Sitting of 26 November 1991

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

    Mature Women
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures his Department has introduced to help mature women get back into the work force.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): Some 2·5 million more women are now in work than in 1983. That encouraging development has been assisted by a wide range of measures undertaken by the Government. They include the deregulation of labour markets, where there has been a 29 per cent. increase in female part-time employment and an almost threefold real-terms increase in Government-funded training programmes, in which women participate extensively.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and understand the Government's appreciation of the need for mature women in the labour market. Will he find time to consider the plight of my constituent, Mrs. Christine Williamson, who, after 25 years at home nursing a severely disabled child is now able to go back into the labour market, but finds herself in a Catch-22 situation? She cannot get a job without training and she cannot get training from the Basildon authorities so as to make herself available for work.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That would make a good Adjournment debate.
    Mrs. Gorman: That, she tells me, is because the training is given to school leavers.
    Mr. Jackson: I shall be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about her constituent's case. On the face of it, my immediate response is that, first, she should contact the local training and enterprise council, which will do its best to help. Secondly, I draw her attention to the career development loan scheme which the Government are funding. That is a helpful and positive scheme which has been developing successfully in recent years.
    Mr.Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that the occupational apartheid that exists in this country is clearly the result of over-costly and inadequate child care facilities and inflexible and unsatisfactory training provision? Precisely what do the Government intend to do to ensure
    762
    that mature women have access to the proper sort of training and the necessary child care to allow them to play their full role in the labour market?
    Mr. Jackson: I know that the Labour party is likely to conduct a vendetta against part-time workers, many of whom are women, although when women are asked what they think about part-time work, they reply that they very much appreciate it. We are doing more for training than any previous Government and the Labour party is in no position to lecture us on that subject.

    EC Social Charter
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect implementation of the EC social charter would have on unemployment in the United Kingdom.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): Much of the proposed legislation under the European Commission's social action programme would be very damaging for the United Kingdom. The working time directive alone would impose crippling costs of more than £5 billion on United Kingdom employers. That assessment is confirmed by analysis from business and independent academic organisations.
    Mr. Brown: In view of my right hon. and learned Friend's comments about the £5 billion cost of implementing that programme, will he give a categorical assurance that there is no way, in any circumstances, in which the present Government—or any Government if they were acting responsibly—could possibly accept the social charter? Would not it be a recipe for disaster in the offshore oil industry, in agriculture and in the hotel and catering industry? Would not it be a disaster for part-time workers, women workers and, indeed, all workers in Britain?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. I assure him that the Government will do all that they can to resist the imposition of such measures on this country. However, I must tell him that it is a draft directive, which has been brought forward by the Commission, utterly spuriously, on grounds of health and safety. As such, it is alleged that it is appropriate to be dealt with on the basis of qualified majority voting. Although we shall do our utmost to resist it, I cannot give my hon. Friend a guarantee that we will be successful in that endeavour.
    Ms. Quin: Is the Secretary of State concerned that some workers in Britain get such low wages that they are forced to apply for social security benefit? Does he believe that bad employers should be subsidised by the state in that way? If not, why will not he accept the provisions of the social charter which would attack the problem of low pay?
    Mr. Howard: In fact, the social action programme does not contain proposals related to low pay, as the hon. Lady suggested. Family credit is one of the great advances of social legislation. It is one of the ways in which we ensure that, so far as possible, people are better off in work than out of work. If the hon. Lady would read some of the reports from the OECD and other reputable organisations, she would see the extent to which those organisations commend our practices in those matters.
    Mr. Irvine: My right hon. and learned Friend said that he would do all that he could to resist those directives. In view of his assessment of the damage that they are likely to cause to employment in this country, will he say under which article of the treaty of Rome they have been proposed? If the Government do not have the power of veto and we risk having those directives imposed on us, it is an extremely serious matter.
    Mr. Howard: I agree that it is a serious matter. The directives are proposed under article 118A, which is subject to qualified majority voting. I am doing my utmost to persuade my colleagues in the Council of Ministers that it would make no sense, for the European Community as well as this country, if the directives were promulgated in their present form.
    Mr. Blair: Is not the real reason why the Secretary of State makes those absurd and fictitious claims about the effect of the social charter, which bears no resemblance to the reality of the proposals, that he dare not admit that the Government are opposed, not just in detail but in principle, to the idea of binding employment standards across the Community? Will he now answer the question of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and confirm that when the Prime Minister goes to Maastricht he will sign no treaty that allows qualified majority voting on any aspect of employment law?
    Mr. Howard: What the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question was entirely wrong. I refer him to the independent Centre for Economic Policy Research, where Professor Denis Snower recently published a document saying:
    "Implementing the social charter may be expected to hurt precisely those workers it seeks to help, in addition to raising unemployment and reducing investment".
    This year's Employment Institute economic report on the social charter found that
    "attempts by the Government to foster labour market flexibility … will be undermined by the directives presently contained within the Social Action Programme."
    As for the hon. Gentleman's question, the Prime Minister made the Government's position entirely clear in a debate on that matter in the House last week.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the Transport and General Workers Union about training and enterprise councils.
    Mr. Howard: None, Sir.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Transport and General Workers Union has been wrong on all the major issues facing the country in the past 12 years? It has been wrong on unilateralism and trade union legislation and wrong about the man whom it picked to lead the Labour party. Will not it be wrong yet again on the training and enterprise councils?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is noteworthy that, last July, the TGWU voted to boycott youth training, employment training and the training and enterprise councils on the day before the Leader of the Opposition went to its conference and said that, in so many ways, that union was the Labour party. I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will, in the
    764
    House this afternoon, condemn the antediluvian attitudes of the TGWU, which sponsors him, and which turns its back on help for the unemployed made available by the Government.
    Mr. Strang: Does not the Secretary of State understand that it is precisely because the TGWU is so committed to effective training and the future expansion of British industry that it is not prepared to give credence to the Government's sham arrangements? When will the Government provide effective training with effective allowances? Do not the Secretary of State's earlier answers make it clear that his vision of Britain in the future is a low-wage economy with the worst employment conditions in Europe?
    Mr. Howard: That is an interesting question. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not think that training and enterprise councils should be supported. I shall be interested to discover whether that view is shared by the Labour spokesmen who trail round the country assuring training and enterprise councils of their support. Which is the true view of the Labour party? The hon. Gentleman criticised youth training, when almost 90 per cent. of those who complete youth training go on to a job or further education and two thirds of them obtain a qualification. How dare the hon. Gentleman cast a slur on the training arrangements currently in place in this country?
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is not the problem with the TGWU the fact that the only objective that it regards as important in the House is to support the Labour party? That is why the TGWU will not invite to any of its meetings in the House any Member of Parliament who is not also a Labour party member. That shows how biased the TGWU has become in its policies.
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example, which I had not previously come across. It demonstrates that there is no limit to the idiocy of the TGWU in such matters.

    Bank Holidays
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the total number of bank holidays in each of the EC countries.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Only the United Kingdom and Ireland have bank holidays as such. A detailed list is available in the Library, but the number of public holidays varies between seven in the Netherlands and 14 in Spain. Most countries have nine.
    Mr. Grocott: The Minister has different figures from the official figures in the Library. Will he confirm that Britain, with eight bank holidays, has fewer national public holidays than any other European Community country? Given that we hear so much from the Government about level playing fields, is not it time that we had a level playing field in employment conditions? Will the Minister introduce in the near future proposals enabling us to have at least as many national holidays as other European countries?
    Mr. Forth: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to bribe the electorate with yet another promise. He was incorrect to say that we have fewer national

    765
    holidays than any other European country—the Netherlands has fewer than us. He also ignored the fact that the majority of other European Community members do not give a compensatory day off when a national holiday falls at a weekend, as is normal practice in the United Kingdom. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has made an estimate of the cost impact on British business or the United Kingdom economy of the proposal that he apparently makes so glibly. If his suggestion is yet another example of the well-thought-out policies of the Labour party, we should he given a carefully calculated costing of such a proposal before it is introduced in such a casual manner.
    Mr. Madel:: Is not there a case for introducing a statutory bank holiday between the August bank holiday and Christmas, which is a long period? Should not there also be a statutory holiday to coincide with half-term?
    Mr. Forth: I am aware of a wide body of opinion that exactly supports my hon. Friend's proposal. However, there is an equally wide body of opinion, expressed mainly by manufacturing industries, which oppose such a move because it believes that it would disrupt the long period of uninterrupted production between the August holiday and the Christmas break. It is a finely balanced argument and so far we have not been persuaded by my hon. Friend's case.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total increase in uneployment throughout the countries of' the Common Market during the past year; and what was the percentage of that increase in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Howard: No comparable estimates are available on the numbers unemployed in European Community countries or on the proportion of the increase in European Community unemployment resulting from rises in unemployment in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Flannery: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that he is avoiding the reality because it is so embarrassing. We had a slump in 1981—long before anyone else—which was when our unemployment problem began. We are now in a second slump, which will continue for a long time yet, and unemployment is rising. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that more than 80 per cent. of unemployment in the whole of Europe during the past year was in this country?
    Mr. Howard: That is a misleading statistic. Far from avoiding reality, I was merely seeking to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. If he is interested in what is happening in the European Community, he could do no better than cast his eyes across to France where a socialist Government have just announced that country's highest-ever unemployment level.
    Mr. Watts: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House of any European Community country with a higher proportion of its adult population in work than the United Kingdom? Will he tell us which European country enjoyed the greatest growth in the number of jobs during the 1980s?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. Between 1983 and 1989, the latest period for which comparable figures are available, more than twice as many jobs were created in Britain compared with the rest of the EC.
    Mr. McLeish: Why is it that in the 12 months to September this year unemployment in Europe rose by 7 per cent., but in the United Kingdom it rose by 40 per cent? Why is it that among men in the 11 other EC countries unemployment rose by 86,000, but in the United Kingdom it rose by 609,000? Why is it that among women in the 11 other EC countries unemployment fell by 32 per cent., but in Britain it rose by 172,000? Is not that the result of the Government's characteristic incompetence? Does not that show that on the European front we are moving towards not convergence, but divergence? We have supplied the answers that the Minister refused to give to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) this afternoon.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. If he wants to make European comparisons, I refer him, as I referred the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), to what is happening in France. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the increase in unemployment last month was the lowest for almost a year, that it was the third successive fall in the rate of increase and that it shows that the rate of increase in unemployment in Britain is now coming down fast. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that development.
    Mr. Marlow: Would it not be reasonable to be a little more objective? I think that it is an open secret that if the misfortune of a Labour Government being returned at the next election were to befall Britain there would be the mother and father of financial crises, which would lead to an increase in interest rates of at least 2 per cent. What effect would that have on employment in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right, but he is characteristically modest in his assessment. He referred to only one of the Opposition's policies that would wreak havoc on the British economy. In addition, there are the policies that they have been advocating from the Front Bench this afternoon on the European social action programme, a national statutory minimum wage and trade union law reform, which would make it easier to strike and to have more frequent and more damaging strikes. All that would reinforce the particular policy to which my hon. Friend referred and would damage tremendously the prospects of the British people and destroy countless jobs.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State agree that the recent announcement of 300 pay-offs in Harland and Wolff, which has just had an increase in its order book does not augur well for the economy? Do not the Government need to give more attention to devising a regional strategy within Europe?
    Mr. Howard: I especially regret those redundancies, as I regret all redundancies. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have gone to great lengths to help the Northern Ireland economy and I am sure that the measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is taking will continue to alleviate the situation in the Province.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet representatives of the small firms sector to discuss the problem of small businesses.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend and I have frequent meetings with representatives of the small firms sector and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Bellingham: Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention to continue to reduce taxes and deregulate, both of which will help small businesses? Is he aware that the Opposition claim to be the friend of the small business man? How does my hon. Friend think that they square that with their policies of imposing a payroll tax on small businesses and of gaoling small business men who fail to pay a socialist minimum wage?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has made some important points. It is correct that Britain has one of the lowest rates of corporate tax in the developed world, something from which our businesses, large and small, have benefited enormously over the years. The Government are committed, when possible, to continue to drive down burdens on industry and rates of tax. It is equally true that Opposition Members seem obsessed with pursuing the business community with prosecutions and they frequently question me about that across a wide range of Government policies—something which I regret, but with which I have become rather familiar. The Government are committed to increasing the possibilities for businesses, large and small, and to encouraging the growth of businesses and self-employment. Our policies have been a huge success up to now and we are determined to ensure that they will continue to be so.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister accept that in a recession in which many small businesses have gone to the wall, their failure is often identified with the late payment by large companies of their debts? What steps, other than expressing sympathy and exhortation, will the Minister and the Government take to enforce interest payments on debt and to streamline court procedures, so that it will not be too burdensome for small businesses to pursue their creditors?
    Mr. Forth: There have been a number of business failures over the past, very difficult, few months, but I hasten to add that the level of new business start-ups remains resilient and robust. Under the national enterprise allowance scheme administered by the new training and enterprise councils, 1,000 new businesses have been coming into existence every week this year. I am conscious of the late payment problem, which is something to which we are devoting great attention.
    Recently, we issued a new package of measures, "Making the Cash Flow", in consultation with the Institute of Credit Management and the Confederation of British Industry. I have personally written to the chairmen of the country's 100 largest companies urging them to regard prompt payment as a matter of best practice. However, I remain to be convinced that legislation would be beneficial. As yet, the bulk of the country's small business organisations are not persuaded either, but I will keep a close eye on that matter.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend recall that I was the first Minister to have responsibility for small businesses—even before the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)? Will my hon. Friend do as I did and haul the leading debtors among large firms before him, to tell them that unless they jolly well pay their debts, Government legislation to force them to do so will follow? Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One question, please.
    Sir Anthony Grant: In his discussions, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that small firms want, more than anything, a reduction in interest rates?
    Mr. Forth: I am constantly conscious of my illustrious predecessors and daily find it difficult to fill their shoes. As I said when answering the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) I have written individually to the chairmen of the 100 largest companies urging them to pay close attention to settling their debts on time. I have received personal replies from most of them, giving me assurances that that will be done. I extend a standing invitation to any firm that is not being paid on time by any of the country's 100 largest companies or Government Departments to allow me to take up its case individually. I have already done so with some success in a number of instances and I hope to continue doing so.
    Mr. Cryer: The Government are supposed to support small firms, but is not the reality that they have been betraying them? High interest rates have driven hundreds of thousands of small firms out of business over the past 10 years and the loss of more than 2 million jobs in manufacturing industry has carried with it, to their doom, many small firms that depended on larger businesses. Is not it the case that the sooner the Government face a general election and are defeated, the sooner small firms will have a decent chance in the economy?
    Mr. Forth: I am surprised that another of my predecessors—I choose my words very carefully—should show such ignorance about the small business sector. My figures show that although there were 34,000 business failures in the first nine months of this year, every week 1,000 new businesses have come into existence under the enterprise allowance scheme alone. The National Westminster bank, for example, opened 76,000 new small business accounts in the first six months of this year, which suggests a robust small firms sector. Although I would be the last to claim that small businesses are without their problems, it is a great tribute to the entrepreneurs and to the small business men of this country that they can deal with difficult circumstances in such a way. We pledge to continue to support them in that. I invite them to examine the Opposition's policies to see how they would fare under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Butterfill: Is not it true that a large number of small firms are in the tourism sector? Will my hon. Friend confirm that he received representations from both the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board about the damage that would be done to the industry by the restrictions on part-time working and on working hours which are so beloved of Labour?
    Mr. Forth: Only yesterday, my hon. Friend and I met a number of eminent representatives of the tourist industry from across the European Community. They expressed the

    769
    unanimous view that the proposals contained in the working time directive, which is to be considered by the Council of Ministers next week, would be extremely damaging to the tourist industry throughout the Community.
    We in this country are very much aware of the problem. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will take the case to his colleagues in the Council of Ministers and ask them to look again at the proposals, which would be damaging not only to British industry but to industries—including tourism—right across the Community. We hope that we shall be able to make sense prevail.

    Employment Statistics
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are in employment in Leeds, West.
    Mr. Jackson: The most recent estimates of employment by parliamentary constituency are from the September 1989 census of employment, when there were 25,100 employees in employment in the Leeds, West constituency.
    Mr. Battle: Unemployment in my constituency has risen by 43 per cent. in the past year, and there has been a marked increase in temporary and part-time working. Is the Minister aware that the cracker he pulls this Christmas will probably have been packaged by a home worker, as will the Christmas cards and gift tags? Does he realise that home workers in my constituency receive as little as 40p an hour? What action will the Government take to ensure that home workers obtain well-paid, reasonable employment—or does the Minister intend to revel in the Christmas season while home workers cannot afford to do so?
    Mr. Jackson: Yet again, Labour is demonstrating that it is engaged in a vendetta against part-time workers. I hope that part-time workers will take note of that. Labour's policies would eliminate the part-time and home-working jobs that are available. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman really appreciates the consequences of the policies that he supports.

    Catrine and Dalmellington Offices
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding the proposal by the Employment Service Agency to close the offices at Catrine and Dalmellington.
    Mr. Jackson: I have had three representations, including the hon. Gentleman's own.
    Mr. Foulkes: Cumnock and Doon Valley district council was grateful to the Minister for holding a meeting with the council and with me. Does he recall, however, that at that meeting we pointed out that unemployment in Catrine and Dalmellington is about 14 and 15 per cent. respectively, and that male unemployment is about 18 and 19 per cent. respectively? Is this not a strange time to close offices which provide assistance for so many unemployed people? Will the Minister think again?
    Mr. Jackson: I very much appreciated the opportunity to meet some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents in a delegation. We had a very useful discussion, as a result of
    770
    which steps have been taken—particularly in Dalmellington, where there is an asbestos problem, making it unfeasible for the building to be reopened, but we are extending the outreach facilities there following the meeting, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is making progress. We are improving what the employment service has to offer in the new integrated offices, as all hon. Members who have been to see them will know. That includes offices in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of unemployment in 1979, 1983 and 1987; and what it is now.
    Mr. Howard: On the consistent seasonally adjusted basis. United Kingdom unemployment was 1,052,500 in October 1979, 2,819,200 in October 1983, 2,641,900 in October 1987 and 2,472,900 in October 1991.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Secretary of State imagine that such figures could have been given to any other Parliament in the European Community—especially in a country that had enjoyed a North sea oil bonanza over the years? Is this not utterly disgusting? Can the Secretary of State tell us the real social cost to our country of the devastation of our manufacturing industry and our economy? When will the Government retire from office so that something can be done?
    Mr. Howard: Unemployment is higher in a number of other European countries. In socialist France, it is now higher than it has ever been in that country's history. Unemployment is rising in every European country except Spain, where it is nearly twice as high as it is here, and in every European Free Trade Association country, and in every G7 country it is higher than it was a year ago. Those are the facts which the hon. Gentleman should remember when supporting his own party's policies, which would destroy countless jobs in this country.
    Mr. Dunn: Is the Secretary of State aware that every Labour Government since 1929, bar one, has doubled unemployment? Has he any evidence that Opposition policies could convince us that a future Labour Government would be any different from past ones?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The one exception to that doleful list of Labour Governments who doubled unemployment during their term of office saw unemployment increase by 50 per cent. The raft of policies that the Opposition are putting before the British people would be devastating to job prospects, and so ashamed are they of the consequences of their policies that four Labour members of the Select Committee on Employment last week voted down a proposal to hold an inquiry into the effects of national statutory minimum wage because they wanted to hide the truth about that policy from the British people.
    Mr. Blair: As the Secretary of State introduced employment action as an emergency programme for the jobless almost six months ago, since when unemployment has risen by several hundred thousand, can he tell us precisely how many people are on employment action?
    Mr. Howard: Employment action is making excellent progress. The last time the hon. Gentleman raised the

    771
    subject of employment action in the House, he criticised the Government for providing funding for only one year. The funding is now secure for three years.
    Mr. Blair: But how many people are on it?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is seriously concerned about unemployment—[Interruption.]—he ought to have a word with his hon. Friends on the Select Committee who tried to cover up the consequences of his policy. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Noises of this kind are very unseemly.
    Mr. Ashby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in 1983 unemployment in my Leicestershire, North-West constituency was 14 per cent. and that now it is 6 per cent? Is he also aware that we lost 6,500 jobs due to mine closures and that 1,000 additional jobs have been created—a total of 7,500 extra jobs since 1983? Does that not show that the Government's policies over the years have been courageous?
    Mr. Howard: The experience in my hon. Friend's constituency is typical of the experience across the country. There are more than 2·5 million additional jobs now, compared with 1983. That is the result of the policies that have consistently been followed by this Government. A large number of those jobs would be destroyed if the Labour party were ever in a position to put its policies into practice.

    London Weighting
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average level of London weighting allowance paid to employees in (a) inner London and (b) outer London at the latest date of which figures are available.
    Mr. Forth: The Department does not collect data on London weighting allowances.
    Mr. Hughes: The Minister is probably aware that the additional cost of living in inner London is more than £4,000 per year and in outer London more than £3,500 per year. Given that the private sector median allowance is £1,500 extra in inner London and £1,000 extra in outer London, will the Government ensure that their public sector pay policy follows the private sector and that they compensate people who work in London for the substantial additional cost of living in London?
    Mr. Forth: It would be fascinating to speculate on why the cost of living in inner London is so high. The hon. Gentleman and I might be able to agree that it is not unadjacent to the fact that so many inner London authorities are controlled by the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman knows that questions relating to civil service pay determination and detailed pay arrangements are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am therefore unable to answer this question today, but I will bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that London is only one of several areas where costs are wildly out of line with the national average—sometimes higher and
    772
    sometimes lower? It would be healthy for public services and for dole queues if we could move away from national wage bargaining in a variety of areas.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Average earnings in London are about £100 per week higher than in regions outside London. The marketplace has, therefore, already taken some account of the differentials. My hon. Friend is correct—it must make sense to have pay bargaining as near as possible to the point and location of work so as to make the labour market work as efficiently as possible and to reward people as fairly as possible.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the economic prospects for the small business sector.
    Mr. Forth: There are now unmistakable signs of the end of the recession. Business starts continue at a high rate, with more than 1,000 per week throughout the spring and summer under enterprise allowance alone. Interest rates have been cut eight times since last October. Inflation is at its lowest level for three and a half years.
    The Government's past success in transforming the economic environment for small firms has been further reinforced through the efforts of employer-led, locally based training and enterprise councils and by the recently announced seven-point package of measures to help small firms and enterprise.
    Mr. Nicholson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that good news and for the justifiable concern that he expressed earlier about late payment of debt. He will be aware that there is still a problem in my constituency and the south-west with the burden of the business rate, but is not the last thing that small businesses want the layers of bureaucracy that would result from 10 new regional assemblies, new sex and race discrimination legislation and the hundreds of new quangos that Labour would put into practice in its first year of office?
    Mr. Forth: We shall draw the attention of the business community, especially small businesses, which are such an important part of the economy in my hon. Friend's part of the world, to the policies being espoused by the Labour party and make some estimate—if the Labour party will not do so, we certainly will—of the real burdens that they would place on business and the devastating impact that they would have on self-employment and employment throughout the country.
    Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker, Sir, ever since this Minister filled his predecessor's boots, he has been talking a load of rubbish. His party and that lot behind him have crucified small businesses, and the end result is the loss of many jobs. He wants to get out of that office, get out into the areas, find out what is going on and do something about the problem, or I will kick his backside for him.
    Mr. Forth: One of the great regrets, I am sure, of all hon. Members is that because the hon. Gentleman has chosen to leave us at the next election he will never have the opportunity to be a junior Minister. Had he been one, he would know that a large part of the duties of anyone holding my office is to meet business men and their

    773
    representatives to discuss their problems and concerns. My colleagues and I spend much time doing that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are fully aware of the difficulties of the business community and that we shall continue to listen carefully and to tailor our policies to its needs. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could persuade his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench to do the same.

    Wage Levels
    Mr. Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any representations from the Confederation of British Industry concerning wage levels.
    Mr. Howard: I have received no formal representations from the CBI, but I am aware of its view that pay settlements need to be more realistic if competitiveness is not to be damaged.
    Mr. Lord: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Labour's proposals for a national minimum wage may seem superficially attractive but would be deeply damaging to business, particularly small business, and to job prospects?
    Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and so does every independent study and assessment that has been made of this matter. As the Leader of the Opposition has joined us, perhaps he will use his influence on the four members of his party who voted last week to cover up the truth by refusing to permit the Select Committee on Employment to conduct an investigation into the true consequences of a national minimum wage.
    Mr. Leighton: Is it not the case that although the wage increases of British workers have come down the benefits of that have been dissipated, and that due to the recession induced by the Government productivity has gone down although it has gone up in Germany and as a result unit labour costs in the year to the second quarter of 1991 went up by 3 per cent. in Germany but by 11 per cent. in this country? With a fixed exchange rate, has not this country badly lost competitiveness?
    Mr. Howard: It was the hon. Gentleman's casting vote as Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment which last week prevented that Committee from looking into the truth of these matters. If he had been seriously concerned about the competitiveness of British industry, he would have welcomed that inquiry and not blocked it.

    Autumn Statement
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on how he proposes to spend the additional resources announced in the autumn statement.
    Mr. Howard: The additional resources planned will be directed towards helping unemployed people, improving the skills of the work force and assisting small businesses and enterprise.
    Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend contrast the £500 million that he has added to his Department's budget and last month's fall in unemployment in Merseyside, Lancashire and Cheshire with the
    774
    squabbling of the Opposition Front Bench, which cannot decide whether employment and training are priorities in their programme?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that matter. The last time the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) expressed his concerns, he gave a list of our programmes which he said were to be destroyed and eliminated. In fact, they will all be maintained and will play an increasingly important role in helping unemployed people.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Prime Minister remember those heady, happy days a year ago when his predecessor was tossed out of office? Now that his policies, the economy and everything around is in disarray, and with the right hon. Lady making a comeback, who will be the first to put him out of his misery in Downing street—the people at the election or his right hon. Friend?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not observed that in the last year inflation has fallen to 4 per cent. and the interest rate to 10·5 per cent., the tax burden on business has been lightened, there is a pay review body for teachers and better standards and choice for parents—all of which were opposed by the Labour party. When the time comes, the hon. Gentleman will have the pleasure—if he holds his seat—of staying on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the comment made on Sunday that we should not commit ourselves now in advance of 1997 to a single currency as a point of agreement that all sensible people could hold? Will he contrast that with the words of the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that Labour would sign up to a single currency now, irrevocably?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. That was certainly the view of the right hon. Gentleman in the debate last week, but it was flatly contradicted by his right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor on television at the weekend. Of course, he did say that not committing ourselves to a single currency was the point of agreement that "all sensible people" would have.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister still take the view, as he told the House last Thursday, that he has the full support of his predecessor?
    The Prime Minister: My predecessor supported me in the Lobby last week, as did the vast majority of the House.
    Mr. Kinnock: That answer demonstrates just how hollow was the vote for the right hon. Gentleman last

    775
    Thursday night. Does the Prime Minister not remember saying just a year ago on the steps of Downing street that the Conservative party was
    "fully united for the future"
    and is that not patently false now when, in the approach to the vital meeting at Maastricht, the Tory party is in a state of open warfare?
    The Prime Minister: It is within the recollection of the House that there were around 28 Labour abstentions in the Division last week. We also know from the honest remarks of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that around two fifths of the Labour party opposed its Front Bench's policy on Europe.
    Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the first time that I have asked him a question since his appointment, and I intend to enjoy it? Is he further aware that he carries the good wishes of the party behind him in the difficult few months to come and should go to the talks in great confidence, knowing of the great contribution that this country has made to Europe since the days of William Pitt?
    Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman get on with it, please?
    Sir John Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in dealing with things that we hold so dear we want to make sure that the European Community gives us a good bargain and that what we give to it will be given back to us?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am pleased to be in a position to answer his question. He is entirely right about the British contribution to Europe, both in the long term and in the past few years when much of the present shape of the Community has arisen from initiatives by this country. We can play a role in developing Europe or we can turn our backs on the Community. By turning our backs, we would forfeit our right to influence what happens in the Community and I am not prepared to do that.
    Mr. Ashdown: As the Prime Minister approaches the first anniversary of his move into his new home, will he spare a thought for the tens of thousands who, because of his policies, are now losing theirs? Does he realise that mortgage repossessions were 16,000 in 1989 and 44,000 last year, and that this year they are predicted to rise to 120,000, or 1 per cent. of all mortgage holders? Does he realise that he cannot sit on the fence on this one, and what does he intend to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman should have noticed, a few days ago my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced further steps to help all those in receipt of income support who have mortgages. The right hon. Gentleman says that that helps nobody, but it costs £400 million a year, so it must help rather a lot of people.
    Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. Friend contrast the judicious, prudent and honourable way in which he and his right hon. Friends are negotiating in the European talks with the cynical sell-out proposed by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock)?
    The Prime Minister: It is the case that we have set out our position perfectly clearly so that our European
    776
    partners know what is acceptable to the House and what is not. The Labour party's position is now perfectly clear. If somebody else in Europe wants it, it will sign up to it.
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Eadie: Will the Prime Minister consider the abolition of standing charges to pensioners by the private monopolies? Does he agree that with the massive increases in salaries for those bodies' chairmen and the ridiculous spend on advertising that we are witnessing, those companies can well afford to drop the standing charges? Why does not the Prime Minister arrange to meet pensioners' representatives at No. 10 Downing street and listen to their powerful case on the matter?
    The Prime Minister: The abolition of one or other of the energy standing charges has been a popular mission for many people for many years, but abolition would undoubtedly lead to a higher unit cost and as many of the most vulnerable people use the most electricity or the most fuel generally, they would in fact be net losers and not net beneficiaries.
    Mr. Thornton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the chairman, trustees and staff of the Aintree national health service hospital trust on the establishment of a new £7 million project that will give it the largest accident and emergency unit in Europe? Is that not the best possible example of how the Government's commitment to the NHS is working?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was not aware of that investment, but I very much welcome it. It shows the huge investment currently being made in the national health service and the excellent way in which many trusts are using the resources available to them.
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Turner: How does the Prime Minister justify sending his son to a private school where nearly £4,000 a year is spent on each child when at present half the children in Tory-run Cambridgeshire's secondary schools receive only half that amount and when that authority is currently reducing its budget by almost £2 million? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about choice?"] I ask that question in terms not of choice, but of equity for all children.
    The Prime Minister: Our party believes in choice. I note yet again the Labour party's hostility to any persons exercising any choice in the interests of their family. I believe that millions of people in this country will acknowledge that there would be no choice for them if there were a Labour Government.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the 1992 legislation does not come into force until 31 December 1992 and that the same is true of the 1986 Single European Act? Will he confirm to the

    777
    House, the country and the international community that he will then be in his second term as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm that to my hon. Friend. One reason why that will be so is that we have a coherent approach to Europe, not one that changes every weekend.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Cyprus.
    The Prime Minister: I next plan to visit Cyprus for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 1993.
    Mr. Cox: As Cyprus is a Commonwealth country and we are one of the guarantor powers for that island, how does the Prime Minister justify the ongoing occupation of much of that island by the Turkish army? Against that background and the highly critical comments of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 8 October about the attitude and behaviour of Mr. Denktash. when will the Government—and the Prime Minister in particular—show some evidence of active involvement in the affairs of Cyprus for the benefit of both communities, Greek and Turkish? When does he intend to do that?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have had a number of meetings with President Vassiliou during the year and that I have already met Turkish Ministers, as has my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We continue to give support to the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement. The United Nations is soon to resume discussions with both sides. I hope that sufficient progress can be made for the Secretary-General to convene an international meeting soon, as endorsed by a number of Security Council resolutions. We shall continue to do all that we can to resolve the problem.
    Mr. Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm today that the Conservative Government are planning to spend more next year on local—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Cyprus.

    Engagements
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: Does the Prime Minister agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who said on Friday
    "We are not accepting the principle of a single currency"—
    yes or no, please?
    The Prime Minister: It is entirely clear from the documents in front of us in the treaty that we are enabling ourselves to have the option to opt in. We are not committed to opting in by anything in either clause 2 or any later part of the treaty.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any proposal to double the European Community structural funds will inevitably result in higher tax bills for the British taxpayer? Will he therefore assure the House that that proposal, which is supported by the Labour party, will be resisted most strenuously at Maastricht on the basis that one man's subsidy is another man's tax bill?
    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, although the issue is not directly on the table at Maastricht. We have made it clear that we see no case for a further massive increase in the structural funds. They are already substantial. They were doubled in real terms in 1987 over a five-year period. The contribution from some member states represents as large a share of gross domestic products as Marshall aid did after world war two.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: Has the Prime Minister had time to study the excellent article in the Glasgow Herald yesterday by the last Conservative leader of Glasgow district council, reflecting on the problems facing the Tory party in coming to terms with the need to give Scotland its own Parliament? If the Prime Minister gets a chance to read it, will he accept that it more accurately reflects the views of the people of Scotland than his Front Bench team does?
    The Prime Minister: The strict answer is no, Sir, I have not yet studied that article, but in view of what the hon. Gentleman says I will most certainly do so. I do not believe that people in Scotland wish to break the Union. That is the direction in which the Labour party's policies are going.

