noble friend is looking. I recognise the
1104
validity and importance of the two particular terms of reference which she has chosen and hope that she will not mind if I do not at the same time accept the amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank the Minister for his generous reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 268ZA not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 268A:
Page 47, line 22, at end insert ("currently engaged in the provision of higher education or").
The noble Lord said: The Committee has already covered much of the ground in debating other amendments and I do not need to comment too much. If the committees are to persuade people working in the higher education sector of their validity the most sensible way of doing so is to have as some of their members people involved in the provision of higher education. I appreciate that the Bill as drafted does not rule out the membership of such people. Nonetheless, if the Government wish to emphasise their commitment to the higher education sector, which remains somewhat in doubt, that would be a good way of doing so.
I believe that my amendment is important but it is nowhere near as important as an amendment which has yet to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Limerick. Independence of the councils is one of the most important criteria of membership and one that I raised earlier. I hope that my amendment will not be taken as an alternative to others but merely as a gloss upon what is needed. It is important that members of the committees are independent of the councils because I do not see how they can do their job otherwise. However, that comment is not meant to undermine my amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Seear, who I hope has gone home to bed, I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: We do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The wording of Clause 66(2) requires that a majority of the members of the quality assessment committees shall be persons with experience of, and a capacity in, the provision of higher education institutions. A person currently engaged in the provision of higher education, and of sufficient standing to merit his or her inclusion on the committees, will clearly have experience of, and a capacity in, the provision of higher education.
It is not in doubt that the quality assessment committees will have members from institutions currently engaged in teaching and lecturing. Funding councils will want expert advice from their assessment committees and the views and experiences of those currently teaching in institutions will be especially valuable.
Last week my noble friend Lord Belstead told the Committee that he was prepared to consider a similar amendment as regards the membership of funding councils. Perhaps it would be less than fair if I did not

1105
do likewise and therefore I undertake to do so. With that reassurance I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for that reassuring answer. He is in no doubt that I am highly critical of large parts of the Bill. However, if we are to have the Bill as an Act I, as someone committed to higher education, want it to work. I am trying to persuade the Government that this is the kind of change that will make the Bill acceptable to the people who eventually must make it operational. I hope that was what the Minister had in mind when saying that he would think about the matter. The amendment does not endeavour to damage the Bill nor to send it in a different direction; it simply puts forward a sensible way of doing things. I am happy with the Minister's positive response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 269 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 270:
Page 47, line 25, at end insert ("in this country or overseas. Not less than a half of the members shall be members of learned societies from overseas, to be nominated in equal numbers by the Royal Society and the British Academy.").
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I should have grouped the amendment with Amendment No. 272 because it would have answered some of the points then made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Throughout the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and I have exchanged ideas. I have argued that whoever carries out the assessment must be competent to do so and understand what it is about. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has replied that the committees cannot be self-regulated and that an outside person must be involved. I hope that in tabling the amendment I may have squared a circle and gone some way towards meeting the anxiety of the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, which I share, in proposing a body independent of the council.
If we are looking for people who are academically competent to carry out the assessment but who are not assessing themselves the obvious place to look is outside this country. The affect of the amendment by a mechanism which I am sure can be improved—I shall listen to any suggestion for improvement—will put the composition of at least half of the members of the quality assessment committees in the hands of representatives of learned societies from outside this country. I hope that their independence will be sufficient to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Their competence will certainly be sufficient to satisfy me.
That would make the point that, in the end, the judgment that is made of us is that of an international market. We publish our books to be read internationally. Our Ph.Ds look for jobs internationally. People come and go internationally. One of the ways in which one judges the standing of any university is by the number of people attending from other countries because they have heard of what happens there and they want to be part of it. If we are talking about the quality of British universities as it
1106
has been during the past years I do not believe that in the eyes of universities in other countries our standing suggests that all the anxiety that has been expressed is altogether justified. If one wanted even a quantitative measure we should not come out badly from an assessment of what British universities contribute to our balance of payments. I know that most of that income is classified under tourism and it appears to be something quite different but if the figure could be isolated it would be considerable.
Another effect of the amendment would be to meet the anxiety of Ministers that committees would answer, "We have always done it that way". Academics in other countries, as I know from experience, often proceed in different ways. Therefore, under the amendment we should have to defend a great deal of our teaching practice to people who have employed different practices. We should have to make a case, and we are quite ready to do so. We are ready to accept the umpire's decision and all we ask is that the Secretary of State should do likewise. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: As the noble Earl has kindly sought to involve me in the amendment, I must say that I do not have sufficient experience of the academic quality of members of learned societies from overseas. My own experience in this sector leads me to believe that the academic quality of the best academics in this country is probably second to none.
The only area in which the noble Earl and I have been sparring is perhaps the proportion of academics in this country, no doubt of high quality, who should be balanced by people in this country who are not academics, but who know where the committee is trying to go. Therefore, although the amendment is ingenious, I cannot support it as fully as the noble Earl may wish.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I feel some reservations about the amendment based partly on my experience a few years ago when I was privileged to take part in an inspection of a university in the Netherlands alongside the Dutch Government's arrangements for the inspection of universities there.
It is important to remember that the assessment committee will need two separate arms; one for the assessment of the quality of research and the other for the assessment of the quality of teaching. Those are different areas of specialism requiring different kinds of people. If we are to bring in overseas academics—as I am sure we should—it will be important to use societies which, by their nature, are qualified only to speak of the quality of research rather than about the quality of teaching.
Although I sympathise with the noble Earl's interest in bringing in overseas academics—I support that and I am sure that it will eventually be part of the methodology which emerges—I must resist the idea that those specific learned societies should be the only competent bodies to declare an interest. The quality of teaching is a much more home-grown and specific area which would not be within their competence.
Lord Beloff: One's attitude to the amendment must depend on what one thinks the committee or its sub-committees will do and how much time they will be asked to devote to these tasks. Anyone who has had anything to do with international academic activity will know that there are vast logistical problems. When does one call a meeting? It may not suit the member from Vancouver. We shall be practically confined to people from the English-speaking world. If the time suits the member from Vancouver, it is hopeless for the member from Adelaide. That is the kind of Eurotalk that ignores the essentials.
With regard to research, there is international assessment. Our books are reviewed or referred to. Learned journals are read in other countries and a reputation is built abroad as well as at home. As my noble friend Lady Perry said, where teaching is concerned, it requires attendance at the institutions; it requires things which I cannot see any foreign academic easily accepting.
The amendment suggests that the idea is merely window dressing. There will be a lot of foreign names and it will sound good. I thought the intention was that it should be a serious body assessing what goes on.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: As so often happens the noble Earl's amendment contains much of interest to commend it. It is an interesting and constructive suggestion that one should look for an international dimension to the enterprise, and excellence would certainly be assured by his provision. It is not unwelcome to hear the Royal Society and the British Academy mentioned in this Committee. It is the first time that they have been mentioned in the entire deliberations of this Committee.
However, as my noble friend Lord Beloff says, there are practical difficulties. The main difficulty is suggesting that as many as half the members of the assessment committee should be from overseas locations. It will be a working committee which will have to assess many matters. I do not see any objection to nominees of the British Academy or the Royal Society assessing teaching as much as research; I find nothing shocking in that proposal. But what seems to make it not feasible as it stands is that there should be so high a proportion as a half. Had it been one-quarter or one-fifth it may have added a useful dimension—and still might—to the proceedings. However, to rely on a committee more than half the members of which will be from overseas is impractical. I do not believe it will work.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Amendment No. 270 stipulates that a quarter of the membership of the quality assessment committee shall be members of learned societies from overseas, nominated in equal numbers by the Royal Society and the British Academy. Clause 66(2) already provides that the majority of the committee's members shall be experienced in the provision of higher education, and I cannot see that the law should be more prescriptive
1108
than that. As the committee is a committee of the council, it seems entirely right that the council should be the appointing authority.
My noble friend Lady Perry raised a number of complications that she foresaw, with which I have some sympathy, as I do with the practicalities raised by my noble friend Lord Beloff. I am sure that the Committee is aware that there is no reason why the funding councils should not seek the services of learned councils overseas, if that is what they want on their committees, or at least take account of practices that take place overseas. With that argument I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank all those who have spoken. I paid close attention to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Renfrew. They are right about the practical difficulties. I had hoped to overcome some of the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I am sorry that I have not done so. That was what I was concerned to do; to square the circle between competent assessments and the objection to self-regulation.
As to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, regarding different people to assess research and teaching, I agree on the whole with the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I see no difficulty in the same people doing both. My recollection of the days when, as fashionable idiom now has it, I was a consumer of teaching is that those I thought taught best were also those whose research reputation was highest.
My real object was simply to bring into the debate the fact that in the eyes of most of us the international community of scholars is the jury we recognise, and we are quite prepared to be judged by it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 271:
Page 47, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) The committee shall annually publish a report giving such information as may be prescribed as to how it has fulfilled its duty under subsection (1) above, and in particular what provision has been made for students with learning difficulties.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 271 is rather humdrum after the last rather exotic amendment and the noble Earl's appeal to an international jury. The amendment serves two purposes. One is that the quality assessment committee should issue a report. The other is that the report should include what provision has been made for students with learning difficulties.
We have discussed the question of reports and will discuss them again in the next amendment. But the quality assessment committee, quite apart from anything else, cannot perform its function without reporting to the council. I should like to hear how the Government envisage the council will be reported to, the frequency and form of those reports and whether they will be published.
That is one anxiety. My other anxiety concerns students with learning difficulties. A number of amendments were grouped together, one of which was

1109
Amendment No. 269 under Clause 66. That is kindly to be considered by the Government. It arises at page 47, line 25, and inserts the words,
"at least one member [of the quality assessment committee] shall have experience or knowledge of the requirements of students with learning difficulties".
My amendment is simple. It is concerned that the quality assessment committee should first report, and secondly that its report should state what provision has been made for students with learning difficulties. I could illustrate this with examples, but I have said enough to indicate the purport of my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the spirit of the amendment but I am not too sure about the drafting, even of Amendment No. 269 which bears my name. I am asking whether the Government, as with the other series of amendments, could take this on board and consider it sympathetically. The reason, as I see it, is that there is nothing like making such an institution publish an annual report to ensure that it does its job a little better. It is in the interests also of open government. It is not a matter on which I wish to divide the Committee but I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to take this amendment on board without commitment.
Lord Addington: I wish to support the amendment for a simple reason. When it comes to special needs, the field is wide and a great variety of needs are covered by the term "special needs". For example, there may be someone who is dyslexic or who is in a wheelchair. I have used the example before of the person who cannot get to a lesson and the person who cannot understand what is going on during a lesson. Would they have the facility of a tape recorder, for example? If people with those types of incapacity attend a higher education institution, facilities should be made available for them and should be made known to people recommending the institution. Reporting by the quality assessment committee is something which I cannot fault.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): As I put my name to this amendment, perhaps I may briefly support it. Humdrum though it may be, I believe it is very necessary, as other Members of the Committee have said. It is particularly useful to have a report which considers the range, provision and quality of support for students with learning difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that the range of disabilities is varied. At present the range of quality of provision varies between universities and between departments of the same university. There is now some information available on performance from the disability organisations. For example, the RNIB is aware of several universities and polys which work well to support students. However, the RNIB says it also receives regular referrals where a crisis has developed because of the lack of adequate awareness and support.
If the amendment or something similar is written into the Bill, the funding councils will have the information needed to help them ensure that
1110
appropriate provision is made for students with learning difficulties. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something encouraging about the amendment.
Lady Kinloss: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Henderson. An annual report would help. An institution may provide excellent teaching and facilities generally, but may not look at access to facilities for students with learning difficulties. I am thinking, for example, of deaf students who may find no loop systems in lecture halls. Some tutors may not be prepared to make their lecture notes available to these students.
Baroness David: I also support the amendment, very much for the reason that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), gave. There is a certain amount of information showing that some university departments do much better than others. There should be information generally so that those students with learning difficulties will be aware of what is going on and where they may receive help.
It is important that we should have further information on this and that the quality assessment committee should be aware of the need.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for introducing the amendment and other noble Lords for taking part. I am not entirely happy with the amendment, but I feel it deserves to be given a considered and full reply.
The amendment would require the quality assessment committees of the higher education funding councils to publish annual reports on the discharge of their functions, and to include in those reports information about the provision made in higher education institutions for students with learning difficulties. The Government do not believe such a requirement to be necessary.
The amendment contains two propositions: that there should be an annual report; and that it should contain particular information. In the interests of clarity, it will be helpful to consider those two propositions separately.
First, the idea of an annual report from the quality assessment committees; the Government's intention is that there should be an annual report from the higher education funding councils themselves. Those annual reports will cover all the activities of the funding councils. This will naturally embrace the findings of the councils' quality assessment units, alongside their other activities over the year. The reports of the assessors on individual institutions will also be published, much as reports from Her Majesty's inspectors are published now. However, we do not think that it would be appropriate to require in legislation a separate annual report from the quality assessment committees themselves. They are committees of the funding councils, and their function is to advise the councils.
The second aspect of the amendment is the proposal that information should be published about the provision for students with learning difficulties. From the drafting of the amendment it is not clear

1111
whether that would be information about the nature and availability of the provision, or about its quality; or perhaps it would be both.
I do not wish to disagree with the principle that such information should be available. At this point I need again to distinguish the two categories. Information for the individual about access to courses for students with learning difficulties, and advice about the suitability of particular courses in individual cases, is currently available. In the first instance, it is a matter for the institutions themselves to make information available about what they offer and its suitability. Information and advice about provision for students with disabilities is also co-ordinated on a national basis by many agencies which take an interest in these matters. The charitable bodies do excellent work in this field. There is also SKILL, formerly the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, which is grant-aided by the Department of Education and Science for precisely this purpose.
The second type of information covered by the amendment relates to the national monitoring of provision for students with disabilities. The Government accept the importance of monitoring this provision. I entirely agree that in assessing the quality of education provided in the new sector, the higher education funding councils will need to consider what is provided for disabled students. Where we do not agree, I have to say, is with the proposal that the point needs to be enshrined in legislation by this amendment.
It really goes without saying that the councils cannot discharge their duty of securing the assessment of quality without taking account of the provision made for students with disabilities and I do not think it necessary to single out this particular aspect of provision for specific mention in the Bill. The councils will no more forget to consider provision for students with disabilities than they will forget to look at provision for mathematics. We do not need to single out particular aspects of provision for the councils to scrutinise, because the requirement is that they scrutinise all provision.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I raised the possibility of issuing guidance on this topic. As the Committee knows, the Government plan to issue guidance to the higher education funding councils about the way they should approach their duties. It is possible that the need to monitor provision for students with disabilities will be included in the guidance. I hesitate to say more definitely that it will be included for the reason I have just given: it is unthinkable that this aspect of provision would be left out of the councils' monitoring systems. That is a point that we are considering further.
It may also help the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, when I tell him that Ministers share the Committee's concern that provision for students with disabilities should be adequately monitored. In the past, special surveys have been used, but they have their drawbacks. The DES is considering whether more information can be built into the existing routine statistical returns. That will need discussion with the new funding councils. I hope that the Committee will
1112
be satisfied by my assurance that improved monitoring of the provision for students with disabilities is under active consideration.
I have set out the Government's position in some detail. Perhaps I may summarise it. I do not believe that the Committee should put into the Bill unnecessary provisions. The Committee can be assured that monitoring of the provision for students with disabilities is part of the government's thinking for the new sector. We believe that the duty to assess the quality of all provision is a sufficient statutory basis to secure that monitoring. It is on that basis that I hope Members of the Committee will feel they do not need to press the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I accept with gratitude the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness. It is very heartening to hear that the Government have this matter under active consideration. I t is also very heartening to hear that it is possible that monitoring will be included. Indeed, I believe that the noble Lord said that it should be included in the ministerial guidance. These are very important assurances. That the Minister should actually accept the importance of monitoring only short of enshrining it as a provision in the Bill is an important assurance. That is all very heartening. I am very glad to hear those words.
I fully accept that the charitable bodies, and SKILL in particular, have a function now and that they might still have one in the future. My amendment was in a way the braces of a belt and braces exercise. The belt was really the first amendment that we came to. My second amendment concerning the report represented the braces. I know that I described the amendment as humdrum, but it is of supreme importance to those with learning difficulties and disabilities of one sort or another. In that sense, it is not right to describe the amendment as humdrum. I have received a far from humdrum reply and one which I am very happy to have received at this moment. Together with the other raft of amendments about those with learning difficulties, I hope that this is one of the matters we can also discuss when we meet again in a few days' time. With that very promising reply from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 272 not moved.]
The Earl of Limerick The Earl of Limerick moved Amendment No. 272A:
Page 47, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) The majority of members of the committee including its Chairman shall be persons independent of the council.").
The noble Earl said: Many views have been expressed already this evening on the composition and duties of the quality assessment committee which is set up under Clause 66, but none quite addressed the point that I have in mind. If I have been encouraged by the interest which has been expressed in advance by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, so also has my nervousness in introducing the amendment been increased.
There are two obvious criteria to look at in examining the make-up of the committee. The first is that the people serving on the committee should be qualified to make their judgments. That is addressed by Clause 66(2) and no voice of dissent has been heard concerning that principle, which clearly seems right. There is a second criterion which one might apply. That is the degree of independence which the committee has of the council to which it is answerable. It is certainly arguable that, in reporting to the funding councils on the assessment of quality in particular institutions funded generically by those councils, the committees could with advantage have a degree of independence from the funding councils.
That is a point to which the CDP attaches some importance. If I were in the position of chairman of one of the funding councils I should be insistent that advice coming to me came in good measure from people who were not themselves members of the council. That said, I would see no requirement to have a total divorce of these bodies merely to ensure that there was a sufficient degree of independence in the committee.
What are the requirements of the Bill in that regard? There are none. Clause 66 is silent on the size and composition of the quality assessment committee apart from the question of the majority of its members having expertise in education, which has already been referred to. We then have to turn to Schedule 1, paragraph 8, which is to be found on page 65 of the Bill. The only relevant passage is in subparagraph (3), which states,
"Such a committee may include persons who are not members of the council".
The word is "may" and not "must" or "should".
Perhaps I may illustrate briefly what I have in mind. If a council were set up with a membership of five, three could be educationists and two could be lay people. That would satisfy the criterion. If there were 15 members, eight could be educationists and seven would not be required to be so. In either case all of them could themselves be members of the funding council. Therefore there would be no necessity for an independent voice which seems to be desirable. That is the point addressed by the amendment.
The other matter referred to in the amendment is the proposal that the chairman should be one of the independent members of the council. That again is a debatable point. I believe that all Members of this Committee must have had experience of working on committees. They will know that the tone of a committee is set in the main by the chairman and that it is he who normally has the most influence. So in order to ensure the necessary degree of independence it can be argued that the chairman should be one of the independent people.
I am sure that some sharp-eyed Members of the Committee will have noticed that, by a quirk of the printer's trade, my name was deprived of the letter "l" on the Marshalled List. Whatever may be the impact of the "Ear of Limerick", I hope that the voice of Limerick may elicit some sympathetic response. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to support this procedural amendment which in principle, if carried, will save a great deal of trouble in future, especially in the courts on judicial review. One of the problems under the 1981 Act is that on a statementing process from the local education authority the appeals committee is often comprised of people who actually made the decision as to the statement. That is very unsatisfactory. It is causing practical problems in the courts. It is a matter which I hope my noble friend the Minister will think is not a question of criticism but a matter to which he might give his attention with a view to dealing with a difficulty, having taken advice.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I should also like to support this amendment. It seems to me to make the essential difference between those who are advising on quality and those who are actually giving out the funds. One says that while still not being sure of the role of the quality audit unit. Even so, I am sure it is right to hope that the voice of Limerick will have the ear of the Minister on this occasion.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The purpose behind this amendment is to secure the position of the quality assessment committee as a strong body able to offer objective advice to the funding council on quality issues. The Government are at one with the mover of the amendment. That is why the White Paper indicated that a majority of members of the committee will be representatives of institutions, and it is why subsection (2) of Clause 66 provides that the majority of the committee's members shall be persons with experience of, and capacity in, the provision of higher education. Without this, the committee's work and advice would have little force with the council and carry little credibility with the institutions. However, I am not at all sure that it makes sense for legislation to require that a majority of the members, including the chairman, should be independent of the council, by which I understood the noble Lord to mean not members of the council.
The funding councils need to have the best possible advice from their committees on quality issues; and it is equally important that the views of the committee are registered at the highest levels of the council's decision-making processes. If the committee's voice is to be heard strongly at the times it matters most, at the full meetings of the council, it may well be in everyone's interest if there is some—possibly a great deal—overlap between the membership of the committee and that of the council.
This argument would apply particularly to the question of the chairman. On the one hand, it has been argued that an independent chairman would go some way towards guaranteeing the independence of the advice provided to the council by the committee. I can see the force of that point. On the other hand, barring the chairman from being a member of the council, as this amendment would do, would prevent the chairman participating directly in council debates, including those on quality. I am not sure if that is the best way to secure a high profile for quality issues in the new arrangements. Indeed, I rather suspect that if the Government had required in the Bill that the

1115
chairman of the quality assessment committee should not be a member of the council we would have been criticised for marginalising the issues of quality in general and the position of the chairman of the committee in particular.
Until the councils have had the chance to consider these important issues I do not think that this Committee should reach a firm view which is then placed in legislative concrete. Subsection (2) of Clause 66 provides the institutions the majority voice on the committee as my noble friend said. That is the guarantee of independence of thought and the objectivity of advice which is so important and which will he spelled out in the Secretary of State's guidance to the funding councils. Questions of the relationship between council membership and that of the committee are bound to evolve over time with experience. At this stage, before the councils have even been formed, I doubt that it would be right to place the sorts of restrictions contained in this amendment onto the face of the Bill.
My noble friend has spoken very persuasively on this amendment and I should like the opportunity to study the matter further. In the light of that I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Limerick: I shall gladly do that, acknowledging gratefully the helpful comments that have been made by my noble friend. I think it is possible that seeking to put into an amendment that the chairman should be independent of the funding council could be said to be one bridge too far. One knows all the arguments for having a chairman who is close to the work of the body to which he reports. Obviously I have no intention of pressing that point but I am glad to hear that it will be thought about again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 272B:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
("Higher Education Standards Council
.—(1) There shall be established an independent body to be known as the Higher Education Standards Council.
(2) The Higher Education Standards Council shall have responsibility for monitoring quality in higher education and for advising each funding council, institutions (as set out in section 65(7) above) and the Secretary of State.
(3) The member of the Higher Education Standards Council shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after appropriate consultation.
(4) The Higher Education Standards Council shall produce reports on its findings and such reports shall be referred to the Select Committee on Education and Science, to institutions, to the Higher Education Funding Council, to the Secretary of State and to other parties as deemed appropriate by the Higher Education Standards Council.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should point out one or two printing errors. We not only have the "Ear of Limerick" on this page of the Marshalled List but subsection (3) of the amendment refers to "The member of the Higher Education Standards Council". It should read "members". In subsection (4) the word "Council", in line 4, should read "Councils".
Maintaining high quality provision should be at the heart of everything we do in higher education. Every institution, whatever level of qualifications is being offered, should adopt a clear and well thought out system of quality assurance. While a more diverse system of higher education is certainly welcome and is something for which many of us have argued for some years, greater diversity makes quality assurance all the more crucial. It is vital then to have in place procedures right across the higher education system which will sustain quality in the post-binary era.
While not going quite as far as the noble Earl, Lord Russell—I see he is not in his place at the moment—in suggesting that the quality of most degrees is going down, I argue that pressure on funding, which has been increasing every year with demands for lower and lower unit costs, also means that we must monitor the system properly to ensure that quality is maintained as new and probably even tougher funding methodologies are introduced.
I regret to say that the proposals in the Bill for quality assurance are deeply flawed. I have grave doubts that they will safeguard quality. My main reason for saying that is that leaving responsibility for quality assessment and quality assurance with the funding councils poses a threat to objective analysis. That is why the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, was right to suggest that if we are to have quality assessment committees appointed by the funding councils at least some of their members should be independent. I want to go further than that.
Inevitably, the funding councils will be under considerable financial pressure to keep costs down. Clause 66 gives the funding councils too prominent a role in quality assurance, leading to the danger that quality may be sacrificed for crude considerations of cost. In speaking to an earlier amendment the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, referred to the White Paper. He was surprised that there had been so little development in the Bill of some of the ideas in the White Paper on quality assurance. I share that view. There is no reference in the Bill to a United Kingdom-wide quality audit, a point to which some significance was given in the White Paper. Nor is there any mention of the role of institutions themselves. That is why we on these Benches would be able to support a perhaps revised version of the earlier amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
It should be a central feature of any system to maintain quality and standards. There is no doubt that the prime responsibility for both quality and standards must rest with the universities themselves, both new and old. However, institutions will need support, guidance and advice as well as some monitoring. This amendment goes a step further than the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Limerick. It proposes the establishment of a Higher Education Standards Council to undertake this work. I therefore believe that it meets the requirements of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in regard to an earlier amendment.
The council should cover the whole of the United Kingdom. It is unnecessary and undesirable to have separate standards councils or, indeed, quality

1117
assessment committees for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The council should cover all higher education institutions, including those which are privately funded. It is essential that their students should not end up buying something of inferior quality even though it might have the title of "degree". The standards council should advise on a range of matters, including how institutions might set up their own quality assurance provisions, student evaluation of courses, staff appraisal and career development, courses for the training of staff in teaching methods, the development of credit accumulation and transfer schemes, and external examining—indeed, all those matters that make up and secure high quality. But, above all, it should be independent and have the right to criticise the funding councils. Any committee set up by the funding councils seems very unlikely to do so. Its independence should be guaranteed by the right to publish reports on its findings. Such reports should go to various bodies, including the higher education funding councils. It should also go to the Select Committee on Education and Science, to the Secretary of State and to individual institutions.
The amendment does not specify in detail what the membership should be. However, it does say that the membership of the standards council should be appointed by the Secretary of State, in particular after consultation with the CVCP and the CDP or its successor body. Its members should largely be drawn from people with appropriate and relevant experience in higher education.
The amendment is designed to ensure that a proper system of quality assurance is established, with the setting up of an independent UK-wide body with duties to undertake this work and report on it, rather than tagging on a responsibility for the funding councils to set up committees. That is a totally inappropriate mechanism for carrying out this important work. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may ask a question for the sake of clarification. Is there not already the machinery for harmonisation in the Bill? Further, does that not lie within the remit of the Secretary of State? Therefore, is the amendment really necessary? I do not understand the position. I merely ask these questions for clarification.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I also seek clarification on this point. There is a risk of some confusion in this respect. We have the insertion after Clause 66 of the proposed new clause which would establish an "independent body" that would have responsibility for monitoring quality in higher education. But, with the quality assessment committee, Clause 66 sets out to secure that provision is made for assessing the quality of education.
Given the fact that we also have a quality audit unit, shall we not, therefore, have a plethora of organisations all of which have almost the same terms of reference? I should have expected the noble Baroness to suggest the deletion of Clause 66 before introducing the new organisation which may indeed have its merits.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may also ask the noble Baroness for clarification, especially as regards the quality audit unit. I do not know how that unit is developing. As I understand it, it is a matter of negotiations between the CVCP and the CDP at present. Is there any reason why everything that the noble Baroness suggests in the amendment should not in fact be subsumed by the quality audit unit? Therefore, might it not be an alternative arrangement to have that on the face of the Bill rather than another body?
Baroness Blackstone: I do not think that there is any reference in the Bill to a quality audit unit. There was extensive reference to it in the White Paper. It is partly because there is no such provision—and that answers the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—that we believe we need a higher education standards council.
As regards the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I entirely accept that it would make much more sense to delete Clause 66 so far as concerns reference to the funding councils setting up quality assessment committees and to put in its place the proposed new clause.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I urge Members of the Committee not to accept the amendment. I say that because it brings together in one what I believe to be two essentially separate operations. The quality audit unit is quite properly not included in the legislation. That is because it is something which is to be under the control, and reporting to, the higher education institutions. It is a very important part of the academic freedom which we have sought and which the Committee has discussed at great length today. It seems to me to be an absolutely key part of the retention of that academic freedom that it should be separate and seen to be separate from academic assessment.
The work of the academic audit unit will be, above all, to monitor and validate the internal quality assurance arrangements which exist within institutions. It will report to the heads of the institutions; it will publish its reports; and it will make it clear that we are all above the threshold necessary to ensure that there is academic quality, and that academic quality assurance mechanisms exist within the institution.
Quality assessment is quite properly part of the funding councils' responsibility for ensuring that quality has an important influence on how funding is provided to the institutions. Part of the funding councils' remit is that they should have quality assessment committees and ensure that there are adequate arrangements for the assessment of quality. It is important that the work of that external body, reporting back to the funding councils, which is looking at the range of quality and making judgments well above the thresholds, should be separate and distinct from the audit unit which is within the control of the institutions themselves. I therefore strongly resist uniting them in one committee in the way suggested by the amendment.
Lord Addington: We on these Benches support the amendment and feel that it covers important ground.
Lord Flowers: I wholly agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, said. I shall not support the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I hope that the Minister will take on board what my noble friend Lady Blackstone said: that this proposed new body is a replacement for the quality audit committees. Whether the Government accept it, its attraction is that it has certain features which the quality audit committees do not have. One of the attractions is that it talks about standards and not quality. Quality is what motor cars and clothing have and not what universities have; but that is a small point.
The amendment has two characteristics. First, it wants the members to be independent from the funding councils. That is right because from time to time the funding councils are bound to feel that they want increased output without it having an impact on standards. I mean, "Don't worry about the quality, feel the width". The second aspect is that one must also have independence from the universities. That is what the proposal has, because it will be the universities or the colleges which will tend to feel that any increase in output will have an impact on standards. They will say, "Don't worry about the width, feel the quality".
The only way to achieve the right balance is if the quality assessment committee, the standards committee, or whatever it is called, is, in its composition, independent of both those bodies, although it will have a great many experienced academics among its numbers.
Lord Peston: I am now totally mystified. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, obviously knows about the audit unit, whereas the rest of us have not been given that information. There is nothing in the Bill about the audit unit. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, supported the noble Baroness; so he must know about the unit. The Opposition do not know the details of the unit. In particular, we do not know whether it is independent. Perhaps the Minister will tell us something about the unit since it is being used in relation to an amendment. I object strongly to being told something about which I know nothing and which is not in the Bill.
This is a serious matter. What is especially serious is the independence question. There is no evidence that the audit unit will be independent in the way that the amendment provides. We need to know about it.
Having listened to the noble Baroness—I assume that since she sits on that side of the Chamber she has been briefed on these matters—I am beginning to wonder what the quality assessment committees will now do. They are clearly not going to be independent—at least we do not yet know whether the amendments tabled by the noble Earl will be accepted. They will advise, but they will not be advising the institutions. What are they up to then? From where will they obtain their information?
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The White Paper made reference to the quality audit unit and correctly stated that it was under the supervision of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I am not familiar with the detail of its working, but the White Paper makes that matter clear. I believe it to be accurate in that respect.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I hope I may take those comments a little further. The unit to which my noble friend refers is the academic audit unit, which is the body at present existing at the universities. The quality audit unit which we are considering at the moment will constitute a kind of merger between what exists at the end of the term of the existing body and what is acceptable to the Committee of Polytechnic Directors.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: At the moment we do not yet know what the quality audit unit is or what it will be doing, as the polytechnic directors and vice-chancellors have not yet decided that issue.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord for those comments. It appears there are two of us who do not yet know what this body will consist of. Some of us are trying to deal with this Bill. My noble friend has introduced a sensible set of amendments and I do not believe they can be rejected on the basis of bodies that we as yet know nothing about. Given the importance of independence, a fortiori, one would like to know about this matter simply in terms of the rules of the game when one decides whether or not one agrees with interventions on amendments.
My noble friend will decide what she wishes to do with the amendment. But what worries me is that I am beginning to wonder whether I understand what the quality assessment committees are and what their function will be. I also wonder whether anyone else understands what they are and what their function will be. Normally I make the assumption that, if I do not understand something, no one else does either.
The two essential points are as follows. First, there is the matter of how the council will be advised on assessment. Secondly, how will the institutions be advised on quality or, better still, standards? My noble friend's amendment deals with precisely those matters by guaranteeing independence of advice. However, I doubt whether my noble friend will wish to pursue this matter much further at this time as normally we like to proceed on the basis of knowledge rather than lack of knowledge. I also await the Government's response to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, as that is tremendously important in this regard. I do not believe one can simply accept a wave of the hand—I say with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, that that is all we are offered—as an assurance that these units will do the job they ought and allow ourselves to be told that we shall just have to wait until they are in place to see how they are operated. That is not the way legislation should be carried forward.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I fully understand that the noble Baroness, quite rightly, wishes to ventilate

1121
the policies of her party. However, the Government consider that her proposals are—to use the expression of the noble Baroness—seriously flawed.
I shall try to dispose of one matter—that of the quality unit. This is mentioned in the Bill and there is no need for the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to rage at me that he has no knowledge of that body, as I am advised that it is referred to in Clause 78(2) of the Bill. Although there is no specific reference to the unit—the noble Baroness mentioned this—the Bill refers to the reserve power of the Secretary of State to require such a unit to be established if necessary. He does not expect to use that power.
The function of the quality audit unit is to assess the arrangements that institutions have in place to ensure that the quality of their academic work is maintained at a satisfactory standard.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry but I am not sure about this matter. Perhaps the Minister can help me. I see no reference to this point in Clause 78(2). Will the Minister guide the Committee on that matter?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Reference is made in Clause 78(2) to the reserve power.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord McCarthy: Clause 78(2) states:
"Any two or more councils shall, if directed to do so by the Secretary of State, jointly make provision for the assessment by a person appointed by them of matters relating to the arrangements made by each institution in Great Britain which is within the higher education sector for maintaining academic standards in the institution".
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The sentence begins:
"Any two or more councils shall, if directed to do so by the Secretary of State".
That is a reference to those powers although, I agree, not a very clear one.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord is pulling our legs, is he not? I was going to say that I appreciate that it is late, but it is not very late. I can read words such as "audit unit". I assert as an empirical proposition that no rational person could interpret those words as meaning audit unit.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: It has now been read out twice. It is subject to a certain amount of interpretation. That is the reserve power that has been requested.
Returning to the amendment, I said that I believed that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness was flawed.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am sorry to labour the point but the noble Lord is insulting the Committee with those remarks. By no means can the point which my noble friend made be interpreted as being included in Clause 78(2). Why does the Minister not withdraw what he has said and say that he will return to the matter at a later stage with the important information which my noble friend has correctly requested?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am not pulling anybody's leg. The reserve power is contained in the first part of Clause 78(2), and the second part of the subsection relates to the audit. That is my submission.
The amendment would be rather better if something had been done about Clause 66, as the noble Baroness has acknowledged. The proposal for quality assurance outlined in the Government's White Paper set out a framework for considering quality in institutions which I consider would be equally rigorous but also far more appropriate, than that put forward in the amendment.
It is recognised by the White Paper proposals that it is to institutions that the task of setting up an organisation to scrutinise internal quality control systems and ensure that they are working should be remitted. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals have responded quickly and positively to the Government's invitation to say how such a unit would operate. They propose visits to each and every institution to examine quality assurance systems and structures, together with ongoing monitoring. The reports of those visits would be published, and the three bodies have accepted that an institution's public funding could ultimately be affected by an unsatisfactory report if adverse aspects were not corrected.
In addition, the organisation would be given other functions —to promote and disseminate information about best practice; to oversee the external examiner arrangements; and to continue the essential work now carried out by the CNAA in respect of credit accumulation and transfer schemes and the recognition of access courses. Finally, the institutions have accepted that the organisation should have lay members and outside observers and assessors.
The amendment would appear to provide for the function in question to be carried out by a council appointed by the Secretary of State. It is unfortunate that the noble Baroness does not appear to share the view of the Government and those working in higher education that institutions have earned the right to regulate themselves on this matter. The Government see no value in a quango appointed by the Secretary of State monitoring quality assurance systems in institutions but lacking the power, or self-interest, to improve them where necessary.
The other side of quality is, of course, assessment of work actually carried out in institutions. Clause 66 places the duty of securing assessment upon the funding councils. The Government believe that the quality assessment responsibility should lie with the funding council because it is the council which has the duty to secure that money is spent where it can achieve the best results. As we have already discussed, the councils will be advised by essentially independent committees on how they should exercise their responsibilities, and the assessments themselves will be carried out by experts.
By transferring the quality assessment function from within the funding council apparatus to the standards council the amendment of the noble Baroness would make it far harder for funding