Local Government Finance (England)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the local authority finance settlement for England for 1992–93.
I told the House on 23 July that, in the Government's view, local authorities in England will need to spend £41·8 billion in 1992–93. That is 7·2 per cent. up on the equivalent figure this year. Central Government will distribute £33·1 billion in support of that expenditure. That also is up by 7·2 per cent. Today I am issuing a consultation paper setting out how we propose to distribute those totals.
As I announced on 6 November, the business rate multiplier next year will be 40·2p. This is in line with the annual increase in the retail prices index to September of 4·1 per cent. The total burden on businesses would have been £600 million, or 5 per cent., higher if the business rates had continued to rise in line with local authority spending.
I propose to set the distributable amount of non-domestic rates at £12·3 billion. We will continue to pass on all receipts from business ratepayers to local authorities to support their expenditure.
I will shortly be laying a draft order to increase the rate at which businesses gaining from the introduction of the uniform business rate and the 1990 revaluation receive the benefits of the new system. The effect will be to release £100 million to the benefit of about 150,000 ratepayers, typically in manufacturing industry in the north and midlands.
I propose to pay nearly £309 million in area protection grant. That will continue to provide help to those areas where introduction of the community charge would have otherwise resulted in an undue burden on charge payers. There will also be a grant of £50 million for education authorities in inner London to assist with overspending inherited from the Inner London education authority.
I also propose to pay a special grant of about £86 million to meet 75 per cent. of local authorities' costs, excluding capital spending, on preparing for the council tax. I recognise that these are exceptional costs which authorities would not otherwise need to incur. Accordingly, that special grant, which I propose to distribute on the basis of the number of domestic properties in each charging authority's area, with an adjustment to reflect the higher costs in London and the south-east, will be outside the settlement totals. I am today sending authorities an exemplification of that proposal.
I propose that the total of revenue support grant for 1992–93 will be just over £16·6 billion. In addition, about £3·8 billion of specific grants will be available. After allowing for specific grants, the total of standard assessments will increase by around 6·8 per cent.
The consultation paper issued today gives details of the proposed standard spending assessments for all authorities. In considering how SSAs should be calculated, I have been conscious of the need to maintain stability from one year to the next. I am, nevertheless, proposing some minor changes to improve the basis of distribution. There are three, in particular, which I should mention. First, we will use more recent data which have become available on overnight visitors and the information will be extended to
780
include foreign visitors. Secondly, we will discontinue the adjustment in respect of revenue support for bus services in London. We have now devised a new methodology which removes the need for the separate adjustment. Thirdly, the counties have rightly pointed out that they have relatively less scope to generate interest receipts than other authorities. For next year we will, therefore, change our methodology so as to make separate assumptions about the ability of different classes of authority to generate interest receipts. Those changes are designed to deal with long-standing grievances from particular groups of authorities without introducing too much disruption to SSAs.
Under my proposals, the community charge for standard spending will be about £257. Efficient authorities should be able to set charges which are even lower. Actual charges, however, will depend on authorities's budgets and on their efficiency and determination in collecting the charge.
Many people will, of course, pay much less than £257 because of help through the community charge reduction scheme and the community charge benefits. Entitlement under the community charge reduction scheme will be based on the difference between the rates and this year's community charge; and people who moved home this year and lost their entitlement to a reduction may be able to qualify at their new address. The total value of the reduction scheme will be similar to this year—that is, about £1·1 billion.
I told the House on 23 July that if authorities did not budget sensibly next year, I would not hesitate to use my powers to curb excessive budgets or excessive increases in budget and to protect charge payers from the consequences.
I am today announcing my provisional criteria. As last year, I consider it reasonable to allow smaller increases for those authorities whose budgets are well above their SSAs. Where budgets are very substantially above SSA, as is the case for some authorities brought within capping for the first time following the abolition of the £15 million threshold, I intend to seek budget reductions. In such cases, I consider it right to expect the greatest reductions from those authorities whose budgets exceed SSA to the greatest extent. But in all cases I intend the reductions to be achievable, albeit demanding.
My intended criteria are therefore: any increase of more than 6·5 per cent. over the previous year's budget will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget over the authority's SSA.
Mr. Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have not heard anything out of order.
Mr. Martlew: My point of order is this. Is it correct —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
Mr. Speaker: Order. If a point of order is raised with me, I must hear what it is. Otherwise, I cannot rule.
Mr. Martlew: Is it correct that members of the press have been issued with a copy of the statement from the Secretary of State? I have just been to the Table Office, where it is not available to hon. Members. Is that not wrong? Does it not show a disregard for the House?
Mr. Speaker: I have no idea whether that is correct. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] Order. The whole House knows my view about this.
Mr. Heseltine: Any increase of more than 4·5 per cent. over the previous year's budget will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget over 5 per cent. above the authority's SSA; and any increase of more than 2·5 per cent. over the previous year's budget will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget over 10 per cent. above the authority's SSA.
In addition, I intend that any budget more than 12·5 per cent. above the SSA will be considered excessive, save that an authority will not be designated if its budget is 30 per cent. or less over SSA and is no more than that set for 1991–92; if its budget is 60 per cent. or less over SSA and is 5 per cent. or more below that set for 1991–92; or if its budget is 10 per cent. or more below that set for 1991–92.
In 1990–91 there was a de minimis provision allowing authorities budgeting only a small amount above the criteria for excessiveness not to be designated. In 1991–92 the criteria included a principle that no authority was to be designated if its budget was excessive by £10,000 or less. Local authorities should not assume that there will be any such proviso or principle for 1992–93.
I intend to make special provision for the particular circumstances of the inner London boroughs which still bear the cost of inherited overspending by the Inner London education authority, and for the City of London.
These criteria are necessarily provisional, as was the case with the criteria which the Government set out last November. When I come to make my decisions on capping, I will, of course, take into account all appropriate considerations. I have placed a paper in the Library and Vote Office setting out my intentions in detail and have sent a copy to local authorities.
The provisional criteria which I have announced are tough, but manageable. We are determined that all authorities should exercise expenditure restraint arid use the very considerable extra resources we have made available to keep charges at reasonable levels. Well managed authorities will be able to achieve effective service provision with budgets at or below the level of the provisional criteria.
My proposals for local authority spending and for external support are fair and realistic. The rate of inflation now stands at 3·7 per cent. per annum. Local government cannot expect to stand apart from our determination to exert continuing downward pressure. Against that background, this settlement should enable authorities to deliver local services of the quality people expect and deserve, at a level of charge which they can afford.
Mr. Bryan GouldDoes the Secretary of State recall in May last year castigating universal capping in an excellent article in The Times, when he said it would
"negate accountability and be an act of centralised political power outside our experiences… Local authorities should be free to set and account for their own budgets."?
Does the Secretary of State feel any sense of embarrasssment at so quickly abandoning that stance and introducing today precisely the universal capping that he rightly attacked just 18 months ago? Does he feel any embarrassment at further undermining what little remains of local government democracy by imposing through central Government a straitjacket which means that every local council budget henceforth is his budget, that every
782
cut in services henceforth is his cut and that every poll tax bill be his bill? When those bills arrive in March and April of next year, every one will bear the Secretary of State's fingerprints.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the statement has been so long delayed and is three or four weeks later than in previous years? How is local government, already hard pressed by the horrendous problems of collecting the poll tax and the preparations for the council tax, to grapple with this further delay? Will it mean that the consultation period will be shorter, or will the final RSG settlement also be delayed, or both? Was the delay because of a defect in the computers or a defect in Ministers?
Does the Secretary of State recall his predecessor's admission that SSAs were fundamentally flawed and should be reformed? How does he respond to the Audit Commission's warning that
"The Government should not underestimate the lack of confidence in SSAs among local government politicians and professionals"?
Why are we stuck with an unfair system which, without any supporting evidence, concludes, for example, that it costs £857 per adult in Wigan for a standard level of service but 69 per cent. more, at £1,448, in Manchester? What confidence can there be in a system which does not include economic deprivation—surely a fundamental factor—but does include visitor nights and is now to be extended to include foreign visitors, something that can be considered only as a renewal of the Westminster benefit? How can local government trust an arbitrary and capricious system which measures the number of days when snow lies on the ground and concludes that Harrow, at 15·4 days, has more snow than Cumbria, at only 12·6?
Why, given the increase in the business rate, is £100 million less being distributed from the national business rate to local government than is the case this year? Is that yet another effect of the recession, or is there another explanation?
Does the Secretary of State expect the damaging cuts demanded by his capping criteria to be effected without any real impact on services or those who depend on them? Is Derwentside, for example, to be expected to make cuts worth 10 per cent. in cash terms and 17 per cent. in real terms, and is Tory-dominated Elmbridge to be expected to make cuts of 8 per cent. in cash terms and 15 per cent. in real terms, without deep and damaging consequences for services?
Has the right hon. Gentleman checked with the Home Office whether single-service police authorities can finance their Home Office-approved levels of police stablishment? If he does, he will be told that the answer is no.
Is the right hon. Gentleman's £257 prediction of the average poll tax not predicated on the same fanciful assumptions about 100 per cent. collection as earlier vitiated and equally over-optimistic predictions in the last few years? Is it not the same fairy-tale exercise as we saw in 1990 and 1991?
With this reminder that the poll tax is still alive—I was going to say, and well, but that would be a misrepresentation—and that the bills will arrive yet again next year, and with this abandonment by the Secretary of State of all principle in introducing universal capping, is this not yet another black day for local government? Our only consolation is that, for the Secretary of State, nemesis is close at hand.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) asks me whether I feel any sense of embarrassment about the capping levels. I have given him the answer before. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was extremely generous in giving £140 per community charge person to lower the level of community charges. It seems to me absolutely essential to protect that benefit to the community charge payer, and I know of no other way to do it but to cap the local authorities which would otherwise spend it.
The question flowing from that lies in the fact that, if we do not cap, it is automatic that there would be approval from the hon. Gentleman for increases in expenditure. So I therefore want him to say how much authority he has from the shadow Chancellor for the increases in public expenditure that lie behind every question that he has asked me today. How much would it cost in extra community charge and in extra tax rates to add to the 59p in the pound with which we are already threatened by the Labour party?
We were then asked to listen to the case of the hard-pressed local authorities. It might be helpful if I tell the hon. Gentleman how hard pressed they really are. In 1980–81, the cash available for the financing of relevant grants and expenditure was £19,307 million. In 1991–92, it was £39,892 million. At 1991–92 constant prices, that is a 5 per cent. real-terms increase in the expenditure of local authorities, so there have not been cuts as the hon. Gentleman claims.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about bringing foreign visitors into the calculations of SSAs. If a local authority is confident and keen to attract tourists to its area, foreign visitors are just as attractive as domestic visitors. We have simply updated the calculations on the basis of later information available to us. All that is explored with my Department by the local authority working groups.
I confirm that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary fully supports the increase in expenditure on the police provided by the settlement, whereby it will be increased by 12·9 per cent. That will pay for the excess of 16,000 extra police officers who have come on to the establishment since the Government were elected, and the extra 1,000 police officers announced by my right hon. Friend recently.
When the hon. Gentleman asks so many questions about the changes in SSAs in one area as opposed to another, he should ask why it costs on average £255 more per person to deliver services under a Labour authority than it does under a Conservative authority. If one considers the whole of London, why does it cost a Labour authority £131 per person more to deliver services than it would cost a Conservative authority?
It is not just a London phenomenon. In every class of authority, voting Labour costs a large sum of money. In the shire districts, it costs £70 and in the metropolitan districts it costs £61 per community charge payer to vote Labour. Taking the whole of local government in aggregate, the cost of voting Labour in an area controlled by that party as opposed to the Conservative party is, on average, £83. The only lesson is that the Labour party is extravagant, profligate and totally uninterested in the benefits to its community charge payers. It is interested only in the Labour-dominated, trade union-restricted services, which it seems to want to increase regardless of cost.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important debate on further and higher education in Scotland later this afternoon, so I shall allow questions on the statement until 4·30. I hope to be able to call all hon. Members who wish to participate if they ask brief questions.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend explain why provision is made for local authorities with a history of overspending but not for local authorities with a history of underspending, which may have very expensive problems in rural areas, and extensive school networks and social services, to a level which cost far more than in the authorities which have a history of high spending?
Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about the interests of his constituency. However, SSA methodology, like all previous methodologies for distributing grant from central Government, is discussed with great care by my Department with the working groups of the local authorities. A statistical analysis is carried out and formulae are arranged to bring about that distribution. The characteristic reaction of local authorities is that each of them and every class of them has been disadvantaged, but none of them can ever reach a formula which the others will accept.
Mr. David Bellotti: Does the Secretary of State agree that, now and in the next financial year, local authorities will be spending much money needlessly trying to collect the poll tax from people who can ill afford to pay it? Does he not accept the Government's responsibility for that? He has asked the local authorities to collect the council tax the following year, so is not now the time to say that the Government will pay the whole cost of the introduction of the new council tax? Does the Secretary of State agree that the percentage increases that he announced today do not cover such legislation as the Children Act 1989, the introduction of care in the community and the extra police officers announced by the Home Secretary? It is not much good the Government saying that police authorities may appoint police officers if the Government then stop them from doing so by capping the authorities.
Mr. Heseltine: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should give 100 per cent. grants in such circumstances, because that would remove the authorities' incentive to deliver effective and cost-conscious services. As to the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question on the collection of the community charge, I have looked into the matter. It is interesting to note that it is not necessarily Labour authorities that cannot collect the charge.
Of the top 10 community charge collection authorities last year, three were Labour: Cannock Chase collected 110 per cent. of its budget, Copeland collected 105 per cent. and Gateshead collected 104 per cent. The only conclusion to draw from that is that the authorities that do not collect their community charge are ineffective and inefficient.
That is why, if we consider the authorities with the worst record of collecting the charge, we find that in 1990–9I Labour had a clean sweep—the worst 10 authorities were all Labour-controlled. Of the 10 worst authorities in 1991–92, only nine are Labour, but the one clear characteristic of all the statistics is that the Labour

785
party is ineffective and inefficient in collecting its bills. If the worst Labour authorities had behaved like the best three, they would not have encountered a problem.
Sir Timothy Raison: Has my right hon. Friend any plans to help those charge payers who, perhaps because they were too young, were not rate payers, and who now derive no protection under the reduction scheme?
Mr. Heseltine: It is quite difficult to help people who were not paying a specific bill when the new system came into existence. We can only introduce schemes—we have done so on a generous basis—for those people whose bills suddenly increased from a lowish level to a much higher one. We have introduced transitional schemes for them. I do not think that we can introduce schemes to help people who never had a bill.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Is not the Secretary of State's own bill far less than most people's, particularly in London, where, under the new council tax, he will pay less than people who occupy garages in eight London boroughs? Should he not have come to the House and said that he would make arrangements to help those who cannot pay the poll tax and are forced to pay the 20 per cent. minimum contribution? Should he not have said that he would get rid of the minimum 20 per cent. rule?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will want to give us every help in getting the new council tax on to the statute book as quickly as possible, as it does exactly what he suggests.
Sir Anthony Durant (Reading, West): Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the experience of my borough council, Reading, which is near his constituency, which blew all the reserves immediately the Labour party came into control by placing bollards all over the bloody town—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is inelegant, I think, for Reading.
Sir Anthony Durant: The bollards, which I shall not describe, were placed throughout the town. The council blew all its reserves and failed to collect the community charge, so that everyone has had to pay an extra £48 on their community charge this year because of the level of non-collection.
Mr. Heseltine: I very much sympathise with my hon. Friend and his constituents. I hope that, under the present regime, the local authority will collect the community charge and save a great deal of money for those who would otherwise have to pay excess bills.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: When the Secretary of State announced the figures today, he made it clear that he expected the extra expenditure to be used on reducing the charge—the poll tax—not increasing services. What proportion of SSAs to local authorities has been allocated for increased expenditure for the implementation of the Children Act 1989?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady will know that we never give specific breakdowns of individual figures, but she will also know that service increases are given. For example, the increase for personal social services is 7·7 per cent.,
786
education 7·1 per cent., police 10·9 per cent., fire and civil defence 8 per cent. and other services 9·2 per cent., with a total of 7·2 per cent.
Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, under the new regulations, there is no need for any local authority to be capped, even the most irrational Labour council, because new targets have been set and the councils are required to meet those new targets only from the current starting point?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have clearly told local authorities where the capping regime could bite after consultation, and they now have plenty of time to adjust. It is important to make the point that, across the country, businesses, which pay vast sums of money towards local authorities, are having to make such adjustments all the time.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Will the Secretary of State explain why my local authority of Durham has an SSA which is half that of Hove, an authority similar in functions and population? Is it perhaps because Durham is Labour-controlled and Hove is Tory-controlled?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know full well that, in a statement such as this, we cannot look into the details of every one of the hundreds of authorities. However, all the information is available to him and to his local authority, and the answer will be because the methodology of the SSA system delivers the results that he has suggested, if those are in accord with the real world. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly able to write to my Department and seek any further clarification that he wants.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a council such as Derbyshire, which spends nearly £14 million a year pegging school meals to 1981 prices but which at the same time sacks hundreds of teachers and which has increased its work force by 8,000 in the past decade but cut the number of police, can have no credibility in its ritual whining about underfunding?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend puts his point with extreme eloquence, and I very much support the thrust of what he says.
Mr. Allen McKay: Is the Secretary of State now prepared to meet the seven authorities which have wanted to meet him for months to discuss their problems with their SSAs? Will he now come off his high horse and meet those people rather than shove them on to his Minister of State?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will realise the pitfalls of responding favourably to a suggestion that the Secretary of State should receive a delegation, when there are still 28 minutes to go in which every other right hon. and hon. Member could make the same request. I can at least say that we meet delegations, we carefully consider all applications that are put to us, and there is no reason why his should automatically be turned down.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the best bits of news in his statement today was his announcement that the business rate increase would be kept to no more than the

787
rate of inflation in the coming period? What prospect is there that the Government will be able to go further than that in due course and reduce the rate of increase in the business rate, which bears hard on many new small businesses in my constituency and elsewhere?
Mr. Heseltine: I am aware that a strong body of opinion wants us to look at the matter again. My hon. Friend will realise that a revaluation is scheduled for, I think, 1995, which might address some of the problems. Another important part of the background is that, as the economy recovers, so the pressure on many of those businesses will be eased.
Mr. Eric Illsley: Is it not the case that the errors which have been apparent in previous SSAs have been repeated in this year's statement, in that the SSAs are still being calculated on the 1981 census data and many of the factors are simply irrelevant to local authorities such as my own?
Mr. Heseltine: I addressed that question earlier as fully as I could. The distribution of central finance is always a controversial issue, with arguments between individual authorities and classes of authority to the effect that it is unfair or does not provide what they want. That will be the case whatever system operates. The working parties presided over by my Department, but deeply involving of course local authorities and other Government Departments, consider all the evidence and try to reach agreement on a practical way forward. Ultimately, it falls to the Government to take decisions; otherwise, no decisions would be made.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement. Does he agree that nothing can excuse the wanton and vicious extravagance of so many Labour authorities, and that it is about time that the costs of non-collection were met by forcing local authorities to reduce their expenditure rather than imposing them on virtuous citizens who pay their community charge?
Mr. Heseltine: I understand my hon. Friend's indignation, which is widely shared throughout the country. Far and away the best solution would be for all local authorities to be determined to collect the proper entitlements of the bills they issue. That would enable many of them to deliver a far better service.
Mr. John Battle: Is it not a fact that, under last year's standard spending assessment, Merton received only an 18 per cent. grant, the lowest in London, whereas Wandsworth received the highest, at 24 per cent.? Is that not repeated in this year's assessment, which reveals a similar divergence? Does that not prove that the Government are providing more funds to Tory-controlled authorities than to Labour authorities?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman selects his authorities carefully, and fails to point out that Lambeth and Hackney are at the top of the list of distributions. It has nothing to do with the unfortunate party political point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make: it is a matter of trying to allocate resources according to the needs of individual authorities.
Sir David Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problem of workers and others in tied accommodation, who do not pay any rates and who are thus ineligible for transitional relief?
Mr. Heseltine: I understand that difficulty, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that we are in the last year of the community charge. Also, a large number of people who let their properties on a service tenure to the individuals occupying them pay the consequential community charge, in the same way that they previously paid rates.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Given the Conservatives' claim to be the party of law and order, does the Secretary of State agree with Merseyside police authority that capping will cause the loss of 400 to 500 policemen on the beat in Merseyside?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will want to consult his authority in the light of today's announcement. One cannot escape the fact that more than 16,000 extra policemen have joined the establishment since this Government were elected, and a further 1,000 are to come as a result of the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That cannot be construed as anything but a dramatic commitment by the Government to law and order.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Many of us felt that the old regional development grants were arbitrary and unfair to certain cities. Can my right hon. Friend illustrate by the figures that he has given today how the distribution of the unified business rate will operate more fairly and helpfully to the benefit of towns and cities in the north, such as that which I represent?
Mr. Heseltine: I am very interested by my hon. Friend's comment. I do not have to hand a breakdown of the distribution of the non-domestic rate, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome my statement that, because more was collected from the national business rate than was expected, we have been able to release the benefits—particularly to manufacturing industry in the north and the midlands. That has made available about £100 million more than expected, which will be shared by 190,000 ratepayers.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Although the right hon. Gentleman's own Department acknowledges that Wigan metropolitan borough provides services comparable, in terms of their value, to those offered by local authorities such as Wandsworth, again this year Wigan has a standard spending assessment of less than half that applying to comparable authorities. Is it not a disgrace how the SSA operates against the interests of local authorities that provide, in the words of the Secretary of State, value-for-money services? Should they not receive the same level of grant that authorities such as Wandsworth receive?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has returned to an issue that we have explored exhaustively. The fact is that local authorities do not agree among themselves on any alternative method of distributing central Government funds. Each class argues for more for itself, and, inevitably, each authority within each class argues for more for itself. In the end, someone must make a decision,

789
and, as central Government distribute the money, it is not surprising that the Secretary of State will present their proposals to the House.
Mr. Michael Shersby: What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to the expense that is now being incurred by certain authorities with major ports of entry in their areas in connection with the care of refugees and asylum seekers?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has raised what I know to be an important and difficult issue. It is indeed a growing issue, which concerns us all. Within the standard spending assessments are indicators measuring social hardship and the incidence of social problems. They would, in part, impact on the difficulties that my hon. Friend has described.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Secretary of State the nerve to admit that, in the past two years, grants have been allocated to ensure that Tory flagships such as Wandsworth and Westminster are safe for Tory control, and that this year he has decided to fiddle the figures to save all the Tory marginals for the general election—or, at least, in an attempt to do so? Is it not ironic that a Cabinet Minister should be taking over the budgets of all the local authorities in Britain, while at the same time his Cabinet colleagues are handing power over the national Budget to the Common Market?
Mr. Heseltine: Some of us would rather see the Budget handed over to the Common Market than see it handed over to the hon. Gentleman's party. As long as my party remains in power, however, there is not the slightest chance of either the Common Market or the Labour party getting it.
Let me help the hon. Gentleman. He is trying to suggest that grant has been distributed in a "party" way. He must explain the fact that, over the past two years, total standard spending has increased by 27 per cent., and aggregate Exchequer finance produced by central Government by 43 per cent. There is no conceivable way in which that could be described as a party political allocation.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend must be aware that £50 of the £140 concession was swallowed up by the failure of many people to pay their community charge. In my Labour-controlled area, only £90 was returned.
A curious advertisement has been placed in the local papers, asking people to pay their community charge. Part of it states: "The Southampton Labour group does not agree with the poll tax"—and that is in the middle of an advertisement whose aim is to make people pay up. Does my right hon. Friend know about that, and does he know about the four pages that I have sent to his Department, which deal with wasteful products and wasteful propositions in Southampton? Will he ensure that Labour-controlled Southampton city council is scrutinised and capped?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend rightly feels strongly about the inability of some authorities to collect their community charge, while nevertheless spending large sums. It is, however, the democratic responsibility of local people to carry out checks. I have no power to intervene
790
in the internal affairs of the local authorities; that is a matter for the local democratic process or, as a last resort, for the Audit Commission.
Mr. Martlew: How can the Minister justify asking Carlisle city council to reduce its budget by £400,000 when Government spending is out of control? Carlisle is probably one of the best district councils in the country. That was acknowledged by the Minister, who recently appointed its very able leader to the Audit Commission. How can we expect the Secretary of State, sitting in Whitehall, to know what is best for the people of Carlisle? Time and time again, they have democratically elected a Labour council. When will the Secretary of State give democracy back to the people?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will realise that, having given £140 per community charge payer to the people, it is my responsibility to protect that generosity by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to ensure that it is not mopped up by the extravagance of local authorities.
Mr. Paul Marland: I know that the subject has already been raised once before, but it is so important that I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any possibility of the Government reviewing the step-by-step increases in the business rate for small businesses. These large increases are putting many small businesses, not only in my constituency but throughout the country, in a very difficult situation.
Mr. Heseltine: I understand the strong feelings of my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members. The situation has undoubtedly proved much more difficult because of the strain of the economy on small businesses. I very much hope that, as the economy recovers, as it is now beginning to do, that pressure will ease. My hon. Friend knows that small businesses are protected from excessive increases by the limits that we have introduced. That is the limit of what we are able to do.
Mr. Giles Radice: Is the Secretary of State aware that, because of the rules changes that he has instituted, some local authorities could have to make cuts of up to 10 per cent.? Derwentside is one example. The Secretary of State says that there is a need for stability. Is there not a case, therefore, for looking at those local authorities where the impact has been exceptional?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in the capping regime that I announced, we recognised that there was a limit to the speed at which we could expect change to come about. We have said that, when local authorities begin the process of adjustment, there is a point beyond which, in a given year, no further pressure will be exerted. However, to become an overspender on the scale of some authorities means that money is being spent on a dramatically larger scale than by equivalent authorities providing similar services.
Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Did I mishear my right hon. Friend? Did he say that the rules for people who qualify for rebate may be changed if they move house? If so, will he elaborate? Nothing causes more ill feeling and resentment in my patch than the fact that people lose their right to rebate solely because they move house.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will find that, where people have moved, there are some opportunities for them to claim rebate. I should be happy to look into the cases of any specific constituents if my hon. Friend would care to write to me.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: First, why was it absolutely necessary for this statement on English business to be made today, before the debate on Second Reading of the only Scottish Bill this Session? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman explain, given the fact that he is the string that pulls the Secretary of State for Scotland on these matters, how the business alleviation that he proposes will compensate businesses for the inflationary and recessionary consequences of the 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT that he was responsible for imposing on businesses in the first place?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is confusing many different issues. We arranged to make this statement now in order to give local authorities plenty of time. There is always, as the hon. Gentleman knows and as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House constantly explains, pressure for time on the Floor of the House. I must therefore leave it to my right hon. Friend to determine the appropriate moment at which I should make a statement.
Mr. Robert Banks: I must tell my right hon. Friend that, in my experience, Liberal Democrat-run councils are every bit as incompetent as Labour-run councils. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. The level of grant to local authorities is considerably higher than the rate of inflation. More particularly, I welcome his statement about the inclusion of visitor nights in the standard spending assessment methodology. That will help many authorities. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having listened to the representations that were put to him.
Mr. Heseltine: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. This has been a source of controversy with local authorities, but we now have more up-to-date information. The previous information stretched back to the early 1970s. We have been able to help significantly, but I am only too well aware that, when we have done so, the authorities that have lost have complained that we have switched to an unacceptable new system, although I have no doubt that it is a better one.
Ms. Joan Walley: What account has the Secretary of State taken of the representations that Staffordshire made to the Department of Health, which we understood would be relayed to the Department of the Environment? What is his advice to parents whose children live in Staffordshire's residential homes or homes for the mentally and physically handicapped, which need £19 million to bring them up to the standards laid down following pindown and the Utting report? Does not Staffordshire's standard spending assessment mean that the county will be nowhere near able to meet its statutory responsibilities?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady will know that we consulted on the matters that I have announced today. The capping regimes are essentially a consultative process. The working parties that my Department organises include representatives of local authorities and of the Department of Health. The information to which she drew our
792
attention will have been considered by all the people concerned. That is not the end of the story—there is still a chance for it to happen—but it is fair to point out that a range of other authorities will have their own views on why they should be given more money, which is always to be found at somebody else's expense.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that one of the worst examples of overspending must have been the unlamented Inner London education authority. He said again today that he has had to compensate the new inner-London education authorities. In considering the figures, has he found that Conservative-controlled authorities—Westminster, Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea—have moved much faster and more efficiently in cutting overspending than Labour-controlled authorities?
Mr. Tony Worthington: That is a difficult question.
Mr. Heseltine: No, it is not difficult at all. I cannot entirely accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that the Inner London education authority was the worst of the authorities that we got rid of: I always thought that the GLC was a close competitor for that claim. However, we got rid of both, which is a help.
All I can do is point to the stark contrast between the community charge bills of Labour and Conservative authorities in inner London. The figures are quite startling. The average community charge of an inner-London Conservative authority is £98. Under a Labour authority, it is £353—a cost of £255 per community charge payer for voting Labour.
Mr. John Fraser: Does the Secretary of State agree that education is critical to breaking the cycle of deprivation? Will he therefore ensure that the additional £50 million for inner-London education is spent on inner-London education?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. We are compensating London boroughs for ILEA's excess costs to enable them to adjust over a phased programme. That is the purpose of the £50 million.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter for congratulation that he has announced today a real-terms increase in local authority spending? Nevertheless, does he accept that real choices will have to be made by local authorities and that it would have been dishonest to announce a catalogue of spending promises when perhaps he had failed to obtain the extra money from Treasury colleagues and had privately briefed councillors that that spending could not be made? Have not we discovered from today's newspapers that that is what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has been doing? Is not that dishonest, and totally typical of him?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That word will have to be withdrawn. The term "dishonest" is not to be applied to hon. Members.
Mr. Hughes: I replace it with "an unlikely proposition".
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to say that the total standard spend will rise by 7·2 per cent. next year, whereas inflation is currently running at 3·7 per cent. Therefore, as far as one can forecast, that is likely to be a real-terms increase in local authority expenditure

793
consistent with the pattern throughout the 1980s of a 5 per cent. real-terms increase in expenditure. However, every time the settlement is announced to the House, one hears endlessly from the Opposition about cuts. In the real world, there has been a 5 per cent. increase.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Why can we not have a fundamental review of the standard spending assessment, which is the second great evil of the poll tax? Of 296 non-metropolitan districts, North-East Derbyshire finishes 295th in terms of standard spending assessment per poll tax payer, but the people of north-east Derbyshire are not filthy rich, so there is clearly something very peculiar about the formula. Even at this stage, they are being asked to pay 30 per cent. of the total standing spending assessment out of the poll tax moneys, although, at the beginning of the poll tax, we were told that only 25 per cent. would have to be raised in that way. Since then, there have been massive increases in value added tax. As we know—
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. Barnes: As we know something about these matters in North-East Derbyshire, could we—like my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and his constituents—meet the Minister?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member fulfils my expectations. I realise that, if I were as generous to the hon. Gentleman as it is in my nature to be, it would be only a matter of time before other colleagues sought to expose that weakness in my character and to obtain extra meetings. We do meet delegations—although not from every hon. Member—but if the hon. Gentleman cares to make a submission, we shall consider it carefully.
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: Would my right hon. Friend reconsider the position of people who become 18 after 1 April? Surely it does not make sense for such a person to pay more community charge than the parents with whom he lives?
Mr. Heseltine: I understand the circumstances that my hon. Friend outlines, but I do not wish to leave any doubt. We shall not be able to reconsider the matter in the context of the last settlement for the community charge. We have considered so many exemptions and have helped so many people that we must now proceed with the settlement and recognise that it will be the last one.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Why does the Secretary of State not admit that, after 13 years of fiddling with grant-related expenditure assessments, with standard spending assessments and with the whole system of local government finance, he still does not have a system that he can prove is fair? Does he not agree that most people would say, neutrally, that the Government are anti-local government and wholly incompetent and that it is time for a change and for fairness to be part of local government once again?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is largely right, which is why the council tax is coming.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On Saturday morning, I am to meet a group of 14 local head teachers, who have been led to believe by the local authority that there will be massive education cuts next year, which will increase the teacher-pupil ratio.
794
What am I to tell those head teachers, and how can we be sure that the money sent to Rochdale and Oldham metropolitan borough councils will be spent on education, as some of it was intended to be?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will want to tell them that the increase in SSAs for education over 1991–92 will be 7·1 per cent.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In deciding on the assessment for Cumbria police, did the Secretary of State take into account the 52 per cent. increase in crime in West Cumbria? Does he understand that many of my constituents now live in fear? A couple of extra police officers on the streets of Workington will not begin to deal with that problem. Can he assure me that the problem will be sorted out in these assessments when calculations are made in the future?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decides on establishment issues—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not enough.
Mr. Heseltine: Then I ask him the question that I asked one of his colleagues: by how much extra is he authorised to commit the Labour party to increase expenditure on law and order? That is the sharp issue.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced a further increase in police establishment of 1,000 people, which is included in the figures that we have announced. That increase is in addition to the 16,500 who have joined the ranks since 1979.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): My right hon. Friend has made his statement with force and logic, which I welcome. However, how is it right that local authorities that have many tourists and overnight visitors will benefit from an augmented SSA, whereas local authorities such as Hillingdon, which have ports of entry to which many refugees come, especially unaccompanied refugee children who are a large burden on the social services and housing departments, do not get special provision?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend may have heard my reply a few moments ago. Those are different factors within the SSA mechanism. One is dealt with by social indicators, whereas the other is dealt with by having regard to the number of visitors, bearing in mind the fact that one is dealing with tourist authorities. I ask my hon. Friend to understand that distinctions are drawn in that way. I am not unsympathetic to his point, but I point out that there is a far wider issue about the number of people coming to this country illegally who are seeking asylum and who are a potential cost to the local authority. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has addressed the matter recently in the House, and doubtless he will continue to do so.
Mr. David Madel: My right hon. Friend has said that this is a consultative document. He has also said that the £15 million rule comes in, whereby councils such as South Bedfordshire district council could be capped. Will he consider its position sympathetically? It is an authority that lost money in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, and it is in a state of anxiety. May I have an assurance that it will be

795
some weeks before my right hon. Friend takes a final decision about whether South Bedfordshire should be capped?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will know that, by statute, I am bound to listen to all arguments that are put to me. I assure him that I will do that, although I cannot say what my conclusion will be after those representations. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's authority will wish to put its point.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at authorities such as Lancashire, with a spending budget of £1 billion? If such authorities are obliged to make reductions in expenditure, will he ensure that they do not make them in the areas that are the most painful and that will attract the most publicity? I have in mind especially statements of educational needs and the number of policemen. Would my right hon. Friend consider ring-fencing the police budget to ensure that that does not happen?
Mr. Heseltine: It would be an extraordinarily cynical and reprehensible way for a local authority to behave, and I very much hope that we shall not see examples of it. It would not be appropriate for me to try to take legislative powers to ring-fence individual programmes of local authorities in the circumstances that my hon. Friend has outlined, although I very much share his anxiety.
Mr. David Blunkett: Have we not heard this afternoon a new definition of a Tory Euro-enthusiast—one who would rather have our money directed by the Germans and French than by a democratically elected Labour Government?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, having encouraged local authorities to bid for city challenge, expenditure generated locally to meet that next year will be subject to the capping rules, and that expenditure that has to be raised and spent locally over and above any central Government grant for the introduction of the council tax will be subject to capping? Will not the real victims of capping be children in schools and the elderly in need of social services?
Mr. Heseltine: No, I reject both the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. I must confess that I looked in the eye of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and thought of him running this country. Perhaps even my imagination was carried away by the idea that he should govern us in any circumstances. I can think of nothing worse than such a horror scenario.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) will be as aware as I am that the city challenge arrangements have been carefully considered by my Department and that the urban grant arrangements will be dealt with in the way that I was able to announce very recently. Only 10 per cent. of them will count within the revenue of the local authority, so there is considerable assistance, in that we have increased the disallowance to 90 per cent. There are similar and helpful arrangements for the capital programmes also. The issue of city challenge has been dealt with sympathetically, and I am delighted that it has.