1123
decisions to be influenced by quality considerations and far more difficult for the councils to ask for specific reports on aspects of institutions' provision which are of concern. Once again, the amendment would provide a monitoring body without the responsibility or self-interest to improve matters.
The fourth indent of the amendment would require that the reports of the higher education standards council be made available to Parliament and in particular to the Select Committee on Education and Science in another place. As we said in debates on previous amendments, all reports of the assessment units and all those of the audit units on quality issues will be published and available to Parliament, and to all others with an interest.
The Secretary of State's responsibility is for the funding of institutions as a whole. Parliament has already taken, and takes advantage of, opportunities to question Ministers on their funding of higher education. The noble Baroness's proposal would not therefore provide any greater powers for Parliament than already exist.
The various responsibilities for maintaining and enhancing quality have been carefully considered by the Government and their proposals follow consultation with representatives of higher education. The amendment would stifle the various arrangements under the dead weight of an all-embracing quango which would have power to monitor but little real interest in achieving improvements where they are most needed, at institutional level; or it would impose another and wholly unnecessary layer onto arrangements which the Government consider will provide the necessary rigour. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he explain why specific reports would be more difficult under the amendment? I do not understand that.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am not sure that I can. I am advised by those who have experience in these matters that that would be the logical conclusion, but that is a challenge that I am not able to defend and I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Lord for at least agreeing to write to me. He has mentioned a number of points this evening on which I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I do not accept them and I believe that he is wrong. He suggested that if the amendment were accepted the institutions would be less likely to regulate themselves. That is not what it is about.
I made it clear when moving the amendment that we regard it as of the utmost importance that institutions should regulate themselves and carry out much of the work to maintain quality and standards and to institute procedures to ensure that that happens. However, I went on to say that in our view it is highly desirable to have an independent higher education standards council to ensure that things do not go wrong and to help institutions by providing some guidance, by undertaking research, and so on. I
1124
was surprised that the Minister suggested that the council would not have the responsibility or self-interest to improve matters. Again, that appears to be an assertion rather than something that he has demonstrated by what he said.
Finally, it is a little steep for the Government to suggest that we are stifling arrangements under the dead weight of an all-embracing quango. Part of the Bill is about setting up an all-embracing quango with respect to the further education funding council rather than continuing the more pluralistic arrangements that we have at present. However, I acknowledge and accept that, if the amendment is to stand, Clause 66 must be deleted. I should therefore like to withdraw the amendment, consider with some care what the Minister said and come back at the next stage.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, will she tell us whether a government led by her party would cease to reduce university unit costs any further? I cannot take seriously any concern for quality that does not give that.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not believe that that question has any relevance whatever to the amendment and I certainly could not agree to answer it at this time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 67 [Higher education corporations; constitution and conduct]:
[Amendment No. 273 not moved.]
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 273 A:
Page 49, line 18, after ("Authorities") insert ("and the National Health Service").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend. The present wording in Clause 67 does not give the full title of the Audit Commission. The wording as revised by the amendment will do so. It is a technical amendment. I hope that the Committee will approve it. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I did not listen very closely and missed the point. Am I to understand that this amendment shows the correct title of the Audit Commission and that there is nothing at all substantive in the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: As I said, it is a purely technical amendment. It is indeed just the title that is amended.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 274 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 275 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 275 A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 50, line 3, leave out from ("apply") to ("as") in line 4,
The noble Lord said: This is a matter of student representation and indeed representation of the staff on all new committees from which they have

1125
effectively been removed. When dealing with further education I suggested to the Government that, as students were the consumers and without them all institutions in the education field would be totally irrelevant, students should be consulted as often as possible. I did not receive a very satisfactory response.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has stated that the Government think it desirable that staff and students should be a party to decisions that affect them. Also the former Under-Secretary of State responsible for higher education, Mr. Robert Jackson, said in another place that the Government valued enormously the participation of students in the governing bodies and institutions. In three and a half years we seem to have done a volte-face. I ask the Government why that has happened. The simple fact is that we are talking about the people who are directly involved in consuming the product of education. If they are the consumer and not the product, as I said before, and if they are not being produced merely to go and do a certain number of jobs, they should have a say in the product. Moreover, the people who prime them with information—to continue in this rather mechanical vein—should surely be consulted as well. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I wish to add just one sentence in support of the amendment. In my experience student representation is often of conspicuously high quality and we benefit from it.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I support the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I am entirely in agreement with his observations, though not necessarily with the precise form of the amendment. Over the years in this country we have become used to the participation of student representatives or student nominees in the councils and governing committees of our universities and polytechnics. The matter was hotly debated in this Chamber when the 1988 Bill was under consideration. The burning issue then was whether one student or two should sit on each committee or council. Despite the wishes of most speakers in the debate, the Government's view prevailed that one—or to be more accurate at least one—would be enough rather than two.
It is with concern that one finds that the present Bill removes the obligation that at least one student should be included. Most unfortunately it also lays down that any students whom the governing body or corporation consents to admit will not be selected, elected or nominated by his or her peers (if I may use that term in this Committee) but will be co-opted. That is to say, the student nominee will be nominated by the senior members of the governing body. That cannot be right. On Tuesday last many Members of the Committee on both sides spoke in favour of the inclusion of students on the boards of further education institutions. Only one noble Lord rose to oppose that aspect of the amendment then proposed.
In this country we have in large measure a system of government within higher education based on trust and mutual respect. I can think of no case where a student presence on the governing body would be
1126
inappropriate. The concept of reserved business can always be invoked, and properly so, when the affairs of individuals—whether of staff or students—are under discussion. It is in the interests of all that students be encouraged to participate in the affairs of our universities. The suggestion that students be tolerated rather than admitted of right is unfortunate. The provision that, when students are tolerated, the nominees should be chosen not by students but by senior figures is simply obnoxious.
I therefore have great sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. However, I regret that he has allowed the argument for student representation to be linked with other categories of representation. Had his amendment referred only to students I would have supported it unequivocally; but it refers also to teachers. Schedule 6 already makes provision for two teachers to be on the governing bodies. The amendment also refers to non-academic staff. That argument may have its merits, but they may be felt less keenly by some Members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber than those relating to students.
In my own college—it will not fall within the purview of the clause—the statutes speak of the college as comprising the master, fellows and scholars of the college. That is as it should be. Students sit by right on the council except when areas of reserved business are discussed. They are not representatives. They are elected by other students, just as Members of Parliament are elected by their constituents. The term "representative" or "nominee" can be taken in precisely that sense.
I hope that the Minister will be willing to give further consideration to student representation and to inform the Secretary of State about what I predict will be the overwhelming feeling of the Committee on the issue. If my noble friend gives such an undertaking I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I endorse what my noble friend said and to an extent support the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Unfortunately, Amendment No. 277B does less than justice to students. As my noble friend said, the question as to whether their presence on the governing body should be mandatory is buried under the different issue of whether governing bodies would work better if members were representative of, for example, teachers' unions and other unions to which staff belong.
The balance of the governing body would best be obtained by appointing people with a variety of experience, not elected as representatives. We have discussed that argument in relation to further education colleges. The position is not all that different when one considers higher education institutions.
The issue of whether students should be present, and whether such presence should be mandatory, should be an entirely separate matter. There is at least a case for including students within the scope of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said when we discussed further education, students are the institution. They should take an interest in what the

1127
governing body does. They should be aware that they are playing a direct part in the decision making and that it is part of their education to do so. I recognise that there are problems in some institutions and that it is extremely difficult to ask busy businessmen and academics to sit through prolonged political manoeuvring and wrangling which some students feel is their role.
There are some areas of discussion in which students should not be involved. Any amendment to introduce student representation on to the face of the Bill would have to be accompanied by a provision that governing bodies could stipulate aspects which students would not be able to discuss or vote upon. For example, I refer to staff conditions of service, staff discipline, salaries, and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made no such provision in his amendment relating to FE colleges. I did not then speak but I voted against his amendment for that reason. There is no doubt that should the presence of students be made mandatory the ability of governing bodies to disallow their presence when certain business is discussed must also be made mandatory. It may be that there should be a balancing clause by means of which compulsory membership is brought to an end. But that is for another stage and for another day. The amendment, which merely argues for a representative governing body and suggests that student representatives are the same as union representatives and people who work in the college, is not valid. I cannot support it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is a short issue and can be dealt with briefly. An overwhelming case has been made for reconsideration of subsections (4) and (5) in the light of the recent discussion in the Committee. The point of student representation has already been accepted in the Committee. The only dispute related to the quality of mandate, being mandated by a trade union and so forth. Let us not go over that ground again. There is no question of "mandatory" in the true sense of the word. Merely because a student is a member of the body does not mean that he must turn up in order to make up a quorum any more than must anyone else. The issue of whether students have the right to be there is for decision. It is an issue that the Government have already viewed with sympathy and perhaps we can leave it to them to sort out the drafting.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 276 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 277, 277B and 277D. I wish to speak to them as a group. Members on this side of the Committee are worried by the fact that the Government are changing provisions that were made in the Education Reform Act 1988. These amendments preserve the status quo established under that Act. The Act specified that the instruments of government should include in the membership of governing bodies a local authority member, a teacher, a general staff member and a student. Under the Bill they will be specifically excluded unless invited to rejoin as co-opted members. The Government have
1128
not given a satisfactory explanation as to why they should be excluded. I should like to hear such an explanation from the Minister.
If the Government wish to have a smooth transition into the new system there appears to be every reason for retaining on the new governing bodies categories of people, apart from the individuals who happen to fill such slots, who have considerable knowledge of the institution and expertise in how it is run.
I wish to demolish the argument that may be put forward by the Minister in reply. It is that the size of governing bodies is such as to preclude those people being represented and continuing to be represented. The Bill specifies that governing bodies can have up to 22 members. The number would be larger if the amendment soon to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, were accepted. That kind of number is large enough to allow for the inclusion of a student, a member of the teaching staff and a member of the support staff.
We had a long debate in Committee when discussing the further education part of the Bill in regard to the question of representation concerning whether or not these people had been mandated to argue a specific point of view. I believe it was agreed, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, that a student representative need not be somebody who has been mandated by students to take a specific line. As other Members said—the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in particular made this point—it is preferable that any student should be elected rather than nominated by the governing body.
Perhaps I can go on to say that the argument that such people only pursue their own vested interests is absolutely absurd. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' Committee with any experience of higher education will deny that that is the fact; whether it is students or staff representatives, they all play a part in the discussions. My experience is quite the opposite; that they do not come representing a specific point of view which they are then determined to pursue.
I should also like to dismiss the argument, again put forward when we were debating further education in Committee, that some of those people operate as trade union representatives. There are many other ways of negotiating, discussing and consulting open to trade unions in higher education institutions. It is not done on governing bodies. Although it is possible that some staff representatives who are elected may be involved in trade union activities, many others have no such involvement. Indeed, in my experience the majority have no such involvement.
Perhaps I can again anticipate what I suspect the Minister will say in reply. He will argue that it is possible for a governing body to co-opt students or members of the staff of institutions. Earlier in the debate reference was made by one of the other speakers to the fact that the schedule already says that two members of staff may be included. The crucial words are, "may be" included. We argue that members of staff "should be" included. When one looks at Amendment No. 277B, it says,
"the following representatives shall be included",

1129
rather than "may be" included. That is a crucial and important difference. However, if it is right that both staff and students should be represented, that they do have something to add and that the smooth running of an institution is helped by bringing them into the decision-making process—which again is certainly my experience and the experience of other Members of your Lordships' Committee involved in higher education—then those people should surely be represented on governing bodies as of right. That should be written on to the face of the Bill. Not to do so leaves open the possibility that a poorly-managed or poorly-run institution could exclude them. No well-run institution will want a governing body without at least one teacher, without a representative of the other staff and without at least one student representative.
Perhaps I can ask what has happened since 1988 to make the Government change their mind and exclude those groups from statutory representation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, perhaps I can remind the Minister that with respect to students there was a debate only three-and-a-half years ago in which it was made clear that those speaking for the Government thought it essential that students should be represented.
Since 1988 I know of no evidence that either staff or student representation has been detrimental to any institution, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, seemed to imply. I argue that institutions have positively benefited from the involvement of staff and students. Students have a unique perspective within higher education and it would be both wasteful and counterproductive to ignore it. I support the amendments and look forward to hearing a positive response from the Minister.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Baroness referred to Amendment No. 277B. I can do no other than oppose it. I have in my hand the parliamentary briefing from NALGO and no doubt the noble Baroness has received it. It supports the amendment and gives its reasons. At this hour of night I shall not go into them but reserve my position. The document raises the kind of problems about which I have spoken concerning trade union representation. Although I do not resile in any way from students being represented, I reserve my position on the basis of the parliamentary briefing on the amendment from NALGO.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I wish to add a word on the question of students. I have sat on the hebdomadal council in Oxford for six years with them and in that time they never put a foot wrong. They were responsible, thoughtful, they did their homework and never regarded themselves or behaved as though they were mandated by anyone. They were independent, free-thinking members of the council. They brought to it a dimension which we did not have before and which we found extremely valuable.
Lord Desai: I support the amendment which appears in my name as well as that of the noble Lord,
1130
Lord Addington. At my place of work we have found student representation not only necessary but valuable. I believe that we should be positive about it.
Lord Adrian: Perhaps I may say that, no less keen than Oxford, when I was vice-chancellor at Cambridge I found the presence of students on the council of the senate to be enormously valuable and supportive.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: As there has not yet been a contribution from the Cross Benches on this subject, perhaps I may recall that I was, I believe, the first person in the Committee to draw attention to the undesirability of the use of the word "representative" in another context. I find the word unattractive and unacceptable in Amendment No. 277B.
The whole business of whether someone is mandated or not when he is a representative has been discussed, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. In this case, as in another with which I was concerned, the Government are regressive in their drafting. One has only to go back to the debates on the 1988 Bill to substantiate that remark. The wording is regressive and clearly needs amending in respect of student representatives, if not also, as I should like to see, teacher and general staff representatives.
In 1988, Mr. Robert Jackson, memorably described in this House at the time as the "Pol Pot of higher education" said that the Government valued enormously the participation of students in governing bodies of institutions. That was not in question, he said. We must at least go back to the position as stated by Mr. Jackson in 1988. If the Government do not do so willingly, they are spoiling for a fight.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may repeat briefly what I said earlier in Committee. I fear that we are getting a slightly one-sided view of this matter. Certainly in 1988, with the passage of the Act at the time, a large number of polytechnic directors were nervous particularly of the appointment of the local authority teacher and general staff nominees to their governing bodies. The nomination of the student representatives is somewhat more controversial. But all my information is that those fears have been confirmed in the minds of the polytechnic directors. I feel sure that they will welcome the Bill as it stands. I imagine that they would oppose Amendment No. 277. The question of student representation is perhaps more difficult. I cannot help feeling that perhaps it might be achieved in some other way than necessarily putting them on the governing bodies themselves.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The noble Baroness asked me twice about what has happened since 1988. The governing bodies have had three years of operational experience and that is what has happened. The Government have sought to increase the flexibility of governing bodies to determine their membership by removing some of the prescriptive elements of Schedule 7 of the Education Reform Act 1988. As the Committee will know, this schedule acts as the instrument of government for higher education corporations. The Bill provides that local authority nominees, teacher nominees, general staff nominees