Points of Order
3.25 pm
Several Hon. MembersOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I shall take points of order, but will hon. Members please bear in mind the fact that there is to be an important Scottish debate in which many hon. Members wish to participate?
Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you please inform the House whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has given notice that he intends to make an oral statement to the House this week about the three applications for self-governing trust status from three Scottish hospitals? I have a constituency interest because one, the Royal Scottish National hospital, is based in my constituency. The Minister of State who has responsibility for health matters in Scotland is on public record as saying that the Secretary of State would make a public announcement before the end of this month. If there is to be a parliamentary announcement, that leaves only today and tomorrow, bearing in mind the fact that, on Fridays, most hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies will be back at work in their constituencies.
Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker to try to ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the House to make an oral statement, because this place is already rife with suggestions that there may simply be a statement to the media with or without a reply to a planted written question, which would be completely unacceptable in terms of parliamentary accountability. Will you, Mr. Speaker, try to ensure that we have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State on this important matter either today or tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the whole House know that it is not up to me to require a statement to be made to the House. I have a rather different function. However, as the Secretary of State for Scotland is on the Treasury Bench, I am sure that he will have heard what has been said.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I should like to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how, in the light of the point that has just been made, hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies can get Ministers to treat the principle of their accountability to the House of Commons with some degree of respect. They tell us that the House of Commons adequately serves the interests of the people of Scotland, but they make statements outside the House.
We have a Second Reading later today of a Scottish Bill, but two other Bills that are being considered in Committee at the moment, on the council tax and the schools tax, relate to Scotland and should be separate Scottish Bills, but they are not. We do not have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and can question that unaccountable bunch of Ministers only once a month. Is there anything that you can do, Mr. Speaker, to try to ensure that Ministers are effectively brought to account in the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order for me. The arrangement of business is a matter for the Government and the usual channels. It is not my responsibility.
Mr. Tom Clarke: May I be allowed to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of two of the replies given to the House earlier today by the Secretary of State for Employment? Not once but three times, the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly sought to interfere with the way in which the Select Committee on Employment deals with its business. On the third occasion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman actually invited the Leader of the Opposition to advise the Labour members of that Committee.
Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that Select Committees are, by their very nature, Back-Bench Committees and that their role is to scrutinise the work of the Executive? Therefore, would it not be outrageous if any Minister or, for that matter, any Leader of the Opposition—I am sure that my right hon. Friend is too wise to do this—should seek to interfere with the work of the Select Committees? Might we, as a House, be encouraged to tell the Secretary of State to keep his paws out of the work of the Select Committees?
Mr. Frank Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Is it really further to it?
Mr. Cook indicated assent.
Mr. Speaker: Very well; I shall deal with it.
Mr. Cook: It is further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, because my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) anticipated the point of order that I was seeking to raise with you. Further to what he has said, do you agree that for a Select Committee to have decided to ponder the proposals of an Opposition should they achieve power after the next election would be an abuse of parliamentary resources and parliamentary time?
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for what goes on in Select Committees—
Mr. Tom Clarke: Oh yes, you are.
Mr. Speaker: Well, it is not a matter of order here— [Interruption.] No, it is not. It is not a matter of order in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Monklands. West (Mr. Clarke) has stated the factual position. Select Committees are independent and consist of Back-Bench Members. This is a matter for them.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter which I was unable to raise with you earlier, and request a statement. A serious matter has come to my notice at the Christiana Hartley maternity hospital in Southport, where there has been an unfortunate disposal of foetuses from aborted children, to which the staff have objected. I wonder whether I may seek your indulgence to request a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on that most important matter.
Mr. Speaker: Again, that is a matter for the Secretary of State for Health. There is an Adjournment debate on that very subject tonight, and if the hon. Member is present, he may be able to participate in it.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Has the Secretary of State for Health said whether he intends to make a statement to the House on the leaked documents about the trusts? You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of the great interest in the matter and that one national newspaper is on the verge of naming the American—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Lady knows, that matter is before the Privileges Committee. We cannot pre-empt anything that it will decide about the matter. The matter should not be raised on the Floor of the House now.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any indication whatever that the Attorney-General intends to make a statement to the House on the decision by the European Court of Human Rights? The Government have lost an important case. They tried to stop three newspapers publishing extracts from "Spycatcher". The European Court has ruled that the Government were wrong and has awarded costs against the Government.
On several occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have deprecated the discussion of matters outside the House—obviously this matter will receive much comment—while the House of Commons does not have the opportunity to debate them. Much money has been spent out of public funds, and this sorry saga has continued for six years. Surely the Attorney-General should come here today or on Wednesday and make a statement about how much money the Government have spent on the case, and why they decided to involve themselves in this farce in the first place, and to give Members of Parliament the opportunity to give their views.
Mr. Speaker: All the points of order raised with me this afternoon have been matters which are the responsibility of the Government. They are not my responsibility. I can, therefore, only repeat what I have already said in reply to previous points of order. The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is a matter for the Government. I am sure that it will have been heard by them.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the four motions on statutory instruments.
Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 6) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 2583) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1680) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Electricity (Non-Fossil Fuel Sources) (England and Wales) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 2490) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill builds on one of the Government's greatest but least acknowledged successes—the explosion of opportunity that we have triggered in further and higher education. The Government are strongly committed to the principle that places in higher and further education should be available to all those who wish to take up the opportunities and are able to benefit from them. The proposals in the Bill underline that strong commitment by improving further the quality and quantity of Scottish further and higher education.
  The Bill is also the latest of many examples of our determination to break down the barriers to opportunity which remain in our society. The Bill contains proposals to abolish the completely artificial binary line, which has outlived its usefulness. We are also determined to take away the misplaced distinction between a vocational and an academic education. We shall sweep away those outdated barriers to progress. I have no doubt that, as a result, the traditional Scottish dream of opportunity for all is closer than ever to fulfilment.
  As we embark on the European single market in 1993, it is imperative that that dream of opportunity for all is made real. There is no doubt that our economic well-being will depend more than ever on a well-educated population enjoying the opportunity of access to education from which everyone can benefit. As our colleges and universities continue to broaden their horizons to Europe and beyond, Scotland and her people will benefit from those reforms. It is no longer a question of matching the best in Britain. Our universities and colleges must match the best in Europe and the world.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The Secretary of State speaks about a dream of opportunity for all and, of course, some aspects of the Bill will be broadly welcome, but how can he speak about genuine opportunity for all students when his Government are pursuing the student loans system, which is causing grievous hardship throughout Scottish academic institutions?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The student loans system gives to the student the advantage of an extra source of funding on favourable terms. That enables him to have more resources at his disposal. Indeed, the resources available to students have increased in the past two years by about 25 per cent.—substantially more than the rate of inflation—as a result of the provision of student loans.
  In seeking to match the best in Europe and the world, universities and colleges must maintain and, where necessary, improve standards. The further expansion of education to which we are giving the go-ahead will not
  800
  lead to a dilution of quality and standards. Quite the reverse. The opportunities and flexibility that we are giving to universities and colleges should make standards improve still further.
  Moreover, education enjoys an intrinsic value which goes far beyond the workplace and enables individuals better to fulfil their potential and make a worthwhile contribution as citizens. It is the ladder of opportunity to which everyone must have access, and I am determined that everyone will.
  The Bill gives effect to the plans for the reorganisation of further and higher education contained in the White Papers "Access and Opportunity" and "Higher Education: A New Framework", which were published earlier this year. Those White Papers were widely acclaimed by all the institutions affected. They marked a watershed in Scottish education. The new flexibility and opportunities for development that they will give to our further and higher education institutions will be vital in enabling them to develop and progress to meet the needs of the 21st century.
  It is significant that the proposals deal with both further and higher education. Too often, further education is dismissed as being of low status compared with higher education. We aim to change that by setting further education colleges free and establishing them as self-governing bodies. Never again will anyone see further education colleges as second rate.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On what basis does the Secretary of State imply that further education colleges are currently classed as second rate? What evidence does he have that their administration by local authorities has been detrimental to the integration of education in Scotland? Is not there a danger that by taking FE colleges away from local authorities the link between schools and further education, which is an essential component of integrated education planning, will be broken?
  Mr. Lang: I agree that it is important to maintain the link to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am certain that we shall achieve that, but I am equally certain that by creating the councils that we have set up and developing the opportunity for further education colleges to be run by councils manned by, among others, local business men, we shall create a new momentum and a new relevance of further education colleges to the needs of the area and its employers.
  Mr. John McFall: The point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about integrated education is important. At present, further education colleges are part of an integrated system. When dealing with young pupils with special learning needs, colleges can work alongside social work departments and others, but when the colleges are let loose, that integrated approach will go. The focus of further education colleges could change markedly towards vocational training. Therefore, the needs of those with special learning difficulties could be devalued. The Secretary of State should address that point.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has identified a point that is worth addressing. He is right to raise it. I am confident that the new arrangement whereby college councils run further education colleges will take into account the needs of pupils with learning difficulties. As a result the colleges will work closely with local authorities.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lang: Yes, but then I must press on.
  Dr. Hampson: I am sure that the relationship between local authorities and colleges has improved since the days when I lectured in Edinburgh. I remember when l came into the House hearing the same problem highlighted in the English system by the then Secretary of State, Shirley Williams. The fact that the schools and FE colleges were under the same local authority did not guarantee any close relationship. In a circular, she even required FE colleges to inform schools of their addresses, so bad was the relationship.
  Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks from considerable personal experience.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lang: No, not at this stage. I will give way to the hon. Lady shortly.
  Part I of the Bill sets out a framework which will enable the further education colleges to work for the first time within a national overview of provision, within which broad strategies can be set, but which allows the maximum delegation to colleges to take quick decisions at local level better to meet the needs of their students and employers.
  We aim to place further education colleges on as similar a footing as possible, setting a clear national framework for funding to replace the policies of 12 education authorities. That is not nationalisation, as critics have suggested; nor is it centralisation. It is a means to ensure that maximum devolution of responsibility within an overall coherent strategy—something which further education has hitherto lacked.
  Clause 1 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State a new duty to secure that adequate and efficient provision of further education, which is defined in clause 6. That goes wider than vocational education—important though that is—and includes areas such as access courses to higher education, which open up opportunities for adults to return to education.
  Further education colleges have already done much to support that type of course, through the innovative and successful Scottish wider access programme, which we instigated. We shall continue to attach priority to that.
  Education authorities will retain a duty for community education. That is important, because concern has been expressed — much of it misconceived—about the future of adult education. Let there be no misunderstanding: we remain fully committed to education for adults. Our proposals aim to increase access and opportunity for school leavers and for adults.
  I recognise that further education colleges are important providers of a wide range of courses for adults and that vocational courses and highers for adults are provided outside colleges. That diversity of provision has grown to meet the needs of local communities and it is desirable.
  Clause 2 accordingly provides education authorities with the power to provide courses of further education, falling within the definition of clause 6. The Secretary of State will likewise have the power, under clause 4, to fund college boards of management in providing community education.
  802
  To safeguard the existing level of provision I have decided that the Secretary of State will fund further education colleges on the basis of the full range of programmes that they offer at present. Education authorities will be funded through the aggregate external finance settlement to provide further education outwith colleges, including community education. That approach is equitable and will allow planning to proceed in those areas, with certainty of funding. It will be for education authorities to decide in what circumstances to offer vocational education and highers. In funding the colleges for community education, the aim will be not to expand overall the current level of provision or to duplicate education authority provision.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: As the Secretary of State is talking about finance, can he explain why, since it is possible to identify colleges and to move those on, it is not possible to move on debt charges too? Does he not agree with at least one convener of education, who said that that is like taking away someone's house and asking them to pay the mortgage?
  Mr. Lang: That is not a valid comparison. The debt charges are already totally absorbed and would be almost impossible to separate from other debt charges incurred by local authorities.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: May I inform the Secretary of State that debt charges for colleges of further education in Scotland are £86 million?
  Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  Clause 8 and schedule 1 provide for the duties, powers, composition and proceedings of the boards of management. Underlying those provisions is the principle that it is important to bring into colleges people who are involved with local industry and local affairs. By harnessing their talents, we can ensure that colleges are well managed. I make no apology for the majority of the board being constituted of people with practical experience. The majority of students attend further education colleges because they wish to equip themselves better for employment. The best way to ensure that colleges meet those aspirations is for local employers to be involved.
  The new board, with a maximum size of 16, will be smaller than the present college councils, which have a maximum size of 20. The reduced size reflects the governing bodies' new responsibilities. They will be decision-making bodies, akin to the board of management of a company. That is balanced by the need for a range of people with different experiences to be involved. People will not merely be drawn from industry and commerce. In making appointments, regard will be paid to the position of education authorities. There will continue to be areas in which collaboration between education authorities and colleages will be for the benefit of both.
  In carrying out their duties under clause 8, the boards of management will have to have regard to the provision of other education in their area. They can do so only by having a dialogue with education authorities and others. That will be important throughout the range of provision, not merely in education for 16 to 18-year-olds. For example, it should be borne in mind that about 62 per cent. of non-advanced students in further education are over the age of 18.

  803
  Colleage councils have given people valuable experience in administering delegated functions in colleges. In reconstituting college councils in the transitional period prior to April 1993, I shall aim for a measure of continuity in membership to draw on that experience. It is, therefore, nonsense to suggest, as some have, that because the first appointments will be made by the Secretary of State, boards of management will not represent local interests. I can give an undertaking that they will represent local interests in the same way that college councils do.
  Staff, both teaching and non-teaching, are the main asset of further education. On them depends the quality of education that the colleges provide. It is important that they should be in no doubt over their position and clause 11 provides for the automatic transfer of such staff. They will retain their existing pay and conditions of service, including superannuation rights, when they transfer. The negotiation of pay and conditions beyond 1 April 1993 will be a matter for boards of management, staff and their representatives to determine. The Government have no intention of interfering with that process; nor will I place any bar on a national framework being established, if that is the decision of those involved.
  We aim to take steps between now and April 1993 to prepare staff for the colleges' new status. Newsletters will be produced keeping them informed of developments and training resources provided. I will also be looking to college boards of management to attach a higher and continuing priority to staff development generally. In addition, grants totalling £2·3 million will be made available to college councils in 1992–93 to enable them to prepare for their independence.
  In Scotland we have a coherent vocational qualifications system. We aim to improve the status of those qualifications and the way in which they can be made more widely available. Interesting developments are taking place in areas such as the accreditation of prior learning, where knowledge of skills gained on the job can be given credit. That, together with open learning, can ensure that many more benefit from further education and open up new opportunities. Through our funding of the colleges we will aim to stimulate that flexibility.
  Part II of the Bill gives effect to our proposed reforms of higher education set out in the White Paper "Higher Education: A New Framework". The Government are justly proud of what we have achieved in higher education in the past decade. Participation in higher education has soared. Numbers in full-time higher education in Scotland have increased by 40 per cent. and are now at record levels. Moreover, that success will continue in the future. We expect those numbers to increase by a further 60 per cent. by the end of the century. In addition, we expect that the participation rate of young Scots entering full-time higher education next year, 1992–93, will exceed 30 per cent. as compared to only 17 per cent. when we came to power. That means that we shall be close to meeting the target which the White Paper envisaged Great Britain achieving by the end of the century. In Scotland, we now expect that the participation rate will reach 46 per cent. by the year 2000. I suggest that that is an outstanding track record and it is one which I am determined to build on.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the Secretary of State say more about the future of Robert
  804
  Gordon's institute of technology in Aberdeen? Is he aware that the mishandling of the matter by him and his Ministers caused a great deal of concern about its future among academics at the institution? Since the idea was floated during the Kincardine and Deeside by-election that RGIT would meet the criteria for changing into a university, and as nothing in the Bill defines how that will work out, can the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that RGIT will get the status that it so obviously deserves?
  Mr. Lang: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that guarantee yet, because we have only just put the criteria out for consultation. I do not anticipate that the consultation process, which will be completed shortly, will lead to much amendment of the criteria, certainly not to any extent that might debar Robert Gordon's institute of technology from qualifying. On the basis of the criteria as published, I am confident that it will qualify. Far from there having been any mishandling, my hon. Friend the Minister of State visited the institute recently and received warm approval for the way in which the Government have proceeded.
  Mr. Hughes: There is no point in putting a subject out for consultation when the Minister absolutely refuses to see a deputation of Members of Parliament from the north-east of Scotland and bodies with a locus in education. What sort of consultation is that?
  Mr. Lang: That was before we published the criteria. There was not much point in seeing a delegation for consultations on the criteria before they were published. They have now been published and they are subject to consultation. They should enable us to reach a decision on target, before the end of this year.
  Mr. Hughes rose—
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
  Mr. Lang: I give way, yet again, to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Now that he has qualified the reply from the Minister of State, who said that there was no purpose in such a meeting, will he agree to meet the deputation as requested?
  Mr. Lang: If the deputation thinks it appropriate to reapply, now that the consultation criteria have been published, its application will be considered in the usual way and an appropriate reply will be made. My hon. Friend met RGIT within the past few weeks. I am not sure what further there is for the institute to come and see him about.
  Before turning to the detail of the provisions in part II, I should like to make some general points about the principles on which the policies are based. First, we have an important example of the Government's pursuit of devolved decision making and responsibility within the. overall framework of the Union. The maintenance of that wider link is vital, particularly for the universities. The Committee of Scottish University Principals made that point forcefully to me at a meeting on 21 October. Any arrangements that inhibit the free interchange of staff, students and ideas between United Kingdom universities would, over time, have a significantly debilitating effect on our system of higher education and would be particularly

  805
  damaging in Scotland. The Government recognise those concerns, which is why our policies are set firmly in the United Kingdom context.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Clause 31(3) deals with the appointment of members to the funding council, which will be from 12 to 15 members strong. In the context of the reference to
  "persons who appear … to have experience of … or … in … the provision of higher education",
  will importance he given to research as well as the administration of higher education? Surely the Secretary of State appreciates that research is a most important element in higher education.
  Mr. Lang: Yes, that is certainly an important point which will be borne in mind. Our purpose will be to approach this on a broad base. The hon. Gentleman's concern will be well covered.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lang: I must press on, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Douglas: Before dealing with the general issues and following the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), can the Secretary of State tell us whether the provision in schedule 6 that he will appoint the first chief executive to the funding council is on all fours with devolution? Will he desist from that appointment until he has other personnel in place? An important ingredient of the old University Grants Committee and the funding council was that they stood as a buffer between politicians and universities. How will that be preserved in the present context?
  Mr. Lang: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern over the appointment of the chief executive. It is an extremely important appointment. The precedents are that the chairman and chief executive are appointed early. That is necessary to enable the organisation to get under way. I have already had discussions with the university principals about these matters. I am well aware of their views and have assured them that I will approach the matter carefully and cautiously. I recognise the supreme importance of high quality and a broad range of qualifications in all the appointments that we make to the council.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we do not intend to use the snobbism of the word "university" to destroy colleges of excellence, such as Robert Gordon's, merely to enable them to enlarge an empire that is unsustainable and is not educational, as the new department of Edinburgh university announced today seems to do, when the university cannot even support the existing faculties?
  Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend makes a valid and important point. I hope that those institutions that have achieved excellence in their present form will not, on achieving university status, abandon the basis of their excellence. Nor do I envisage that they, in large measure, will do so.
  The second general point is that there is absolutely no need for any lack of confidence in our abilities either to provide or to administer higher education in Scotland. We have justified pride in our distinctive traditions. One city, Aberdeen, had as many universities as the whole of
  806
  England and Wales for a period of 250 years. In more recent times, the focused and distinctive missions that our central institutions and colleges of education have developed have been an important component of the Scottish pattern of higher education provision—a pattern which has succeeded in sustaining our high and rapidly increasing rates of participation.
  Clauses 31 to 37 establish the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and set out its composition and main functions. In general, these clauses mirror the equivalent provisions in the Education Reform Act 1988 for the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On clause 33, is the assessment committee to work in tandem with the English structure or is it to operate as a single council? What is the Secretary of State's reply to those vice-chancellors and principals who have said that if we are to have clause 33 there should be a national joint committee in certain areas, such as medicine, computing and engineering?
  Mr. Lang: I would expect the Scottish council to keep in close touch with its counterparts south of the border. That is intrinsic in our approach to higher education. The councils may decide to form some joint committee and it would not be right for me to rule that in or out now. It is important that we can establish a coherent and self-contained council with the capacity to fund higher education in Scotland. In doing so, we should not lose sight of the vital cross-border links, so important to the continuing health and expansion of higher education.
  I am pleased to announce to the House that Professor Jack Shaw has agreed to become the chairman and first member of the council. The appointment will commence on 1 April next year and run initially for three years. Naturally, it is subject to the necessary legislative authority. I am grateful to Professor Shaw for his thorough and timely response to my request to examine the criteria to be employed when institutions contemplate a merger. The Universities Funding Council's Scottish committee report on merger criteria was published yesterday and provides a well-researched and careful review. I know that higher education institutions have been keen to see the report and I am confident that it will become the standard reference for those with an interest.
  I should make it clear, as does the report, that the initiative on collaboration lies with the institutions and that we generally favour a bottom-up approach to these matters. However, there may be circumstances where either a funding council or the Secretary of State needs to intervene and, again, the report recognises that.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Everyone will wish Professor Shaw well. Can the Secretary of State say a little about the basis of the appointment, in terms of the expectation of time? Obviously, Professor Shaw is a busy and successful man, particularly in the banking world. I am not clear on what basis the appointment has been made.
  Mr. Lang: The appointment has been made on the basis that Professor Shaw feels able to devote the necessary time to the job. Given his present experience as chairman of the Scottish committee of the UFC, I think that he is an admirable appointee.

  807
  We are working to a challenging timetable. The council must be fully operational from 1 April 1993. It is important that the other members should be in place as soon as possible. Accordingly, the key appointment of chief executive will be advertised shortly. I hope to announce the appointments of the other members early in the new year.
  Clause 33 deals with the important matter—
  Mr. Douglas rose—
  Mr. Lang: I am reliably informed that I have already given way 14 times. I had better get on.
  Clause 33 deals with the important matter of quality assessment. Quality is a central element of our policy and we are determined that the great expansion of access to higher education that is now under way should continue to be achieved with no threat to standards. Whether one is concerned, like Robbins, with the pool of untapped talent, or like Amis, with the pool of tapped un-talent, is immaterial. The Government are determined that this time more shall not mean less, and we believe that this Bill, building on the experience of the last quarter of a century, gives us the mechanisms we need to secure that end.
  The council will set up its own quality assessment unit to monitor and report on the quality of the education provided in our institutions. The unit will be staffed by the transfer of experienced personnel from Her Majesty's inspectorate and from the institutions. It will also draw on the resources of the funding council for England and Wales to fill out its expertise and to ensure parity of standards across the United Kingdom. Pilot assesments of quality in key areas will be under way in the new year. In addition, clause 33 requires the council to establish a quality assessment committee with a majority of academic members to advise on quality isues.
  Higher education in Scotland is now more efficient and effective than it has ever been. The increased levels of publicly funded higher education tuition fees have, as intended, provided a strong incentive to institutions to expand efficiently. Also, the greater autonomy that we have granted to the management of our higher education colleges has resulted in greater responsiveness to the needs of students and employers.
  The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will be charged with developing fair and objective methodologies for distributing resources to all the Scottish higher education institutions.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Clause 37 gives power to the council to determine the disposal of land. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, regarding the potential opting out of Foresterhill hospital, that there is a dispute over the ownership of the land on which that hospital sits, the title of which belongs to the university of Aberdeen. May we have an assurance that under no circumstances would the council require the university to dispose of the land to any opted-out trust at below market value?
  Mr. Lang: The ownership of the land would not appear to be relevant to the Bill. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern with an important local issue, but that is not necessarily affected by this debate.
  808
  The commitment we gave in our White Paper last May was to provide an appropriate level of resources to enable further efficient expansion to take place. I am happy to repeat that commitment today.
  Accordingly, I can announce to the House that I have decided to increase recurrent funding for the grant-aided colleges by 12 per cent. in 1992–93. I have also increased my programme for capital funding of the colleges by over 20 per cent. Those are substantial increases, well above the projected level of inflation. They are evidence of the Government's continued commitment to higher education, and will allow the buoyant growth in student numbers to continue and to be accommodated.
  Clause 36 sets out the powers of the Secretary of State to make conditions on grants to the council. There have been some suggestions that the wording of the clause represents a sinister and unprecedented assault on academic freedom. I find it difficult to understand how such a view could have arisen.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Lang: I must try to make this the last time in my speech that I give way.
  Mr. Dewar: Do I take grant-aided colleges to be the central institutions?
  Mr. Lang: Yes.
  The clause specifically prevents the Secretary of State from attaching conditions that relate to individual institutions, just as the Education Reform Act 1988 does. The revised wording in the clause is necessary to put it beyond doubt that the Secretary of State actually can specify objectives to be met before grant can be paid by the council. That was the result intended in the debates on the 1988 Act. It was also a fundamental aspect of the funding system set out for the UFC by Lord Croham in his review of the UGC.
  Clauses 39 to 41 deal with the government and organisation of the current central institutions and colleges of education. As stated in paragraph 93 of the White Paper, the Privy Council will become responsible for the government of all the institutions that will be funded by the new council. Although we shall wish to review the present arrangements in the colleges of education before effecting the transfer, we do not envisage that much change to present organisation or management structures will be required, but transfer of responsibility for these matters to the Privy Council properly reflects the desire to place all higher education institutions in a similar autonomous relationship with the Government.
  Before the Privy Council begins that process, though, it is right that we should make a number of changes to relax the present restrictions on the composition of the grant-aided colleges' governing body. Accordingly, I shall shortly make an order to remove the requirement for student and staff representatives on the governing body, and in the case of central institutions to remove the requirement for local authority experience. Those changes will give the governing bodies valuable flexibility in adapting to the demands which their increased autonomy will place on them.
  Clause 42 contains the important provision allowing the holder of my office to specify higher education institutions as competent to award degrees. I issued a consultation paper on that question, setting out the

  809
  proposed criteria to which I would have regard in reaching judgments on whether degree-awarding powers should he conferred on particular institutions. We have asked for comments by 2 December and I hope to announce my intentions shortly thereafter. In reaching any decisions, I shall have particular regard to the advice of the Council for National Academic Awards that all five of the Scottish technological central institutions merited both taught-course and research degree-awarding powers.
  Clause 43 allows institutions to include the word "university" in their title, with the consent of the Privy Council. The White Paper said that the Government had decided that polytechnics, as a mark of their academic maturity and success, would be permitted to adopt the university title if they wished. The consultation paper that I issued also covered the criteria to which we propose to recommend that the Privy Council should have regard in considering whether other institutions should be permitted to use the title. Again, I hope to announce our conclusions in the light of consultations next month.
  I should note now, however, that it is disappointing that some have interpreted the extension of the use of the university title as a signal that our polytechnics and colleges might abandon their distinctive vocational missions and overturn their organisational structures, the point to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) referred. Those are successful and valuable institutions in their own right. They have proved their worth. There is no need for them to give up the very basis of their success to achieve the recognition they deserve. It would be extremely foolish of them not to continue to play to their undoubted strengths.
  Dr. Hampson: I am interested in the question of titles. I should declare my interest as a consultant to the Association of University Teachers, and the point is of special interest to that body. The clause in the equivalent English measure, clause 73 (3), has an absolute provision that there should he no confusion of names—that where there is an existing university, that point must he considered—but I do not see in the Scottish Bill any such safeguards in terms of avoiding names that are already in being. Why are such safeguards missing from the Scottish measure?
  Mr. Lang: I cannot give my hon. Friend a textual comparison word for word as between the Scottish and English measures, but I assure him that it is our objective—it must be the objective of any body applying for university status—to use a name that would not lead to confusion or misunderstanding. I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will be borne in mind, and it may be further debated in Committee.
  The Bill is a landmark in Scottish education. It gives a long-overdue prominence to further education and releases further education colleges from the strictures of local authority control. They will then be free to maximise their potential to increase participation in tertiary education, to improve standards and to widen access.
  The Bill is of tremendous significance to Scottish higher education. It has been warmly welcomed throughout the higher education world in Scotland. It gives new momentum to a further expansion of higher education, while maintaining and building on the outstanding reputation for high standards which our universities presently enjoy.
  810
  The Bill provides an opportunity for all. It is another huge step on the way to grasping the glittering prize of higher education for all who are fit and willing to benefit from it. Under our administration, higher education has become a growth industry. With the Bill, the Government have met the university challenge. I commend it to the House.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I was interested to hear the Secretary of State speak of glittering prizes. I thought that he spoke with a slight air of whimsical nostalgia and I fear that few such prizes await him in the months that lie ahead.
  I welcome the Government's decision to implement one of the most important recommendations of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council report. It has taken them a long time but they have ultimately arrived. They have accepted that on the funding and planning machinery for Scottish universities, as on so many other issues recently, Labour has got it right. To be fair, it is not Labour but STEAC which has got it right. I wish to pay tribute to Donald McCallum and his colleagues for their sterling work in 1985–86 on the STEAC report. It would be unfair to accuse the Government of a U-turn on the matter. Rather, there has been a long, confused period of indecision and even now there is much doubt on exactly what is intended in the university sector. I shall return to that theme later in my speech.
  The House will remember that in July 1986 the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), announced bravely a postponed decision on the proposal for an over-arching body responsible for Scottish higher education. He said that the Government were postponing it until such time as they could form a clear view. I did not know whether we had reached that point, but having heard the Secretary of State, I now know that we have not, because he said very little about how the system would operate or about his objectives.
  I welcome the fact that over the past three or four years there has been a shift in opinion on a Scottish funding body. In March 1986, Lord Croham, who was then heading a committee reporting on university finance, took evidence in Scotland. He found that two out of the eight universities were in favour of the STEAC recommendation at that time, while the remainder were against it. There is now unanimity. I am sorry that the representative of the Association of University Teachers, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who has read the Bill so carefully, is no longer with us. The AUT in Scotland had grave reservations about the matter but now, as I know from many discussions and a meeting that we had as recently as yesterday, it is now strongly in favour of it. Even the Government have at last caught up. There are good reasons for that change of heart.
  The Labour party believes that higher education should be developed as a whole and planned as an entity. One criterion is the national interest and the drive to ensure that the best possible opportunities exist for youngsters leaving school. The Government have a duty to provide a wider choice in higher education and it is in the national interest to have a skilled and educated work force in place. The best way to do so is to have a funding and planning

  811
  body, as I understand that the Bill intends, and to recognise and build on the distinctive tradition and contribution of Scottish universities over the years.
  I assure the Secretary of State that the Labour party welcomes his decision to try to remove the binary line. It is right to bridge the divide between universities and other institutions of higher education. It has been a barrier to progress and, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), it can be based on prejudice and nothing else. However, such a divide has great and potent power. Those of us who have been lobbied powerfully and persuasively by some of the central institutions interested in university status are left in no doubt about the importance of that prize. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is important that, in making such an adjustment, we abolish the binary divide and do not merely move it and create another artificial division in the world of higher education with a fault line running at a different point across the range.
  The problem is to combine excellence with increased access. The two are not incompatible and high standards must be maintained. There is still a gap between the number of people entering higher education in Scotland compared to most of our European competitors. We tend to say that we do well compared with the English, although that comparison is now beginning to blur. We still have an advantage and I am grateful for it, but on the international league table the position is less satisfactory. We still have a massive job to do in Scotland in encouraging students and potential students from areas where economic disadvantage is still a crippling inhibition to academic ambitions. We also have a problem of encouraging women. Although massive strides have been taken, and women are performing much better in the academic world, especially in the later years of school and at university, only 44 per cent. of university students are women and there is clearly some way to go on that issue.
  Therefore, we must aim to build both access and high standards and to build on the honourable tradition of our universities. When I was thinking about that—it was perhaps a little whimsical—I remembered when I was a student at Glasgow university and was asked to review a copy of the then new publication by George Davie, the "Democratic Intellect", which looks in great detail at universities in Scotland in the 19th century. I dug out that review out of curiosity. Looking back over a Glasgow university magazine of January 1962 was quite an experience. It said:
  "On the weekend of 10th–11 th February, Donald Dewar's band of merry men take the high-road once more for Aberoyle, where they are running a weekend school at the Covenanters' Inn."
  Mr. John McAllion: Will my hon. Friend let me know which team he supports?
  Mr. Dewar: Memories, memories.
  The review went on:
  "The speaker is Richard Marsh, MP, the subjects … 'The Common Market', and the overall cost (which includes transport, dinner dance, accommodation and all meals) two guineas."
  I had forgotten that there was a day when the more elegant parts of the Labour movement counted in guineas.
  In that review I was arguing that the breadth and range in Scottish education should be retained. I may have taken
  812
  the rather romantic view of the glories of the MA (Ord), but I still hold to that general thesis. The Scottish system should not be a poor copycat of the system which exists south of the border or any other part of the world, and the traditional strengths should not be eroded.
  I hope that my speech will spark off a useful exchange with the Minister of State when he replies to the debate. The Bill contains an outline of a system which, with regard to universities, has much to be said for it. The question remains of how and whether it will work. There was remarkably little detail on that in the Secretary of State's speech. Expansion clearly has resource implications and the bills must be paid. We are to have Napier college and Glasgow college of technology, and I understand that the Robert Gordon institute of technology and Paisley college are anxiously awaiting the starting signal.
  I enjoyed the Minister of State's little foray into the north. Embarrassingly, it happened to coincide with the by-election at Kincardine and Deeside. It is a little like the story of the dog that did not bark—a meeting between the Minister of State and the Tory candidate which did not take place. Full of wide-eyed innocence, the Minister of State told a meeting at the Robert Gordon institute of technology that he could not think how anyone could imagine that the criteria for university status would not be met by that college. As we all know, there were good reasons for fears. The Labour party welcomes the fact that, from the Secretary of State's speech, it seems that both the Robert Gordon institute of technology and Paisley college are now on the list. I hope that if they come through they will make a worthwhile and distinguished contribution to Scottish universities.
  Will the Minister of State turn his mind to a few simple and basic questions? They may be pedestrian questions, but I do not know the answers to them and, although I have earnestly inquired from people in the university world at a variety of levels, they do not seem to be clear about the answers either. How will the Scottish higher education funding council deliver? The binary divide cannot be abolished simply by diktat. One has only to look at Universities Funding Council expenditure to see the gap which existed between the funding of universities and the polytechnics and central institutions. The new universities—potentially four in Scotland and perhaps more to come—will expect to rise to the standards of their peer group. They will expect to level up, not to drive university standards down. That raises fundamental problems and basic questions. This is no more than an enabling Bill and tells us little. I do not want the Minister of State to give a deadpan defence of a system that has been set up by Ministers who, as yet, have no idea how it will work. I hope that we shall be given a precise description.
  I certainly intend to move the motion to pass the Bill to a Special Standing Committee. It would be a uniquely useful opportunity. As far as I know, that procedure has not been used on a Scottish Bill since it has been in existence. I know that many people—whether from within the Association of University Teachers, principals, vice-chancellors or officials at some of the colleges and universities—who would like to use the Select Committee procedure grafted on to the normal Standing Committee to probe and establish exactly how the system will work. I do not say that in a partisan spirit, but I cannot think of a more suitable Bill for that procedure. I hope that between now and the Division the Secretary of State will

  813
  think about that and the credit that would befall him were he to give way on that point and persuade his colleagues not to resist the motion.
  There are eight universities in Scotland at present. There are more university places than could be expected on any population ratio. We have enjoyed a higher percentage of the Universities Funding Council—and, before that, the University Grants Committee—budget than our population share. If the Government were to follow the unpleasant moderate habit of threatening a reduction to per capita allocation, it would amount to the loss of an entire university. How are we to build in protection against that possibility? How are we to allow increased access and continue to grant places to students from outside Scotland? Some 20 per cent. of students following degree courses are not domiciled in Scotland. I consider that to be a strength, not a weakness, provided there are places for Scottish students who want to take them. At present, we export 4,500 students to English universities.
  All those advantages raise practical questions that must be answered soon. The Bill merely states:
  "As far as the funding of the higher educational institutions themselves is concerned, the total in Scotland would not vary materially because of the provisions of this Bill."
  I understand that, but it begs an enormous number of questions. We are creating a totally new system arid we must know how it is to be defined. Will the Minister state how the budget of the new funding council will be calculated? I am not asking for a figure as that would be unreasonable, and I would not expect him to be able to give one, but it is important that he should give some of the methodology. Am I right in assuming that the total amount will come partially from the former UFC expenditure on Scottish institutions and the remainder from Scottish Office expenditure on central institutions? Can the Secretary of State confirm that? Will there be an increase in the total Scottish Office budget to take account of the new higher education responsibilities in funding? Will the procedure be that, on that basis, an annual total will emerge from the bargaining within the Scottish Office and then be handed over for distribution to the new funding council?
  I hope that I am right in saying—I have certainly been advised that this is so— that in general terms a Scottish university spends about two thirds of its UFC money on teaching, and one third on research. Some of my hon. Friends know a great deal about the subject, and I know that the research funding is formidably important. In 1989–90, the UFC distributed to universities in the United Kingdom £860 million in research support. That sum is vastly greater than the comparable figure for research councils, which contributed only about £260 million. May I assume that the research councils will continue to operate on the United Kingdom basis?
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend cannot make that assumption.
  Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend says that I cannot make that assumption. Perhaps the Minister of State can arbitrate on that.
  More importantly, will the equivalent of the present enormous amount of UFC research money be included in the new funding council's budget and will the council be responsible for its distribution? Will the UFC's successor, the funding council in England, have any jurisdiction in
  814
  Scotland? If that research funding were excluded, it would seem that the new Scottish council would be involved financially only in teaching costs. That would represent an artificial and damaging separation of research and teaching which would weaken the system. I have outlined at some length a number of fundamental issues and I genuinely expect the Minister to try to answer them.
  I am puzzled that there is no definition or reference in the Bill to a planning function for the new council. What influence will it have over policy? It may contain an inherent power, but it is important for the Minister to say more about that. Enormously important decisions will have to be taken about the new universities, such as how they are to be integrated, how funds are to be distributed, and how we are to respond to the Howie report, which will presumably lead to major changes in higher school education within the next two or three months.
  The new council has a remit to plan higher education as a whole, but will it be able to make the changes that it considers necessary? Let us suppose that the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council has reservations about the distribution system, which is based on the assumption that the cash follows the student. Would it be able to vary that and introduce a new system of bidding for cash among Scottish universities? Could it alter the selectivity system for the distribution of research funds—assuming that the UFC research element will be included in the new funding council's budget?
  There is keen interest in a university for the highlands, which would almost certainly have to be built in existing colleges and may have to evolve over several years. The Labour party has expressed sympathy with the idea, and would like to see action. However, we must ensure that it is a carefully worked-out scheme. Would it fall within the remit of the new funding organisation?
  Another important point which the Minister may have anticipated involves the importance of the relationship between higher education and Government, and brings me conveniently—if that is the right word—to clause 48. The language of that clause is stark and direct, and appears on the face of it to give the Secretary of State unlimited and unbridled power to dictate. It is important that the Secretary of State should say a little about its significance.
  There is no equivalent to the English clause 77(2), which relates specifically to financial considerations. Some people have tried to take comfort from the fact that such an omission provides a negative safeguard for Scottish higher education, but I remain sceptical. I am surprised that the Secretary of State did not address that problem, which has been raised with me by almost everyone with whom I have discussed the Bill. I should have thought that he would want to take action to allay the genuine fears about what the Scottish Office is doing.
  The Secretary of State must accept, although he may not like it, that old wounds and memories of the 1988 argument in England still remain. It was then thought by those who were threatened that an open assault was being launched on academic freedom, and the Government were forced to retreat. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but time and again it has been put to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) that the present proposal would take us back to the 1988 argument in a way that would be disastrous for confidence and for the relationship between central Government and higher education.
  Dr. Godman: I am worried about the measure. If a funding council decided, on principle, to disregard such a directive, presumably the Secretary of State could dismiss its officers.
  Mr. Dewar: The position is clear. If a direction is given, there is a legal duty on the funding council to accept that direction. Obviously, I would expect a funding council to work within the framework of the law—
  Dr. Godman: Or resign.
  Mr. Dewar: Or resign, if it did not wish to be involved in what it saw as a fundamental mistake. But if that measure is on the statute book, it is obviously something that we have a duty to investigate.
  No doubt I shall be told by the Secretary of State that that is a routine provision, a fallback power of last resort. He may argue that he is merely paying an unnecessary price for previous convictions and that the fears are groundless, but I am not convinced. Perhaps the Minister should read the leader in The Guardian last week, which held that
  "ministers have inserted a clause into the latest Higher Education Bill which would so extend their right to intervene that academic freedom would effectively be finished.".
  That is probably an overstatement, but the very fact that such a view can be expressed from that area makes it imperative that the Secretary of State should deal with that point.
  I welcome—it would be churlish not to—what the Secretary of State said about funding for central institutions. That is helpful and long overdue, particularly on the capital budget. I have not had time to digest or examine the details of his speech, but it is unfortunate that central institution boards should now lose the staff and student places in particular. It is an odd proposal, particularly as schedule I contains a particular obligation for the boards of further education colleges to have elected representatives from the staff and students. If that is right for further education colleges, I am not clear why the Secretary of State should suddenly have announced that there will be no protected right for staff and student representation on the board of central institutions.
  That will be taken as a gloomy opening chapter to the new system introduced by this legislation. My instinct is that it is wrong, it will be resented and it will sour the atmosphere. I should be interested to hear from colleagues on the Committee what kind of detailed explanations the Secretary of State gives at a later stage.
  Now I come briefly, briskly but importantly to the other section of the Bill—the objectionable and misconceived proposals for further education. They were always predictable and they are certainly mean-spirited. We know that some time ago the Government decided to remove responsibility for funding further education from local authorities and now they are coming back to complete what I regard as a fairly brutal piece of surgery.
  There is no justification for the proposals. They are incompatible with the spirit of what the Secretary of State is trying to do elsewhere in the Bill. He is trying to implement the STEAC over-arching concept. he is trying to accept that we have an integrated higher education sector, that there is an emphasis on planning and close co-operation with our schools. There can be no argument but that that is the way forward. If the objective is joint action, if there is to be co-operation, I genuinely do not see
  816
  why we suddenly need to fragment into individual units the further education sector in the way that is proposed. Each one has been floated off in a way for which no real argument was advanced.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is not the Secretary of State trying to take control of education away from local authorities so that he and his Ministers can implement policies for which they have no support and for which they cannot be called to account?
  Mr. Dewar: The sad conclusion is that at the heart of the matter is Ministers' dislike and suspicion of local democracy and what local authorities stand for.
  I cannot expect the Minister of State to give a great deal of detail, but when he replies I hope that he will deal in passing with, for example, this week's press reports that there is a possibility of non-elected quangos, non-elected boards, taking over the entire responsibility of education authorities. It would take only a sentence for the Minister of State to kill off that latest crazy proposal emerging from the dark recesses of the Scottish Conservative party and it is extremely important that he does so. In fact, I should be prepared to give way to the Secretary of State if he would rise to say that, whatever may be on the agenda, that is not.
  Well, there we are. I am not entirely surprised, but I give the Secretary of State fair warning that such a proposal, such centralisation, with the power in the hands of the appointed body and the Secretary of State, will be resented by people of every political persuasion in Scotland and many who do not consider themselves to be involved in politics at all. If that is the way in which the Tory party seeks to climb back from the abyss, the Secretary of State's logic is perverse.
  I finish by asking one or two questions about further education. Why is no buffer authority being proposed in Scotland for further education? Why is there no further education funding council as there is in England? I have no objection to commercial and industrial involvement in the colleges. The world of industry and business has an interest in day release courses, higher national certificates and training places. They have much to contribute. But the Bill cannot be described as an exercise in devolution, certainly with regard to further education colleges. Although there will be independent boards dominated by local business interests, there will he a concentration and centralisation of power in the hands of the Scottish Office, and that is unmistakable.
  The Minister of State must say something about the position of local authorities. We were told originally that they would have a discretionary power to provide further education facilities, but only for social and recreational services; it was limited. I notice that the Department of Education and Science south of the border says that local authorities can, at their discretion, supply any and all kinds of further education. Will that be the case in Scotland, or is it limited in the way we understood originally? Local authorities will still have a duty to supply what is described as further education other than that defined in the Bill. I am genuinely not clear what that means. Perhaps the Minister of State will define it by example—I think that that is the easiest way.
  It is not devolution—I stress this—as the Minister of State seemed to be claiming on Radio Scotland's "Good Morning Scotland" programme this morning, or so I am

  817
  told: it is centralisation. The Secretary of State will hold the purse strings. He can create new colleges and merge or close existing ones. Under clause 4, it is the Secretary of State who meets the bills. That must be a cause for concern. In constant terms, expenditure on colleges of further education has increased from 1979–80 to 1989–90 from £179 million to £244 million. We must maintain some momentum if additional access and the bridging into higher education in a more formal sense is to be real. For the Secretary of State simply to say that he will fund on the basis of a full range of courses offered begs every question and gives no detail.
  In addition, there is the question of the make-up of the boards of those colleges. I have already referred to the domination of industrial and commercial interests. If I read schedule 1 aright, once the board's have been set up initially they will be self-appointing and self-generating. I am not encouraged to say that in that sense they will, to quote the Secretary of State, be
  "akin to the board of a company."
  I know that the Secretary of State will think that it is special pleading for old friends and old connections, but it is clear from schedule 1 that, when considering appointments, there is a duty to consider people who have an interest in the work of a college, having regard to the interests of the education authority. But if one looks at the arithmetic more closely, that may be as few as two places. There is no guarantee that anyone from the education authority needs to be appointed at all.
  Whatever one might think about education authorities and their record, the need for close co-operation between the further education colleges and the schools system is something about which there can be no argument at all. To remove any sort of right to representation in the way schedule 1 presently does is surely not a positive advertisement for co-operation which is supposed to be the basis of the new system.
  The proposals for further education in the Bill are petty, unsettling and counter-productive and we shall vote against them tonight. There is about the whole concept a startling lack of any mission statement—any definition of the spirit in which the new Scottish funding councils or further education colleges are to approach their tasks. There is the outline of a structure in the council for universities, but no indication of what that council must do or any mention of a planning role.
  Even the Bill's definition of higher education is strangely limited. Clause 32 makes it clear only that the test is reaching a higher standard than necessary for the Scottish certificate of education or the general certificate of education. That does not seem a satisfactory way of approaching the task, and certainly undervalues the enormous challenges to be met in our universities, central institutions, and higher education generally. The vision required is far greater than that shown by the Government or by the Secretary of State and his Ministers.
  The problems at a practical level are there for all to see. I mention as an example the crisis over university pay and conditions. Last year, lecturers received an increase of 6·4 per cent. when the employers themselves accepted that 16 per cent. would be more realistic. Short-term contracts, blocked promotion prospects and collapsing morale are massive and real difficulties in our universities.
  Reference has already been made—and there will be many more such references—to the problems facing
  818
  students. They include the erosion of grants over the years and the specious loans scheme, which the Minister inadequately defended a few moments ago.
  The university title must not be an empty honour or a doubtful opportunity to compete with established rivals for inadequate funding. That will be the danger and threat under the present Government if the Treasury has its way. The basis of the system can be strengthened by reform, but it must not be eroded—as could happen if there is insufficient commitment, and if more is not heard about the Government's willingness to fund the system and to provide the resources that it needs.
  The vision must be there and the resources committed if the potential is to be realised. There is undoubtedly a need for a new approach and a change of direction that the present discredited Administration cannot deliver. The Bill provides such an opportunity, but I suspect that it will be left to be exploited by the next Government of another party.
  5.51 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: It is not uncommon for me to find myself batting first wicket down to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), but his performance today was peculiarly passive. He was scratching around to find any reason to vote against the Bill. I warmly welcome it—as do universities, polytechnics, centrally funded colleges, and the principals and staff of colleges of technology and of further education. About the only people against the Bill are Opposition Members.
  The amendment in the names of Labour Members is the wettest that I have ever seen. I imagine that the hon. Members responsible had to wear wellington boots when they drafted it. It is the very least that they could table in order to vote against the Bill.
  The Liberal Democrats' amendment is even less authoritative. They apparently found it more difficult still to find a reason for opposing the Bill. If they are so keen on all forms of assembly and devolution, one wonders why they are not prepared to allow power to be devolved to college councils. It is a very disappointing start to a Second Reading debate to find an Opposition who are so mealy-mouthed, and who look for difficulties where none exists.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
  Sir Hector Monro: No, the hon. Gentleman has already intervened about four times. He can make his own speech later—there will be plenty of time.
  People say that nostalgia is not what it used to be, but I cannot help but recollect when, as Minister responsible for education, I introduced the raising of the school leaving age to 16 and had to find teachers, and roofs to put over the heads of primary and secondary school pupils. One can easily see how far education has advanced over the years. It has been transformed, and is today a very different world from that of 20 or 30 years ago.
  Scotland has a long tradition of academic excellence, and it is right to build reforms on those foundations. The Bill is important not only for what it directly says about education but about the administration and structure of university and further education in the future. It sets the tone for many years ahead.
  A great deal of detail will have to be considered in Committee.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman be serving on the Committee?
  Sir Hector Monro: I will, and I am looking forward to it. I do not know why some right hon. and hon. Members object to working on the Committee stage of a Bill. I think that it is the most interesting part of our parliamentary work.
  The Committee will be able to consider points that have been made by the Scottish Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
  Mr. Dewar: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has a good Committee record, and always takes a close interest.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): He has to do so.
  Mr. Dewar: The Minister suggests that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has no choice, but I give him due credit.
  The hon. Gentleman may recall that I suggested that a Special Standing Committee should sit for three sessions on a Select Committee basis before the Standing Committee got down to work. Does he agree that would be both welcomed by the educational world in Scotland and a good investment for parliamentary procedures?
  Sir Hector Monro: It was interesting that the hon. Gentleman made that point, because I was a member of the Select Committee on Procedure when it examined in detail the advantages or otherwise of having a Special Standing Committee. As one who was so involved in the Scottish Standing Committee, I was somewhat reluctant to adopt that proposal, because one likes to deal with such matters oneself. Given that the Bill is the principal legislation for Scotland this Session, it seems right to get Scottish Back Benchers involved right from the start.
  I do not mean to be dogmatic, but the hon. Member for Garscadden must remember that we have not tried such a procedure before. Standing Orders allow for such a Special Standing Committee, but I have yet to be convinced that it would be better than the conventional Standing Committee procedure. I do not hold hard and fast to that view, but the hon. Gentleman asked for my opinion.
  The Standing Committee will also be able to consider representations from those representing the mentally handicapped, the question of university status, and the application—which will be considered at the appropriate moment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—by the Dundee institute of technology.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on his earlier comment that few people find difficulty with the Bill? Some right hon. and hon. Members, and perhaps even the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) himself, have received the views of the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, whose brief makes this crucial point:
  "Sir Roy Griffiths identified the multiplicity of agencies and the lack of proper co-ordination as one of the key failures in community care policy."
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that heavyweight opinion?
  Sir Hector Monro: I mentioned the mentally handicapped because I read that very brief this morning. That is an important Committee point, but perhaps not
  820
  one to be debated in detail now. Tonight we are dealing with the broad brush of the Second Reading of the Bill, to which I give a general welcome.
  The Bill places great emphasis on higher and vocational training and of welding the two closer than they are at present. In recent years, great emphasis has rightly been placed on training, and its financing has been taken over to a large extent in Scotland by local enterprise companies, Scotvec, for which I have a high regard, and other organisations. It is disappointing that Opposition Members and local authorities should be so ready to criticise the provision of training places in Scotland. Things are going too well. It will, of course, take a little time for Scottish Enterprise to get over its teething troubles, but it is coping with the misunderstandings, and it has the finance. I am sure that there will be many fewer hiccups next year.
  I welcomed my right hon. Friend's announcement of a substantial increase in funding: that will provide a springboard for the new board of management. A few months ago, it was said that the Dumfries and Galloway regional training unit would close next year, without the detailed consultation with the local enterprise company that I considered essential—as, I am sure, did my right hon. Friend. Now, however, it seems that places will be available, and that the opportunities will be there.
  In a very good speech last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out that more and better training is now available than ever before. I give the Government full credit for providing all these opportunities for boys and girls in Scotland. The Bill, however, is about freedom—the freedom for college councils, which will become boards of management, to determine their own destiny within financial guidelines. It is crucially important for them to become independent.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Has the hon. Gentleman read the letter sent by the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics to the Secretary of State, or the letter sent by the Scottish vice-principals? Both letters warn that the expanded powers conferred on the Secretary of State by clause 36 could be used to threaten academic freedom. Those points were made with some force. Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to his right hon. Friend?
  Sir Hector Monro: It is always possible to misread legislation. Why should we always look on the black side? Why not see the positive, constructive way forward? If the boards of management behave responsibly, there should be no conflict between them and the Department. Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman seems to be looking for difficulties that do not exist.
  In my view, the college councils have already proved successful—and a credit to the Government, who introduced the system not so long ago. I am told that they can now reach a decision at a single meeting: they no longer have to go back to the education committee, or to secure approval for the minutes by a full council. I do not criticise the local authorities, which have done a fine job in establishing colleges of technology. They have built them up from scratch and provided the necessary staff and facilities, and thousands of students have gained qualifications and excellent jobs as a result. I merely want us to make what already exists even better.

  821
  It is understandable that local authorities are reluctant to lose control of the colleges that they have built up. In Committee, however, we should consider the link between further education and the education authority—the liaison, or co-ordination, or whatever hon. Members want to call it. There must be a follow-through between secondary school courses and the new college management structure. As long as good will is maintained, I do not think that that will be difficult to achieve. I do not think that we need a formal, statutory link between the education authority and the board of management.
  My constituency contains two excellent institutions, which rightly wish to maintain their distinctive characteristics. Dumfries and Galloway college of technology offers a wide choice of courses, and Barony agricultural college is in the forefront of Scottish agricultural education: it is involved in fish farming, deer farming and many other enterprises. I have talked to those colleges, and both are pleased with the Bill. Their college councils are working well, and the colleges are happy for them to be converted into boards of management at the appropriate time. They should be able to continue their excellent work; a college is only as good as its staff, as others have pointed out.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) mentioned finance—perhaps the main issue for the education authorities. The authorities have invested millions of pounds in colleges, and feel that they are due some compensation. What about the loan charges? I heard my right hon. Friend's reply, and no doubt the point will be discussed in detail in Committee. I feel, however, that my hon. Friend the Minister of State should emphasise the Bill's provision for up-front financial support for the establishment of the system up to April 1983. That is when the college councils and, subsequently, the boards of management take over from the education authorities, and the new system of payment of salaries and costs will be introduced. A good deal of computer work will be needed, as the two systems will run in parallel for a while. I know that my right hon. Friend has allowed a certain sum, but all local authorities will want to know whether that is enough.
  I am very pleased about the introduction of funding councils for the universities. I trust that my right hon. Friend will leaven their membership—which will, of course, be heavily biased towards academic considerations—with some commercial and industrial representatives, who would, I think, bring useful experience to bear.
  We are on the right road. Staff are important, but students are equally important. More and more people are attending universities and colleges in Scotland, and it is clear from the statistics that they are receiving the courses they want. That increase in numbers belies the claim that the loan system deters students; I think that it has done the opposite. When the new administration takes over the colleges in 1993. I take it that all student loans will come from the Scottish Office rather than a proportion coming from local authority bursaries and other means of local authority funding.
  The Bill holds out great hope for the future. I am confident that it will lead to an even higher quality of education in Scotland. I wish it well.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will forgive me if I do not comment on what he said. As I may not chair the First Scottish Standing Committee, since I am participating in the Second Reading debate on the Bill, I shall be unable to listen to his often distinctive and independent views on a particular matter and what should be done about it. I hope that the independence of mind that he often demonstrates in Committee will be demonstrated again tonight. I hope that he will vote for the Special Standing Committee procedure that is to be recommended to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
  The aim of the Bill is supposed to be to improve participation in and the quality of higher and further education in Scotland. That sounds good and it is to be welcomed. However, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that it is an attempt to blame all our education and economic ills on defective education and training instead of on too little investment and too little Government support for industry and the infrastructure. Nevertheless, I welcome worthy developments, whatever the motive. The weakness of the Bill is that it is all about mechanism and nomenclature instead of about planning and resources.
  I hope that the Minister of State, who is engaged in a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), will not say when he winds up the debate that we are asking for money to be thrown at the problem. In education, it is a case either of providing more resources or of accepting that if numbers go up the quality will go down.
  There comes a point at which institutions, if they had any fat to burn off, have long since done so. Cumbernauld college in my constituency is an example. Its information technology equipment, bought with a special grant from the education authority, is dated and coming to the end of its working life. There is no way that the college will be able to replace it from revenue.
  The restriction on local government expenditure in general and on education in particular has produced institutions so lean that their ribs show. No amount of changing who they are responsible to, or who sits on their governing bodies, will enable them to provide for more students, more flexibility and a higher quality of tuition. For that we need more resources. Nothing in the Bill suggests that there is any intention to provide them.
  That basic weakness apart, the Bill has some strange features. Apparently, there are to be concurrent powers, though not concurrent duties, given to the Scottish Office and the education authorities. That would appear to be an effort to allow education authorities to provide for their local populations as they see fit. But is it? If they decide to spend on adult education, for example, will they find themselves council charge capped for putting up their charges to fund discretionary services? When the Minister of State has finished talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, who apparently has crossed the Floor, perhaps he will——
  Mr. Ernie Ross: He is just trying out the seat over there.
  Mr. Hogg: I think he looks very distinguished. It is only a matter of weeks until he will be sitting there.

  823
  The provision of full-time courses is an important criterion for the eligibility of institutions to call themselves universities. That is strange, as the Government's stated policy is to provide education more flexibly, to meet the needs and convenience of students. The mode of learning has nothing to do with the intellectual level of study, which should surely be the criterion. We need an explanation. Do the Government believe that part-time study is rather second rate, despite the very good examples of such provision by Birkbeck college and the Open university? I notice that the Minister shakes his head. I hope that he will deal with that point.
  Another fixation seems to be size. If an institution wants to call itself a university, it will, according to the consultative document, have to have a minimum of 3,000 full-time students and 4,000 full-time equivalents. That would rule out institutions such as the Dundee institute of technology which can meet all requirements regarding the level and quality of the learning opportunities that it provides. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) participates in the debate, I am sure that he will have something to say about that. Clearly, the Secretary of State is no believer in "small is beautiful", although "small is beautiful" might prove to be a campaign slogan for the Tory party in Scotland.
  The Bill reveals a dogmatic dislike and distrust of local government. That theme runs through every single measure to which the Minister of State turns his hand. There is no evidence that further education is being provided badly by Scottish local government—still less that direct operation by the Scottish Office could provide it any better. On the contrary, to remove further education from local government will make it pretty well impossible to plan comprehensive area services for 16 to 19-year-olds—or, for that matter, for adults—to make the most effective use of education premises for the wide variety of communal needs that they should serve, to provide effectively for allied functions, such as careers advice, and to integrate the various services which together are needed to enrich community and personal development. Such integration has been an encouraging trend in recent years, in terms of both effect and economy.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Gentleman is always fair when we debate these matters. If he believes that this further education measure is motivated by prejudice against local government, why does he think that the Association of Principals of Further Education Colleges welcomed the Bill's provisions, as well as the individual colleges? Could it be that they believe that they will be able to do their jobs more effectively?
  Mr. Hogg: A brief is being handed to me to answer that question, but I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not attempt to read it. The close print defeats my national health service spectacles. What teachers in the various institutions are saying to us is a matter of judgment and experience. That may be the view of the principals, but we shall have to wait and see what is said. 1 stand by the point that I made.
  If, in the face of all this, the importance of giving colleges more managerial freedom is argued, I can only say that such an argument reveals a startling lack of a sense of
  824
  proportion. Greater managerial freedom could easily be obtained by measures similar to local management of schools, without all the disadvantages of removing the institutions from local government.
  The desire to punish local authorities—I know not what else it can be—is evident, too, in the strange provision that if a college sells an asset after April 1993, the Government will get the proceeds but the local authority will still have to pay any debt charges outstanding on the asset.
  The clearest give-away is the representation of education authorities on governing bodies. Unlike business interests, and even the staff and students of institutions, there is no specific provision for the representation of education authorities, yet they are the only elected bodies that can represent local communities. The various business people who will populate the governing bodies, however worthy, will be unaccountable and will become self-perpetuating. Where is the democratic principle in that?
  If, however, local government representatives get on governing bodies, it is specified that they must not become chairmen. In other words, they will not just be second-class citizens but pariahs, rather in the way that those in custody in our prisons and those who populate another place are not allowed to vote—but not for the same good reasons.
  I know that the Minister of State is obsessed with manpower. It therefore struck me as odd that only 30 additional civil servants will be appointed as a consequence of the Bill. I am not a betting man, but I wager that if the Scottish Office intends to deal effectively with almost 50 institutions and thousands of students it will need more than that or it will be skimping the job. The transfer of further education to the Scottish Office is an act not of logic but of spite.
  Mr. George Foulkes: My hon. Friend said that 30 civil servants are not enough for the job. Is he aware that that is almost as many people as attended the Young Conservatives national conference for Scotland at the weekend?
  Mr. Hogg: Most of them were clearly in need of further education. Perhaps the Bill will be helpful after all.
  I am convinced that more civil servants will be required. The Minister is kidding us if he thinks that he can pass a Bill of this magnitude with provision for only 30 additional civil servants.
  The Bill asks institutions to "have regard" for special circumstances and special needs. It is interesting to note that language teaching for people whose family tongue is not English is specifically included under further education in the English Bill but seems to be specifically excluded in this Bill. When the Minister of State has had a chance—
  Mr. Foulkes: To wake up.
  Mr. Hogg—to consider the matter without allowing himself to be amused by the interruptions of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and everywhere else, perhaps he will say why it is overlooked in this Bill when it is specifically included in the English Bill. I am not referring to Gaelic speakers.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Why not?
  Mr. Hogg: Few people speak Gaelic as a first language.
  Mrs. Ewing: No.
  Mr. Hogg: Their number has been diminishing over the years. People have come in from Commonwealth countries, so this important point must be addressed.
  Particularly disturbing is the threat to academic freedom and freedom of speech in the all-embracing clause 36, which gives the Secretary of State power to make grants
  "subject to such terms and conditions as he may"
  define. No doubt the Minister will say that restricting what is taught, and how, is not his intention, but intent is no part of the law. The words appear in the Bill, and this year we have had two examples of the intervention of the Department of Education and Science, not the Scottish Office, in the subject matter and literature used for learning—once on a trades union studies course and once in respect of English language teaching.
  The truth is that the Bill is another piece of ill-considered legislation, advanced more for decoration, and one more hit at local government, than for any good that it is likely to do for access to education and training. All this is coming from a Government who profess to want to return services to the people. We know that that is a centralist joke.
  If the Bill has a permanent place in history, other than for the chaos that it will cause, it will be for enabling central institutions to become universities. That may have cosmetic advantages, but it typifies the weakness of the Bill and its lost opportunities. It may change the name, but the game seems to remain the same.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I call Mr. Bill Walker.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have just called the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I do not question your right to choose hon. Members in whatever order you think appropriate, but the hon. Gentleman was not present for the opening speeches. Is it in order for hon. Members who wish to speak to be called before hon. Members who have been waiting, or is that privilege reserved only for the Scottish Tory rump?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I well understand the resentment that the hon. Gentleman is expressing, but the Chair must take many factors into account. Who is called to speak is a matter for the absolute discretion of the occupant of the Chair.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: Before that intervention, I was about to offer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Chamber my apologies and regrets for being detained upstairs in Committee Room 10 studying the Bill to replace the community charge. I mistakenly thought that Opposition Members favoured that. I was involved in the Scottish part of the Bill until I came downstairs. I believe that the House will understand. Labour and Conservative Members from Scotland, who staff the Committees well, generally do most of the work.
  Mr. Foulkes: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. As one of the few Tory Back Benchers from Scotland, he faces the great difficulty of having to man Committees and attend the Chamber at the same time. But would not his job be easier if his right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr
  826
  (Mr. Younger) would attend the Chamber from time to time and carry out the responsibilities for which he was elected and is still being paid to do?
  Mr. Walker: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not expect me to respond to that intervention. It has little to do with the Bill. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should be careful. Labour Members from Scotland frequently consider Bills which mainly affect English areas of influence and spheres of operation. Often, they are unable to attend the Chamber because they are diligently carrying out their duties in Committee.
  I welcome the Bill before us now because it provides for further education colleges to be run by local boards of management. That is real devolution—not the stuff that we get dressed up by Opposition Members. It enables local people to make decisions about their local colleges. That is very important.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that further education colleges are responsible to local authorities which are democratically elected by the people of their communities? How can he argue that the proposed change would be more democratic? It would be much less democratic.
  Mr. Walker: I have no difficulty in arguing with that point. If the hon. Lady were to turn to her colleague's constituency of Angus, East, for example, she would find that the people in Arbroath—as in Forfar—fondly believe that they are better equipped than the people in Dundee to make decisions about their colleges. The people of Oban certainly believe that they are better equipped to make the decisions than the people in Glasgow. That is real devolution. It is sad, but whatever the merits have been in the past, one of the great advantages of making progress is that if one can allow local people to make decisions about what is happening in their community, they will happily accept. As I said, that is real devolution.
  Mr. Worthington: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Oban and the importance of local people deciding. Can he tell us which further education college serves Oban? Which is the nearest one?
  Mr. Walker: I cannot give an answer, but I can certainly give the answer for Arbroath and for Tayside. Perhaps the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who has just made an appearance, will help me out. She has been serving on the same Committee, so that is an example of how hard she and I have been working on behalf of Scottish interests. I am pleased that she has also escaped from the Committee to come to the Chamber. She will understand the interest when I say that the people of Oban are better equipped to make decisions about their area than the people from Glasgow. I do not pretend to be an expert on every further education college in Scotland. That would be nonsense because I am not.
  We hear much about funding and finance which is quite proper because one cannot run institutions without adequate funding. It is interesting that the 46 further education colleges in Scotland have budgets of £200 million and that they train 200,000 people each year. The Scottish education funding council to be set up under the Bill will fund universities and higher education in Scotland. Again, that involves the control of finance and the awarding of powers to various institutions which is real