1131
and student nominees, shall not automatically be members of a governing body, but may be co-opted as members if that is what the governing body wants. That reduction in prescription has been welcomed by the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals.
My understanding from the consultations on the proposals is that the majority of governing bodies will wish to retain representatives from some or all of those sectors as co-opted members because that provides an effective means of securing views from those communities. From all sides of the Committee noble Lords have said how valuable various representatives, particularly student representatives, are. As their contribution is so universally acknowledged, it will follow that most of the institutions will have them on their governing bodies.
Lord Peston: I may have missed what the noble Lord said and I need to know what is being said. Did he say that the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics has written to the Government saying that the particular change as regards students is something that it wants? I understood the Minister to have said, when he answered my noble friend as to what has changed in three years, that that is something that the CDP had asked the Government to do. I very much need to know that in terms of deciding our position on this matter in future.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Of course the noble Lord wants to know and I shall tell him what I said. This reduction in prescription has been welcomed by the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord specifically mentioned students. Did the CDP actually say that it did not wish to be obliged to have students on the governing bodies? It is enormously important that we know the answer to that.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I do not have anything to add on that point because I do not know anything more at the moment. I shall consider what the noble Lord has said.
Lord McCarthy: If the noble Lord says that the majority of the governing bodies wish to retain students, but that the majority of the directors and principals were in favour of what the Government want to do, is the Minister saying that those directors are unrepresentative of their governing bodies? They seem to be saying different things.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I cannot have been clear. There was a reduction in the prescription which was welcomed, and not anything else. I have just told the Committee who can be co-opted onto these bodies, and that may include students. I imagine that that view will be reflected and that in consequence they will come onto governing bodies. There are other ways of securing such views. It is right to allow governing bodies themselves to determine what method to adopt. The Bill at present provides for the nominee members to cease to hold office at the point when the Privy Council draws up a new instrument of government for
1132
a higher education corporation. The amendments remove this provision, and restore the prescriptive elements in relationship to the membership of teacher, general staff and student representatives.
I do not quarrel with anything that has been said about the value of students and the contribution they make. In fact, I do not believe that it is for me to comment, as people have done, on the value or otherwise of individual people. We are making this less prescriptive so that people can judge for themselves. However, where I cannot move at the moment or help in any way is in allowing anything in a representative capacity. Having said that, I know that we debated this matter and argued about what "representative" meant. However, if in this case, for instance, I were to move on students as representatives it would unquestionably allow in the other categories who believe they are representative.
I cannot agree tonight to anything beyond promising, as my noble friend Lord Renfrew asked, to convey to my right honourable friend the force of the arguments put forward on behalf of student representation. Following that argument, I have to tell the Committee that I must resist this amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Before the Minister sits down, in arguing against these amendments he has made a great deal of the Government's wish to be less prescriptive. However, the Government do seem to be a little inconsistent. On the one hand, they want to be less prescriptive about categories but on the other they are being extremely prescriptive about the size of governing bodies. They are actually reducing the size of these bodies from 25 to 22. Can the Minister explain why the Government are being inconsistent in that respect? It seems to me that regulations are only too prescriptive when they guarantee proper representation for staff and students; but when they start getting into the question of precise size then they are not prescriptive.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I think there has been fairly general acknowledgment from within the Committee that a small body works better than a big one. We have made a slight movement in that direction. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, laughs. He may find it funny. I remember the noble Baroness herself saying that she could "handle a large body". I believe those were the words she used last week. Strong arguments were put forward to back up the Government's view that a small body runs these things best.
Earl Russell: I think we are forgetting one argument for this amendment. It is a purely prudential argument and is the same for which King Edward I summoned representatives of the Commons to Parliament, which was then a dangerously trendy thing to do: that is, that it is quite important when things are being done—some of which may be unpleasant—to gain consent to their being done. To do that it is sometimes necessary to have people in the capacity of representatives.
The Earl of Limerick: Perhaps I can help the Committee on one point, having studied these provisions rather carefully over the past three-and-a-half years. There is a difference between appointment, nomination and representation, which is spelled out if one looks very closely at the fine print. The appointing authority for governors is, in the main, the board itself. In certain cases it is a power reserved for the independent governors, but only in certain cases—usually if appointments are running tight to their date to within three months. That may be on nomination.
I believe that perhaps a point has been missed by a number of those noble Lords who intervened to say that the purpose of this amendment would be merely to restore the balance of the board to what it was before, because these are exactly the same categories of people and the same numbers that we already have on our boards. However, by using the word "representative" there would be an implication that they arrived by a different route from that of being nominated by their constituencies and then appointed by the board.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I have received advice. On the sentence that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was worried about, the bodies I described have not written to ask for it but they have said that they would find the change helpful. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave an historical illustration. I cannot match his erudition and therefore cannot comment on that at the moment. I shall read carefully what he said.
Lord Addington: I listened with great interest to the many points raised. We seem to have a general
1134
consensus that student involvement in the governing bodies would be a good idea. There is another important argument here about staff. The two are related but are not one and the same. That is why I agree that they could be separated. I feel that students are the more important of the two. If the students feel that something is wrong with the staff they will probably represent that point. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, felt that students should be excluded from certain matters. When it comes to staff discipline, one or two offences come to mind in relation to which all those affected at universities will agree students should be the first to be considered.
Lord Peston: I cannot believe that a member of the academic staff could ever do something wrong!
Lord Addington: The Minister has said that he will convey the feelings of the Committee, especially on the student issue, to his right honourable friend. With that assurance, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment at this stage. I fully reserve the right to come back to it in order to clarify the edges of the issue so that we can start talking about student representation. As I have said before, if the students are represented, most of the other problems will be taken care of through them. They are the responsive body within the university or at least one through which the staff and even the non-academic staff can act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 277 not moved.]
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [New Schedule 7A to the Education Reform Act 1988]:
The Earl of Limerick The Earl of Limerick moved Amendment No. 277A:
Page 73, line 27, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-four").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 277C. After the previous debate it may be that a simple numerical question will come as some relief. My amendment seeks simply to retain the maximum number on the governing bodies at 24–25 including the chief executive—rather than having it reduced to 21 plus one as is proposed in the Bill. The first of the amendments seeks to leave the numbers as they are on the ground that it is too soon to be seeking to change something which in many cases has been seen to work rather well since the number was introduced in the Education Reform Act three and a half years ago.
Many years ago I inherited a board of 44. We had the task of getting it down to 25. That was achieved not without difficulty and now, after three years, I have the board that I believe I want. It has the right balance of skills and the range of experience that is required to contribute to three faculties which are wide in their scope and it also has the places that under the present provisions we are required to provide for our staff, our students and our local education authority representatives.
As regards the latter, I shall say only what I said on Second Reading; namely, that, while I do not resist the idea that the removal of the prescription would be helpful to some, certainly in the case of my own board I do not intend to make any use of it. We have already decided that we should like to keep the balance of the board as it is. But, of course, if we were obliged to reduce the size of the board, it would be most difficult to do so.
These matters are quite complex. There are many interlocking provisions in Schedule 7 to the Education Reform Act 1988 and Schedule 6 to this Bill. I believe that there would be other consequential requirements if the idea were to find favour that we should keep the maximum number. Certainly that would have been the case in the instance of the amendment which has just been withdrawn.
We have taken three years to get our present board. I believe that somewhere there is lurking the suspicion that now is the moment when the change needs to be made. There are a number of people whose appointments are about to come to an end and which therefore would not be renewed. I can only speak for what we did. We said that we did not want governors to retire at the same time. Therefore, on initial appointment, having first agreed that we should work with a three-year rotation, we drew lots to determine who was to serve one, two or three years in the initial period. It is a rolling renewal which we go through each year. We take much time to decide what is required to fill the place of the retiring governors; in other words, whether there will be reappointments of those retiring or whether we have a higher priority to look for someone else.
After three years, I believe that it is too soon to be seeking a change in the number. In moving the amendment, I repeat the phrase I used on Second Reading:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".—[Official Report, 21/11/91; col. 1076.]
I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has taken note of various representations made to him, including those by my noble friend Lord Limerick in this House, about the proposal in the Bill to reduce the maximum size of the governing body of a higher education corporation, not including the principal of the institution, from 24 to 21. He accepts that this may cause difficulties for some corporations which have a particular need for a wide spread of interests on the board. Therefore, he is prepared to table an amendment which will restore the maximum size to its present level, and make consequential changes to the permitted number of co-opted members.
When I was discussing the matter in regard to an earlier amendment, I did not think that I could anticipate my noble friend's amendment. But I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will acknowledge my flexibility and that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Limerick: I am greatly obliged to my noble friend. In the circumstances, I gladly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 277B to 277D not moved.]
The Earl of Limerick The Earl of Limerick moved Amendment No. 277E:
Page 73, line 47, at end insert ("which is a local education authority").
The noble Earl said: We come now to a simple question and one which I believe has only been raised in the course of consideration on this schedule. The question is: when is an independent director not independent? In the clause which is sought to be amended, we read that a governor shall not be independent if he or she is an elected member of any local authority. I stress the word "any". I suggest that that goes wider than is reasonably required. We can all understand that we should not consider someone who is sitting on a local education authority as an independent director. Currently there is a reserve place for two or three such local education authority nominees on our boards. We would not wish others to come in by another route.
Arguably it could be said that someone who sat on some other education authority would not be truly independent; indeed, he or she might be indirectly funding students who were receiving their education at the institution in question. What about the man or woman who is an elected member of a parish council, let us say in leafy Berkshire, having no concern with education at any level in that capacity, who is admirably suited to be an independent governor of an institution in every respect, except the disqualification by membership of that parish council? Why should that person be so disqualified? The wording of the

1137
amendment may be defective, but I hope that some response can be given which indicates that the point is accepted in principle. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The amendment seeks to narrow the category of persons who may not be independent members of higher education corporations from elected members of local authorities to elected members of local education authorities.
It is the function of the independent members of a higher education corporation to guide the corporation, using their experience of and capacity in industrial, commercial or employment matters or the practice of any profession. That is not a party political role and they will be able to serve the corporation best if there is no prospect of their independence being fettered by any party political allegiance such as may possibly occur in the case of an elected member of a local authority.
It is not material in that connection whether the elected member is an elected member of a local authority, as the Bill currently has it, or is an elected member of a local authority which is a local education authority, as the amendment would have it.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the Bill does not disbar an elected member of a local authority from being a member of a corporation, only an independent member, so if there were an individual, as described by my noble friend, whose expertise was greatly valued by the corporation, that person could be co-opted as a member. With that explanation, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Earl decides what to do, it seems to me that this proposal brings out the heinous nature of the Government's whole approach to the subject. Apart from the use of the word "independent" in that pejorative fashion, as if a member of a local authority is incapable of being independent - something which I regard as insulting -the Minister should reflect upon the fact that one or two of those industrial, commercial, and employment people might one day wish to stand as members of a local authority. It is not unknown in our democracy, even under this Government, that such people would wish to do that type of thing.
It appears that one of the prices those people would have to pay is that, having been an independent member of such a body, they would then be disqualified. That brings out even more clearly how poorly the Government have behaved with regard to such a matter.
The noble Earl will decide what he wishes to do. The Opposition are occasionally asked to make clear what our policy will be when we are in power. If there is one area in which we shall distance ourselves from the Government, it is with this type of amendment. That is not just in this case, but in many other cases. An amendment of this kind is disgraceful. That it should be a Member of this place attacking such people is even more of a crime. I can say nothing stronger than that because I have spoken in the
1138
strongest terms that I can. This is the most appalling approach to these matters, particularly in the use of the word "independent".
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, made an important point. He raises in my mind another, rather more technical point. We have a list of disqualifications for local authorities in the Local Government Act 1988. It is my recollection that that Act is not included in the Bill's repealing schedule. Do we here have a conflict between two statutes? Should that point be addressed before the Bill leaves this place?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has ever been elected to a local authority.
Lord Peston: I have never been elected to anything. That is why I am cautious about criticising anyone who has been elected to anything. People are told that they have behaved wrongly because they have been elected. It is because I have never been elected to anything that I am rather more careful in my approach to elected people.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am sorry that the noble Lord chooses to speak like that of elected people. The function of someone who has been elected, whether they belong to a party or not, is still political. There is nothing sinister about that. That does not alter the fact that it is a political function. If the noble Lord had been listening, he would have heard me say that we are looking for persons who have experience of and,
"have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or employment matters or the practice of any profession".
I also reminded the Committee that the Bill does not disbar elected members, who, no doubt, will be welcome on the boards.
The Earl of Limerick: I shall certainly not seek to divide the Committee on this matter, especially as my noble friend was indulgent as regards my final request. However, I found his response strange. There is nothing in the process of being elected to a parish council that should prevent a person who has relevant industrial or professional experience from being a member of a board of an institute of higher education. There is nothing to suggest he would not be an admirable member simply because he has succeeded in his ambition to be elected to a parish council, which is not concerned with education. I shall read carefully what has been said to discover whether it gives me more enlightenment than I have derived so far. I shall consider whether to return to the matter at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Limerick The Earl of Limerick moved Amendment No. 277F:
Page 74, line 19, after ("terminate") insert ("in less than one year").
The noble Earl said: This is the final amendment that I shall introduce. It is really a request for clarification. It has become almost a full-time job for

1139
a member of the academic secretariat to ensure that the composition and exact means of appointment of each and every member of the board conform precisely to Schedule 7 to the Education Reform Act as it would be amended by Schedule 6 to this Bill. Let us suppose we were required—I am happy to think that that is a possibility which has receded in the light of what my noble friend has just said—to reduce the size of the board or to change the category in some way. There are matters in that regard that are unresolved. We are told we have to make a determination in respect of the numbers.
Sub-paragraph (4) of Schedule 6 states:
"Such a determination shall not have effect so as to terminate the appointment of any person who is a member of the corporation at the time when it takes effect".
If we determined to reduce the size of the board, and were then told that what we determined would not have the effect of terminating the appointment of any person who was a member of the board, how are we to achieve this? I strongly suspect that I shall be steered to the small print somewhere in Clause 67 or thereabouts, but for the moment that is not clear to me. If we decide to make such a reduction, for how long does an individual have a guaranteed tenure of office notwithstanding that determination? Is it for the unexpired balance of his individual term, or for as long as that individual shall be re-elected, or until he dies, or until he reaches the age of 70? It is merely to elicit a response that I have suggested there should be a limit of 12 months. I await enlightenment. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: It would appear that the purpose of this amendment is to enable a governing body which has determined that it should reduce its size to attain the reduced size in a shorter time. While one can see that this has attractions, this has to be weighed against the rights of a member appointed to a corporation to serve the full term for which the member was appointed. It is always open for individual members of a corporation to resign voluntarily in order to assist the corporation to reach its desired size. The Secretary of State considers that it would be preferable to approach the question of achieving the required reduction by voluntary action rather than through forced reductions in terms of appointment. I hope that that brief explanation will satisfy my noble friend.
The Earl of Limerick: I did not fully understand that reply. Am I to understand that, if a determination to reduce the size were made, it would await natural attrition resulting from the expiry of the term of an individual member?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Either that or voluntary action by the individual.
The Earl of Limerick: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Further power of designation]:
[Amendment No. 278 not moved.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Transfer of further education institutions to higher education sector]:
[Amendment No. 279 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 280:
Page 54, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) Where an order is made under this section, section 26 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 shall apply as if any reference in section 26 shall be a reference to a Higher Education Corporation.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 280, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 281 and 282.
We now move to Clause 70, which deals with the transfer of further education institutions to the higher education sector. The purpose of all three amendments is to improve the degree of protection given to the employees of those corporations, who could find themselves at a disadvantage as a result of such a transfer when they are directed compulsorily towards a new employer. That is not a new problem. It is endemic in the private sector whenever there is a merger and in the public sector in cases of privatisation. It is increasingly common in the education field as a result of the 1988 Act.
There is a series of possible transfers, which we attempt to deal with in a series of amendments. For example, staff could be transferred from an LEA college of further education to an independent college in the further education sector, creating a new employer. An independent college in either the higher or further education sector might be dissolved under powers contained in the Bill and the employees directed elsewhere. Alternatively, it could be that the college of further education was upgraded to the higher education sector. If the institution is promoted the employee will find himself or herself with a new employer. In principle, I suppose, a higher education institution could be relegated to become a further education institution and, again, the employees would find themselves with a new employer.
We seek to improve what is provided in all those circumstances. Amendment No. 280 deals with those in institutions which are promoted from further education status to higher education status, as they could be under Clause 7. We give them the protection of Clause 26. That protection should apply to those who move from LEA FE colleges to the new corporations. At present, the staff covered by a transfer from further education to higher education do not appear to be covered by the Bill. We believe that that must be an oversight on the part of the Government. It cannot be the Government's intention to apply a set of protections in one circumstance but, in another set of circumstances when the institution is promoted from one sector to another, to provide no protection whatsoever. We propose that the protection which would have applied under Clause 26 should apply in both circumstances.
Amendment No. 281, which is in the form of a new clause, deals with the future position in which a higher education corporation might be dissolved, presumably because it did not satisfy an audit committee, the

1141
council or some other provision. In those circumstances, these provisions should apply rather than the provisions of the 1988 Act, because they are not as good as these provisions.
Amendment No. 282 deals with the upgrading of an institution from FE to HE. In those circumstances, not only the individual contracts but also the collective agreements should be protected. That point was debated on an earlier amendment, so I shall not repeat the arguments at any length. As a result of the application of the protections in the 1988 Act, it has been made clear that the present protections for maintaining the terms and conditions of employment do not apply to any advantages that derive from collective agreements—grievance procedures, negotiation of new agreements and so on. We have put forward these three amendments in order to complete the protection which it must be assumed was intended in the Bill to all categories of transfer. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, to seek to ensure that the position of staff at further education corporations is not affected should those corporations become higher education corporations under Clause 70.
However, we believe that Amendment No. 280 is unnecessary. The authority employing the staff is the corporation and the corporation remains the employer throughout the transition. The corporation does not cease to be the employer because its nature undergoes a change from being a further education corporation to a higher education corporation. The Government recognise that there is a need to put beyond doubt that orders made under Section 128 of the Education Reform Act 1988 are able to transfer contracts of employment. However, Amendment No. 281 is unnecessary because the Bill makes provision to do that in paragraph 31(c) of Schedule 8 which I did not hear the noble Lord mention.
Amendment No. 282 is not desirable either. As a consequence of the provisions in paragraph 31(c) of Schedule 8, any order made under Section 128 may apply Section 127 of the Education Reform Act 1988. Section 127 of the 1988 Act provides for all the employee's legal rights under his contract of employment to be maintained when the employee transfers to the transferee institution. If rights under a collective agreement have been incorporated in the employee's contract of employment, those rights will transfer and, looking at the position from the new employer's point of view, become an obligation on the employer. If there is a collective agreement but rights under it have not been incorporated in the contract of employment, it would be an undesirable extension of the scope of the Bill to transfer those rights.
I find these complicated questions, and I hope that I have understood the noble Lord correctly. I hope that the explanations have satisfied him and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I suppose that I should give the Minister one and a half out of three. I am not sure that I understood what he said about Amendment No. 281, but I shall consult Schedule 8. It is possible that he is right and that the point is covered. Amendment No. 280 states that the authority is a corporation, so I suppose that he means that there is no transfer of the contract at all. That is not what I have been advised. I have been advised that there is a change in the contract and therefore there is need for a provision. On the other hand, in the case of Amendment No. 282, the noble Lord did not offer anything at all. We know of cases in which the courts have said, particularly with regard to the 1988 Act, that certain aspects which are derived from collective agreements are not transferred. It is in order to transfer those aspects of the contract that we put forward the amendment. However, it is now 10 minutes to 11, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 281 and 282 not moved.]
Clause 71 [Variation of trust deeds]:
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 282A:
Page 54, line 33, at end insert:
("(3) Subsection (1) shall not apply to any trust deed or other instrument which—

(a) by virtue of any other Act or of any Royal Charters may be modified by or with the consent of the Privy Council, or

(b) relates to any institution which is not in receipt of grants loans or other payments from either of the Higher Education Funding Councils.".