  827
  devolution. What we mean by devolution is giving people in Scotland power over matters that they can influence directly. We are not playing the game of shadow politics.
  Mr. James Wallace: Most of us who refer to devolution or to home rule usually include a democratic element. Where is the democracy in the Bill's proposals?
  Mr. Walker: The interesting thing about democracy is that it is a very fragile creature. Unless one participates in democracy, there is a risk of it withering away. One of the problems at local government level in Scotland is the derisory turnout at the polls. However, in Arbroath there was a high turnout at the last regional election to depose the incumbent councillor. The councillor who won—I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree as the winner was a member of his party—did so on the basis that the people in Tayside based in Dundee did not understand, were not au fait with, and had no empathy with the problems of Arbroath. The hon. Gentleman is making my argument for me and I thank him. If one considers the low turnouts at local council elections, the argument about local accountability and democracy wears very thin.
  I return to the points that I was making about real devolution. The eight universities in Scotland receive £300 million a year of taxpayers' funds and the 18 grant-aided colleges receive £175 million of taxpayers' funds. Both sectors receive £20 million for capital works. That means that the Government, on behalf of the public or the taxpayer, have invested more than £700 million of taxpayers' funds in further and higher education in Scotland.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: The hon. Gentleman has a lot to say about devolution but is not there also a devolution of debt? How does he justify the fact that in the further education sector all the loan charges on debts incurred up to April 1991 will be borne by the local authorities but if the assets are sold after April 1993, the Government will derive the benefit although local authorities still have to pay the debt? At least Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman and I differ because I do not believe that the local authorities or the Government have any money. They have taxpayers' funds, and I am choosing my words carefully. I believe that taxpayers' funds are merely lent to the bodies involved—whether to the Government or to local authorities—to spend with wisdom. At the end of the day, it does not matter where one apportions the funds because the money belongs to the Government. Debts are merely taxpayers' funds left for a longer period to be paid. They are deferred payments.
  Mr. McMaster: In the circumstances that I have described, would not the poll tax payer at present have to pick up those debts?
  Mr. Walker: That is not the case. The taxpayers and community charge payers will always pick up the tab of any central or local government expenditure. Eighty nine per cent. of local authority expenditure will in future come from a combination of central taxation and business
  828
  taxation, and 11 per cent. will come from the community charge payers. At the end of the day, the payments are made by the same people.
  Since 1979 Scotland has had a substantial investment of taxpayers' funds. That has led to 61 per cent. of Scottish l6-year-olds staying on at school. That point was made by my hon.Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who was the Minister responsible for seeing through the House the Bill that made that possible. Sixty one per cent. stay on at school, which compares favourably with the 35 per cent. of 16-year-olds who stay on at school in England. We can be proud of that fact.
  Today we can see the benefits of that enlightened investment. Scotland has a well educated and well trained work force. That has been an important factor in attracting foreign investment to Scotland and has contributed massively to Scotland's success in changing from the old smoke-stack labour-intensive industries to today's modern high-tech service economy.
  Today there are more than 90,000 full-time and almost 50,000 part-time students in higher education in Scotland. Indeed, in 1979–80, 16–8 per cent. of school leavers in Scotland entered higher education. In 1988–89, 24·5 per cent. of school leavers did so, which makes nonsense of what we hear from the Opposition. To listen to them, one would think that we were not dealing with success, but we are. The Government have set a target of 30 per cent. by the year 2000. That all shows clearly who cares most about what we do for the youngsters who go to schools and colleges, and for the adults who wish to participate in further education.
  I go further. Few reasonable people can doubt that the Bill, which represents real devolution, will encourage greater participation in further and higher education, and in training in Scotland. It will also set up a coherent system of vocational qualifications, which is important because individuals being trained or educated must have qualifications that will assist them in the real world in which they will participate when they finish their education.
  There will be an increase in grants to the Scottish universities. In 1991–92, for example, there will be an increase of almost 11·5 per cent. over the previous year. That demonstrates clearly that the Government are putting the taxpayers' funding where it matters.
  I declare an interest. In recent times, all my daughters have attended Scottish institutions of higher education, and my youngest is currently attending one. I will not say where she is because she would not want me to draw attention to that.[Interruption.] Opposition Members obviously do not care so deeply and passionately about their children as I do about mine. I am not interested in political gimmicks for children. The extra funding in the grants to Scottish universities—to Aberdeen, for example, 13·1 per cent., to Dundee, close to my heart, 16·2 per cent., to St. Andrew's, another fine institution, 15·3 per cent., and to Stirling, 16·2 per cent., all of which are not far from Tayside, North—will make hon. Members realise that we have a parochial view of what happens at those institutions and that we are delighted by the increases.
  In Committee, we shall be given the opportunity to study the details. Today, I will put down a few markers. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that the success of the devolving of powers to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will call for a clear demonstration that Scotland will have a proper share of

  829
  the transfer of assets from the Universities Funding Council so that there is no possibility of any adverse effect on institutional funding as a result of start-up costs.
  The chairman and the chief executive of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will require to be individuals of substance who are capable of negotiating at United Kingdom level. They must not be civil service placemen who are seen at United Kingdom level as second division material. If that happens, Scotland will be in danger of losing out just as Scotland is in danger of losing out under Labour's second division assembly plans. We must be seen to be putting forward first division people within our plans. Scotland's universities must not lose out in areas such as research grant allocations where competition for funds will require tough negotiating at United Kingdom level.
  The Association of University Teachers (Scotland) has written to me making a number of claims. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening. It claims that the wording of the Bill is
  "potentially misleading in failing to distinguish clearly between the terms 'designated institution' and 'university', and in the correspondingly loose definition of the term 'higher education sector'. Clarification of definition would be"
  greatly appreciated. The association advocates definition along the lines of
  "section 61(5) of the Further and Higher Education (England and Wales) Bill".
  Dr. Hampson: Having spent many hours on the Education Reform Bill, which more or less contains the words used in the Further and Higher Education Bill, I can say that the Scottish draft is infinitely better.
  Mr. Walker: That is the kind of reply that I hoped to get from the Front Bench. I am not giving my views:, I am merely reading out——
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Read out what it says there.
  Mr. Walker: The Association of University Teachers (Scotland) has every right to have its view recorded. That does not mean that one agrees with every dot and comma. As I have always done to any body that troubled to contact me and to inform me of its concerns, I assured the association that on Second Reading and in Committee I would ensure that the views were listened to. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said, what we do in Committee is what makes our job so interesting. We can make people listen and hear, and we get replies that make sense. Opposition Members do not always listen in Committee because they have pre-set positions. They never put forward views that can be seen as sensible or logical.
  The Association of University Teachers (Scotland) goes on to say:
  "There is a long-held concept in the higher education sector that a funding body should be an expert intermediary, advising government about how its policies can best be translated effectively into institutional activity. The wording of the Bill in 31(3)(a) allows the Secretary of State to appoint a small minority of retired academics to the Council, an undesirable departure from the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988. We would suggest that the majority of members should be persons who 'have experience of (and) have shown capacity in the provision of higher education".
  I should have thought that people who had just retired would have that capacity. I have always believed that it was nonsense to suggest that someone who has reached the age of 60 on Tuesday has to retire on Wednesday. Such a
  830
  person has experience and knowledge. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I have often argued that point on matters affecting aviation decisions, when the same charges were made against retired people—it was said that they did not have the experience, although they might have been in charge of the whole operation the day before.
  The Association of University Teachers (Scotland) supports the establishment—my hon. Friend will be pleased at this—
  "of a Scottish Quality Assessment Committee, because of the responsibility of such a committee to advise the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, and the distinctive nature of the Scottish higher education system."
  The association says:
  "we strongly oppose section 36(2)(a) which gives power to the Secretary of State to impose requirements of any nature to be complied with by the institutions concerned".
  To me, that seems an odd comment as I have always believed that if taxpayers' funds are to be used, we must ensure that the referee—the Secretary of State—is clearly determined that they are used in the way that was intended when the funds were first voted for. However, it is necessary to put the association's views on the record.
  The association also says that it believes that
  "the advice provided by the Council to the Secretary of State under section 37(1) should be published. In connection with the duty of the Council to keep eligible activity under review (section 37(2)), we suggest that the Council be specifically empowered in this section to commission and carry out such research as it may think appropriate, and be involved in the collection, monitoring and publication of statistical information related to Scottish higher education."
  The association goes on—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The association will be interested to know that Opposition Members do not want its views to be recorded. It continues:
  "a notable omission in section 37 regarding the functions of the Council is the absence of any role for the Council in deliberations concerning the setting of student targets for the profession at United Kingdom level, such as takes place in connection with Medicine, Veterinary Medicine and Dentistry. We believe it is of prime importance that the interests of Scottish higher education institutions which have long been major providers of education for these professions should be appropriately represented."
  Before concluding my comment on the correspondence that I have received from the university teachers, I must advise the House that they believe that, in respect of clause 41 (1),
  "the Secretary of State should be required to seek the advice of the Council and the institutions"
  before he proceeds to close any institution. The association also states:
  "In connection with the Council arranging for the promotion or carrying out of efficiency studies (section 45(1)) the Council should be required to consult the institutions before such arrangement. We would also wish that the Bill restrict the class of persons who may be chosen to carry out such studies to be appropriately qualified."
  I assured the Association of University Teachers (Scotland) that I would raise those concerns on Second Reading and further address them in Committee. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, I am sure that I shall serve on the Standing Committee.
  Those who work in our universities and colleges of further and higher education must be able to believe that our supposed changes are sensible, that they have been argued and debated logically and that the Government have clearly spelt out the reasons for their proposals. Only in that way will it be possible to encourage the participation—the real devolution—that is proposed in

  831
  the Bill. In my meetings with university principals and with others who work in further and higher education, I have been encouraged by the way in which they have welcomed so many of the Bill's provisions. Although there will no doubt be some concern, in Dundee, for example, I believe that close examination of higher education institutions seeking university status will be required. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will put the case for Dundee if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  When talking to the principals of St. Andrew's, Dundee and Stirling, I have been most encouraged by the way in which those three universities have been working together to ensure that their work within their own geographic area is complementary and that they are not causing one another problems. Such give and take will be essential if we are to see the benefit of the proposed changes. Such an attitude will also be required from the various colleges which, irrespective of whether they eventually become universities, must be embraced as part of the system.
  I shall look carefully at the proposals from the colleges in Dundee which have a genuine case to put. It will be interesting to see how they can integrate their work and dovetail it into that of the three universities which are already working so well together in the central Perth area. That is an example that others should try to emulate. I hope that such co-operation will be the result of this important Bill.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Nicol Stephen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my first speech in the Chamber. As you can imagine, it is a great honour for me to address the House and to stand here on behalf of the electors of Kincardine and Deeside. It is also a tremendous responsibility, because I am only the second Member of Parliament to represent the Kincardine and Deeside constituency and I follow one of the most able, most conscientious and most respected Members of Parliament that the House has known. I have a copy of my predecessor's maiden speech with me. It was made on 1 March 1965—over 26 years ago—but the memory of his presence in the Chamber will still be fresh in the minds of many hon. Members.
  Alick Buchanan-Smith is sadly missed. He was an outstanding parliamentarian, a caring Member of Parliament with deeply held personal convictions and a man of principle and integrity. Many tributes have been paid to Alick by thousands of people—from the Prime Minister, the leaders of the Opposition parties and from many others—but the most appropriate one for me to read to the House came from someone in Kincorth, a council housing estate in the Aberdeen city part of the constituency. That was never a Tory heartland, but this is what was thought of Alick there:
  "Everybody knew Alick. Nothing was too much for him—it did not matter if you were Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrat or Tory. He always took an interest and he always helped out."
  He stood up for his people; he stood up for his principles; he stood up for his constituency; and he stood up for Scotland, even when that brought him into conflict with his own party.
  832
  Indeed, it was over the issue of home rule and his commitment to a Scottish Assembly that he resigned as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland in 1976. It therefore seems appropriate that the Kincardine and Deeside by-election has led to a fresh and increasingly urgent debate on the future government of Scotland.
  We are now at a watershed in Scottish politics. As with any watershed, it is difficult for everyone to agree to which side the flow of history may run. Conservative Members may even hope that the future can be frozen where we stand at present. They say that they can see no demand for a Scottish Parliament, but it is clearly now time for change. All Opposition Members can sense the movement—it is real; it is tangible. We do not know its exact course although many of us may predict it—but we do know that the flow will gather strength and pace, ending in an unstoppable tide that will bring home rule to Scotland.
  Hon. Members and even honourable newspapers such as The Sunday Times and even the Evening Standard would do well to remember that talk of the Scots as "subsidy junkies" with a begging bowl and a "gie us mair" mentality does little to enhance the Union north of the border. The tone is strident, snide and superior. It is said that the meek shall inherit the earth and, although I am sure that even the Conservative party has not yet set its sights so high, I can assure Conservative Members that the Meek approach would certainly transform their prospects in Scotland.
  I hope that gives a reasonably non-controversial and, if not that, at least a clear view of my first impressions of this House's attitude to Scotland. As a newcomer, I wonder if I might sketch in some of my other early impressions. It was a privilege to sit in the Chamber during last week's debate on Europe. For the most part, it showed the House at its best. I must admit that I smiled when I heard the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) refer to "elective dictatorship" and her plea that we must cling on to national sovereignty. I wonder which Lobby she would have walked through if she had been a Scots Member of Parliament in 1707, voting on the Bill of Union. I suspect that we all know the answer.
  The greatest shock for me as a new Member is the poor quality of facilities to allow a Member of Parliament to get on with his or her job. The history and the splendour of this place are certainly breathtaking and the bars and the restaurants are abundant, but surely it is not beyond the wit of a modern democracy to realise that 650 Members require 650 offices, 650 desks and 650 telephones. I am still between offices and partly between desks. If any hon. Member is prepared to swap my pink ribbon on which I can hang my sword for an efficient working office, he or she should let me know. I will even throw in my personalised cloakroom hook for good measure.
  I turn now to my constituency. It is a great honour to represent the people of Kincardine and Deeside in Parliament. It is a constituency of contrasts. It is a huge rural seat, but most people live in or close to Aberdeen city. It is an area with a strong economy but pockets of homelessness and real poverty. It is a place where the traditional industries of fishing and farming are found alongside the modern international energy industry.
  During the by-election the character of the area shone through with one further contrast. Despite the tense and important political battle, the candidates from all the political parties got on well. The campaign was a fair one. It was well fought. That is typical of the north-east of Scotland. However, during the campaign all parts of the

  833
  constituency were bound thoroughly together by issues that affected them equally. They included strong regional issues such as the demand for east-coast rail electrification from Aberdeen to Edinburgh, the campaign to save the Gordon Highlanders and the urgent need for a decommissioning scheme for the fishing industry.
  Then there were major national issues such as the rising tide of crime and the need for more police. Crime in Grampian has increased by more than 50 per cent. since 1979. Other issues included the plight of the elderly and their need for a better deal, especially during the winter months—Braemar in the highlands of Kincardine and Deeside is Britain's coldest village.
  Clearly, education was also one of the most important issues in the campaign, but before I discuss education in more detail, I must mention the key issue that worried local people most. It was mentioned on doorstep after doorstep. The opt-out scheme for Foresterhill hospital was opposed by all five candidates in the by-election. The Conservative candidate said that he judged and rejected the application by following two tests: first, improvement in patient care and, secondly, community support. He rightly said that the Foresterhill application passed neither test. There is a huge opposition to the opt-out. There is no community support. Local nurses, doctors and consultants all fear the consequences of the proposal for patient care. The Secretary of State should reject the opt-out without further delay.
  I am pleased that the important issue of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill is the subject of my first speech in the Chamber. I am a member of a regional education authority. My parents are both teachers. I benefited—I believe—from Scottish higher education. Therefore, I am pleased that there are some positive aspects to the Bill.
  The higher education sections in part II of the Bill are to be welcomed, although they are overdue. The Government could have acted six years ago when the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council recommended a new funding and planning council. That was turned down by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) on the ground that it would start on the slippery slope to devolution. As an aside, may I compliment the Secretary of State on how easily the word "devolution" slipped from his lips earlier in the debate.
  Therefore, we have had another six years of lack of planning across Scottish higher education. The eight Scottish universities have also had to suffer the Universities Funding Council which set in train complex planning exercises, demanding a great deal of work by the universities, and then paid little or no attention to them.
  Part I of the Bill on further education causes much greater concern. The idea of the self-governing FE college was born out of not educational rationale but the desire of the Secretary of State for the Environment to cut local authority spending and resolve his party's poll tax problems. The changes are being made for alien, non-educational reasons. They are yet another assault on local government, yet another attempt by the Government to centralise power.
  If FE colleges leave local authority control, how can vocational education be planned in conjunction with local authority schools? What provision is to be made for the disabled and handicapped? How can a fully integrated system be provided? The timing of the change is also bad.
  834
  The local enterprise companies—I am a member of one—are still finding their training feet. The Howie committee report on highers and vocational qualifications at school level is still awaited. So the cart is being placed very much before the horse. That point is emphasised by the fact that the Scottish Office knew nothing of the changes in advance of the poll tax crisis and has had to invent educational reasons for them.
  Lastly, I should like to mention the position of the Robert Gordon's institute of technology. A major part of its campus falls within the Kincardine and Deeside constituency. It has a proud tradition, an international reputation for academic excellence and strong links with local industry. Yet the Government seem at best to have forgotten about it. During the by-election the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) gave one of the firmest nudges and biggest winks of the campaign when he said that RGIT was very likely—he may even have said extremely likely—to receive university status. I welcome his statement. The hon. Member for Stirling is a member of the Government and I urge the Government to end the uncertainty right now. They have done that for Glasgow and Napier. Give RGIT a clear, cast-iron guarantee. End the doubts about its future and give it the university status which it so richly merits.
  For all the reasons that I have given, the Liberal Democrats cannot support the Second Reading of the Bill and have tabled a reasoned amendment.
  7.5 pm
  Dr. Keith Hampson: It is a great credit to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) that he is here today and made the speech that he did. I have something in common with him, although he probably does not realise it. We both fought safe Conservative seats in a by-election. The difference is that he won and I lost. I lost to a Liberal. However, I hope that he will not take it amiss if I point out that the Liberal did not last long and within a matter of six months the Conservatives regained the seat. For the time that the hon. Gentleman is with us, however, we genuinely look forward to his speeches. He spoke today eloquently from experience and, as we all did, I took to heart the kind words that he said about his predecessor, who was deeply respected here and highly regarded and liked. On the night of the by-election the hon. Gentleman made another warm and effective tribute to his predecessor, which we all appreciated. That evening, as the Conservative candidate said, one saw that it had been a fair campaign. The hon. Gentleman deserves his success. He won well, he is here, and we look forward to the speeches that he will make in his time here. I know that he will represent his constituents of all parties as well as he is able.
  I feel something of an interloper in the debate, but I hope that the House will not feel that I am too much so. I lectured for seven years at the university of Edinburgh.[Interruption.] It is difficult to come into a Scottish debate. They are not so genteel as English debates. The years that I spent at Edinburgh university are among those to which I look back the most. They were fine years. I am also a parliamentary consultant to the Association of University Teachers and I should like to make some remarks about the Bill in the context of its views and my experience in Edinburgh. I have been involved in higher education for

  835
  many years across the United Kingdom. I also took part for many hours in proceedings on the Education Reform Bill.
  The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside referred to the Robert Gordon's institute of technology. In the mid-1970s, when I was Opposition spokesman on higher education, I had the great pleasure of visiting that institute. I was impressed with what it was doing. It took a series of initiatives in North sea studies and oil-related courses which were ahead of what Aberdeen university was engaged in. The institute may not have the full range of courses that other universities have, but that is not relevant in the type of system for which I have campaigned for many years. We should have a plural system of institutions which all have the generic name "university", but which have different niches, with different experience and expertise to offer.
  I join the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside in the hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will settle the status of Robert Gordon's institute of technology. When it comes to a decision about resolving the names of the polytechnics that are about to become universities, my right hon. and hon. Friends in the English Department of Education and Science should regard RGIT and Napier college as examples. I have never understood why polytechnics are scampering for a geographical location in their title. I should have thought that the Scots example was a fine one. We owe debts to many famous people in the history of both our countries. Why do not institutions name themselves after a person and link the name to their town if they like? Directors of polytechnics and the Department of Education and Science should look to the good examples in Scotland.
  Mr. Foulkes: As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, no Opposition Members objected to his participation in the debate—quite the reverse. I recall his time at Edinburgh university, where he taught with great distinction, but will he answer a simple question? I am becoming sick to the teeth of hearing about the west Lothian question. Only nine hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will favour the Bill, yet at 10 o'clock Members of Parliament representing English constituencies will vote it down. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that it causes a great deal of resentment and anger in Scotland that such a thing could take place? That is equally important, if not more important, than the bloody west Lothian question.
  Dr. Hampson: The hon. Member who represents west Lothian might have something to say about that. I am not the right Member of Parliament to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, for one good reason. I do not know whether he remembers it. I remain one of the unreformed devolutionists in the Conservative party. 1 experienced two intriguing and valuable years, in 1968 and 1969, as joint secretary of Sir Alec Douglas-Home's Scottish constitutional committee, when such matters were considered. I was of the view then that at least some form of devolution was necessary and I am still of that view, although we may differ as to the extent. When we considered the higher education system in Scotland as part of the committee's
  836
  work, there was no question but that all the universities, their vice-chancellors and staff, and the AUT were against devolution to a separate Scottish system.
  Mr. McFall: To follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), knowing the hon. Gentleman's interest in devolution and Opposition Members' frustration because of lack of scrutiny, does the hon. Gentleman agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that the Bill should be sent to a Special Standing Committee where it should be given further scrutiny?
  Dr. Hampson: If I am frank, I must say that it is a waste of time for the bulk of Members of Parliament to vote on the Bill tonight when they do not participate in the debate. Scottish Members of Parliament have to be here. They are taking time which some hon. Members representing the regions might like to use to discuss the problems of the north of England, for example. I would be delighted if Scottish business were being debated in an assembly in Edinburgh.
  Mr. Dewar: May I reinforce the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)? The hon. Gentleman takes a serious interest in the workings of this place and in the scrutiny of legislation. There has not been a special procedure committee with the three-day Select Committee format to scrutinise any Scottish legislation since that procedure was introduced. The AUT would probably agree that there could be much useful probing of the Bill. Would the hon. Gentleman join me in trying to persuade the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—the lonely sentinel on the Government Front Bench—that the Government should consider that constructively?
  Dr. Hampson: Judging by my experience of education Committees, the answer is probably no. The last time I was on such a Committee, scrutiny took far too long. The procedure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) mentions is viable and I would like it to be used. I supported it when the House Committees decided that that was something that we should try. Other things proposed by Edward Short at that time have not been implemented either, but that is the way of life here.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Dr. Hampson: I am obviously popular in Scottish debates, and I should love to answer everyone, but if hon. Members will allow me I shall return to the attitude of Scottish universities and of academics in Scotland. I still have connections in Edinburgh and know that their view has changed. However, we should not be cavalier. They had sound reasons for not wanting to be separated. They saw themselves as part of one community of learning with a transfer of ideas and people. I might not have been a university lecturer in Edinburgh if the system had been entirely Scottish-run.
  At the time people were concerned that the system could become parochial, that it would favour the appointment of Scots to Scottish universities and a higher proportion of Scottish students in Scottish universities.

  837
  Although in some universities, such as Glasgow, students were overwhelmingly Scottish, at others they certainly were not.
  Scottish academics thought that it would be unhealthy for Scottish higher education to become so parochial. They wanted to stay in the mainstream of the world of education in the United Kingdom and to maintain the movement of scientific ideas and links to the computer board south of the border. They have changed their minds, but I suspect that they may come to regret it.
  The reason why some of them changed their minds is that they got fed up with the operations of the Department of Education and Science and the Treasury. They think that they have been badly done by financially and will get a better deal from a Scottish committee. I must warn them that there is no certainty in that. In my experience, the smaller the body, the more restricted its funds. Scottish universities might find that there are different priorities and that they are regarded as having received a higher proportion of resources than other parts of the system. Scottish universities have done extremely well and have taken a higher proportion of students than the rest of the United Kingdom system, and all credit to them. However, it is possible that a devolved system in Scotland might decide that they had had a nice time and might not increase resources but trim them hack and use them in other areas.
  I am not against the proposal, but people in the Scottish university system should not be too cavalier about how the situation might evolve.
  Mr. Dalyell: If the English part of the system finds itself in tightened financial circumstances, would it not be only human to think that they would cut back their expenditure over the border?
  Dr. Hampson: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are worth considering. On a broader scale, I have always argued that the university world has been put under enormous pressure because of the extent to which numbers have risen. The scale of the expansion has caused many difficulties. Surely all hon. Members have supported that general direction—there has never been such expansion, such a widening of opportunities for young people, either south or north of the border. The scale of opportunities presented to young people in Scotland is greater than that south of the border. The proportion of people in that age group has risen to a greater extent north of the border. In the past decade in the south it has increased from 13 per cent. to 17 per cent., but north of the border it has increased from 16 per cent. to 24·5 per cent. A disproportionate proportion of resources have been put into the Scottish higher education system, compared with the amount that people in my university of Leeds, or in the universities of York or Bradford, would feel that they warranted.
  People forget that whatever the pressures on institutions, and whatever financial difficulties they face, we are spending a significantly higher proportion of our gross domestic product on higher education than any of our major rivals, apart from the United States. The figures are staggering. The latest figures that I could find were for 1986–87, when we were spending 1·1 per cent. of GDP on higher education, the Germans were spending 0–6 per cent. and the Japanese were spending 0–4 per cent. Obviously, the GDP is much greater, so more money is going into the system, but that is because in the 1960s and mid-1970s in
  838
  particular—decades not under a Conservative Government—we had such economic problems that our GDP was hardly growing. By Japanese standards, therefore, we have a long inheritance of a small GDP. In terms of proportion, which is usually the statistical base used by Labour Members, we are spending more than our rivals. Indeed, it would be hard to increase the figure dramatically.
  Following my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—[HoN. MEMBERS: " Where is he?"] I shall follow what he said about the Association of University Teachers. Central to the university world is the destruction of academic freedom, as it is put in the brief and as it was debated in the other place on the Education (Schools) Bill.
  As I said when I intervened, I spent many hours on the Education Reform Bill. We debated the same issue then. It is undoubtedly the case that the words hardened in the 1988 Bill from anything that we had experienced in legislation previously. In this and the English Bill, the words have been tightened further. On balance, although I started with the view during that debate that the legislation should be heavily modified, amended or, indeed, scrapped, I concluded that the Government had a case. There is such a thing as financial accountability. These are large sums. It is a requirement of the Treasury and of the law that the Government must be able to put conditions on the money to avoid its abuse.
  Equally, the powers can lead to positive results. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) talked about part-time education. That is one of the great success records of the past few years. Part-time provision has grown more markedly than full-time provision. My point is that it is only because the Government can place terms on the grant aid to the council that growth in part-time education can be directed, if that is desired. The Government give instructions to the council that it will get £X million, but only provided that it is spent on the provision and expansion of part-time education.
  Although I understand the anxieties of the academic world that some Governments and Ministers might try to interfere with courses and the operation of the university, we were given a guarantee, certainly in 1988, that that was not the intent. I hope that we shall have similar guarantees. Although the powers look stark and horrendous, they are necessary to direct and use the money effectively.
  A further tightening over the 1988 Bill is in the case of bankruptcy of an institution. Some universities have got themselves into a terrible financial mess. It would be wrong for a Secretary of State to have no power to intervene either to stop the expenditure or to direct it towards saving the institution from the dire financial consequences of mismanagement.
  That is how I read those powers. Nevertheless, I join hon. Members on both sides in asking my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to reassure the House that this measure is not about interfering with course development or specifically directing money to or between institutions, but that it is primarily to give the institutions overall financial accountability and, if need be, to direct the council's activities when it funds institutions into areas of priority which the Government have determined.
  It is worth mentioning that those of us who for years have campaigned to abolish the binary divide now have a Government who have grasped that nettle. Ministers in the Scottish Office and the Department of Education and

  839
  Science deserve great credit for that. The pressures against it, largely in the university world, have been tremendous and have worked against all Governments.
  I advocated the abolition of the binary divide long before it appeared in a Labour party manifesto or proposal. At the time I was shadowing Gerry Fowler, who was having to defend it. The Labour Government went through the same problems. The universities did not think that the institutions were equivalent. They did not want the dilution of the concept of a university. That could be heard all over again the other night from Lord Beloff and many others in the House of Lords. That concern remains.
  I have always felt that the fact that these institutions were not universities left them at a great disadvantage in our culture in terms of winning overseas contracts and convincing parents, pupils and teachers that the education would be as good and the opportunities as fine—indeed, sometimes more exciting at polytechnics—as universities. It was an uneven playing field, to use that ghastly term. The change of name at least gives those institutions better opportunities to attract talent and develop as they want to.
  One important caveat applies as much to this as to the English debate. There is no logic, I hope, in saying that in changing the name to university, these institutions must change their direction and what they have been doing. Unfortunately, we have a history of precisely that happening. At times we have created new institutions which have modelled themselves on the old, more elite institutions, particularly Oxbridge. The universities of Manchester, Leeds, Bristol and Nottingham, as well as Armstong college, Newcastle, were all community colleges funded and set up by local business interests to be different. It was not long—indeed, only until between the wars—before they were not taking a majority of local students and they were dropping part-time courses. After the war, the external degree courses were dropped at London univerisity. Those colleges aimed to be, and became, more and more like Oxbridge. We set up the colleges of advanced technology because of that, but to some extent they, too, aped the university world, although not all of them have done so. Obviously, Brunel remains distinct. Then we set up the polytechnics.
  In creating a single university system, it is essential to retain diversity. Above all, these institutions must set their sights on particular goals. They are particularly good in certain directions and they must carry on in them. I hope that the funding mechanism will encourage them so to do.
  Finally—[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have taken many interventions. I come finally to the focus of opposition from both main Opposition parties—further education. They have, rightly, welcomed the higher education provisions in the Bill. Many fears about the further education provisions are spurious. I can see the perfectly proper educational argument that there must be relationships between the school system and the next stage. It is also perfectly right that FE colleges must be responsive to the training and educational requirements of their community. No one can deny that.
  Local education authorities and local councils do not educate anybody. Local councillors are not teachers. They sit on committees. They may have an interest and they may take an active role, but not necessarily. Councillors have been put on various bodies simply because places have to
  840
  be filled and not because of a commitment. The idea that a college must be democratically accountable is farcical. What is needed is a college that delivers what parents, pupils, students and trainees want. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] It is not done by having councillors. People at the education face and those in the training world know. They have connections with the college and its staff and with the people in the community. Often it is councillors and the council apparatus that get in the way of that process. I have known many instances when FE colleges would and could have responded to local requirements. For example, when factories have gone bust, they were prepared to set up courses to meet the community's retraining needs. They have to go through a great bureaucratic process to get the council's approval, the funding and the rest. There is no need for that.
  An LEA or a council does not need a role for an institution, its staff and principal to be responsive locally. There is no logical connection. An independent, free-standing institution can be highly responsive locally, and examples of that—above all, the polytechnics—are clear to see. Equally, the universities are now seen in that light. They were more locally oriented after the war, and in the last decade or so they have again become more responsive to their local communities, regardless of any relationship with their city or town councils.
  I do not for a moment accept the argument that there must be retention in a so-called integrated system. What we are now doing—we have done it with the polytechnics and we are now doing it with the FE colleges—is giving the principals and staff of those institutions more scope to deliver what they are good at, which is high quality courses tailored to the requirements of their communities. We should remember that if they do not do that, there will be a backlash against them. In part, the funding system will require them to play their proper role. If they cannot attract students to their courses, they will not have the scale of funds to expand and develop as they wish. So they will have to make themselves attractive. Some are already doing that successfully, some less successfully.
  We are undertaking the present reorganisation not because there is any perception of failure in the system on the part of the central institutions, the polytechnics or the FE colleges. This is a genuine attempt to allow them to develop further on the successes that they have demonstrated they can achieve. The teaching staff have abilities and all concerned have specialities. We are now giving them freedom to develop those.
  I have a caveat to enter, and that concerns sixth forms. I have always believed that the Conservative party was proud of the sixth form tradition and wanted to maintain viable and strong sixth forms. If further education colleges go into the business, as it were, of advertising their wares—attracting post 16-year-old students into their premises because they offer a more mature atmosphere, a bigger range of courses and so on—that could have the magnet effect of damaging sixth forms, particularly those that are viable only at the margins. We must seriously consider what that relationship is to be.
  Overall, what we are doing today, and generally what we propose in the English Bill, marks a great advance for the institutions, for the students in them and, in this measure, for the people of Scotland.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I join the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) in congratulating the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) on his maiden speech. I also welcome him to the Opposition Benches. I hope that he will be with us after the next general election, and if the people of his constituency take note of what he said in this debate, there is more than a fair chance of that happening, though if the Conservatives can find someone of the calibre of the former right hon. Gentleman who represented that constituency, there might be a different story to tell. Mr. Buchanan-Smith had our genuine respect and we were sad to lose him. Having said that, I welcome the new hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside and congratulate him on his speech. He may have the good fortune to become a member of the Standing Committee which considers the Bill.
  It is ironic that the Government had to rely on the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West to speak following the maiden speech of the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps that reflects the apathy among Government Back Benchers. It is regrettable that the Government have been unable to encourage a decent turnout of their Back Benchers on an issue as important as this. I think I see the Minister shaking his head in dissent. I do not want to refer by name to Conservative Members who are not in their places and who are attending to other important business. I can think of at least one in the Conservative Scottish group who could have been here to speak following the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside.
  The occasions are rare when my hon. Friends and I have cause to welcome any part, however insubstantial, of Conservative legislation on Scotland, but I, too, take pleasure in welcoming certain aspects of the White Paper on higher and further education. We are, of course, aware of the rather suspect reasons behind these moves, but it is a pleasing irony that sees a Conservative Government, all too evidently without a mandate to rule in Scotland, introducing policies to place the control of higher education institutions in the hands of a Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. That, after all, has been a long-term aim of the Labour party.
  As my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) have made clear—in the debate today and in that on 4 November—there are in the Bill plenty of matters of real concern to us that must be addressed by the Secretary of State. Of those, the abolition of the binary divide and the associated creation of new divisions in terms of status, funding and future development are of particular concern to me and my hon. Friends and to all involved in higher education in Scotland.
  I shall concentrate on the institution in Dundee that is affected most directly by the Bill. The Secretary of State pointed out at the end of October that Dundee institute of technology would be among those to gain full degree-awarding powers in its own right. However, unlike Napier, Robert Gordon's, Paisley college and Glasgow polytechnic, Dundee—alone of the five technological institutions—was denied the right to back up degree awards with the title of university. That is remarkable, not only because of the lack of equity but because of a total absence of foresight by the Government.
  842
  The Dundee institute of technology was designated in 1901 as one of four colleges at that time loosely termed "industrial universities". Its aim then, as now, was the creation of a steady stream of graduates prepared for the world of work and industry, ready to earn a living and to play a valuable part in the national economy.
  Like all the Scottish institutes of technology, the courses are of high quality in diverse areas such as biotechnology, human resource management, mechatronics, nursing and software engineering. Further, the institute provides industry and other external organisations with extensive research and consultancy services. In the last financial year, that resulted in a gross income of over £1 million. I need not remind the Secretary of State that Dundee institute of technology was among the first to be accredited by the Council for National Academic Awards and to be given delegated authority to confer degrees.
  In short, there can be no doubt about the quality and breadth of courses offered by Dundee institute of technology and of its ability to participate effectively in assisting industry and commerce, answering their requirements and even providing direction towards a more effective partnership between education and industry. Nowhere was that better reflected than in a statement in The Dundee Courier and Advertiser on 18 November by Dr. James G. Adamson, vice-president of NCR. Having worked closely with the Dundee institute of technology for the last 11 years, Dr. Adamson is reported as warning:
  "not to give university status to the institute would be `disadvantageous to the Dundee and Tayside economic community and to employers in Taysid."
  He went on:
  "We are concerned that DIT may not be titled a university, as we believe that this would put the college at a serious disadvantage in relation to its competitors, and this would be to the detriment of customers such as ourselves."
  NCR is one of the few American companies which, from the start, has placed great emphasis on research and development in Scotland. It knows the worth of the guidance that has come from the Dundee institute of technology.
  Yet the ability of that institute to maintain its position and develop its research capacity—not forgetting the most important factor, the ability to attract students and funding—will now certainly be under threat. After all, the Dundee institute of technology will be the only degree-awarding institution in Scotland without university status. Nor should we forget that most, if not all, of the 33 polytechnics in England will be given university status. That will all combine to create a squeezing effect, the logical consequence of which will be the relegation of the Dundee institute of technology to second division status.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, Labour wants
  "to ensure that the binary divide will genuinely be dispensed with and that further divides are not introduced".—[Official Report, 4 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 280.]
  Those were not the words of the Secretary of State but that is exactly what would happen.
  A letter from one of my constituents, Mr. George B. Fyfe, shows the concern of those who have gone through the Dundee institute of technology. Mr. Fyfe gained a degree in electronic engineering at the institute and says:
  "I will be placed at a serious disadvantage when applying for future job opportunities as potential employers will view my degree as being of lower standing as those from an Institution which will be of 'University' status … To create

  843
  a situation in which DIT will be the only degree awarding Institution in the United Kingdom not having 'University' in its title is to me completely contrary to the aim put forward in the White Paper, of eliminating the binarised higher education system."
  Mr. Fyfe is one of the success stories of the Dundee institute.
  I understand that the Secretary of State based his decision on size, but his size-based conditions have more relevance to England than to Scotland. It is an interesting attitude for the Government to adopt. Those factors bear little significance to Scotland, but they are not the only irrational determinants. Until recently, four of the existing eight Scottish universities were too small to satisfy the Secretary of State's conditions. Furthermore, Dundee institute of technology is expanding its operations and mergers are already under way with other colleges in the area.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State has received a paper from the institute. I draw his attention to page 3 of that paper, in which the institute sets out proposals that are now under discussion. The Scottish Office is aware that it is proposed that two colleges of nursing and midwifery, with which the institute has long-standing and mutually beneficial links, should merge with the institute. The merger has been approved in principle by the health boards concerned. That would increase the institute's equivalent full-time student population by about 900, and the institute expects to increase its full-time enrolment to 3,250 in the next three years.
  There will be major disadvantages because of minor details of numbers which, in a short time, may no longer be relevant. Should we allow a needlessly unfair situation to come about? Surely we should look at quality rather than quantity. We have already witnessed the Government's assaults on Scottish Army regiments in the pursuit of "quality rather than quantity". Are we to presume that the tables will be turned on educational matters, which are as important—if not more important—to the nation? Does the quality of education offered by the Dundee institute of technology amount to nothing? Is size really the most important factor?
  Do not the people of Dundee, and the employers there and from as far afield as Perthshire, Fyfe and North Tayside, deserve equal provision to that of Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh, all of which have increased access to university status, degree-awarding institutions with all their associated advantages? If that position is allowed to prevail, the divisions will become concrete. The gap between the Dundee institute of technology and other institutions will widen and combine with other valid Labour party concerns on funding, provision of materials and research contracts, to work against the institute in its determination to gain university status and continue to provide the calibre of graduates mentioned by Dr. Adamson.
  I look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill when we shall be able to explore the other aspects of the measure with which I disagree. I thought that it was important tonight to express the concerns of the Dundee institute of technology, which are shared by many others, including academics in Dundee. I hope that the Minister will have regard to those concerns and give a fuller and more favourable reply when he winds up the debate.
  7.45 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I add my congratulations and those of my hon. Friends to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen), who made a caring and thoughtful maiden speech. He and I will certainly not disagree on many issues, but we may, in later months, dispute the points of emphasis. I wish him well in his work as the new hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside. As a fellow Grampian MP, I know that he has large shoes to fill. His predecessor, Alick Buchanan-Smith, was highly regarded by all hon. Members, particularly by those of us who represent Grampian seats. If ever trans-party boundaries could be crossed in terms of seeking improvements for our constituents, Alick Buchanan-Smith was one of the most generous hon. Members whom I have ever come across. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will follow in that tradition.
  I welcome the fact that the Bill is specifically for Scotland. It stands in stark contrast to what happened to school education, because only one clause of the Education (Schools) Bill applies to Scottish schools. In my many years in this House and in politics, this is the first time that I have seen such a vital part of Scottish education shoehorned into a United Kingdom Bill. That is widely regarded by the Scottish National party and people involved in education as a major insult to their interests and traditions and the care which they register for our education system.
  I hope that the Government will agree that the Bill should be referred to a Special Standing Committee, because it is a real opportunity for Scottish Members and organisations to sit down together and review what is happening in further and higher education to ensure that the needs of that sector are addressed.
  Before the House votes on the Opposition's motion to refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee, I hope that the Minister will say which Back-Bench Members he plans to have on the Standing Committee, because the Conservative Benches are obviously lacking in Members. Indeed, the Minister is the only member of the Government present—[HoN. MEMBERS : "There is one hiding in the corner."] I apologise to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), but he appeared to be hiding behind the Clerk's Table.
  I hope that there will not be a repetition of what happened on the Bill on self-governing schools, when the Minister packed the Committee Room with six of his cronies to legislate against the democratic wishes of the Scottish people and the elected representatives in this House. It is important that he should say who will man the Conservative Benches in Committee, because that is vital to everyone involved in further and higher education in Scotland.
  I should be much happier if I felt that the Bill was driven by a genuine concern for Scottish post-school education. Yet again, we are being dragged along with the philosophy of what is happening south of the border. Because an English Bill is dealing with further and higher education, Scotland must have one too. The philosophy that underpins the Bill is alien to the traditions that we know and respect in education in Scotland.
  At best, the Minister of State was slightly mischievous when he set draftsmen the task of drawing up the Bill. He has put together aspects of the changes which the vast majority of hon. Members and their colleagues in further

  845
  and higher education would welcome, but he has also introduced into the legislation aspects that none of us would welcome. I said that he was mischievous; others have expressed it more strongly.
  The president of the Scottish Further and Higher Education Association, Mr. Kenneth Johnson, addressing a meeting in Scotland at the weekend, described the Minister with responsibility for Scottish education as "ridiculous and fanatical"—something that one would not expect the Minister to regard as complimentary. However, knowing the Minister's attitude, I think that he might well regard it as such. Mr. Johnson said that he did not normally feel himself politically motivated but Government meddling in education had forced him to rethink.
  "The problem with the Conservative Party in Scotland is that it has either too few MPs or nine too many."
  That problem could well be resolved at the next general election.
  Aspects of the Bill to be welcomed include the removal of the binary divide, which I have always seen as false, and the establishment of a funding council. However, I even have reservations about those features. I am not convinced that the structure that is being set up under the proposal will provide the necessary foundation for a strategic post-school education system.
  Scotland is a small nation with a population of just over 5 million. I have always thought that a simple way to progress would be to ensure that we have an overall view of what we expect to attain in post-school education. I do not know that the removal of the binary divide as presently defined in the Bill will achieve the strategic overall view that is so necessary.
  In the 1970s, when the Scottish constitutional issue raised its head yet again and 11 members of the Scottish National party dominated many of the debates in the House, the university principals were very much against the idea of including the universities within the educational responsibility of a devolved Assembly in Scotland. I never understood that attitude, and in the years since then the principals have come to realise that to have their own funding council would offer them a better opportunity to protect themselves from the ravages of Governments who have cut educational funding, and allow them to reach out into the wider world, particularly as we look towards the European dimension and all that will happen as a result of closer political and monetary union with our European counterparts. I am pleased that the principals and vice-chancellors of our universities are now welcoming that facility, but I believe that we must consider carefully how the funding will be allocated to the council.
  Scotland trains more than twice its per capita requirements of doctors. Many students who come to Scottish universities to train in medicine and veterinary medicine are from other parts of the United Kingdom. They train in Scotland because it is well recognised as having expertise in those subjects. If the funding council is to consider solely the population basis in Scotland, it will neglect a service that we gladly offer to the other nations of the United Kingdom. We do not expect those students to stay in Scotland; we realise that they may return to England, Wales and Northern Ireland to build up the health service in those communities. That vital issue must be addressed by the funding council if we are to ensure that universities not only expand but maintain the best traditions and services offered in the past.
  846
  Clause 31 gives the Secretary of State a free hand when appointing members to the funding council. The Scottish National party believes that the council should include an elected element. We could debate how that could best be achieved, and I shall make various suggestions in Committee. University principals and college heads should, acting as a group, have the right to elect someone to be their representative within the funding council.
  I also believe that student organisations such as the National Union of Students and the students' representative councils should be allowed a student voice on the council. We must look at how appointments are made. I do not believe in patronage or that a system should be writ large on the face of the Bill whereby the Secretary of State can, on a whim, appoint people without taking account of academic needs and aspirations, and the wishes of the population as a whole.
  I have knowledge of further education issues, as I worked in further education, albeit briefly, at two important institutions—Clydebank college, which serves Oban and Tiree to the west, and Langside college in Glasgow. We provided a service for people employed in social work who wished to take exams to attain professional qualifications. That was an important aspect of the work of the further education colleges.
  Can the Minister reassure me that the links between community education and adult education, which are clearly defined at present through the funding link, will continue if the Bill is not amended? If the funding link is broken, the services provided by community and adult education will deteriorate. If we are to crush the notion that education starts at the age of five and normally finishes at the age of 16, we must fight extremely hard to ensure that community and adult education are recognised for the worthwhile services that they provide in the education system.
  Conservative Members talk about the devolution of education, and their idea of devolution. Why do they believe that the repositories of wisdom in further education are solely the local business communities? Local authorities are democratically elected; councillors, like hon. Members, have to put themselves up for election every so often to answer for their actions. If the public decide to re-elect them, they do so on the basis of their manifestos.
  Local authorities have had a responsible attitude towards further and higher education. I think particularly of the Grampian region, which I know best because it is my local authority. The work it does is much to its credit. It provides courses and recognises local needs, but it also realises that education is not just about obtaining a job. Education also encompasses what we in Scotland refer to as the democratic intellect. Education should be welcomed as a pursuit in itself, not downgraded as though it were solely for the purpose of achieving a job.
  Access to education is a key issue. White Papers and speeches in the House have contained many fine comments about widening and ensuring access to education. I suspect that there is not a single hon. Member who, during the past few years, has not experienced at first hand the difficulties of individual constituents seeking bursaries or grants in order to pursue educational goals. It seems that those people often fall between two stools—local authority bursary systems and the grant system—or perhaps they do not qualify for a grant due to lack of the relevant residential qualifications.

  847
  I know of a young man who is trying to pursue a career at Napier college. He and his parents returned to Scotland from South Africa two and a half years before his course started. At the end of October 1991, he was informed by the Scottish Office Education Department that he would not receive a grant because he did not satisfy the three-year residency requirement. He decided that, with parental support, he would start the course, assuming that once he had achieved the three-year residential qualification he would then be eligible for a grant for the rest of his course. However, he has been told that he must take a year out of his course and support himself if he is ever to have any opportunity of being offered an SED grant.
  Therefore, one place on that course has been lost this year and the man has had a valuable year of his academic and professional life lopped off. The SED should have had the discretion to ensure that the young man could obtain a grant for such a popular course. It is the central authority's inflexible application of the regulations which makes it so difficult for us to explain to our constituents what is happening to them.
  I am also concerned about access for and the support given to women who return to further education looking for new job opportunities, perhaps when their families have grown or as heads of single-parent families. I am often asked by women in my constituency how they are expected to manage. If they are given a small grant, they lose other benefits such as housing or child care benefit, which makes it impossible for many of them to take up the opportunities for retraining in the local colleges. There should be a special attitude towards women who wish to return to training, particularly later in life when they have raised their children.
  It will come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that I have read the Bill carefully to see what provision it makes for youngsters with special needs coming into training and education. I have long had links with the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, for whose work and research I have the greatest respect. It too has read the Bill with great care, and it is deeply concerned that there appears to be a lack of specific provision for the mentally handicapped entering our further education colleges.
  The society has pointed out that previously there existed a clear system of integrated local authority commitment to such people. If further education colleges are to become separate institutions, they will not be part of that integrated framework. They will only have a duty to have regard to people with special needs, whereas previously they had a duty to take account of such people. The Minister must tell us tonight exactly how he sees that working out for the benefit of people with special needs in our communities.
  Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend will know that I have a particular concern in that area. Does she agree that direct local authority involvement is of the utmost importance in that area, so taking those colleges out of local authority control is particularly damaging?
  Mrs. Ewing: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. I think that all hon. Members appreciate his particular interest in the matter. He has clearly spelt out his own attitude, with which I agree.
  848
  The removal of colleges from local authorities will be damaging. If, at the end of the day, the further education colleges are meant under the new councils to specialise in vocational education, will they provide non-vocational courses in subjects such as life skills, or will that be left to local authorities which might not have the necessary funding?
  If the local authority is to be responsible, where will it find the resources to provide such services? We will end up with a dangerous situation, in which special needs education receives only a token appreciation from the colleges, providing low quality and poorly resourced courses. If ever there was a need for us to consider our educational priorities, it is to ensure that such people are given properly resourced and high quality courses.
  In considering further and higher education, it is important to remember those who deliver the service on our behalf—the hard-working members of staff who give of their time working long hours at night preparing courses, who have had to absorb changes in administration and courses with little recognition. During the past few months, we have seen the problems that our further education lecturers have experienced in trying to achieve a sensible pay settlement in recognition of their work.
  Like other hon. Members, I have been inundated with letters from those who teach in my local college in Elgin. One such letter says:
  "Over the last 5–6 years FE in Scotland has a record to be proud of, especially with the innovations to this sector introduced by the HMI and the SED through Scotvec, all this with very little if any extra funding."
  Another letter says:
  "For the second time this college term I find myself having to take industrial action as a Further Education lecturer in Grampian Region, in spite of the fact that my own Region has already publicly acknowledged the justness of our claim and stated their willingness to settle."
  If we are talking about devolution, if a local authority is prepared to recognise the worth of its members in further education colleges, why have the Government dragged their feet for such a long time, instead of giving our further education lecturers the recognition which they so clearly deserve? Other hon. Members have referred to the university teachers, on whose behalf we have lobbied over several years to ensure recognition for them as well.
  The morale of staff in further and higher education institutions has been seriously undermined and the Government must take account of that. That is one reason why the Bill should be referred to a Special Standing Committee. That would enable those organisations to talk to us and to make their representations to us in detail, instead of over hurried cups of tea in the Strangers' Tea Room downstairs.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) spoke eloquently about the situation affecting Dundee institute of technology. My party heartily endorses the points that he made. It is ludicrous that only one out of five colleges should not achieve university status. I wish Dundee well in its campaign which I shall certainly support.
  It is tragic that the possibility of establishing a highlands and islands university should be omitted from the Bill. For more than 25 years, we in the Scottish National party have argued that a highlands and islands university based on the collegiate system would be a major factor in the regeneration of the area's economy, ensuring the retention of our young people and offering facilities to people elsewhere in Scotland and from all over the world.

  849
  Our expertise in areas such as agriculture and forestry would be of great benefit to people in the third world in particular. That would be a major contribution to resolving some of the problems that face us. The Minister should have considered that possibility. In Scotland we should have a collegiate system——
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has only just come in.
  Mr. Ewing: I have listened to all the hon. Lady's speech.
  The hon. Lady is wrong to say that the Scottish National party has campaigned for a highlands and islands university for the past 25 years. The president of the SNP, Dr. Maclntyre, was the president of the committee which campaigned against the university going to Inverness, and successfully brought it to Stirling instead.
  Mrs. Ewing: It was a mistake to give way to the hon.Gentleman, because obviously he does not understand Scottish National party policy. The SNP has for 25 years had as its policy a university of the highlands and islands, but that option was not being considered when Stirling university was established. Provost Robert Maclntyre, a former respected member of the House, campaigned extremely hard, and won that university for his town. No one supports the concept of a highlands and islands university more strongly than Provost Dr. MacIntyre.
  There are many major omissions from the Bill, which could have addressed many of the problems confronting Scottish education. We welcome some aspects of the Bill, and we will deal with others in Committee. I conclude by asking whether the Secretary of State and his Ministers will again have their cronies among English Conservative Members imposing upon the Scottish people legislation that they do not endorse. If that happens, it will make a mockery of democracy.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: It would be remiss of me not to welcome the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) and not to pay tribute to his predecessor, the late Alick Buchanan-Smith. Alick had a rare quality in this House, in the respect that he had for a confidence. If one wanted to discuss a problem with him, one could guarantee that one would not read the content of the conversation in the newspapers the next day, with Alick claiming the origins of everything discussed. That quality is one that many right hon. and hon. Members would do well to respect. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside will follow in that tradition.
  Scottish Office Ministers never fail to amaze me. Their illogicality is their only consistent part of their behaviour. The Secretary of State paid tribute to Scottish further education colleges, saying that they were an excellent group of institutions, yet made no case for taking control of them away from local government. Those colleges achieved excellence because of the work of dedicated councillors who, over the years, had the vision of taking education beyond the narrow confines of the so-called academic system and Oxbridge tradition.
  850
  That sort of vision led to the development of new institutions. There must be someone who sits in the sunks of St. Andrew's house and thinks up wizard ideas, on the basis that it does not matter whether they have been thought through, but, "It's a good idea—let's try it out." Such a notion apparently gets turned into a Bill without any logical argument for change being made.
  One cannot cast aside as being of no account generations of thinking in local government, or that which is still to come. Local councillors are much derided by Conservative Members, but they would do well to remember the contribution that locally elected representatives have made in the past, and can make in future in respect of the education system.
  What is the future of Robert Gordon's institute of technology? Everyone acknowledges its excellent record as a first-class educational establishment that is unrivalled not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. We must put to rest the lingering suspicion that part of the Government's concept of developing higher education in the city of Aberdeen is a merger between the university and RGIT. I thought at one time that there might be some merit in that development, but the concept could never be independently examined because the university's former principal, Professor McNichol, sprung it on the educational world without even informing the institute's principal that he had such a development in mind.
  A merger could proceed only if a commission undertakes a lengthy and well-thought-out investigation into the merits of each institution, to identify where they complement one another and dovetail, and to ensure that there would be no overlap or waste of resources. Having said that, I believe that there is much to be said for the independence of both institutions being maintained. They complement one another, and in a sense spur one another on to achieve higher standards—and I hope that they will continue to do so.
  In RGIT's change to university status, I hope that the access that it and the university currently offer to mature students will not be lost or be subject to interference. Perhaps my earlier exchange with the Secretary of State will have led him to conclude that he was a little precipitate in refusing to meet a deputation from the north-east of Scotland. There was in his speech the hint of a change of mind or of an opening of new avenues.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am always happy to see the hon. Gentleman about any constituency matter, privately or otherwise. Our difficulty was that we were about to publish the criteria, and if we had agreed to meet particular institutions prior to publishing the criteria on which we would consult, many others would have wanted to do the same. If the hon. Gentleman wants to see me now that we are consulting, I should be happy to meet him, to learn his views. When I spoke to RGIT, I gained the impression that it was fairly confident of its ability to meet the criteria. There is no suggestion that we will want to change the criteria in any way that would exclude any institution. That should help to allay the hon. Gentleman's fears.
  Mr. Hughes: I will of course consult those people who sought a deputation with the Minister. However, in case the hon. Gentleman is under any illusion, if he re-reads my letter carefully, he will find that I asked if he would meet a deputation comprising Members of Parliament from

  851
  north-east Scotland, and members of Grampian regional council, Aberdeen city district council, Aberdeen chamber of commerce, and Aberdeen trades council. I omitted any representative from RGIT because I anticipated his objection. The institute anyway has its own access to consultation. Nevertheless, I will consult those other bodies to establish whether they still want to meet the Minister. If so, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome them.
  One of the great things about the development of further education colleges is that no local authority that I know of has ever sought to impose its political bias on them. It would be hard to exert political influence on those studying for engineering degrees, although that has been done in some parts of the world. However, when it comes to courses that deal with the broader aspects of society and the environment, I know of no education authority that has attempted to impose political control.
  I hope that the Secretary of State does not have it in mind to impose Government political control over Scottish universities. Of course there must be accountability, examinations of efficiency, and monitoring—to ensure that courses are of a high standard. That is reasonable, but if a certain faculty upsets the political sensibilities of someone at the Scottish Office, that should not provide a reason for compelling it to change its teaching. University academics can sometimes be prickly and produce reports that are not to the liking of us all. However, that is precisely what they ought to be doing, in keeping an open mind and taking an invigorating look at the problems facing society.
  Once we have a separate Scottish funding system and separate control or supervision of Scottish universities, what will happen to the interrelationship between students in Scotland who seek a university education and their English counterparts? Will Scottish students still have the same access to English universities, and vice versa? Will the UCCA system apply across the board? Surely it is the interchange of students from different backgrounds that makes university education something to be treasured.
  I never enjoyed the benefits of a university education, but my children have done so. They have benefited from meeting people from many different cultures and walks of life. It would be a tragedy if Scottish universities became small, parochial institutions, concerned only with what took place within their precincts and "twa mile roon".
  Even at this late stage, I ask the Secretary of State to consider sending the Bill to a Special Standing Committee. I have sheaves of briefing here: I have heard from spokesmen for nearly every aspect of university life. All my correspondents have made detailed, pertinent points about the working of the legislation. We are charting the future of further and higher education in Scotland: we must think not of the next six months or even the next six years, but well beyond the year 2000. We cannot afford to get it wrong; we cannot afford to let the party-political axes that we have to grind interfere with our aims.
  I respect the Minister of State as a combative party politician. That is nothing to be ashamed of. None the less, I hope that he, like me, will take off his party-political hat and accept that we must not endanger our cherished education system. Please let us have the Special Standing Committee; please let us get it right.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Alan Amos: Although, sensibly enough, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) has gone to find something to eat, let me begin by congratulating him on his maiden speech. I made my maiden speech—also on education—more than four years ago, but I know that it is a nerve-racking experience. The hon. Gentleman spoke with great sincerity and eloquence.
  I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on introducing such a timely and welcome Bill. Its aim is to raise educational standards in Scotland and to make the provision of Scottish education more locally based, while increasing local responsibility and accountability. I regularly commend the Government on the raising of educational standards in England and Wales; today's deb.' te provides me with an ideal opportunity to explain why the Government can rightly be proud of their achievements in Scotland.
  Scotland, of course, has a proud educational tradition. It also boasts what is arguably one of the most impressive and envied education systems in the world. It is a long-standing tradition there for the laird's son to sit down in the classroom with the farmer's son, and I pay tribute to those who brought about that tradition.
  One of the Bill's main provisions transfers the general duty to provide the services of further education colleges from local authorities to boards of management, under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The 46 further education colleges in Scotland provide education and training for 200,000 people every year; this year, local authorities will spend some £200 million on those colleges. From 1993 onwards, however, the funds will be deducted from the revenue support grant and transferred to the Scottish Office to help the colleges to become more responsive to the needs of students and employers.
  I consider that transfer a logical next step. New college councils have already been established; at least half the members are employers. Local enterprise companies are being encouraged to play a greater role in the activities of further education colleges in their areas. The requirement that the new management boards should include a given number of people with experience of industrial, commercial, professional or other types of employment is long overdue. It is also appropriate for one of those people to be nominated by the local enterprise company involved.
  From 1993 onwards, the further education colleges will become independent, corporate bodies. They will have freedom to expand and to respond swiftly to local training needs. They will, however, continue to receive fee income from training credits, and any other income from services such as consultancies. The new funding arrangements will reward effective and efficient colleges, thereby encouraging others to do better.
  I welcome the provision in clause 11 to allow existing staff to transfer automatically from employment with the education authorities to employment with the new boards of management, with the same pay and conditions. None the less, the Government are right to ensure that local authorities do not try to be obstructive during the transition period. That has happened in other instances. To cover the transitional arrangement, the Secretary of State's consent will be required for contracts worth more than £50,000; quite rightly, his consent will also be needed for the disposal of land. We must ensure that the possible reluctance of some local authorities to pass on information

  853
  to the new boards is properly dealt with. The provision in clause 9 for the Secretary of State to terminate the management of a college by the local authority is another sensible safeguard.
  The Bill confers on the Secretary of State a duty to secure adequate and efficient provision of further education in Scotland, including both formal courses such as those leading to higher education—Scottish Examination Board qualifications—and less formal courses, providing basic skills and fulfilling special needs. That is a duty, not an option. No longer will parents he confronted with large bureaucratic dinosaurs; they will be dealing with local boards of management which will understand local needs and local problems, and which will thus be much better placed to respond swiftly to such needs.
  Any system that takes account of both the community and the children whom it educates is truly to be welcomed. It ill behoves Opposition Members to nitpick and complain about such a logical and desirable development. The Opposition cannot have it both ways; they cannot call for greater integration of education into the community—and there has been a groundswell of opinion in that direction for many years among teachers in Scotland—and, at the same time, oppose the Bill, and the provision of greater accountability and integration for which they themselves have called. Who better to be responsible for the direction of the funding and management of the colleges than the local community, which will be most directly affected by what and who comes out of those colleges?
  I warmly welcome the principle of rewarding effective and efficient colleges. I am all in favour of competition and rewards for achievement; I consider that one of the quickest and best ways in which to raise standards. This is a sensible and logical move, which contrasts starkly with the sole response of the Labour party: as always, that response is to promise to undo all our good work, and to throw more money at local authorities without regard to how it is spent. Knowing the excesses and abuses of Labour authorities, I am always heartened when powers and responsibilities are wrested from their iron grip, and given instead to parents and the local community.
  The other main part of the Bill deals with higher education. The Government have sensibly recognised the distinctive nature of the Scottish education system, and taken it into account in the funding allocations to the institutions included in this part of the Bill, as well as those dealt with in the first part. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) mentioned access to Scottish universities for English students and vice versa; that, of course, will remain. It is the Government's policy to widen such access, and to introduce competition and movement.
  I welcome the Opposition's general support for this measure. However, I was amazed and alarmed to read in their document "A New Approach: Scottish Education in the 1990s" that
  "increasing the total resources of higher education … will be the test of any future policy proposals."
  Surely quality and relevance have something to do with a first-class education system. I note that the Labour party has made no promise to spend more money on Scottish higher education. However, the Government are spending £500 million a year on Scottish higher education.
  854
  The Bill sets up a separate funding council for the eight Scottish universities and the 17 grant-maintained colleges. By establishing the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, resources will be transferred to the Scottish Office, away from the Department of Education and Science, and will take full account of both the higher participation rates in Scotland and of its four-year degree courses. That is another example of transferring decision making to local level and of the allocation of funds being determined by the people who are most closely involved. I do not see how anybody can oppose that.
  Higher education and further education both play a vital part in Scotland's economic regeneration. As a result of the Government's policies, Scotland has a well-trained and educated work force. That has undoubtedly been an important factor in attracting so much foreign investment in recent years, with more than 90,000 students in full-time higher education, plus 50,000 part-time students.
  Let us look at the Government's success. In 1988–89 one quarter of all Scottish school leavers entered higher education, compared with only 17 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. That is a 50 per cent. increase since the final year of the last Labour Government. The Government are well on the way to meeting their target of one third of school leavers going into higher education by the year 2000. In addition, Scotland has a larger percentage of 16-year-olds staying on at school—61 per cent., compared with 35 per cent. in England. Since we came to office the number of mature students has risen by a staggering 64 per cent. There is a lot of good news. We must make that clear. Opposition criticism—that we are running down education and that we are not interested in it—is overturned by those facts.
  The establishment of a separate Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will entrench Scotland's unique position. The allocation of funds will be administered by the funding council, within a framework laid down by the Government, thereby preserving the autonomy of the institutions concerned. It is entirely right that funding decisions will henceforth be influenced by quality considerations. The funding council will be empowered to establish quality assurance arrangements and to make provision for efficiency studies in the institutions.
  Clause 33 will require the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to establish a quality assessment committee to advise the council on the quality of education provided in the institutions that it funds. That is both sensible and logical. It will afford the funding council the ability to assess how well or otherwise the money is being spent. For too long responsibility and accountability over Scottish education spending has been hidden behind a bureaucratic wall of, at best, indifference. I am delighted that the funding council will be able to cut through the red tape and keep a close watch on the quality, which is the real key—not just money—to a successful education system. The unit within the funding council to assess quality will therefore be playing a most important role.
  Scottish higher education will be able to compete with the wider United Kingdom market to attract students. The allocation of resources will take full account of the number of non-Scottish students attending Scottish universities. Under clause 36, although the Secretary of State can dictate terms and conditions of grants to the funding council, he cannot impose conditions that relate to financial support for activities carried out by particular