The noble Lord said: There is a most unfortunate aspect to Clause 71 which I very much hope was not intended. It is an aspect which I think would be as unfortunate as many Members feel are the very broad provisions of Clauses 64 and 77, which have already been so exhaustively discussed today.
I shall set out the problem as clearly as I can. The Committee will perceive that it is a serious matter. Each of the existing universities in Britain was established either by a specific Act of Parliament or by a Royal Charter, under which procedures are laid down for making statutes. Any new statutes are proposed by the universities in question and have to be approved by the Privy Council. The new universities which we are discussing, formerly polytechnics, by the present Bill will be supervised by a higher education corporation, as indeed they are now as polytechnics under Section 157 of the 1988 Act. Under that Act the Secretary of State can, by order, make any change that he wishes in the trust deed or instrument regulating an institution—a polytechnic.
Clause 71 of the present Bill will allow an order of the Privy Council to modify the governing instrument after consultation. That may be a suitable and reasonable provision for the new universities. I believe it to be so. It applies to them as polytechnics under the 1988 Act and will do so with minor changes in the future. But Clause 71 would apply to:
"any institution within the higher education sector"

1143
which, under Clause 87, applies to all universities receiving support from the higher education funding council; including, therefore, all—or perhaps it is all but one—of the existing universities.
The universities are governed by statutes which may properly be described as instruments. So this clause would set aside at a stroke the procedures built up over the years for all existing universities whereby their statutes may be changed. It would annul at a stroke the degree of independence conferred over the centuries by various Acts of Parliament and by Royal Charters. I should be astonished and dismayed if that were the considered intention of the Government.
Amendment No. 282A would exempt from that provision the existing and long-established universities as well as any other universities not dependent upon public funds. Moreover, it could imply that in due course any new universities might also be granted a Royal Charter which would at that point of maturity exempt that university from such arbitrary change by ministerial fiat through the agency of the Privy Council.
Moreover, Sections 202 to 204 of the Education Reform Act 1988 took a great deal of trouble to set up university commissioners whose purpose was to modify the statutes of existing universities with respect to academic tenure. Their work is not yet complete. They have not been abolished or dismissed by the present Bill. Surely the meticulous care with which they undertake their work would be mocked if it were to be superseded under this new clause.
Therefore, I greatly hope that my noble friend the Minister, who has been so courteous and helpful with so many of the matters put to him this evening, will wish to consider this matter favourably. The system of government of our established universities has emerged over centuries—the new universities in this century just as much as the ancient foundations in earlier centuries. There may be every reason to retain the rather arbitrary power of change by ministerial directive for the new universities which will be created through the application of this Bill, for a period at any rate. But surely there are no grounds, and none has been advanced, for suddenly applying the provision to our existing universities. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: From these Benches I support the amendment. I do not want to add anything to what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said. He has been admirably clear and explained the problem. We share his view that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with.
Earl Russell: I was regrettably unable to be present at Second Reading; I had a long-standing previous engagement. However, I read what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, said on the subject. I congratulate him on spotting the point, which is of considerable importance. I agree with everything he said. On behalf of Members on these Benches I am happy to support the noble Lord.
Lord Adrian: My anxiety is exactly that of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I am advised that the phrase "trust deed or other instrument" in Clause 71 can be
1144
thought to include statutes of a university. Serious as would be the power of the Privy Council of its own mere motion to alter statutes, there is also the fact that it could alter trusts. Trusts, after all, are the instruments by which major donations are very often given to universities. If it is known widely by those who give large sums to universities for very specific purposes—and very welcome they are too—that the Government can by their mere fiat say that those trusts can be changed, I believe that that will seriously discourage the contributions which universities are quite rightly being encouraged to seek from the private sector.
In the case of statutes controlling employment at universities, the Education Reform Act set up a special body of statutory commissioners to undertake that alteration. If the Government must alter statutes, that was a much less arbitrary way of doing so than the proposals on the face of the Bill. I am apprehensive about the power of the Privy Council to alter trusts unilaterally; and I am much more than merely apprehensive about giving the Privy Council power unilaterally to alter statutes. Therefore I shall welcome the assurance from the Minister that statutes are not included in "other instruments". However, even if he is able to give me that assurance, I am afraid that I shall still vote for the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The Committee will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Renfrew for explaining his amendment so carefully. It helps me to be brief. I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling the amendment, which draws attention to the extent to which the powers intended for the Privy Council to modify the constitution of designated institutions in the higher education sector interact with the Privy Council's existing powers in relation to institutions in the sector, including the present universities that are not designated.
The Government are considering the scope of Clause 71. I shall be pleased to let the Committee know the outcome at the earliest opportunity. I assure noble Lords that I understand their anxiety. However, until I have an opportunity to come back, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: That is a most helpful response from the Minister. I am much encouraged that this matter will receive fresh scrutiny. I believe that the Committee has made its feelings on the matter clear to the Minister. In those circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
11 p.m.
Clause 72 [Power to award degrees, etc.]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 282B:
Page 54, line 34, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the committee established under subsection (7) below").
The noble Earl said: I wish briefly to move Amendment No. 282B on behalf of my noble friend Lady Seear and to speak also to Amendment No.

1145
283ZD, which is consequential upon it. The amendment deals with the Secretary of State's power to confer the power to confer degrees. Its purpose is to provide that the Secretary of State shall establish a committee with the duty of advising him on the exercise of his functions. The committee will be formed of persons representing the interests of the existing degree-awarding institutions.
In the amendment my noble friend codifies what has been the practice of centuries, which on this occasion I should be sorry to see upset. The Crown—and the Secretary of State, who in practice enjoys the powers of the Crown in these circumstances—has always had the right to confer the power to confer degrees. But, as they used to say of the Crown, it must see with other men's eyes and hear with other men's ears.
The Secretary of State is not necessarily an academic. I know that some Secretaries of State have been academics of distinction—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, whose tenure of office, to my surprise, I find myself remembering with increasing nostalgia. In general, however, Secretaries of State are not competent to take such action themselves; they must take advice.
There is a long constitutional tradition of putting constraints on the Crown's power to choose its advisers. In this case, the Crown has always taken the advice of the academic community. It is in order to make sure that the tradition should continue that my noble friend has tabled this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: There has only recently been a consultation exercise conducted by the DES with higher education institutions concerning both the criteria for extending degree-awarding powers beyond the polytechnics and the arrangements for considering whether institutions meet the criteria.
Following overwhelming support for the Government's proposals from higher education interests, including the CVCP, my right honourable friend has today confirmed the criteria for awarding taught-course and research degrees. He has also announced that during the period up to the formal dissolution of the CNAA the Government will look to the council to advise on whether institutions validated by it meet the degree-awarding criteria. It will, in parallel, appoint ad hoc committees to look similarly at institutions which are validated by universities. This approach was widely welcomed in the responses to the consultation exercise.
A number of approaches to securing advice for the Secretary of State in the longer term were suggested in the consultation exercise. Some respondents supported the proposal that the ad hoc committee approach should be retained if it works well. Others saw this as a job for the quality audit unit, while some other respondents considered that the higher education funding councils should have the main responsibility. My right honourable friend has recognised this variety of opinion and has decided that, since this is not a matter which requires an immediate decision, he will reflect further and consider it again in the spring, once
1146
we have the experience of the performance of ad hoc committees, and in further discussion with the higher education interests.
I can assure the Committee that the Government's criteria are rigorous. The Government are committed to their being rigorously applied, whatever the financial arrangements. But, given the variety of views in the system on those arrangements in the longer term, the time available before final decisions need to be reached and, I have to say, the absence of even one respondent to the department's consultation exercise suggesting the kind of standing committee proposed in this amendment, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for this Committee to foreclose the options as this amendment would do. For that reason I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that carefully considered and courteous reply. There cannot be a more complete way of crumping an amendment than to offer a consultation document published today. Under those circumstances, I cannot do other than promise the Minister to read that document, to consider it with great care and to formulate my conclusions as a result, and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 282C:
Page 54, line 34, after ("institution") insert ("or consortium of institutions").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 282C reflects the serious anxieties expressed by a significant number of colleges. The issues stem from the Government's proposals to close down the Council for National Academic Awards in such a rapid timescale that many colleges which now offer CNAA degrees will be left in a difficult situation. Some may be able to follow the Government's advice to enter into agreements with other degree-awarding institutions to validate their courses. But that is by no means an acceptable alternative for many colleges.
For some, it is difficult to find suitable universities or polytechnics without entering into direct competition with them. Such arrangements also mean an enormous increase in registration fees—at least six-fold—from the £50 that the CNAA requires, to sums of at least £350. I know of one college which currently has a master's degree validated by a university which charges each student £580 validation fee. Such a level hardly exhibits an overwhelming desire to facilitate access to continuing higher education.
I understand that the Open University is being proposed as a potential base for a kind of residual CNAA, to ensure some continuity of validating functions for colleges which have not received accreditation to award their own degrees. I have great admiration for all that the OU stands for, and I studied as a part-time student for my first and higher degrees. But there are a number of reasons why such an arrangement based on the OU is not seen as acceptable by some colleges. For example, there is anxiety among some colleges of high repute about the extent to which there will be sufficient sympathy for

1147
disciplines such as theology or professional practice such as osteopathy. That is why some 25 institutions with around 2,500 undergraduates and around 250 postgraduates currently studying for degrees awarded by the CNAA formed a consortium of independent colleges and research institutions to take on the responsibilities of academic validation.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that many small independent colleges are scholarly communities of great distinction. Several have been training for specialist vocations, such as the Christian ministry or the Jewish Rabbinate, for over 100 years. They represent a valuable and respected component of our national higher education system. Moreover, in recent years they have contributed significantly to the expansion of access to higher education for which the Government have been calling. They are highly efficient, with unit costs well below those of larger institutions. CNAA validation has enabled them to gain recognition for the quality of the qualifications they bestow.
Perhaps I may briefly outline the problems which caused the colleges in question to take these initiatives and the benefits which will accrue from the recognition of such a consortium as a validating body. The problems caused by the present proposals in the Bill are, first, that there would be a risk of loss of the distinctiveness of identity in any forced partnership with a larger institution, with adverse financial results deriving From loss of competitiveness and exploitation by the more powerful partner—for example, in registration of validation fees, which I have just mentioned. Consequently, there would probably be a loss of students to those colleges.
Secondly, there is a real problem of conflicts of interest ranging from the overlapping of courses to asset-stripping. Already some of the potential senior partner institutions are asking about the kind of "dowry" the smaller colleges will bring to the forced marriage. Thirdly, there will be a reduction in the potential for innovation often associated with small independent colleges. Fourthly, there will be a loss of an enterprise culture as the independent colleges are increasingly drawn into the arena of public funding, which would be rather ironic for a government committed to enterprise and initiative.
Anticipating potential anxiety about the viability of such a consortium, it should be noted that consortium members already have approximately the numbers proposed by the Government as necessary for recognition as a university; that is, over 300 students in a majority of PCFC programmes; over 3,000 students on degree level courses. It should also be noted that the research registrations within the consortium already exceed those of many accredited polytechnics, and that CNAA advice estimates that the consortium could finance and mount a central unit capable of discharging the remaining duties of a degree-awarding body. Finally, the CNAA has acted in a way similar to that proposed here and has done so successfully.
As I draw to a conclusion perhaps I may say that the advantages of giving validation functions to consortiums, once the CNAA closes down, will be
1148
significant. For example, first, the institutions would retain their ability to mature and to move towards their own degree-awarding status in their own time. Secondly, the Government would extend choice available to students with increased access to good quality higher education at less cost to students and to the public purse.
Thirdly, the research capability would be extended in scope and volume, also at relatively low cost. For example, Wessex Institute of Technology has an excellent research record while operating at a very cost effective level. Fourthly, perhaps most important of all, the students now studying or registered for CNAA degrees will be assured of having their qualifications safeguarded. Fifthly, the Government would be seen to be true to their own principles of encouraging diversity, choice, accountability and commitment to free market principles, while supporting many centres of higher education with a well-deserved reputation for excellence.
Finally, the new institutions could be brought into the consortium as anticipated expansion of higher education continues. It is noteworthy that a number of new institutions such as Maryvale Institute and Newbold College are even this year applying for recognition as associate institutions of CNAA.
I finish by urging my noble friend the Minister to respond sympathetically to these proposals. I very much hope that the proposal to provide for the kind of arrangements for validation and quality assurance by a consortium of colleges affected by these changes will perhaps be able to be considered sympathetically in the form of an amendment at a later stage.
The colleges are of very high repute. They are examples of excellence based on initiative and commitment. It would be a tragedy for them, a betrayal of their students and a loss for the nation if their future were jeopardised by arrangements currently in, or implicit in, the Bill as it now stands. I beg to move.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I wish to add my support to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, with which mine is linked. She has made so many comprehensive points this evening that I do not wish to detain the Committee by reiterating them. However, there is a real problem for these independent institutions that have formed consortia in view of the recommendations in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has already said that these are institutions of noble history. All I can do is to expand on the names of some of them which indicate the part they play in our national life. There is, for example, the Architectural Association Graduate School, the Camborne School of Mines, the Royal Naval Engineering College, the Royal Agricultural College, the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art and so on. Then, as I mentioned at Second Reading, there are notable and historic names among the theological colleges: Trinity, Spurgeons, the London Bible College, Oakhill, St Johns, Wycliffe Hall. These form a noble array of theological colleges that have contributed much to our national life.
I recognise that the announcement that the noble Lord the Minister was able to make that the result of

1149
consultations may affect the situation of these colleges. Although their degrees are at the moment validated by the CNAA, they do not independently have accredited status, so there remains a problem for the independent colleges which I urge the Committee to consider and support.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, put very attractive arguments and argue them cogently. Like them, I have a great respect for all the colleges they describe, and particularly those I know. I believe that they have established themselves individually as a most important part of the higher education scene in this country.
I have reservations about the idea of a consortium as a validating entity. My own institution conducts, I suppose, over 150 validation events each year internally. In order to do that we have acquired a rhythm, a way of working and an understanding of what our validation is about, and what standards we expect of each other in our own courses. It is very important that there is a tremendous overlap and that there are people moving from one validation event to another who carry their experience through with them. There is a corporate sense, identity and understanding about what validation is.
I find it very hard to imagine a consortium of so varied a range of institutions from aeronautical, engineering to theological colleges could establish with geographical distance the same kind of ethos. In saying that, I am also very conscious that many very proud institutions have retained their independence and autonomy within a system of being validated by another institution. There are many thousands of students in higher education who pursue university degrees, for example, although they themselves are not part of the university but of independent and separate institutions in much the same way as the CNAA has validated many individual degrees in institutions without in any sense taking over the institution.
I believe that it is possible for these institutions to have their fears allayed and to retain their independence, their proud history and record. I believe that it would be better for them to find an association for validation purposes with an external and larger higher education institution with the kind of corporate experience that I have described.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may for once take issue with my noble friend Lady Perry. I support the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane. There is no doubt that these institutions, although some are small, already have a very high level of academic achievement and tradition within them. I do not believe that the difficulties to which my noble friend Lady Perry refers could not be overcome in the way in which much larger institutions have done, with their larger departments and a less rigorous ethos, in the course of the accreditation process. I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady McFarlane, for bringing this issue before the Committee. I read the remarks that they made at Second Reading. They have raised an important point on which some action must be taken. There is also the vital principle of commitment to existing students. When students are taken in on any course there is what I believe should be an overwhelming moral obligation to give them the opportunity to complete the course. I am aware of the problem. I am personally involved in helping one CNAA post-graduate.
It is the kind of issue on which universities have always been happy to help. They look forward to the opportunity to do so. I ask the noble Baroness and the Minister whether they will consider, as one possible machinery for dealing with the matter, the delightfully flexible and yet academically secure machinery of the external degree of the University of London. That has been used in the past for validating degrees of a large number of Commonwealth universities in the early days of their existence. It combines a recognised degree with the independence of the institution.
Perhaps I may be forgiven for making one comment which I hope that the Committee will not take to be a sour note, because it is not meant to be. I do not want to put forward matters unless I am absolutely sure of the position. I refer to the changing staff to student ratio. One of the reasons why people in the universities want time is that we like to be able to help with this kind of activity. We are proud to be able to do so. It would be regrettable if the increasing pressure of numbers in our own institutions took the opportunity away from us. As long as we can carry out that function we shall do so.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I should also like to support this amendment. I do so partly for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, mentioned—that there are theological colleges concerned within this particular group of amendments. However, it is on a rather broader basis that I urge the Government to consider seriously the possibility that this amendment puts forward.
I noted carefully the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and I recognise readily that her suggestion may be a possible way forward. However, I think the anxiety of many of these smaller institutions is that if they are validated by, or accredited to, much larger institutions, such as the new universities, although that may be satisfactory in the immediate short term if circumstances change and pressures build up then these smaller units with highly specialised interests may inadvertently, or—dare I say it?—even deliberately get a little squeezed. Therefore, a proper option that should be available for these smaller institutions is to be able to form themselves into a consortium that is considered seriously by the Government, as the amendment suggests.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to ask my noble friend Lady Cox whether the institutions of which she is speaking are all south of the Border. Are they all in England and Wales? From the way she talks they probably are. There may be others in similar

1151
categories which are in Scotland and I am not sure whether her amendment would be helpful to those colleges.
I understand that the CNAA has been having discussions with the Open University, with which I am connected, and that there is a possibility that some of the smaller institutions, at any rate, might like to be validated to that university, which also has flexible arrangements in the way that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that London universities are relatively flexible. That is a possibility. The Open University is, of course, United Kingdom-wide.
I realise that some of the colleges that have been spoken about—for example, theological colleges—might not find that a satisfactory solution. I am not particularly advocating it, but it seems a rather ingenious idea. I think that at Second Reading my noble friend the Minister was not entirely unsympathetic to that notion.
I should like to know, in relation to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Cox, whether for colleges which exist north of the Border—I cannot name them, she did not mention this aspect—that arrangement might be possible.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for moving this amendment because this is a serious and rather worrying situation. I am grateful also to the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, who has not only spoken but also kindly wrote to me about Amendment No. 291, which has similar features.
My noble friend Lady Cox asked for a sympathetic reply and that indeed I give. The Government are at one with my noble friend in wanting to ensure that small, monotechnic institutions are not disadvantaged in the new arrangements. It is for that reason, as I said in the debate on the previous amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has confirmed today—following consultations with the higher education sector, including representatives of the smaller colleges whose concerns have prompted this amendment—the criteria for degree-awarding powers, which ensure that small institutions are able to meet them. Without going into detail the overriding criterion is that an institution should be a self-critical, cohesive, academic community. A limited range of work, or limited volume of work inside the institution, can be compensated in a number of ways, including acknowledged high standards of scholarship and the use of external reference points in quality assurance procedures.
Small institutions do have a number of options open to them. They could seek degree-awarding powers individually, seeking to take account of the formal and informal links with each other to demonstrate that they can satisfy the criteria, or groups of institutions could seek to ensure that one of their number receives degree-awarding powers and is then able to be the validating body of the other institutions so that they award its degrees. Alternatively, such institutions could try to satisfy the criteria by entering into a formal federation—in other words, a single overarching corporate identity whose degrees they would all award.
1152
All of those options are possible under the legislation as presently drafted. None of them is dependent on this amendment being made. To that extent, one would not need this amendment in order to achieve them. Incidentally, the external degree of the University of London, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is probably an option. There is also the Open University option, where the university is intending to offer a validation service to those colleges without degrees-awarding powers which for various reasons do not wish to become associated with a local institution. I understand that the Open University expects this service to operate broadly on CNAA lines.
Another definition of a consortium might lie somewhere between links designed to secure degree-awarding powers institution by institution, and links in the form of a federation. It seems to me that the fundamental difficulty in awarding degree-awarding powers to that kind of "consortium" is that it would have no corporate identity. There would be no clear focus for monitoring and maintaining academic standards. Responsibility for quality assurance would be blurred. So to that extent, such a degree would be difficult to entertain.
This is quite a difficult story; I believe that we should read what everyone has said. I have attempted to set out the stall of the different ways in which the problem can be addressed. I have done so not for the sake of resisting an amendment but for the reason I gave. There is a difficulty about the kind of consortium that the noble Baronesses put forward. There is, however, no lack of sympathy, and I hope that on those grounds, at any rate for the moment, my noble friend Lady Cox will feel it right to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cox: I am grateful, as I am sure is the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, for that sympathetic and positive response to the amendment. We should like to thank all those who have spoken in support of the principles behind the amendment. In response to the concerns raised by my noble friend Lady Perry, I recognise that established institutions such as large polytechnics have developed their own ethos and procedures and run those complex procedures very smoothly. But we feel that that would not necessarily be a contra-indication to our proposal which would embody the fundamental principles of peer group review and would also respect the identity, distinctiveness, expertise and high quality of the institutions involved.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support in principle. I would happily consider as a possibility the London University system of external degree validation. I have always had great respect for that system. It embodies a great deal of what we are looking for with regard to the consortium. I would like to put the suggestion among the array of options that the colleges might consider.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked whether any of these colleges are north of the Border. I do not have my complete list. At the moment, I think that it does not include any colleges in Scotland. I stand to be corrected. I shall certainly let my noble friend know

1153
and perhaps give her a list of all the colleges so that she will know those that are involved. I cannot at the moment think of any north of the Border. I hope that some may be prompted to join the initiative if they feel it appropriate.
I thank my noble friend the Minister. It was indeed a sympathetic response. He has put forward a range of options, some of them creative and ingenious. We shall also want to read what has been published today. With that encouraging response I shall consider where we go from here. I thank everyone concerned. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 282D:
Page 54, line 35, leave out ("within the higher education sector") and insert ("which provides higher education").
The noble Lord said: The amendment brings privately-funded institutions within the Secretary of State's power to designate degree-awarding bodies. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State sees no reason to treat privately-funded institutions any differently from those funded by the higher education funding councils. The amendment will provide that all institutions offering higher education will be able to apply to the Secretary of State to grant them degree-awarding powers; and the criteria will apply equally to all. I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 283 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 283ZA:
Page 55, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) to do so jointly with another institution").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments No. 283ZB and 283ZC. The amendments do no more than put beyond doubt that institutions granted degree-awarding powers by the Secretary of State under Clause 73 will be empowered to offer awards jointly with other degree-awarding institutions. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 283ZB and 283ZC:
Page 55, line 16, at end insert ("(or, in the case of an award granted to him by the institution and another institution jointly, to do so jointly with the other institution)").
Page 55, line 22, leave out from ("the") to end of line 27 and insert ("terms and conditions on which any of the powers conferred under this section may be exercised").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 283ZD not moved.]
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Use of "university" in title of institution]:
Lord Kirkwood Lord Kirkwood moved Amendment No. 283A:
Page 55, line 33, leave out (", or on the direction of").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to
1154
Amendments Nos. 283B and 287A. These amendments are tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am always very happy to speed up the business of the Committee by being brief; and, indeed, I intend to be brief. The amendments are aimed at the wording of Clause 73 which states that on the direction of the Privy Council the word "university" may be inserted into the title of an aspiring higher education institution.
The question arises as to why any higher education institution should be compelled to call itself a university. It arouses in me a tiny suspicion that something nasty lurks behind those words. Are we to understand that an institution designated by the Secretary of State as a higher education institution may be required to call itself a university? Further, in what circumstances can one envisage such a situation coming to pass?
It is to be hoped that some higher education institutions may actually prefer the prestigious and honourable title of "Institute of Technology". We could certainly do with a few MITs in the United Kingdom. I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten us on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: Where the Secretary of State currently has power, theoretically, to direct a change of name by virtue of his wider power to direct changes to instruments and articles of government, then strictly speaking the Privy Council will assume that power. The only group of institutions to which that applies are those which are companies limited by guarantee and designated for funding by the higher education funding council by virtue of Section 129 of the Education Reform Act, as modified by Clause 69 of the Bill.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that there is no question of the Privy Council directing a change of name for one of those institutions. The arrangements by which institutions may apply to adopt a university name are set out in guidance from the Privy Council Office to all polytechnics. In particular, institutions should seek local agreement before submitting a proposed name. Where that local agreement does not exist, and where the polytechnic concerned cannot find another name which commands local support, the Privy Council has made it clear that the institution will need to retain its existing title. The Privy Council will not insist upon another one.
With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kirkwood: I am not clear, from what the Minister said, why the word "direct" enters into the Bill. It is not clear under what circumstances there would be a direction to change the name to that of a university. Have I missed the point?
Lord Belstead: The answer is that the direction comes only after the institutions have applied to adopt a university name. The cart comes before the horse in that case. The application comes first, and then the direction is needed so that the matter can be completed.
Lord Kirkwood: I thank the Minister for explaining the matter.
Lord Belstead: If my interpretation is wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Kirkwood: I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 283B not moved.]
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 55, line 37, after ("include") insert ("on and after the date on which the power is exercised").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, the process, which I had not fully appreciated. I should like to turn to the consideration that takes place within the institutions which may become entitled to call themselves universities under the procedure that he has described. I hope that when they are doing that they will think carefully before incorporating the name university, not least because, under their present titles, many of them have earned for themselves an important and distinctive niche in British higher education.
I believe that I made it plain on Second Reading that I should regret any change of name contemplated by an institution which was clearly indicative of a desire, if not to abandon, at least to dilute the basic purpose for which the institution existed. Such a desire would only be part of the English disease in education—which other people might more brutally refer to as snobbery—which is not to be found in Europe or North America. I was pleased when the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, referred to the noble history of some of those institutions. "Noble" is an adjective which is fully justified.
I am immensely proud of the fact that the first honorary doctorate that I received was from the European Polytechnic. I am more pleased about that than if it had been conferred by the university in the same city. I also admire the resolute way in which the rectors of those two institutions. and their parent bodies, have adhered to their desire to keep distinctive names and missions. The reason for their resolve was to avoid confusion and to retain identity. They believed that that confusion would be inevitable in the minds of those applying for admission and the public.
That brings me to Amendment No. 284 which seeks to ensure that the term "university" is not used until the Privy Council has agreed; otherwise confusion will be even worse confounded. The undesirablity of such titular confusion is also evident behind Amendment No. 290 in which the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seek to restrict for a period of some 10 years the use by any other institution of a name which has been abandoned by a college, a polytechnic or a central institution. I seek simply to avoid confusion and also to help the new system settle down with the retention of the distinctive mission of those institutions which are at present within what is falsely termed the public sector. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: There can be no formal change of name until the Bill is enacted. The amendment is unnecessary because the institution concerned will not have its new name until the Privy Council has exercised the powers conferred on it. Until such time as the change of name has been given legal effect, the institution will not be able to use the title for any formal purposes. I hope that that completely meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton.
Lord Dainton: That completely satisfies me. It is for the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, to raise the matter of the 10-year period. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 285:
Page 55, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) No institution shall be called a university unless the Quality Assessment Committee is satisfied that its library and laboratory facilities are sufficient for its purposes.").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is to provide that no place will be called a university unless the quality assessment committee is satisfied that it has library and laboratory facilities sufficient for the purpose. I appreciate that many of my academic colleagues have misgivings about the quality assessment committees. I hope they will have none about the purpose I wish the committees to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has already described one amendment I have moved to this Bill as an unusual provision. Were he in his place now, I am sure he would say the same about this amendment. As he is not in his place, I shall do it for him. The mere moving of this amendment, regardless of what I or the Committee might decide to do with it, marks the end of 800 years of unbroken history, give or take the odd five years. So far it has always been the case that the title of university, once conferred, has not been lost. It has also been the case hitherto that the Crown's prerogative of conferring the title of university has been unfettered by any statutory restraint.
It would be the purpose of this amendment to change both those things. The power to withhold the title of university has not been much used in this country. It was withheld from the putative university of Stamford in the 14th century and from the putative university of Durham by Oliver Cromwell. How far it has been used in the 1960s the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, will doubtless know much better than I.
Here we have a situation which has lasted undisturbed for a pretty long time and one in which this country has been distinctly unusual. Historians of education have often raised the question of whether this control by the Crown over the power to confer the title of university involved a threat to academic freedom. I have always said hitherto that it did not. Indeed as recently as last September, when I still thought this Bill might be lost by a general election, I argued that it did not. What has changed is that the Crown has changed what it is trying to do when it exercises this power.
Previously when the Crown exercised this power, it exercised it in a way very like conferring de facto

1157
diplomatic recognition. There are no moral judgments involved in de facto diplomatic recognition. It is simply a question of what the facts of the case are on which the Crown is informed by those competent to do it. What we have not had in the past and now do, is, first, any direct attempt by the Crown to judge quality. We have heard enough today about the Crown being involved in a direct attempt to judge quality.
Nor have we see the Crown joining issue in a matter of this kind with a considerable weight of opinion from the academic community. Hitherto the Crown has always reflected the weight of views of the academic community. After all, that was why the Crown did not confer the title of university on the putative university of Stamford.
In the concept of the non-research university there is also an attempt by the Crown to introduce a fundamental change in the very essence of the concept of university as it has been understood since the 12th century. That is moving the goalposts if anything is.
There is a long tradition in the history of this country that when the Crown makes unexpected use of its prerogative, attempts are made to create new statutory controls on the prerogative. That is what is involved in this and a subsequent series of amendments. It is intended to control the exercise of the Crown prerogative of conferring the title of university. It is also—and to me this is the more important purpose of the amendment—intended not only to control the conferring of new titles but to put before those who at present have the tide of university the risk that under certain circumstances the title might be lost.
It is not from the former polytechnics that I see a threat to standards and quality over the next 10 years. They will be most anxious to satisfy the world that they meet university standards and I expect them to do a very great deal in that direction. I am anxious about the remorseless pressure of reducing unit costs on university institutions. I shall not dwell on what I have already said, but I should like—and this is the real purpose of the amendment—to place an academic in a position in which he can say to his own institution, "If you do this you will lose the title of university". I should like that ability to exist as a countervailing pressure to the remorseless pressure exercised from the other end towards so-called efficiency.
The purpose of the amendment is to put a brake on declining standards because of funding in existing universities. The link between unit costs and quality is of the very essence in the thinking behind the amendment. I was very surprised indeed to hear the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—who I am sorry is not in her place now—to Amendment No. 272B when she said that the question of unit costs was irrelevant to an amendment concerned with quality. I was astonished by that. Because I was so astonished I had to speak to the amendment tonight. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: The noble Earl has explained very clearly why he moved the amendment. However, with
1158
great respect, it will not do. The amendment would apply additional criteria to those which are already set for the award of the title of university which would inevitably be largely subjective and would lead to a great many disputes. It would also burden the quality assessment committee with a further duty and responsibility which none of the bodies responding to the Government's consultation process has suggested it should have.
I do not believe that the amendment would work. I must add that the proposals for the degree-awarding criteria are good and they are watertight. They have been widely welcomed by those consulted, including the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
Earl Russell: I must beg the Minister to take the amendment a little more seriously. It is a new provision because it meets a new situation. It is an unusual provision because it must deal with an unusual problem. It is to an extent subjective, but then so are all the criteria that have been used in this field since universities began, so there is nothing new about that. I have already heard of economies forced on universities that have led them to do things which in my opinion should deprive them of the title of university. At some stage before the Bill is through, I may have to press the amendment to a Division, but meanwhile—
Lord Peston: The noble Earl prides himself on his logic. He has lost me totally. To try to define the concept of a university in terms of cost seems to be about as far-fetched as I could imagine. I can imagine something called a university that does not have enough in the way of resources, but it does not cease to be a university. It is a university that does not have enough resources. I therefore believe that the noble Earl is on a completely mistaken track.
The noble Earl did not understand the point made by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. We are concerned about unit cost matters. I have suffered as much from lack of resources as the noble Earl, perhaps even more so, as my college is slightly less favoured than his. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not we are a university. I ask the noble Earl not to pursue that line. It is not helpful to those of us who are anxious about the future of universities. We too want to attack the Government on the question of resources, but the two matters are quite different.
Earl Russell: They are not different matters. I was concerned with defining a university in terms of its functions. One of the points that occurred to me in terms of its functions was to think of it as a place in which people either conduct experiments or read books, or often both. If that is not of the essence, I do not know what is.
We shall have to continue this argument on Report. I shall hope for a better response from the Minister, but, by the look of it, I shall not hope for a better response from the party on my left. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 286 to 287A not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): I must point out that, if Amendment No. 288 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 289 because of pre-emption.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 288:
Page 56, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. It does not begin with any preconceptions. It is simply that the clause to which the amendment refers appears to have no meaning. My noble friend Lord Butterworth and I should like to know what is meant by it and why it is necessary. For those members of the Commit tee who do not have page 56 in front of them, the clause states:
"Any educational institution whose name includes the word 'university' by virtue of the exercise of any power as extended by subsection (1)"—
that is the power given to create new universities—
"… is to be treated as a university for all purposes".
What are the "all purposes"? How can it be a university if it is treated otherwise?
The Committee may think that there are parallels. When noble Lords are introduced into this House for the first time, the Reading Clerk tells the lucky person that he is entitled to all the privileges, immunities, honours and so on which go with being a Baron. The only privilege that I have discovered is having to stay up very late at night in order to deal with often obscure and sometimes clearly ill-prepared Bills, but that is a penalty rather than a privilege. Are the universities to incur certain penalties which they would not otherwise incur, or are they to have genuine privileges? What is the reason for including a clause which no academic starting to write the Bill would have thought necessary? They would assume, as Gertrude Stein might have said, that a university is a university, is a university. I beg to move.
Lord Butterworth: I shall not detain the Committee long at this late hour, but there is a problem in this clause. The Bill is concerned with machinery to bring the new system into being—except for this clause, which deals with policy, or attempts to do so; if you like, it attempts to deal with philosophy.
My view is that it is a mistake and that it would be much better not to have this clause in the Bill at all. It hints at matters which might later cause great difficulty in the courts and other institutions. Perhaps I may illustrate what I have in mind by quoting from the Minister responsible for higher education, Mr. Alan Howarth. What he said was thought to be so important that it became part of a Department of Education and Science news-sheet of 27th November. He said:
"The purpose of granting polytechnics the right to adopt a university title is not that they should become clones of the present universities. We need to enhance rather than diminish diversity in higher education".
I thought that that is what this legislation was all about. I suspect that there is unanimity in this Chamber that polytechnics should be called universities if they so wish but that they should retain their distinctive purpose and operation.
Let us look again at this clause, which mentions:
1160
"Any educational institution whose name includes the word 'university' by virtue of the exercise of any power … is to be treated as a university for all purposes".
The definition of "university" in the Act is purely adjectival. It does not help. The implication is that, once a polytechnic has the title of university, it is to be treated as a university for all the purposes for which a university has hitherto been treated as a university. That raises deep questions about funding. I could give the Committee some very interesting examples which could cause difficulty later—there are problems about dual funding and so on—if this clause is agreed to.
However, it is too late to discuss those matters this evening. My submission is that this clause would be much better if it kept to its main purpose—which is machinery—and that this sudden excursion into policy ought to be deleted.
Lord Belstead: Subsection (4) of Clause 73 is included in the Bill in order to ensure that an institution which is granted a university title by the Privy Council cannot be challenged on the grounds that it is not really a university. This is a necessary provision to safeguard the status of the new universities, which, unlike the present universities, will not have royal charters.
The background to this matter is a rather obscure judgment about the meaning of the word "university" made 40 years ago in the case of St. David's College, Lampeter v the Ministry of Education. That judgment left the position unclear, since it appeared to suggest that, even where an institution possessed most or all of the qualities of a university, it did not necessarily follow that it was one.
I cannot imagine that anyone would want to raise the issue in the common law again. But, in the very unlikely event of someone doing so, there would inevitably be damaging confusion. Clause 73(4) is in the Bill for the sole purpose of ruling out such a challenge.
That is the simple answer to the amendment. My noble friend Lord Butterworth will excuse me if I do not follow him this evening down the labyrinthine ways of the drafting of the whole of Clause 73.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I had hoped that his answer would have included one other matter; namely, if one of the new universities included other words in its name, such as calling itself the polytechnic university of somewhere or the technical university of somewhere, would it still be a university? I understood the clause to mean precisely that because it uses the expression "includes the word 'university'".
Can the Minister reassure the Committee that it is not necessary to be called "X University" to be a university? Could the institution be called "Something Something University" and still be a university? That is what I assumed I should be told. I am a little lost as a result of the noble Lord's answer.
Lord Belstead: That will depend upon the way in which the title is granted by the Privy Council. It would be imprudent of me to to go beyond that today. I must confess that I do not know. I must write to the noble Lord on that important point.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may clarify the point. If Oxford Polytechnic wishes to call itself the Technical University of Oxford—I do not say for one moment that it does; I made the title up—perhaps the letter will clarify such a consideration. I thank the noble Lord.
Lord Beloff: One is obviously impressed by the fact that even if the Department of Education and Science is a little weak about education, it is terribly good at law. With that observation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12 midnight
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 56, line 3, at end insert ("provided that no institution shall be called a university unless all its departments are funded for research on a level sufficient to satisfy the Quality Assessment Committee").
The noble Lord said: Before moving the amendment I wish to thank the Minister for his reply to the previous amendment. When the Official Report appears perhaps the reference to the Lampeter judgment that he quoted could be given. I shall be interested to read it.
Amendment No. 289 refers again to the definition of a university. Again, I am thinking in terms of its functions. The provisions of the amendment are that no place shall be called a university,
"unless all its departments arc funded for research on a level sufficient to satisfy the Quality Assessment Committee".
I refer to "all its departments." The Secretary of State speaks of selective funding. That means that he envisages a situation in which some departments in a university will be funded for research and some will not. Research is essential as the lingua franca between academic departments. It provides the common scale of values within which they all operate. To preserve academic values in a situation in which only some departments still research will be as difficult as preserving democratic values in a country in which only some people have the vote.
For many of us, research is one of the main reasons for entering the profession. There is a great risk that if the provision of a non-research university takes effect, there will be massive voting with their feet among those who are capable of obtaining any other form of employment. It is inevitable that the provision will affect the most able among us more than others. Such an effect is already taking place. Not too many academics were appointed in the 1970s. However, from among six or eight of the most able people in my own area—those one would have expected to be at the top of the tree in 15 years' time—to my certain knowledge one is off to Princeton in September, and one is applying for a job overseas because of no longer having the time to do any research. That is the situation in one of our most ancient universities. A third is looking for a non-academic job. Such a situation may become an avalanche.
Research is also essential to the quality of teaching. Only last week I was being cross-examined by some bright first year students about the differences between a book of mine and criticisms made of it in other publications. I believe that they found it valuable to be
1162
able to make that challenge; they learned something. It is vital to be able to learn that knowledge is sometimes in a state of flux and that the question, "What are the facts?" is not always capable of an objective answer.
These factors are at the very heart of quality of education. They are at the very heart of the usefulness of education in a rapidly changing world. I believe too that the Secretary of State is mistaken in thinking that he will not have difficulty in recruiting undergraduates for non-research universities. I need only look into my memory as an undergraduate to see whose lectures undergraduates flock into. They are the lectures of people who have been carrying out research and changing the picture. They are the lectures of people who are making news. That is the vital point. If one does not accept that there is news and that the picture changes, one is not learning anything.
One may talk about parity of esteem. I cannot see how there can be parity of esteem between a research and a non-research university. I grant that in law anything recognised as a university must be called a university. However, I am reminded of the remark made by the first Lord Burghley; that it was possible for an Act of Parliament to make a man a woman. In law that is so. Were it to be done to any of my parliamentary colleagues I must, when in the Chamber, refer to the person concerned as the noble Baroness. I should not find that I was socially reacting to the person as a woman. Similarly, if we have a non-research university I cannot undertake to react to it as a university; I cannot feel that it is one. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: During the Second Reading I spoke on the importance of providing sufficient funding for research in universities. Therefore, I have considerable sympathy with the underlying point which the noble Earl is making. Although I am a newcomer to this Chamber and to this Committee, am I wrong in believing that the appropriate time for expressing such general sentiments, albeit important sentiments which I share, is during Second Reading?
By implication I am reflecting adversely on the specific amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me for animadverting in this way. However, it would be helpful if an amendment put forward in Committee had not only a coherent logic but viable implications. Amendment No. 289 seeks to insert the words:
"provided that no institution shall be called a university unless all its departments are funded for research on a level sufficient to satisfy the Quality Assessment Committee".
It suffers from the same kind of logical flaw indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in respect of earlier amendments.
The amendment operates in the present tense. Therefore, if a university became a university and was successful in receiving funding for research on an appropriate scale but then the funding or research fell below a level sufficient to satisfy the quality assessment committee, it would cease to be a university. We cannot have universities switching on and off like that.