  855
  institutions. There is a limit, therefore, to the financial powers of the Secretary of State, should he choose to use them. The Bill strikes a nice balance between the relative powers of the funding council and the Secretary of State. That is right when the Government are providing the money. It is only right that they should have some control over how it is spent. That is a perfectly reasonable and accepted principle.
  Another important feature of the Bill is that the Secretary of State will be given the power to grant to higher education institutions degree-awarding status and that certain colleges and polytechnics under the control of the Secretary of State will be able to become universities. Quite rightly, however, the Government have issued a consultation paper regarding the specific criteria that will be applied when assessing applications for this very important change of status.
  It is also proposed that the extension of degree-awarding powers should be based on the criteria used by the Council for National Academic Awards. Very sensibly, any application will be judged on the number of students involved and the breadth and depth of teaching and research in the institutions. Is it not remarkable that the freeing of polytechnics and colleges has been so successful in the United Kingdom that they will soon be able to call themselves universities? But is it not even more remarkable in its inconsistency that while the Opposition support this move they oppose the very similar move to free further education colleges from local control and allow them, too, greater freedom to flourish and expand in exactly the same way?
  Mr. Frank Haynes: What does the hon. Gentleman know about it?
  Mr. Amos: Does the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) want to contribute to the debate? If so, I shall happily give way to him.
  Mr. Haynes: Who wrote the hon. Gentleman's speech for him? Did it come from Conservative central office? It certainly did not come from him.
  Mr. Amos: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is listening to my speech. I can assure him that I spent both this morning and this afternoon writing this speech. I have an interest in education.
  Mr. Haynes: Where?
  Mr. Amos: In Scotland, in England, and in the whole of the United Kingdom. I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker will confirm that it is my right and duty to speak on any matters affecting this Parliament.
  Mr. Mike Watson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) has been speaking for 15 minutes, using a speech that I do not care whether he or somebody else wrote. However, four hon. Members on this side of the House have a keen interest and involvement in Scottish education. They hope to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill. I ask you to bear that in mind and to ask the hon. Gentleman to draw his remarks to a close.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr.
  856
  Amos) who has the Floor is very well aware that other Members wish to speak, but he has a perfect right to speak in a debate that concerns the entire Parliament.
  Mr. Amos: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall soon draw my remarks to a close. However, may I point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) that for three and a half hours I have listened very carefully to the debate, that it is only right that I should make my own points as a Member of the party in government, and that I should respond to comments made by Opposition Members. I do not see how I can be out of order. It was wrong of the hon. Gentleman to seek to challenge the Chair on that point.
  In the interests of raising standards we must ensure that no institution will be allowed to use the word "university" in its title unless the quality, range and depth of its teaching and research deserve that title. Our aim must be to ensure fair competition between institutions on an equal basis and to attract students and research funds—not to level down in any way. The criteria must be of the strictest kind to retain the confidence of employers, taxpayers, teachers and students in the new institutions. We should not just be interested in the change of an institution's name.
  The Bill will encourage greater participation in further and higher education and training and will strengthen the partnership between education and employers. The Government's commitment on funding has always been clear and generous. The grant to Scottish universities for 1991–92 was increased by a massive 11·5 per cent. over the previous year. For example, the grant and tuition fees increase was over 16 per cent. for Dundee and Stirling, over 15 per cent. for St. Andrews and in double figures for Aberdeen, Glasgow and Heriot-Watt. The funding for grant-aided colleges was increased by 14 per cent.
  The success of Scottish higher education will be enhanced and its expansion aided by greater competition. The Bill will bring about greater efficiency and quality in both teaching and research; it will become more responsive. The beneficiaries of the Bill will be employers, local communities and their work force, more relevant and community-based skills and courses and the students themselves. It is a timely and necessary Bill which will raise the level of accountability and responsibility for the education of our children. It will enable them to have the best possible education.
  The Bill will ensure that education standards in Scotland are raised higher and that Scottish students will continue to benefit from the sound policies of a Conservative Government.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Alick Buchanan-Smith was my parliamentary colleague, political opponent in party and on other policy matters, and personal friend for more than a quarter of a century. I was touched when Louis Jebb, the obituary editor of The Independent, asked me to contribute Alick's obituary and I would not wish to add to what I wrote in that paper.
  I shall address myself, first, to the Government Whip. Will he seek out the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House and quietly put to them the suggestion that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that the Bill be considered by a special Committee? I travelled down on the same plane as

  857
  the Leader of the House, who had been speaking at Gleneagles. He asked me about the Bill in detail and I believe that as a former Education Secretary he has a deep interest in the issues. He may therefore be easily persuaded to accede to the request that was made in good faith by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden. There is much confusion about the Bill which we do not believe is our fault. It might be cleared up by the appearance of witnesses at the three sessions that we are allowed. I say to the Whip: please, take this seriously and at least ask the right hon. Members for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) and for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) about that.
  Given the constraints time, I shall simply ask the Minister five questions. The first is about research. I am profoundly puzzled about the extraordinary omission of research from the Bill. I cannot find any attempt to address the problem of research and research funding. The Government must tell us, as soon as the Committee stage begins, whether henceforth selection for research is to be conducted on a national or a Scottish basis.
  I am not asking these questions just to be difficult. Professor Dale and his colleagues have made me a member of the biological sciences advisory committee of Edinburgh university. Serious people—particularly those who have done well, such as the Edinburgh biologists and Des Smith and his colleagues in physics at Heriot-Watt—are profoundly concerned about the funding of research.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I tried to explain the position in a speech that I made in Edinburgh, at which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milnegavie (Mr. Worthington) was present. It is as the hon. Gentleman would like it to be. Funds for the research councils will be distributed on a United Kingdom basis and Scottish institutions will be able to compete on equal terms. The money that is dispersed by the funding council will be transferred as an additional sum, initially to the Scottish Office and then subsequently to the Scottish funding council. I think that the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about the funding of the research councils, which will continue on a United Kingdom basis.
  Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister for his courteous answer. I shall consider it in print—I am not being distrustful—as it is an important subject. I am glad that the issue of the research councils has been cleared up, but we must consider the selectivity of university research funding.
  We must be given some reassurance on clause 33, which places the funding council under a duty to establish a quality assessment committee to advise it on the quality of education that is provided in funded institutions. My second question is whether the assessment committee is to work in tandem with the English structure or as a single council. I believe, as does the brief from the Scottish vice-chancellors—I asked Professor Forty about this by phone on Sunday—that there should be specific national joint committees for medicine, computing and engineering. I interrupted the Secretary of State, who replied "Of course they will keep in touch." I do not think that that is adequate because the issue is two-way traffice in staff between the Scottish universities and universities elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  My third question is on clause 31(4), which suggests that the Scottish funding council should be responsible for
  858
  the Open university's activities in Scotland. We have all had a brief from the Open university and Professor Daniels, but is it sensible to split any part of the Open university? I understand that there would be considerable practical problems in so doing.
  My fourth question is on the notion of a Scottish funding council, which I believe has far more to do with the perception of political advantage than the needs of universities, students, staff and researchers. I was not an admirer of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council. I must say bluntly—I can only speak for myself—that the Scottish funding council is misconceived and, in the medium and long-term, harmful to the best interests of the great Scottish universities.
  Specifically, how long will it be before the English body, whose financial circumstances are tight—the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) had no answer to this—says, "Under the old system we were quite happy that the Scottish universities should have a net gain of 3,500 English students, and the finance that went with them. Now that we are separate, we shall educate all our English students in English universities, which will be of considerable financial advantage to our system"? It would be only human and understandable if it were to take such an attitude, to the huge disadvantage of Scottish universities, their fourth year, and the United Kingdom.
  Many aspects of higher education are national. I fear that in the medium and long term the Bill will cause tension between the English funding council and the Scottish funding council, which will disadvantage students, staff and research. To pacify those who hold such doubts, the Secretary of State said, "It is set firmly in the United Kingdom". That is not true. All sorts of claims may be made for the Bill, but one cannot say that. It is not set firmly in the United Kingdom. Therein could lie many serious difficulties.
  Mr. Forsyth: Did the hon. Gentleman mean quality assessment when he was talking about co-operation? I am not clear what he was saying.
  Mr. Dalyell: Quality assessment was my second question. The fourth question was on the advantage to Scotland of 3,500 English students·which, incidentally, equals one of our universities. If the English funding council were to take the attitude that is only human for it to take, we should have to consider where the replacement for those students, and the funding that goes with them, would come from. Whatever happens, and whatever one's views, there will be considerable financial consequences. That cannot be gainsaid, but I will give way if the Minister wishes to comment.
  Mr. Forsyth: On an earlier point, the hon. Gentleman asked about quality assessment. He asked how the different funding councils could ensure that they operated in a co-ordinated manner. There is no statutory requirement for them to form joint committees, but that would be the expectation. That issue could be pursued in Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman or some of his colleagues were selected to serve on the Committee, I should be happy to explore that.
  Mr. Dalyell: For reasons of time, let us leave that to the Committee. My immediate reaction is that expectations given in good faith by Ministers on the Floor of the House

  859
  —I do not doubt the Minister's good faith in this—are often very different from Acts of Parliament. In any case, let us examine that in Committee.
  My final question concerns the two-way traffic that has been so beneficial—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said—in terms of staff, researchers and students in the mainstream of the Scottish and English universities. We may have a fond expectation that that will continue, but once we have set up two different financial systems I wonder whether that beneficial traffic between the great universities—for example, that in Leeds and the Scottish universities—will continue. I refer to the university in the constituency of one of the Government Whips, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), because Leeds has a great university and I enjoy going there. However, one cannot take for granted that which we have taken for granted in the past.
  Truth to tell, I am no friend of the Bill. I predict that the more we examine it in Committee, the more difficulties will creep out from under the various stones as they go on the anvil of parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore end with the hope that the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden is taken seriously. Bluntly, if I were a member of the Committee, one of the witnesses whom I should want to see first is a Scot who was brought up in Dunblane, who did his first degree at the university of Aberdeen and is now the vice-chancellor of London university. I refer to Professor Stewart Sutherland. His views might help us all in discovering the reality and exactly what we are up to. I predict that what we are up to will lead to no good for Scotland.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. John McFall: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I am no friend of the Bill, which will set up tensions within the education systems. The Government's rhetoric is laudatory—they say that they are encouraging more young people to enter higher education—but if we consider the Government's record in this Parliament, it is clear that they have placed obstacles in the way of young people. The student grant system is not the least of those obstacles.
  I have served on Committees debating Bills dealing with Scottish education since 1987. The first was the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 and the second was the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989. Those Bills have not attained the objective desired by the Minister of State, because they were not in keeping with the Scottish system.
  Let me deal first with the School Boards (Scotland) Act. During the recess, I visited every school in my constituency—there are about 50—where I listened to the teachers and to the head teachers, and I gained the impression that the Minister's proposals—whether for the five-to-14 programme, for the school board proposals, for the curriculum and assessment or for religious education—were those of a Minister who is once removed from the system, who feels that people should conform to his proposals but who does not know the reality of what is happening in certain schools. The two former education Bills characterise the approach of a Minister who is once removed, and this Bill is exactly the same.
  860
  We must realise that the Minister of State pushed the School Boards (Scotland) Act and the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act because the Government wanted to attack local authorities. They sought to decouple local authorities from education.
  On higher education, the Government want a self-arching role and strategic coherence, but they are atomising the process in further education. The Bill is a naked political assault on local authorities. We need look no further than the Scottish newspapers this week, in which the Tories—a minimalist political group in Scotland if ever there was one—are setting up a working party to consider the situation so that they can take education out of local authority control and put it under the control of boards.
  On further education, the Bill is precipitate because the Government have set up a commission—the Howie commission—to consider the education needs of 16 to 18-year-olds. That commission may undertake a complete review of education provision in Scotland for 16 to 18-year-olds, but the Government are trying to force through a Bill that will change the further education system before receiving the Howie proposals. If there ever was a sensible requirement for not proceeding with the Bill, it is the fact that the Government have given their blessing to the Howie commission to report on 16 to 18-year-olds. It makes nonsense of everything that is now proposed if they go ahead without waiting for its recommendations.
  As a result of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act, the Government established new college councils to run the education colleges. They are taking their powers from 1 January 1992, but that has not even been implemented and the Government are changing the system again. They are making the system more centralised, but I believe that the real purpose and focus of the Bill should be on the issue of coherence and fragmentation. The five questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow were about coherence in higher education. I shall consider coherence from the point of view of higher education and from that of further education.
  In higher education, there are no doubt specific United Kingdom dimensions. The mechanisms are required in order to maintain the United Kingdom perspective and co-ordination in such matters. My hon. Friend mentioned clinical medicine, in which limits are put on the numbers of people training, as is the case in computing. What we need is not merely the Minister's acceptance that it would be sensible or desirable to consider national joint committees.
  The funding will be put to three separate councils—for central institutions, for colleges of education and for universities. The funds have to be maintained, and higher education lecturers and vice-principals are apprehensive that the funds will not be maintained. In providing the funds for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, we need an assurance that the Scottish Office will allocate the funds for distribution and that they will be maintained.
  We have had a number of submissions and briefing papers from different bodies. One was from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and I noted its wise and judicious comments. The society's concerns were about the availability of and support for research. That concern cannot be overstated. There is already concern in Scotland about the availability of and support for research in the

  861
  humanities. The Scottish funding council and Professor Shaw must immediately give urgent attention to the issue of research. If we are to develop our education system and if we are to be of service to the young people of the next generation, we must have the best research institutions. Through the Bill, we risk devaluing research facilities.
  I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State of the abolition of the binary line between further and higher education. However, without a strategic overview of the system, that could come to little. With the proposed atomisation, we shall not get that strategic overview.
  We have received comments from the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped about further education. Further education is currently a part of the integrated system of education for special needs, alongside schools and social work services. In my constituency, I have been working with a group of special needs pupils and their parents as part of that service. Under the present integrated system, it is hard enough to ensure the transition from school to further education for special needs students. However. it will be even harder under the fragmented system that the Minister is about to adopt.
  At present, people can go, following assessment. to any of the services or to a combination of them. The proposed separate institutions of further education will not be part of the integrated system. The Bill says that institutions for further education should "have regard" to the needs of students with learning difficulties, but in the new set-up the further education institution will not be involved in the assessment of people's needs or in the planning of services.
  The Minister should think of the comments of Sir Roy Griffiths when he examined the community care programme. He identified the multiplicity of agencies and the lack of co-ordination as two of the key failures in community care policy. Just as those failures inhibited community care, so they will inhibit education.
  The Minister proposes to allow colleges of further education to set up their own mission statements, proposals and college development plans. However, they will not have to report them to a local authority or even to the Secretary of State. That is a grave omission.
  There is fragmentation rather than coherence in the proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, the need for a Special Standing Committee is urgent, not as a delaying tactic, but to ensure that we have examined every avenue in detail and that we are satisfied with what the Secretary of State proposes. The Minister would do his credibility no harm tonight by accepting that proposal, not on a party political basis, but as an exercise in intellectual investigation which would enable us to get the Bill right.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said that the university title which will be accorded to polytechnics must not be an empty honour. It will be without planning, integration, funding and, above all, the involvement of individuals who are affected by the change. Sadly, the Minister has not been directly involved in the changes to education that he has proposed since 1987. I should like the Minister to think again, so that he becomes involved and best serves the interests of the pupils, of the parents, of the students and of the staff of our universities and colleges in Scotland.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) on his maiden speech, especially as his is the most recent by-election victory in Scotland since my own. It is 50 weeks today since I made my maiden speech and I remember it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember his effective and intelligent maiden speech with pride.
  I shall be brief, because I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak and, although I shall concentrate my remarks on further education, I should like to say something first about higher education, and especially about Paisley college. When the Minister of State replies, I should be grateful if he could confirm that Paisley college will have university status, because it well deserves it. It has an excellent record, not only of academic achievement, but in research and in its involvement in the local community and with the local authorities. That gives the lie to the premise in the Bill that colleges and business interests must work separately from those of local authorities and their elected councillors. In both Paisley and Reid Kerr colleges, we have experience of the local authorities working with the colleges on economic development matters. Professor Richard Shaw is the principal of Paisley college and leads an excellent team there. I hope that the Minister of State will bear what I have said in mind when he makes what I hope will be a formal announcement tonight.
  There is nothing in the Bill to deal with some of the difficult problems facing Paisley college. The hardship fund, for example, always runs out before the end of the year and mature students therefore find it difficult to study. At the moment, some students at Paisley college are on rent strike because of the quality of the residential accommodation. There are outside toilets, but the college does not have the money to deal with that problem. Indeed, at the current level of investment, it will take decades to solve such problems and, although I hope that such problems can be dealt with, nothing in the Bill offers any hope of that.
  Before being elected to the House I spent 10 years first as a lecturer and then as a senior lecturer at Langside college in Glasgow. During the decade 1980–90 that I worked in further education in Scotland, the Government's record seemed to be one of making change for change's sake. When I started teaching horticulture at Langside college, I taught the City and Guilds scheme—an old scheme—that was based on specific learning objectives because that was the fashion at that time. About a year later, we went on to a new scheme that was based on general learning objectives because that was the fashion then. That was followed by Scotec, which returned to the specific learning objectives of two years earlier, but eventually that was scrapped after another two years and replaced by Scotvec, which returned to general learning objectives, which have been amended ever since. As I still keep in touch with many of my former colleagues from further education, I can advise the Minister of State sincerely that further education needs a period of consolidation so that lecturers can have an opportunity to develop quality courses. We cannot continue to make change for change's sake.
  There has also been a piecemeal development of the management structure in further education. There does not seem to be a long-term strategy to ensure that quality

  863
  is paramount in the service. There have been constant changes during the past five years. I believe that there have been three or four changes in the management structure of my old college during that time.
  I used to have a poster on the wall of my office at Langside college, reading:
  "We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."
  I am sure that when Petronius Arbiter wrote that in 200 BC, he did not know that it would become the Tory party's official policy on further education.
  Further education in Scotland has been the victim of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Government make changes; the changes do not work, so they make further changes —and so the cycle continues. I advise the Minister of State in all sincerity that he must await the publication of the Howie report on further education so that we can take a strategic overview and stop this policy of piecemeal development and constant change.
  The structure proposed in the Bill will be fragmented. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will look after vocational education across 40-odd colleges. At the same time local authorities will retain responsibility for community education and leisure education. How will that black and white divide be made? There are many shades of grey. When I taught horticulture some people came to classes in the evening because their employers sent them or because they wanted to start a business. Others in the class came because they wanted to pursue a leisure interest. Would the Minister classify that as a leisure or a vocational course? Who should operate it—the college or the local authority?
  I have a great deal more to say, but I am conscious that many hon. Members have sat here throughout the debate waiting to speak. I simply wish to recall one event that sums up the Government's attitude to further education. Shortly before I left the college, I recall filling in a form that emanated from a Government Department. I came across a section that asked me to fill in the number of revenue-earning units in the college. I did not know what it meant, so I asked my boss. It turned out that revenue-earning units were students. The Bill paves the way for more of that.
  I remember campaigning under the slogan, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance". The Government have tried ignorance and it has not worked.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: I shall be brief and address my remarks only to higher education because my two colleagues concentrated on further education, although I resent having to do so after sitting here for four and a half hours without having the opportunity to speak because of the self-indulgence of three other speakers who took almost half an hour each.
  It would be improper of me not to commend the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) on his maiden speech. I made my own just two and a half years ago, so I know how nervous he must have been. It was a
  864
  well prepared and well delivered speech and he certainly gave no impression of nervousness. I commend him for that.
  I shall make one exception to what I said about speaking only on higher education. I welcome the establishment of funding councils for further and higher education throughout the United Kingdom. However, why should there be only one council for Scotland? England and Wales will each have separate funding councils for further and higher education, but in Scotland there is no provision for a further education funding council. The Secretary of State is apparently unwilling to trust his place men and place women—he wants to keep absolute control in his own hands. There can be no justification for that. I hope that that is one aspect of the Bill which will be amended in Committee.
  Higher education will have its own funding council and I welcome that. It is a matter of some satisfaction that the Government have finally accepted the need to provide a separate funding body for Scottish universities. It is none the less a matter of some regret that they have not fully met the recommendation made in 1984 by the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council that the council should have a planning as well as a funding remit. I fail to see how those functions can be separated. Surely strategic aims should determine the priorities which direct funding. Without that remit, the funding council will be an entirely reactive body which depends on funding allocations to circumscribe its planning. Tying one hand behind its back will prevent it from adopting the proactive role which is crucial to the co-ordinated development of higher education in Scotland.
  I welcome the provision to end the binary divide. But that divide will not simply disappear overnight when the Bill receives Royal Assent. The divide has surely been one of resources as much as anything else over the years. We require assurances from the Minister about what will result from ending it. There is a real danger that without adequate funding there will be a levelling downwards to the institutions which are now centrally funded. The emphasis must surely be on a levelling upwards of standards in both teaching and research.
  Within the university sector, the need to maximise free income has already resulted in the squeezing of educational standards. There is no shortage of examples of overcrowding, especially in Scotland, resulting in increased pressure on students and staff with consequent detriment to standards. That trend must be reversed, but it can be done only through providing resources in proportion with increased student numbers.
  I referred to research some moments ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, incredibly there is no mention of it in the 60 pages of the Bill. What is to happen to the share of research contracts which have come to Scottish universities in recent years? In the Scottish Grand Committee debate in June I asked the Minister for an assurance that Scotland's share of research funding would at least be maintained. I received no assurance then, so I repeat the question now. What guarantees are there that Scottish universities will not lose as a result of this legislation? If the expected number of former college institutions and polytechnics are granted university status, there will be around 80 of them. That is twice the present number, yet research funding is likely to remain static at best. There must be a danger that that will lead to a two-tier system among universities. Those

  865
  already possessing a strong research base will be best placed to capitalise on it. As other hon. Members have warned, there will be an unofficial binary divide. If the Minister believes that that will not happen, I challenge him to explain how it might be avoided.
  On the creation of a new wave of universities, like many other hon. Members, I fully support the claim of Dundee institute of technology to have the right to assume university status. There is little that I could usefully add to the eloquent and well-informed contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) about one of his local institutions. Dundee institute of technology is eminently qualified to compete in the marketplace which Scottish education has unfortunately become, provided that it has the opportunity to do so from a level playing field. It must not be denied that right.
  Several other aspects of the Bill require clarification and amendment, not least the question of resources for the Open university in Scotland and adequate funding for adult and continuing education. Those and other issues will be vigorously pursued in Committee, when the Minister and his colleagues will be required to display a greater understanding of the real needs of post-school education in our country.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: There seems to be a tradition that the hon. Member for Monklands, West should speak last in Scottish debates.
  Mr. Dewar: A position of honour.
  Mr. Clarke: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) confirms that that is a position of honour. It allows me to reflect on the debate. Although there were numerous excellent speeches —especially from Opposition Members—in complete candour I must say that we have witnessed an abuse of procedure this evening. Hon. Members who appeared after the opening speeches spoke for half an hour and then disappeared, have not reappeared—
  Sir Hector Monro: They are in Committee.
  Mr. Clarke: That is no reflection on the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who spoke well and made a good contribution to the debate. However, this is no way to conduct Scottish business and to deal with matters as important as education in Scotland. Certainly it is no way to deal with further or higher education. The plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden for a Special Standing Committee to consider the Bill might be seen as compensation for the appalling way in which the debate on Second Reading has been conducted by Conservative Members.
  I join my hon. Friends in congratulating the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) on a moving, fluent and sincere maiden speech. We all join him in the comments that he made about the late Alick Buchanan-Smith, a man of outstanding integrity and decency and a great parliamentarian who will be long remembered.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will not mind if, in the short time available to me, I attempt to emulate his style, albeit inadequately, by asking the Minister five questions. They are the questions that the Government have not yet answered and
  866
  which are crucial to the debate—a debate which will continue long after the general election, which cannot be far away. Whatever decision we reach about the Bill, this will not be the last word on further and higher education in Scotland. That debate will continue because we are that type of people in Scotland.
  I intervened in the Secretary of State's speech to ask a question, which I am glad the hon. Member for Dumfries repeated: why is the Secretary of State leaving education authorities with debt charges? As hours have gone by since that question was put, perhaps we may receive a more considered, measured reply. It is wrong that local authorities, having lost the assets of further education, should be asked to continue to pay those debt charges. It flies in the face of any decent approach to local government finance. It is unacceptable. Therefore, I am not surprised that, whereas the Secretary of State and some of his supporters claim that everybody agrees with the Bill, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in its paper states:
  "The Convention takes the view that the timing of the Bill is wholly inappropriate."
  If the Government stick to their view on debt repayment, I certainly agree with COSLA.
  My second question is: how will the Secretary of State ensure that bursaries will tie in with college development plans and courses? That is important. If the Government continue with their proposals, those responsible for the payment of bursaries will not also be responsible for deciding courses or strategy. Therefore, there will be an absence of coherence, which the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped has already criticised in its paper. There cannot be a more important aspect of the financing of students than that affecting students with special needs. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position when he replies.
  My third question is: how will the Secretary of State ensure coherent and strategic planning, particularly in relation to post-16 activities in schools, adult education and special education? What my hon. Friends have already said about people with learning difficulties certainly applies. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) was eloquent on that point. Education should be for living. I do not support the view that Coatbridge college is there merely to supply whatever industry may exist. People used to erect notices outside their factories, saying "Hands Wanted"; not people, minds, personalities or individual contributions wanted. I fear that that is the real thrust of the Bill.
  My fourth question is: will education authorities receive enough resources through the rate support grant for adult education? Again, that is a perfectly fair question. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to say, as he did, that these matters are already being dealt with. They are not identified or ring-fenced.
  The body of people is not to be elected or accountable, but appointed by the Secretary of State in the same undemocratic way in which the Government have appointed their own people to the health boards and ignored the views of local people. In neither Lanarkshire nor Glasgow health authorities—I do not wish to reflect on those who give of their time—do we have people who would have been elected to either district or regional councils. If we are to have devolution as the Secretary of State said, how can we judge the quality of decision taking —nobody has made any attempt to pretend that this is real

  867
  representation—when those appointed are put there presumably to carry out Government policy as it is seen by those temporarily in control at St. Andrew's house.
  My fifth question is: will the Secretary of State agree that education authorities should be represented as of right on college councils at officer and member level? I say that without any feeling of apology or humility, having been in local government. Despite what is often said by Conservative Members, and reflected in their legislation, there are many excellent people in local government at elected and member level. Why they should be excluded from making an input into something as important as further and community education I do not understand and do not accept.
  In our society today, when we have so many problems —about employment, the quality of life, the environment and with people feeling that there is an absence of hope and a lack of fulfillment—young people are worried about our approach to education in Scotland. The Government may use the guillotine, the whip and parliamentary procedure in the hope that issues such as that will go away. They will not. Education is fundamental to the realisation of true fulfilment. We will continue to pursue that point.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: This has been an interesting debate. It has been dominated by the idea that we have special procedures which enable us to consider a measure such as this in detail. The Bill involves matters which really need the Select Committee rather than the Standing Committee procedure.
  I am delighted to welcome to our proceedings the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen), who has the inestimable advantage of having entered through a by-election. It is easier for us to remember the name of his constituency, the hon. Gentleman having joined us recently. I pay tribute to Alick Buchanan-Smith. The new hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside has a hard act to follow. Others, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), paid tribute to Mr. Buchanan-Smith. I am sure that the new hon. Member for that constituency will have difficulty being as effective a Member of the Opposition as his predecessor.
  The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside reminded us of the mess that has occurred over Robert Gordon's, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) told us about the Dundee institute of technology. We believe that the future of such institutions could have been dealt with more sympathetically.
  My hon. Friends and I totally oppose the principle of taking further education out of the control of regional councils, and no educational case has been made out for such a move. The Bill is completely friendless on that issue. Virtually nobody in Scotland is willing to give house room to the further education parts of the Bill. It is another example of the Government taking the opportunity to centralise control and undermine local accountability.
  What the Government propose is unworkable. In May, it was firmly proposed in the White Paper that local councils should have responsibility only for social and recreational provision. Within weeks, further education colleges, their councils and regional councils were told that
  868
  they could provide all forms of further education. That showed that the Government had not thought the matter through.
  The Government's proposal to separate further education and place it under the control of the Secretary of State is ham-fisted. It shows the right hon. Gentleman's total failure to understand what is happening in Scottish education. The regions have been successfully loosening the boundaries and getting the benefits of better links between secondary, further and community education. What matters is that students get the service, not which heading the service comes under. For example, I visited Aboyne in Grampian recently—not because of the by-election but out of diligence—and saw that the community school there works well, offering all forms of education on the same premises. Similarly, the adult education in schools in Strathclyde would previously have been classified as further education, but the adults now receive the education that they need in what is called a "secondary school".
  The Government's attempt to divide vocational and non-vocational education is simply silly. Schools are vocational as well as academic, and further education colleges are vocational as well as non-vocational. Are languages vocational or non-vocational? They are both, depending on the use to which they are put. It is particularly absurd that the Bill should be introduced within weeks of the Howie committee reporting on the upper stages of secondary education, not just on the future of highers but on the relationship of highers with vocational education.
  Let us look again at the contribution and development of Scotvec modules in schools. Something extraordinary has occurred. They are designed explicitly for vocational qualifications and for FE colleges and are being taken in vast numbers in schools. In 1989–90, 40 per cent. of the candidates for Scotvec modules were entered from schools. That was a 121 per cent. increase in a two-year period. There is every reason to think that the majority of candidates taking Scotvec module vocational education will soon be from schools, if that is not so already.
  There is a considerable overlap in the most popular modules in FE education. They include computer studes, word processing and communication. It is illogical and absurd to divide education as the Government seek to do. How are we to distinguish between secondary and further education? It makes no sense to centralise control in Edinburgh at this stage. We are even to have the absurdity of cash changing hands between further, community and secondary education for the use of facilities. That is nonsense. Who will decide whether and how the regions will be reimbursed if they use their power to offer vocational education?
  An English leaflet-there is no Scottish leaflet says:
  "LEAs would have the power to fund further education of all kinds, from within the resources available to them, to complement that provided through the Councils".
  It is utter nonsense to have two authorities doing the same work. Have the Government even considered where the colleges are? The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who is not here now, said that the people of Oban would prefer to look after education in Oban, not realising that the closest FE college to Oban was Clydebank. I do not know whether the closest college to Tiree is Clydebank or Greenock, but it is not a matter of the people of Tiree looking after Tiree's concerns.