1163
I may be in error but my underlying point is that it would be helpful if the amendment, if passed, added to the coherence of our public life. With respect, I doubt whether that is the case as regards this amendment, even though I am at one with the noble Earl in his general sentiments.
Lord Belstead: Let us be clear that the criteria announced by the Government for university title relate to the size and breadth of an institution. In addition they will ensure that only those institutions which have passed the criteria for awarding their own taught-course and research degrees will be able to be considered for a university title. I believe that the criterion which the noble Earl has put into the amendment requiring that all departments in an institution are funded for research before the institution can adopt a university title would not work.
Perhaps I may put a slant on the issue which is different from that adopted by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. Many of our present universities are active in research in only some parts of their work.
The Government believe that that makes academic and financial sense. That selectivity is a cornerstone of the Government's policy to improve the quality of research in our higher education institutions. Requiring that all future universities, including our future polytechnics, should be funded for research in all departments, would create an insuperable barrier for many institutions, and it would also interfere most improperly with the freedom of the funding councils to pay grants to individual departments for research as they see fit.
It is on those grounds that I resist the amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, for his general sympathy. I have already offered to him my apologies for my absence from Second Reading. I should undoubtedly have made these points there. In fact I made them in the debate on the humble Address, on which I believe the noble Lord was not present.
The reason why it is proposed that the provision should be included in the Bill is the reason why legislation has been passed for centuries—to restrict the Crown in an exercise of its powers which appears to the person moving the proposal to be thoroughly undesirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, spoke of the freedom of the funding council. But the freedom of the funding council is capable of conflicting with the freedom of the university; in fact it is of the essence of the Minister's argument that it should do so. It should not be taken for granted that the freedom of the funding council ought to take priority.
If 10 years ago—even five years ago—I had tabled this kind of amendment I should have been told that it was entirely unnecessary because the provision was so absolutely of the essence of our university life that it could not be imagined that anyone could ever threaten it. Indeed, it was not all that long ago that I did not myself imagine that anyone could ever threaten it.
1164
I hear what the Minister says in regard to selectivity. I am afraid that to me that is once again evidence that the Government are wading in heavy boots into an area where they have no idea where the quicksands are. I hope to return to the issue later, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 290:
Page 56, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) Where an institution changes its title by virtue of the exercise of power extended by subsection (1) above, the previous title may not be used by any other educational establishment for a period of ten years without the consent of that institution.").
The noble Baroness said: In view of the late hour, I shall try to be extremely brief. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the assumption by other organisations, including private colleges, of the old titles of polytechnics once they have changed their titles by virtue of the provisions of the Bill.
I draw attention to the precedent of the provisions of the University of Salford Act 1966 which prohibited for 25 years anyone else from using without its consent the former titles of the colleges which comprised Salford University. The present amendment is more modest, seeking protection for 10 years. Several speakers in the Committee have been kind enough to refer to the noble titles of polytechnics. The amendment is an attempt to ensure that they are protected from misuse for a period limited to 10 years. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I rise briefly to my feet to support the noble Baroness and speak to the amendment which stands in my name also. It is a sensible and modest measure that we propose. If an institution has built up a reputation in its previous guise and it becomes a new university, it will be sensible, purely for the purpose of knowing where the qualifications came from and getting rid of all kinds of new confusions which will arise, to implement the provision. I am sure that anybody with any kind of brain at all who was setting up a new institution would be able to think of a new title.
Lord Belstead: My noble friend has raised an important issue in the amendment. It would of course be of great concern if institutions were at liberty to adopt titles which were confusing. Subsection (3) of the clause requires that, in approving name changes, the Privy Council shall have regard to the need to avoid confusion. While, strictly speaking, the requirement applies only to proposed university titles, in fact it is a principle which the Privy Council will apply to name changes of any description. It would be perverse for it to do otherwise.
In addition to controls on educational institutions, there is specific control exercisable by the Secretary of State over the use of the word "polytechnic". Any company or business which wishes to use that word in its title must seek the permission of the Secretary of State. That provision includes the incorporated institutions in the higher education sector.

1165
Both the Secretary of State and the Privy Council will be well aware of the sensitivities surrounding names and possible confusion. That is why subsection (3) is on the face of the Bill. My noble friend's amendment requires that an old name should not be available for 10 years without the permission of the old institution. It is best to allow the Privy Council to exercise its duty to avoid confusion without stipulating any minimum times. In some cases, 10 years will perhaps be too long a period to protect a name. In others, it may be too little.
In the light of these reassurances, perhaps my noble friend will feel that it is not necessary to press the amendment, particularly with the undertaking that I gave in the middle of what I was saying about any company or business wishing to use the word "polytechnic" in the title having to go the Secretary of State.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank the Minister for his full reply. I shall consider his words carefully. I hope that it will give reassurance to those who are concerned. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 agreed to.
12.15 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 290A:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause:
("Name of higher education institution
.—(1) Where an educational institution or a body corporate carrying on such an institution

(a) is within the higher education sector, and

(b) has power by virtue of any enactment or instrument to change its name, and

(c) satisfies the Secretary of State that it has for a period of not less than five years been conducting courses of study or programmes of research leading to the award of a degree or degrees by any university existing at the date this Act comes into force or the Council for National Academic Awards or an institution which is authorised to include the word "university" in its title by virtue of section 73 of this Act and that it is currently conducting courses of study or programmes of research leading to the award of a degree or degrees by an institution which is authorised to include the word "university" in its title whether by virtue of section 73 of this Act or otherwise,

Then the institution or body corporate carrying on the institution may use the expression "university college" in its name.
(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that any institution or body corporate carrying on an institution using the expression "university college" has ceased to conduct courses of study or programmes of research leading to the award of a degree or degrees by an institution which is authorised to include the word "university" in its title then he may issue a direction forbidding the institution or body carrying on the institution from using the expression "university college" in its name.").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may say straightaway that I have in mind the Church of England colleges of higher education. I have in mind too the Roman Catholic colleges and other ecumenical colleges and also those without denominational allegiance which are affected by the amendment. On behalf of the Church colleges,
1166
perhaps I may say that we are, as in the school sector, in partnership with the state and wish that partnership to continue and develop.
One of our concerns is that the recent circular indicates that the Secretary of State will consider for university and degree-granting status educational institutions with 4,000 or more students. A number of the existing colleges are not of that size and would therefore be excluded both from granting degrees in their own right and also from using the word "university" in their title.
The use of the word "university" in the title is important. The Bill provides for the binary divide between polytechnics and universities to be removed, but if we are not careful we shall reintroduce it at another point. If some of the colleges of higher education are not able to use the title "university college", in the public mind they will be thought to be second class institutions, although in fact they produce courses and standards exactly equivalent to those in universities. That is the concern primarily in the minds of the colleges.
I pointed out on Second Reading that many of the existing universities began as small colleges and became universities long before they had 4,000 students. It seems rather restrictive now to prevent growth which has in the past led to the creation of a number of the universities which exist today.
I speak therefore on behalf of the Church colleges, but also on behalf of other colleges, in wishing to secure the right of those institutions to be considered under certain circumstances eligible to use the word "university" in their title and clearly to be seen to be on a par with other higher education institutions.
My amendment makes it clear that the colleges will be required to fulfil conditions. First, prior to the passing of the Act they must have been conducting courses leading to a degree validated by a university or the CNAA. Secondly, after the passing of the Act they must have been conducting courses leading to an award of a degree by any institution entitled to call itself a university.
Thirdly, they must have been fulfilling these conditions for at least five years. The amendment also makes provision for the Secretary of State to prevent the continued use of the expression "university college" if the institution in question ceases to conduct courses fulfilling the requirements. Therefore, it is not an open-ended amendment. It seeks to secure the position for some of the smaller colleges that have an important part to play in the developing life of higher education in this country. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I have been approached not by the Church colleges, but by the other colleges. I very much wish to support the right reverend Prelate in this matter. I wish to give some of the arguments that have been put to me in support of the amendment. As the right reverend Prelate said, the Government continually reiterate in public their commitment to the abolition of the binary line. In practice they are simply proposing to shift it. Students believe that if they are university graduates they will have more success in the employment market. That was shown in a MORI poll carried out in November.

1167
There are more students in the socio-economic groups three, four and five in colleges of higher education than in the universities. The Prime Minister has said that he is committed to a classless society and yet his Secretary of State appears to be adopting a stance which disadvantages a group which the Prime Minister is on record as wishing to support. The confusion with colleges of further education will be exacerbated as their profile heightens in the publicity surrounding the introduction of the Act. It is no more than a logical progression in the market-oriented climate of higher education.
Polytechnics have come of age and that has been recognised. So have colleges and their achievement deserves recognition. The Privy Council will agree titles for the polytechnics which avoid confusion. Why not do the same for colleges of higher education? Those colleges will be accountable to the higher education funding councils in exactly the same way as universities. Their inclusion in the sector should be recognised in their titles. The term "university college" would indicate that they are different from universities; that is, that they do not have the same breadth of curriculum or size. However, they will be subject to the same performance indicators and quality assessment procedures.
Students in the sector who do not attend universities do not deserve to be accorded less recognition and status than their contemporaries in other higher education institutions. One advantage that was put to me about the amendment is that the change would cost the Government nothing. There is a strong case for these colleges to be treated in that way. I hope that the Government can listen sympathetically to the case.
Lord Addington: I support the general intention behind the amendment. If we are to have a non-binary divide system, as the noble Baroness has just said we should not bring back something which looks like a second-class institution. It is ridiculous to get rid of one person who is thought to represent a second-class institution when it is not. If people are taking a qualification of a certain standard they deserve to receive recognition for it. The title of "university college" is one that has historical precedent. I know that it was used for the redbrick universities before they gained independent university status during the 19th century. With a little history on one's side, surely the Government can look favourably on this suggestion or something very like it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: The hour is late so I shall be brief. I support the amendment because of my close association with one of the colleges, Trinity College, Carmarthen, which has very close links with my own college, St David's University College, Lampeter, which seems to have caused the Committee and lawyers no small difficulty for the past 20 or 30 years. Those colleges have a long and distinguished history starting with their contribution to the training of teachers in this country and which is now continued with diversified degree programmes over a whole range of subjects, particularly in the humanities and in such courses as nursing and professions allied to
1168
medicine. They are validated, as we know, either by a university or by the CNAA and they have developed as institutions which are full partners in the validation of the degrees they teach.
Their record in the recruitment of students is excellent and they continue to prove attractive to both men and women who are seeking the experience of higher education in a collegiate setting since they are nearly all small institutions, although nearly all of them are now larger than 1000 students.
There is a danger that such institutions may be disadvantaged if they do not have a warrant to assume the title of "university college", because the higher education sector will now be distinguished by the title "university" since most of the institutions within the sector qualify for that title by virtue of the size requirement set out by the Secretary of State. So, as three Members of the Committee have now said, a new binary line will be formed between these universities and the colleges of which I speak. That surely will be against both the spirit and the intentions of this Bill. It is ironic that institutions which could qualify to award their own degrees would not qualify, by virtue only of their size, to assume the title of "university college". The binary line has been a Maginot line—on ne passe pas—for quite long enough. Away with it, and let us not now permit a son of binary to rise up in his father's place.
Lord Belstead: Subsection (1) of Clause 73 already empowers the Privy Council to approve titles which include the word "university" in the name of the institution and there is nothing in the Bill to preclude a change of title from "college of higher education" to "university college". But what this amendment is really about is whether that title should be allowed and, if so, what the criteria for its adoption should be.
The title "university college" is not uncommon now. It refers to colleges which are a constituent part of a university. Examples in England include the university colleges at Kent, Durham, Lancaster and York. The University of Wales also has a collegiate structure.
The amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady David, would extend eligibility for the university college title not only to colleges which are a constituent part of a university, but to other colleges solely on the basis that their degrees are validated by a university. Somewhat perversely it would appear to rule out institutions which award their own degrees but are not able to adopt a full university title—if I may put it that way—because they are not large enough. I think that that aspect looks very odd indeed.
However, there is a more general point about this. I must say that I do not believe that institutions which do not meet university title criteria, whether or not they are empowered to award their own degrees, need fear for their future or that they will be seen as second class citizens. The names "college of higher education" and "institute of higher education" are well established within the system and the colleges offer a wide variety of opportunities to students. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, made that absolutely clear in his intervention and also made

1169
clear the success of the college to which he referred. The fact is that the increase in enrolments in the colleges has outpaced the increase in enrolments in universities and polytechnics over the past few years. The colleges are, and will continue to be, first rate institutions—only they are not part of a university.
I conclude by saying this, which may be rather more acceptable to the Committee. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Education and Science met a delegation from the Standing Conference of Principals last week to discuss the use of the university college title. In the light of that useful meeting the Standing Conference of Principals will be writing to the department with its views on this matter. The Government will consider those views and announce their decision in due course. Against that background I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel that this amendment has been worth moving. It has certainly ventilated an important matter. It is a matter which is at present under discussion.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I am glad to know that further discussions are taking place. In my view, this is an important matter and I certainly wish to reserve the right to come back to it at Report stage. However, on the basis of what the Minister said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No.290B:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause:
("Establishment of higher education institutions
.—(1) Nothing in the Education Acts shall prevent or inhibit—

(a) the establishment of a high education corporation or any institution in the higher education sector which is of a denominational character, or

(b) the establishment of such a corporation or institution which is collegiate in nature or which comprises or is formed by a federation or amalgamation of higher education corporations or institutions in the higher education sector, or

(c) the specification pursuant to section 72(1) of this Act of such a corporation or institution as competent to grant either or both kinds of award mentioned in subsection (2) (a) and (b) of section 72, or

(d) the granting by the Privy Council to such a corporation or institution of consent to include the word "university" in its name pursuant to section 73 of this Act.

(2) A higher education corporation or any institution in the higher education sector which is of a denominational character may notwithstanding any provision in the Education Acts to the contrary include in its instrument of government provisions to ensure the maintenance of the denominational character of the corporation or institution.
(3) In exercising his powers under section 72 of this Act and in exercising its powers under section 73 of this Act the Secretary of State and the Privy Council respectively shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring that there should be higher education corporations or institutions in the higher education sector which are of a denominational character which have power to grant either or both kinds of award mentioned in subsection (2) (a) and (b) of section 72 and which are authorised to use the word "university" in their title.
(4) For the purposes of this section a corporation or institution is of a denominational character if it would be so regarded by virtue of subsection (5) of section 62 of this Act.").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving this amendment I should point out that the printing on the Marshalled List might imply that the noble Baroness, Lady David, is supporting me; but I suspect that with its rather narrower thrust she may not wish to be associated with it.
This amendment is essentially to do with denominational colleges and seeks to secure one or two points. The first is to ensure, should there be any doubt, that new higher education corporations or institutions which are of a denominational character may be established; and secondly, to ensure that any such institutions may be either of a collegiate nature or formed by a federation or amalgamation of existing institutions. The amendment would also remove any doubt about the denominational institutions being free to include in their instrument of government provisions to ensure the maintenance of their denominational character. That may be of some importance in the future when such denominational institutions may need to negotiate or even to amalgamate or federate with non-denominational institutions. The amendment also links back, so to speak, with the previous amendment in that it makes reference to the use of the word "university". I trust that that is a sufficiently brief indication of the purpose of the amendment and I hope that the Minister will feel disposed to look on it favourably. I beg to move.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Belstead: This is an interesting amendment and, as the right reverend Prelate said, it has three main features. First, it would stipulate that there should be no legal impediments to an institution which is of a denominational character becoming a higher education corporation or any other kind of institution within the higher education sector. There are no such impediments. Clause 68 of the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to designate institutions as eligible to receive funds through a higher education funding council. Clause 70 empowers the Secretary of State to change a further education corporation into a higher education one. In both cases the only criterion which the institution must meet is to have a full-time higher education enrolment number higher than 55 per cent. In both cases, the decision on whether to exercise his power in respect of institutions which have met the criterion rests with the Secretary of State.
Next, the amendment provides for such institutions to be eligible for degree-awarding powers and a university title. Any institution within the higher education sector has that possibility under Clauses 72 and 73. But, of course, it must meet the criteria established under those clauses, and I cannot believe that it would be right to require the Secretary of State and the Privy Council somehow to accord special treatment to such institutions, as subsection (3) of this new clause appears to suggest. Criteria are criteria.

1171
Finally, the new clause would ensure that the institution would be able to include, in its instrument of government, provisions to ensure the maintenance of its denominational character. That goes without saying.
I hope that what I have been able to say in respect of this essentially probing amendment is such that it will satisfy the right reverend Prelate. These are important points but I think that they are covered in the Bill as drafted.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am sure he appreciates that the Church colleges, for which I speak in this amendment, consider themselves to be making a small but significant contribution to the higher education sector. I am grateful for the assurances that he has given in the context of his speech. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause: 74 [Financial years of higher education corporations]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 290C:
Page 56, line 4, leave out from ("directs") to end of line 13 and insert ("that any financial year specified in the direction of the higher education corporations, and subsequent financial years, are to begin with a date specified in the direction, then—

(a) the financial year of the corporations immediately preceding the year specified in the direction shall end immediately before the date specified in the direction, and

(b) the financial year specified in the direction and subsequent financial years shall be each successive period of twelve months.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment effectively replaces the existing Clause 74 with a new clause. It empowers the Secretary of State to direct that the financial year of a higher education corporation should begin on a specified date, and subsequent financial years should be each successive period of 12 months. The financial year of the corporation immediately preceding the year specified in the direction ends immediately before the date specified in the direction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Dissolution of Council for National Academic Awards]:
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 291:
Page 56, line 33, at end insert:
("(c) in making any order under section 76(1) the Secretary of State shall be under a duty to take into account the interests of students on courses leading to CNAA awards and of institutions which do not receive degree awarding powers.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to place on the Secretary of State the duty to take into account the interests of students, and institutions which do not receive degree-awarding powers.
Under Clause 76 the dissolution of the CNAA is not in contention. In fact, it is my view that both the staff of the Council for National Academic Awards and the council members have, together, been working co-operatively to achieve the transfer of powers.
1172
However, there are matters which are more complex in the work of the CNAA than just the transfer of the accredited institutions. As we said on Second Reading, there are 70 institutions with 40,000 students who will not receive degree-awarding powers. It is in the interests of those institutions, and their students, that we put forward the amendment.
The validation of degrees in non-accredited institutions can, as we heard earlier this evening, be achieved through seeking validation through another higher education institution. But that is not as simple as it sounds. I understand that some institutions are already seeking validating powers through more than one institution and that they are not always being welcomed. Further, there is a very limited time schedule in view.
Moreover, in many cases the students have enrolled for CNAA degrees. They do not always wish to transfer to another type of degree, even though we might regard it as being equivalent. I believe that we have yet to find out the legal position of students who may regard themselves as aggrieved. Surely the Secretary of State must take an interest in the situation.
Not only is the validation of degrees in question, but many of these institutions offer a far wider range of qualifications and degrees at certificate and diploma level. In many cases, the institutions through which they seek to validate their work do not always have this wide spread of work. That presents some difficulties.
There are other aspects of the work of the CNAA that I believe must be jealously guarded. There is the national validation of a credit accumulation and transfer scheme and the access work which has been undertaken in that connection. I understand that parts of it will go to the quality and access organisation. But there are residual parts of that work which must find a national home.
In all those matters, I believe that one of the anxieties is the timescale to which we are working. Our understanding is that we are working towards September next year. Those of us who have had anything to do with the validation of courses in higher education institutions know, for example, that to get a proposal for a validation of a degree—first through a department, secondly, through a faculty board and, thirdly, through a senate—will take considerably longer than the timescale which we have in view.
Because of the latter, we feel that the residual work of the CNAA needs to be held under close review and that it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State to guard the interests of both students and institutions in the dissolution of the CNAA. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My name is attached to the amendment and it is to the first part of it that I especially wish to speak. It provides:
"The Secretary of State shall be under a duty to take into account the interests of students on courses leading to CNAA awards".
It is the feelings and interests of students that we should be considering. The precipitate closure of CNAA will leave many thousands of students unable to be awarded, on completion of their studies, the

1173
degree of their choice. Those involved are full-time students on three or four-year programmes who are not due to finish until 1993, 1994, or 1995; part-time students on undergraduate programmes who can take up to eight years from initial registration; part-time postgraduate students; and those registered for research degrees such as M.Phil and Ph.D.
Many students within the last three categories registered some years ago. They have already paid the fee to CNAA which entitles them to follow the whole course in the expectation that they will receive a CNAA award on completion. Those students are registered by choice not by default. Indeed, certain subject areas are especially noted for the high quality of their degrees which are nationally and internationally recognised by employers. One such area is art and design. Such students are already expressing unhappiness that they find themselves, against their will, having to take a degree at an institution which has no track record for art and design, and of which no employer has ever heard in that regard.
That situation could well have a deleterious effect upon the employability of such students. I am reliably informed that there is likely to be a claim in law, with possible recourse to British and European courts. The students who have enrolled at an institution have a contract with the institution which gives them a contractual right to follow a CNAA course. Likewise, students individually registered for research degrees have a contract with CNAA. The interests of the students would be best taken care of by enabling the powers of the CNAA charter to be exercised in that regard until presently enrolled students who so choose can complete their programmes of study. I am pleased to support the amendment.
Baroness Cox: My name is to the amendment, and perhaps I can say how much I appreciate the manner in which the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, covered the points so comprehensively. I support what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said in highlighting the interests of students, and I wish to indicate the wide area of anxiety felt by many categories of students who are already enrolled and may be suffering a breach of contract.
The two additional categories that I should like to highlight are those students who have not yet enrolled on courses or who are currently enrolling but do not know for what degree, and students beginning the academic year 1993 who will not know what they will be receiving in 1993. Finally, there is a small, but important, category of students who seem to be forgotten by the Government in relation to any of these provisions: the 500 research students registered by CNAA who are not in any educational establishments but who could transfer, such as those in industrial and commercial organisations, research laboratories and hospitals. Many students have been left in an impossible position. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure us on those important points.
Lord Belstead: A number of noble Lords made representations about these matters on Second
1174
Reading, and I promised to draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who has considered them most carefully.
My right honourable friend has considered at what point it would be appropriate for the CNAA to cease its normal operations, and at what point beyond that it would be appropriate for the CNAA to be dissolved. His officials have discussed those issues with the CNAA. The Secretary of State intends, in line with the CNAA's strategic plan, that it will continue to operate until 30th September 1992. After that it will concentrate on winding up its affairs in preparation for dissolution, which is likely to be at the end of March 1993. That means that CNAA will not be able to register any students for taught courses or programmes of research after 1st September 1992 although it will confer awards to all successful students whose courses of study or programmes of research are completed in the 1991–92 academic year.
My right honourable friend has considered carefully the representations made that the CNAA should continue in existence until all the students presently registered with it have completed their course of study. To achieve that, the CNAA would have to continue for at least three more years. Given that its other functions will have transferred elsewhere, the Secretary of State does not consider this to be a practical proposition.
Ministers accept that it will be essential for alternative arrangements to be made for those students to be able to continue on the course of study on which they enrolled, in the institution at which they enrolled and with the expectation of receiving a degree or other award at the end of that course of similar standing to the CNAA degree or award for which they initially registered. My right honourable friend expects that to be achieved through institutions not empowered to grant their own awards entering into a validation agreement with institutions which are so empowered, and awarding their qualifications. It is for institutions which are not presently assured of receiving degree awarding powers to ensure that a suitable agreement is in place by next September.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, referred to problems of getting validation agreements arranged. Currently there are 30 validating universities and, once the polytechnics become universities, there will clearly be an even wider range.
There are many current examples of university validation, and there are now more potential validating institutions. The CDP and the CVCP have indicated their readiness to help in identifying suitable validating institutions in particular cases. In addition—I shall not go into this in detail as I mentioned it before—the Open University is intending to offer a validation service for those colleges without degree awarding powers which for various reasons do not wish to become associated with a local institution.
I know this is not an easy situation but against this background my right honourable friend believes that the necessary arrangements are capable of being made within the planned timetable. The amendment is correct in drawing attention to issues which arise as a result of the proposal to dissolve the CNAA, but I

1175
hope that, after considering the results of my consultation with my right honourable friend, the Committee will feel that some progress is now being made.
12.45 a.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I thank the Minister for his reply and for having consulted with the Secretary of State on this matter. Nevertheless I still have some feelings of anxiety. I am concerned, for example, that the CNAA may not register for degrees after September 1992: many of the colleges of which we are speaking have already recruited for next September and have offered students the very CNAA degrees that will no longer be available. The fact that there are 30 validating universities and there has been an offer of help is not clearly apparent to those institutions, some of whom are seeking to find a validating partner. I still have some reservations, but I appreciate all the Minister has done towards safeguarding the interests of the students involved. I believe that some of the amendments that have been moved this evening—for example Amendments Nos. 283ZA, 283ZB and 283ZC—may be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Directions]:
[Amendments Nos. 291A to 294 not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Joint exercise of functions]:
[Amendments 295 to 297 not moved.]
Clauses 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 297A:
After Clause 79, insert the following new clause:
("Periodic circular
—(1) The Secretary of State shall be required to issue, at periodic intervals, a Circular in respect of those aspects of further education which, under section 11 of this Act, it is the duty of a local education authority to provide.
(2) The Circular to be issued under subsection (1) above shall—

(a) set, for each local education authority, a target in respect of the proportion of the residents of the area who shall be enrolled on courses of study of further education.

(b) outline the Secretary of State's expectations as to the range and type of facilities to be made available by the local education authority in connection with the provision of further education to an extent commensurate with the targets outlined in paragraph (a) above.").

The right reverend Prelate said: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but it seems appropriate to move the amendment, which invites the Secretary of State to set targets for adult education provision by local education authorities. The Minister will be aware that after the publication of the White Paper there was considerable anxiety that the so-called leisure adult education was not fully appreciated and understood. It would help to secure and recognise the valuable part which LEA adult education plays in the whole perspective of adult education if those targets could be set. We have heard
1176
a good deal in recent times about league tables indicating performance. The amendment tackles a similar issue but from a slightly different angle in that it relates to setting targets. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I do not want to delay the Committee, although it is a pity that we do not feel that we have time to discuss this important issue at some length. It is worthy of discussion and considerable argument. Suffice it to say at this point that from these Benches we strongly support the initiative and hope that it will receive a sympathetic response. We should be interested to hear the Government's view in order to decide what needs to be done next.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I understand that at this time of night Members of the Committee feel constrained not to speak at length, but I believe that I have to give a considered answer to the amendment.
The amendment requires the Secretary of State to issue periodic circulars about aspects of LEAs' duties under Clause 11. I find the notion of putting such a requirement upon the Secretary of State in law unusual. The assumption in law is that people upon whom duties are placed will discharge them responsibly. In respect of Clause 11, LEAs will discharge their duties on the basis of informed decisions taken in the light of local circumstances. There is recourse to the Secretary of State in the event of an LEA acting unreasonably or in default of its duty. It is in that way that LEAs are accountable under law for the decisions they make.
However, there is a suggestion in the amendment that those decisions should be influenced at the outset by the Secretary of State's own judgment about how the duties should be fulfilled in each LEA. In the Government's view it is for each LEA, provided it acts reasonably, to decide how to fulfil the duties imposed on it. I believe that targets for enrolments are for LEAs themselves to set in response to local needs and circumstances. Similarly, it must be for LEAs to determine the range and type of facilities required for further education.
I do not see how the Secretary of State could be expected to judge for Birmingham or Somerset LEAs respectively the provision they should be making for their areas. It is right that the Secretary of State should from time to time issue circulars of guidance about aspects of LEA functions as he thinks fit but not, as I have said, about the functions of individual LEAs. I do not believe that such guidance is a subject for legislation.
I am aware that there has been anxiety about the expression of LEAs' duties under Clause 11. My noble friend Lord Belstead said in response to amendments to Clause 11—including an amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford—that he would like to look at the way that duty is expressed. I hope that that will be of some assurance to the right reverend Prelate.
I am not happy about the amendment. I think that it deals with matters which should rightly be for local determination and not for the Secretary of State. I

1177
hope that the right reverend Prelate will be persuaded by what I have said and see fit to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response. Perhaps I may comment wryly that here is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to have more powers given to him which on this occasion it appears that he does not particularly want. However, I shall not pursue that matter at this hour of the night.
I am reassured about the reconsideration being given to Clause 11 and, although it may be necessary to come back to the matter at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 80 to 83 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Stamp duty]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 297B:
Page 58, line 43, leave out from ("(7)") to end of line 44 and insert (", 59 and 76.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 84 lists the sections of the Act under which any transfers affected should not be liable for stamp duty. When drawing up that list, Section 76, which provides for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities of the CNAA was unintentionally omitted. The amendment rectifies that omission. This is a technical amendment which I hope that the Committee will approve. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 85 [Orders, regulations and directions]:
[Amendments Nos. 298 to 299 not moved.]
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clauses 86 and 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Index]:
[Amendment No. 300 not moved.]
Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Short title, commencement, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 301 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 302:
Page 62, line 28, at end insert ("after the passing of this Act").
The noble Earl said: I wish to move this amendment, but not at any length. The amendment simply seeks to provide that the Bill shall not be applied retroactively. I should be grateful to be told that the amendment was unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I can reassure the noble Earl on this matter. Clauses 39 and 41 have effect from immediately after the Statement made on 29th March 1991 by my noble friend in this House and by my right honourable friend in another place. Those clauses were discussed and voted upon. They come under a special category and there is no further retrospection. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will be reassured.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 90 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 303:
Page 78, line 11, at end insert:
(".In section 81 (power of local education authorities to give assistance by means of scholarships and otherwise)—

(a) for "pupils" (where it first appears) there is substituted "persons", and

(b) in paragraph (c)—

(i) for "pupils" (where it first appears) there is substituted "persons", and

(ii) the words from "including" to the end are omitted.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 304, 307 and 312 to 314. The amendments replace the word "pupils" in a number of Acts with the word "persons" and make other changes having a similar effect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 304:
Page 80, line 45, at end insert:
(".In section 52(1) (a) and (3) of that Act (recoupment: cross-border provisions) for "pupil", in each place, there is substituted "person".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 305 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 306:
Page 82, line 4, at end insert:
(".In section 124 (powers of a higher education corporation)—

(a) in subsection (2) (b) for "disabled students" there is substituted "students having learning difficulties within the meaning of section 41(9) of the Education Act 1944", and

(b) subsection (4) is omitted.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 315. These amendments will ensure consistency in the way that the Bill deals with students with disabilities in both the further and higher education sectors. The Government are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for highlighting the discrepancy within the Bill as drafted between Clause 4 and Clause 19 and for agreeing to withdraw their amendment to Clause 19 to enable these more detailed amendments to be put forward. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 307:
Page 83, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) in subsection (1) (f) for "pupils" there is substituted "persons receiving education",
( ) in subsection (7) (b) for "pupils attending" there is substituted "persons receiving education at",").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 308:
Page 85, line 16, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("sub-paragraph").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deletes in Schedule 8 two erroneous references to subsections and replaces them with references to sub-paragraphs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved amendment No. 309:
Page 8 5, line 19, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("sub-paragraph").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 310:
Page 86, line 32, at end insert:
(".In paragraph 4 of that Schedule at the beginning there is inserted—

"(1) Where a transfer by virtue of section 126 or 130 relates to registered land, it shall be the duty of the transferor to execute any such instrument under the Land Registration Acts 1925 to 1986, to deliver any such certificate under those Acts and to do such other things under those Acts as he would be required to execute, deliver or do in the case of a transfer by agreement between the transferor and the transferee.

(2)".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment adds to Schedule 10 of the Education Reform Act 1988 in relation to transfers of registered land to higher education institutions a parallel provision to that provided for further education colleges at paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 5 to the Bill. The transferor local education authority would be under a duty to execute the transfer document and meet other requirements of the land registration Acts for transfers still to be effected.
I hope that, with that lucid explanation, the Committee will accept this small amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 311:
Page 87. line 10, at end insert:
("The Charities Act 1960 (c. 58)
.—(1) A further education corporation shall be an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1960.
(2) Paragraph (e) of Schedule 2 to that Act (institutions connected with institutions which are exempt charities for the purposes of that Act by virtue of the preceding provisions of that Schedule) shall apply in relation to an institution conducted by a further education corporation as it applies in relation to an institution included in that Schedule above that paragraph").
The noble Lord said: This amendment provides that further education corporations shall be exempt charities under the Charities Act 1960. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 312:
Page 88. line 40, at end insert:
(".After section 26(3) (exception for single-sex establishments) there is added—
"(4) In this section, as it applies to an establishment in England and Wales, "pupil" includes any person who receives education at that establishment."
1180
. After section 27(5) (exception for single-sex establishments turning co-educational) there is added—
"(6) In this section, as it applies to an establishment in England and Wales, "pupil" includes any person who receives education at that establishment." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 313:
Page 89, line 44, at end insert:
("The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (c. 14)
. In section 46(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (fare-paying passengers on school buses) in the definition of "free school transport" for "pupils" there is substituted "persons".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 314:
Page 91, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) in the definition of "child" after "school or" there is inserted "as a student at",").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 314A:
Page 91, line 34, at end insert:
("and for paragraph (c) there is substituted—
"(c) any institution designated by order made or having effect as if made under section 129 of the Education Reform Act 1988."").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment intended to keep institutions designated as eligible to receive funding from a higher education funding council within the scope of Section 5 of the Employment Act 1989. This exempts from sex discrimination the appointment of a person of a particular sex as a head teacher or principal of an educational establishment if the instrument governing the establishment requires the head teacher or principal to be a member of a particular religious order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 315:
Page 93, line 20, column 3, at end insert:
("Section 124(4).")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 306.1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at three minutes past one o'clock.

  WAR CRIMES ACT
  WAR CRIMES ACT
  EC SOCIAL ACTION PROGRAMME: COST ESTIMATES
  EC SOCIAL ACTION PROGRAMME: COST ESTIMATES
  RISKS TO SERVICEMEN ASSISTING ROYAL ORDNANCE, KUWAIT
  RISKS TO SERVICEMEN ASSISTING ROYAL ORDNANCE, KUWAIT
  KUWAIT: POSSIBLE RESIDUE OF DEPLETED URANIUM
  KUWAIT: POSSIBLE RESIDUE OF DEPLETED URANIUM
  PRISON SERVICE: LYGO REPORT
  PRISON SERVICE: LYGO REPORT
  CATEGORY A PRISONERS: SECURITY REPORT
  CATEGORY A PRISONERS: SECURITY REPORT