  869
  At the Bill's Committee stage the Labour party will move that there should be a further education funding council. It is essential that we put at the heart of the matter in Scotland people who know about further education. Why is there to be a further education funding council with regional committees for England and a further education funding council for Wales, but not one for Scotland?
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: There are enough Tories left to put on them.
  Mr. Worthington: I do not know where the Minister of State will find the 450 extra Tory party members whom he needs to go on the college councils. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said, he could not even find 35 young Tories to go to his conference, wherever it was.
  The Government's attitude to the colleges' capital debts is an example of how they regard local government. That subject was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clark). It is a full illustration of how local government has been treated in the past 12 years. The Government are taking away the colleges but leaving the local authorities with a debt. As has been said, that is like repossessing people's houses but leaving them with the mortgage to pay.
  The White Paper said that it will be complex and time consuming to identify and separate the charges related to college property. I travelled round the regions in the summer. At one region I asked whether it would be complex and time consuming to separate the debts. I was asked if I had a minute to spare. I talked to those in another region who said that they had already completed the process. All the local authorities have already done so.
  I misled the House earlier when I said that the total debt outstanding was £86 million; it is not, it was £87,156,000 at March 31. The debt on Falkirk college is £1·9 million and that on Clackmannan is £388,000. If the reason for keeping the debts with the local authorities is because to do otherwise would be complicated and time consuming, we have solved the problem. Does the Minister agree that, debts as well as assets will be considered in Committee?
  We support moving the control of higher education to Scotland and the end of the binary divide. In Committee we shall test out the Government's intentions all the way because we are convinced that the Bill's purpose is to level down, not level up. The chasm at the centre of the legislation is the Government's refusal to consider the issue of resources. As students come from less traditional backgrounds and follow less traditional routes, there is a powerful case for more, not fewer, resources.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said, we shall also press the Government to spell out their attitude to research. The binary divide cannot be abolished by word—it needs action to do so. The Government are making two conflicting statements. They say, first, that they are abolishing the binary divide and, secondly, that they expect institutions to continue in the same way. The first statement involves dynamic change and the other involves stability—which are we to believe? When the Labour party proposed abolishing the binary divide during debates on the Education Reform Act 1988, it was in the expectation that there would be resource implications to cope with the levelling up required. However, in the Bill the Government anticipate that the financial effects of their proposals will be roughly neutral.
  870
  Formidable forces are concentrating research into fewer and fewer universities. Do the Government welcome that? Is it desirable? Will it continue? The Government say nothing. Apparently, there is to be more selectivity in the basic research budget distributed by the Universities Funding Council. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, at present about a third of the income from the UFC is used for basic research. However, in the United Kingdom, instead of about 45 universities competing for the research budget, there will be 90. In Scotland, instead of eight universities, there will be 12 universities and 13 central institutions competing for the same research money. Meanwhile, the Government say nothing.
  It is naive in the extreme to believe that polytechnics will simply continue their existing mission. Throughout the world, research is considered to be top of the heap. As an academic exercise, research is seen as a higher prestige activity than teaching. All institutions will seek to add to their research. It is inevitable that polytechnic staff will seek to increase the research component of their work.
  The Government may say that some institutions will become teaching institutions, but such centres are not cheap. Good teaching universities elsewhere in the world achieve success by devoting large amounts of human and physical resources to research. Such universities exist in America, but there the percentage of undergraduate or postgraduate students at acknowledged research univer-sities is, in proportional terms, equal to the entire number of students here.
  We are falling behind all the time on research. The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology—these are not moderate words—said:
  "We think that the 1991–92 science budget falls far short of what is required to provide the basis for the continuing development of the country's science base."
  There is no fat left in the system to absorb or disguise the present crisis. We are concerned about the extent to which there has already been a levelling down. But a central problem with the Bill is that there is no commitment by the Government to a planning function for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.
  I received a briefing from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, not a body with which I have had much contact. It said:
  "The Funding Council should actively encourage rationalisation, elimination of unnecessary duplication, co-operation in teaching and research, in innovation."
  It should be dealing with issues such as the highlands and islands university. We believe that firm planning powers should be unambiguously added to the powers of the council and we shall be tabling the appropriate amendments to that effect in Committee.
  We shall also be seeking to remove from the Government the unnecessary and suspicious interference powers which the Secretary of State is taking and on which the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), then Secretary of State for Education, backed down in 1988. For the sake of academic freedom, the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council must be an effective buffer between politicians and the colleges. The Government do not need the powers and we shall seek to remove them.
  It is rumoured that section 77(2) of the English legislation which refers to particular directional powers was omitted from the Scottish legislation in error. I hope that in the short time that the Minister has to reply he will assure us that in Committee he will not include that

  871
  ominous power in the English legislation which gives the Secretary of State power to direct funds or give instructions to particular institutions. We set up a funding council because it is vital to a free society that we have free, strong, autonomous universities which can question and quarrel with received wisdom.
  We cannot vote for the Bill on Second Reading. The part relating to further education is half-baked, ham-fisted and yet more centralising imperialism from the Secretary of State. It is hopelessly inadequate in its perception of further and adult education. The business community has no right to control further education, and it does not want to. It is an important beneficiary of further education and it must contribute, but it is not the customer, as the White Paper says. The customers are the students and their needs. No case has been made for this centralisation.
  On higher education, it is right that controls should be switched to Scotland and that the binary divide should be abolished, but the Government are abolishing the binary divide in order to level down—there is not the necessary commitment to make the change work. We want much stronger planning powers for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and we deeply distrust the powers of interference that the Government are taking.
  The Bill will be introduced by the Government, but it will be acted on by an incoming Labour Government, from which Scotland can take great comfort.
  9.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) described my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as an imperialist. That is the kind of language that I thought had gone out of fashion in the Labour party.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) on his excellent maiden speech, so eloquently delivered. I thank him, I think on behalf of the whole House, for the tribute that he paid to Alick Buchanan-Smith. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will enjoy his time as a Member of Parliament and I look forward to his contributions to our debates.
  The hon. Gentleman made a couple of points on the Bill to which I wish to respond. He suggested that the changes have something to do with keeping down the level of the poll tax. Responsibility for the provision of further education will be removed from local government, which will not get the money either. The money will not go to local authorities, so the effect will be neutral. There will be no saving in terms of money raised or money spent.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me to dispel the doubts surrounding Robert Gordon's institute of technology. As I said during the by-election campaign, when I happened to be visiting Aberdeen on ministerial business, to fulfil a long-standing engagement at RGIT, the only people who seem to be raising doubts are politicians in the north-east. Now that the criteria have been published, we have not, so far as I am aware, received any representations that they should be tougher—and as the hon. Gentleman knows, RGIT would comfortably meet them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) pointed out that this is a major devolutionary measure that involves a vast transfer of power to Scotland.
  872
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] My hon. Friend is in Committee. He pointed out that it will also give considerable power to further education colleges themselves.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that the Opposition have been mealy-mouthed. We thought that they would welcome the Bill, which gives tremendous power to the Scottish Office and to the institutions concerned to fashion further and higher education in the interests of Scotland as a whole.
  It was obvious from the debate that there would be some division. The Government introduced the Bill because my right hon. and hon. Friends believe in extending equality of opportunity, whereas Opposition Members do not.
  Mr. McFall: That is ridiculous.
  Mr. Forsyth: I was quoting the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who, speaking for himself, is on record as saying:
  "We do not believe in equality of opportunity. We are the party of equality."
  He was right. Opposition Members believe in a levelling down, whereas we believe in competition and the opportunity to provide for equality of opportunity.
  We heard a great deal from the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Clydebank and Milngavie about the need for more resources before any improvements can be made to higher education. That could not be described as a surprising line. It is the line that Labour Members always take—it is their standard gambit.
  We heard tonight echoes of previous debates. I refer to a statement made by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) on 8 July 1981.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry that Labour Members are embarrassed by their leader's words. He said:
  "It is obvious that the opportunities for higher education are being stolen from thousands who have qualified for it, who have aspired to it and who, even today, in schools and colleges throughout the country, are working towards getting the places that the Government are taking away."—[Official Report, 8 July 1981; Vol. 8, c. 462.]
  Even more striking, on 17 March 1982, a certain Mr. Bruce Millan told the House:
  "Whatever is happening, the one thing that we can be sure of is that central institutions, any more than the universities or colleges of education, will not be able to meet the demand for qualified young people leaving school who want to enter them. In particular, they will not be able to meet the demand from those young people who are denied university and college of education places because of the university and college cuts. There will be no solution to the Scottish problems through the central institutions".—[Official Report, 17 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 363.]
  So said a former Labour Secretary of State.
  The more perceptive right hon. and hon. Members will have noticed that those remarks were made at the beginning of a period that saw a 40 per cent. increase in higher education for students in Scotland. So much for the cuts and the piteous plight of young people denied their place in education that we were told about.
  The Opposition were wrong then, just as they are wrong now. The Government's obvious success was based on a combination of increased funding and considerable efficiency gains.
  Mr. Dewar rose——
  Mr. Forsyth: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress. He asked a whole range of questions, and I will answer all of them.
  The Government's policy will continue to deliver more places for students, generate efficiency gains, and enhance the quality and relevance of the higher education that is offered. The Bill is a part of reforms that are intended to ensure that students have choice, and are able to acquire the skills that are needed. It will also enable our institutions of learning to engage in partnerships with business and commerce.
  I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in the Chamber. I greatly admire his policies on education: we find ourselves agreeing on such matters as primary testing and publishing league tables. I wish that he would have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, who says the opposite north of the border from what the hon. Member for Blackburn says south of the border.
  Mr. Worthington: We want devolution.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but he must still answer the West Lothian question that was asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The answer, of course, would prevent him from continuing to prop up a Labour Government with a majority north of the border.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: No; I want to make my point about the Labour party in Scotland and the Labour party in England.
  The Labour party in England has a clear policy on further education. The hon. Member for Blackburn seems embarrassed by mention of that, but the English Labour party supports the creation of corporate colleges. The only difference between its policy and ours is our wish to fund colleges on a national basis to avoid local anomalies. The hon. Gentleman was lucky not to be present for the debate; there has been speech after speech condemning the idea of corporate colleges, which apparently are good enough for England but quite inappropriate for Scotland.
  I waited in vain to hear what Labour's policy for Scotland was. The truth is that there is no such policy. Labour has said that it will repeal part I of the Bill, but it is bereft of any alternative ideas. That will not do: it displays complete contempt for the further education colleges in Scotland that support our proposals to give them greater freedom. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) may be unaware of it, but the further education colleges in Scotland have welcomed our proposals.
  I think that I know the reasons for the difference in policy between those north and south of the border, and for the policy vacuum. The Labour party's agenda in Scotland is dictated by the trade unions and Labour authorities, which fear our proposals because they would diminish their traditional fiefdoms.
  Mr. Worthington: I assume that, when the Minister refers to the colleges, he means the college principals.
  I wonder whether he has seen the article by the chairman of the Scottish branch of the Association of Principals of Further Education Colleges, Mr. Craig Brown, who said:
  874
  "Even before the printed version is freely available, the Bill is getting a worse press than Saddam Hussein. No one has a good word to say for it. I think the Bill was inevitable. The 1989 Act was such an awful piece of legislation that its successor was inevitable."
  Mr. Forsyth: I do not recall a piece of legislation that I have taken through the House that has not had a worse press than Saddam Hussein north of the border. Why did the Opposition oppose the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 in Committee? Why did they argue against school boards, and why did they change their minds? Was it a coincidence that they did so at the same time as the Educational Institute of Scotland and the unions? Labour does what the unions tell it to do. At least the hon. Member for Blackburn thinks about parents and students, which is why his agenda is closer to ours than that of the hon. Member for Garscadden.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: The Minister says that Labour changed its mind about school boards. It is the Minister who changed his mind. He was the author of the ceiling powers that suddenly evaporated when the public made it clear that they would not wear it.
  Mr. Forsyth: Strathclyde regional council, controlled by Labour, has brought in ceiling powers on a voluntary basis, and is delegating those powers to its school boards.
  I pay tribute to the role played by local authorities in developing further education. Unfortunately, like over-protective nannies who want to smother their charges' development, they have drawn up a list of do's and dont's for further education colleges: "You must use local authority architects and lawyers; you must pay staff at nationally agreed rates, and not reward good perfor-mance; you must employ certain categories of staff, even if it means employing lecturers for routine administrative tasks." That is the dead end and dead hand of local authority bureaucracy. We seek to introduce flexibility, whereas the Opposition wish to ensure rigidity. For the Labour party, self-government is anathema, whether it is in local authority further education colleges, in self-governing schools, or in self-governing hospitals. The Opposition cannot stand the idea of people making their own decisions. Napier and Glasgow polytechnics, shortly to become universities, are an example of what happens when a local authority-run institution of further education breaks away and is allowed to take its own decisions. It can grow and prosper, to the point of becoming a university.
  The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that he was very concerned about academic freedom. So did the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg). There is a notion that the conditions of grant amount to a new imposition, but there is nothing new about conditions being attached to grants and there is nothing new about powers of direction. The Government have always had powers of direction over the University Grants Committee. It is absurd of the Opposition to attack the Government in support of academic freedom when they complain at the same time that we are not giving a sufficiently strong planning role to the funding council.
  The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that the Government must allow the institutions to get on with their business and must not interfere with their funding and then go on to say that the Government are not doing enough planning. According to the Opposition, we should hand

  875
  over £600 million a year to the institutions and not even inquire what they do with the money—because that would amount to interfering with academic freedom—but we should set up a body that would interfere with the same institutions—close them, merge them, move them, redirect them. According to the Opposition, that is planning, not an attack on academic freedom.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me why the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council report is to be implemented now: was it not a little late in the day to do so? There is consensus throughout the higher education system that that is desirable. It would have been wrong to go ahead with it, as well as impracticable, while some universities opposed it. Furthermore, the college sector has gained in maturity. The hon. Member for Garscadden does not seem to be interested in the reply, but I must tell him that many colleges are now able to assume degree-awarding powers. The establishment of autonomous boards has led to stronger management. Changes to the funding system have led to greater efficiency and effectiveness.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden also asked about Professor Shaw's terms of appointment. They are two days a week for an initial three-year term from April 1992. The hon. Gentleman then asked about funding: how the resources would be decided, how much, what the future level of resources would be and what research funding changes would be made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland pointed out that we are increasing funding by 12 per cent. Resources will be transferred to the Scottish Office from the Department of Education and Science to take account of responsibility for the universities. In subsequent years resources will be a matter for the Secretary of State; they will be part of the block. Future levels of resources depend upon which Government are in power. If, as I expect, we are in power, our economy will create the wealth from which our universities and colleges will benefit.
  The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth asked why the Bill does not include a duty that the Secretary of State should provide language courses for ethnic minorities. Clause 1 provides for that, in so far as it imposes that duty on the Secretary of State.
  The Bill represents a major advance in the Government's continued assault on the barriers to opportunity that still exist in our society. We are developing a post-school system that will deliver high-quality education to all those with the ability, motivation and maturity to benefit from it. The life chance of further and higher education will be available to students, whatever their backgrounds or age. There is no place in Conservative Scotland for the outmoded and snobbish attitudes that give to the practical an inferior status to the theoretical. These attitudes are wrong in themselves. They also damage our country's ability to compete and win in international markets.
  The Government's radical approach to education is already showing success. There are record numbers of students in higher and further education. We shall go further: we shall remove the restraints on institutions and give them the freedom to compete to provide the education that the nation needs and our students deserve.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided:Ayes 220, Noes 307.

  Division No. 17]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Flannery, Martin

  Allen, Graham

  Flynn, Paul

  Alton, David

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Anderson, Donald

  Foster, Derek

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fraser, John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Galbraith, Sam

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  George, Bruce

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barron, Kevin

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Battle, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Beckett, Margaret

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bell, Stuart

  Gould, Bryan

  Bellotti, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

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

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Benton, Joseph

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hain, Peter

  Blair, Tony

  Hardy, Peter

  Blunkett, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boateng, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Boyes, Roland

  Haynes, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Henderson, Doug

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Home Robertson, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Caborn, Richard

  Howells, Geraint

  Callaghan, Jim

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  lllsley, Eric

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Janner, Greville

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Corbett, Robin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cox, Tom

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Crowther, Stan

  Lamond, James

  Cryer, Bob

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cummings, John

  Leighton, Ron

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lewis, Terry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Litherland, Robert

  Darling, Alistair

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Loyden, Eddie

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

  McAllion, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dixon, Don

  McCartney, Ian

  Dobson, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Doran, Frank

  McFall, John

  Douglas, Dick

  McKelvey, William

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  McLeish, Henry

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McMaster, Gordon

  Eadie, Alexander

  McNamara, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  McWilliam, John

  Enright, Derek

  Madden, Max

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Marek, Dr John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Martlew, Eric

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Fisher, Mark

  Meale, Alan

  877

  Michael, Alun

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Sillars, Jim

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morley, Elliot

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

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Soley, Clive

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mullin, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Paul

  Stephen, Nicol

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stott, Roger

  O'Brien, William

  Strang, Gavin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Patchett, Terry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Dennis

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wallace, James

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Walley, Joan

  Prescott, John

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Radice, Giles

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Richardson, Jo

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm then)

  Robertson, George

  Wilson, Brian

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Winnick, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rooker, Jeff

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooney, Terence

  Wray, Jimmy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. Allen McKay.

  Salmond, Alex

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Allason, Rupert

  Butler, Chris

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Butterfiil, John

  Amess, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Amos, Alan

  Cash, William

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Chope, Christopher

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Baldry, Tony

  Colvin, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Conway, Derek

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre P'rest)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Couchman, James

  Benyon, W.

  Cran, James

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Body, Sir Richard

  Devlin, Tim

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dover, Den

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

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bowis, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Eggar, Tim

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evennett, David

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

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Fallon, Michael

  878

  Farr, Sir John

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Favell, Tony

  Latham, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lord, Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Freeman, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, David

  Fry, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Madel, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Maples, John

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Marland, Paul

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorst, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gregory, Conal

  Mills, lain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ground, Patrick

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grylls, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Moate, Roger

  Hague, William

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Sir Charles

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

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Harris, David

  Mudd, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Needham, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Norris, Steve

  Hill, James

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hind, Kenneth

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Page, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

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

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Portillo, Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Irvine, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Raffan, Keith

  Jack, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Jackson, Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  Janman, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Key, Robert

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kilfedder, James

  Rost, Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knox, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  879

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Tredinnick, David

  Shelton, Sir William

  Trotter, Neville

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shersby, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walden, George

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Speller, Tony

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Watts, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wells, Bowen

  Steen, Anthony

  Whitney, Ray

  Stern, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wilkinson, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wilshire, David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stokes, Sir John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Young, Sir George (Acton,)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thorne, Neil

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Townsend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. Dewar.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 222 Noes 303.

  Division No. 18]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Allen, Graham

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Alton, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Anderson, Donald

  Callaghan, Jim

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashton, Joe

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Clelland, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Cohen, Harry

  Battle, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bell, Stuart

  Corbett, Robin

  Bellotti, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cox, Tom

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

  Crowther, Stan

  Benton, Joseph

  Cryer, Bob

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cummings, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Blair, Tony

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Blunkett, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boateng, Paul

  Darling, Alistair

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Dewar, Donald

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dixon, Don

  880

  Dobson, Frank

  McLeish, Henry

  Doran, Frank

  McMaster, Gordon

  Douglas, Dick

  McNamara, Kevin

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  McWilliam, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Madden, Max

  Eadie, Alexander

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Eastham, Ken

  Marek, Dr John

  Enright, Derek

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Martlew, Eric

  Fatchett, Derek

  Maxton, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Meacher, Michael

  Fearn, Ronald

  Meale, Alan

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fisher, Mark

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Flannery, Martin

  Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)

  Flynn, Paul

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foster, Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foulkes, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Fraser, John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Mullin, Chris

  George, Bruce

  Murphy, Paul

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  O'Brien, William

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gordon, Mildred

  Patchett, Terry

  Gould, Bryan

  Pendry, Tom

  Graham, Thomas

  Pike, Peter L.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Prescott, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Grocott, Bruce

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hain, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  Hardy, Peter

  Reid, Dr John

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Richardson, Jo

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Robertson, George

  Haynes, Frank

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Rogers, Allan

  Henderson, Doug

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rooney, Terence

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Home Robertson, John

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Howells, Geraint

  Ruddock, Joan

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Salmond, Alex

  Hoyle, Doug

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Illsley, Eric

  Sillars, Jim

  Ingram, Adam

  Skinner, Dennis

  Janner, Greville

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Snape, Peter

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Soley, Clive

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Kennedy, Charles

  Stephen, Nicol

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Stott, Roger

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Strang, Gavin

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Straw, Jack

  Lamond, James

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Turner, Dennis

  Leighton, Ron

  Vaz, Keith

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Wallace, James

  Lewis, Terry

  Walley, Joan

  Litherland, Robert

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McAllion, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McCartney, Ian

  Wilson, Brian

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Winnick, David

  McFall, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  McKelvey, William

  Worthington, Tony

  881

  Wray, Jimmy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. Allen McKay.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Alexander, Richard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Allason, Rupert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Evennett, David

  Amess, David

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Amos, Alan

  Fallon, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Farr, Sir John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Favell, Tony

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Ashby, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baldry, Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Banks, Rfbert (Harrogate)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bellingham, Henry

  Franks, Cecil

  Bendall, Vivian

  Freeman, Roger

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  French, Douglas

  Benyon, W.

  Fry, Peter

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gale, Roger

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gill, Christopher

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Body, Sir Richard

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gorst, John

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

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

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowis, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Ground, Patrick

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grylls, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

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

  Hague, William

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burns, Simon

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, John

  Butler, Chris

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

  Butterfill, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chope, Christopher

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Hayward, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Colvin, Michael

  Hill, James

  Conway, Derek

  Hind, Kenneth

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Davies, Q. (Stamfd & Spald'g)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Irvine, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jackson, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Janman, Tim

  882

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Key, Robert

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kilfedder, James

  Rost, Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knowles, Michael

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knox, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lightbown, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Li 1 ley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Speller, Tony

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Squire, Robin

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Maples, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mills, lain

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thorne, Neil

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moate, Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tracey, Richard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tredinnick, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Trotter, Neville

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Walden, George

  Needham, Richard

  Walker, Bill (Tside North)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waller, Gary

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Ward, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Norris, Steve

  Watts, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wells, Bowen

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Whitney, Ray

  Page, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Paice, James

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Wilkinson, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wilshire, David

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Pawsey, James

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wolfson, Mark

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wood, Timothy

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Portillo, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Price, Sir David

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Raffan, Keith

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rathbone, Tim

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Redwood, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill accordingly committed to a Standing Committee.

  FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act; and

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

PETITION

  RU486
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I wish to present a petition signed by 300 people who attended the LIFE national conference at Leamington Spa—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members not remaining for the petition and the Adjournment debate please leave the Chamber quietly?
  Mr. Hargreaves: They wish to express their concern at the licensing of the drug RU486, which, far from being a simple advance for women's liberation, is still an experimental drug with known and unknown risks to women. The signatories
  deplore the fact that this drug causes the death of unborn human beings, and … express … grave concern that it will damage women physically and psychologically.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House, which is committed to upholding respect for human life and protection of the weak and vulnerable, will do everything possible to prevent the distribution and use of … RU486 and any other drugs which, like it, are produced with the deliberate intention of destroying innocent human life.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Aborted Babies (Disposal)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. David Alton: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment tonight the methods of disposal of the human remains of aborted babies. It is the subject of early-day motion 79, which is jointly sponsored by myself and Members in all parts of the House, including the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) and the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).
  I know that it is the intention of the Father of the House, who is the president of the all-party Pro-Life group, to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that it will also be possible for the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), the chairman of the group, and other hon. Members to participate in the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Members who have supported me by being here this evening to show their abhorrence of current practices in abortion clinics and national health service hospitals.
  To place the debate in context, it is worth recording that, this year alone, abortionism will be responsible for more deaths than malnutrition, hunger and poverty combined. In Britain, it totals 184,000 deaths—some 600 unborn babies killed each and every day. Apart from the ethical questions raised by that massive number of abortions, there is also the practical question of the disposal of their remains.
  Earlier this year, I complained to the chief environmental health officer of Liverpool city council, Mr. Glyn Thompson, about the use of an incinerator at the Parkfield road abortion clinic in Sefton Park in my constituency. In answer to my inquiries about the incinerator, he replied on 19 November:
  "This incinerator does not meet current standards and so there is no question of the facility being used with the Council's approval."
  Residents in the area had complained about the high level of air pollution.
  In September, new regulations were introduced to control the use of incinerators. When the incinerator no longer seemed to be being used, I went with Councillor John Livingston, a local Labour councillor and Pro-Life supporter, to ask the public health investigators what methods were being used to dispose of the remains of aborted children. It was then that the public health inspectors notified me that a macerator was being used. For hon. Members who do not know what that entails, I shall explain. A macerator is a grinding machine. The remains of aborted babies are placed in a macerator, pulped and ground down and then discharged into the neighbourhood's sewers and drains.
  I wrote to the National Rivers Authority. Dr. Leeming, the environmental quality manager, replying to my constituent, Mr. Cooney of Hadassah grove, who also wrote complaining, said that he shared my concern, but that the matter was entirely for North West Water. I then wrote to Mr. Brian Alexander, the managing director, who said:
  "We would normally seek to use our influence to prevent or stop a practice which we believed might offend our customers or the community.

  885
  As you know, this is the action we were proposing in this particular case, and there was an immediate cessation of the practice."
  I also tabled questions to the Minister, who unfortunately is unable to be here this evening. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary who will reply to the debate.
  I received a further letter from Mr. Brian Alexander, again via Mr. Cooney, dated 18 November. In it, Mr. Alexander said:
  "I doubt the existence of such evidence and therefore our ability to sustain any action."
  In answer to the question whether it was possible to prosecute those responsible for discharging the remains into the local sewers, he said:
  "It is clear that the present legislation with which we arc concerned is not designed to deal with this type of issue. In the circumstances we have expressed these views to the Department of Health."
  Meanwhile, in answer to the questions I tabled, the Minister said of maceration:
  "This method has been used in a small number of private sector approved places since the early 1970s."—[Official Report, 5 November 1991; Vol. 198 c. 105.]
  It is extraordinary that North West Water says that it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute and that the Department, having been notified by North West Water, admitted that this method has been in use since 19'10 but it had been unable and sufficiently unconcerned about the problem to do anything whatever about it.
  Although the Minister promised an immediate cessation, that will not be implemented in some cases until next January. Nor do we know how it will be enforced. I hope that the Under-Secretary will turn his mind to that when he replies.
  Although I was told in a parliamentary reply on 8 November that that method of disposal was no longer considered appropriate, the Minister told me that compliance would be further monitored through regular, unannounced inspections by the Department's medical, nursing and investigative officers. But if the same methods will be used as have been for the last 21 years, it is difficult to have much confidence in that watchdog carrying out the monitoring exercise. The very people who have been responsible for allowing those practices will, we are told, be responsible in the future.
  What now'? If incineration is to be the preferred method, as I was told on 5 November in answer to another parliamentary question, and if incineration is to replace maceration, what issues does that pose? This clinic, Parkfield road, has hired a waste disposal company, Quick Ways Waste of Coburg dock, which every day takes shipments of unborn babies—about 500 in the last month from that clinic alone—to Walton hospital in Liverpool, which in turn charges the national health service 50p per sack of human remains, which are then incinerated on the premises at Walton hospital.
  I wish to quiz the Minister on the conscience clause, a matter to which, I understand, the hon. Member for Congleton will refer in due course. In a letter dated 13 November of this year, the district general manager of South Sefton (Merseyside) health authority, said:
  "The 'conscience' clause in the Abortion Act applies only to those staff who might be participating in treatment.
  In other words, ancillary staff—porters and operators of furnaces and incinerators—have no protection whatever in this matter. When does the Minister intend to do something about the recommendations of the Select
  886
  Committee on Health—the Chairman of which, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I am glad to see in his place—which recommended last year that the conscience clause should be extended to cover ancillary workers?
  When will the recommendations of the Polkinghorne committee be implemented'? That committee reported to the Department during consideration of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Polkinghorne said:
  "A foetus is entitled to respect, according it a status broadly comparable with that of a living person."
  Who can honestly believe that the grinding and pulping of the unborn child and the discharge of its remains into the public sewers like human excrement constitutes dignity or respect?
  In many countries—for example, Sweden, Italy and the United States—there is legislation requiring the unborn to be treated with respect. Fifteen states in America require that the unborn who are aborted or miscarried shall be buried or cremated and not tossed into an incinerator with hospital waste, which is precisely what is happening at Walton hospital. I hope that the Minister will address that point too when he replies. There are in the United States 90-day jail sentences and $700 fines for people found breaking that law.
  What are the health implications for the communities living in and around the locations where incinerators are located'? That is another matter that must be addressed by the Department, for I became interested in the issue in the first place because of complaints from people living in neighbourhoods near clinics which were using what the chief environmental health officer described as "unsatisfactory incineration methods".
  In the last 24 hours, I have heard from Merseyside hospital workers and NUPE officials that they have been asked to handle and incinerate the remains of babies who have been perfectly formed. They question why they should be forced to do other people's dirty work.
  All life is precious. If, on these supreme human rights questions, this Parliament does not insist on the dignity and respect to which the unborn are entitled, what right will we have to be taken seriously on any other occasion when we demand that human rights must be respected?
  10.39 pm
  Sir Bernard Braine: The House is deeply indebted to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for raising a matter that so far has been dealt with behind closed doors. Now that it is out in the open, it will truly shock the nation. There can be no doubt that, without the hon. Gentleman's initiative, the House would never have heard of the manner in which aborted babies were being disposed of at the Parkfield road clinic in Merseyside, run by the Pregnancy Advisory Service, which on many occasion I have heard spokesmen of the Department of Health referring to as a charity.
  The Minister for Health is not here to answer the hon. Gentleman's grave charge. No doubt the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will confirm that she changed the guidelines earlier this year. Henceforward, incineration in abortion clinics would be upgraded, since those in use previously were no longer considered adequate for their grisly task. Inquiries revealed that the Merseyside nursing home had followed instructions and has discarded its

  887
  incinerator. Instead of upgrading the equipment, it was replaced with a macerator which minced to pieces the aborted babies and sluiced them down the local sewer.
  Can the Parliamentary Under-Secretary possibly imagine the horror of those in Liverpool when they discovered what was being done with the connivance of my hon. Friend's Department? I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary realises that that practice offends against every conceivable standard of human decency. I feel bound to ask him, therefore, a number of questions.
  First, what follow-up inquiries were made by the Department of Health to ensure that the Minister's instruction about incineration had been carried out? We know that no inquiries were made in Merseyside, but I want to know what was done in every other health authority in the country. We are entitled to know.
  Secondly, what was the reason for ordering abortion clinic incinerators to be upgraded? Was it anything to do with the fact that the existing incinerators might no longer be adequate for the disposal of late aborted babies, where a recognisable little human would be thrust into the flames? What was the reason for the so-called upgrading? Let us be told.
  Thirdly, it is bad enough that daily we destroy the lives of 600 unborn babies, but now, by treating their remains like effluent or sending them up in smoke, we show the depravity and the degradation that are the hallmarks of the abortion industry.
  It appears that the Merseyside clinic had not invested in an upgraded incinerator, but had instead hired the services of an industrial waste disposal company, which collects the aborted babies and takes them to be incinerated at Walton hospital—which, ironically, does not carry out abortions. I am told that, for that service, the company charges the hospital 50p for each bag to be incinerated. Is that an improvement on macerators? Is this the pattern elsewhere in the country? This House wants to know. We need to know what is going on.
  The hon. Member for Mossley Hill reminded us that the Polkinghorne committee said that the remains of the unborn were entitled to the same treatment as human cadavers and were to be treated with respect and dignity. The Polkinghorne committee also said that mothers should be asked in advance how they wanted their babies to be treated. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say whether the mother will in future be asked that question, and whether proper burial arrangements will be made in future, as they are in the United States. I hope too that he will say whether an independent watchdog will be established, and what action will be taken to prosecute those who have been responsible for these degrading practices.
  This is a shameful story, and nothing but a full inquiry and a truthful report to the House will suffice. If I were the Under-Secretary—I once held that office—I would resign.
  10.43 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for allowing me to contribute briefly to this evening's debate. As chairman of the all-party Pro-Life group, I can say that the subject is of great concern to many right hon. and hon. Members.
  888
  In 1989 deep concern was also generated by the news that the brain cells of aborted babies were being used in controversial new treatments for Parkinson's disease. As a result, the Secretary of State for Health commissioned the Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, Dean of Trinity hall, Cambridge, to chair a committee to consider the ethical questions that that raised.
  Dr. Polkinghorne and his committee studied the matter and made several recommendations which, although lacking the force of law, nevertheless bear consideration now. The committee observed:
  "Central to our understanding is the acceptance of a special status for the living human fetus at every stage of its development".
  The committee went on to say that respect for the living foetus carries over in
  "a modified fashion to the dead fetus, in a way analogous to the respect we afford to a human cadaver on the basis of its having been the body of a human person."
  It is hard to envisage a mother consenting to the remains of her unborn child being ground to pieces and flushed into the public sewer. Such a method of disposal of foetal remains flies directly in the face of the spirit of respect for the dead foetus which the Polkinghorne report espoused. It is gruesome in the extreme.
  My feelings of deep concern are aroused both for the mother, who may subsequently realise the horror of what was done with the remains of her child and suffer unspeakable anguish as a result, and for the ancillary workers who face the task of carrying out the procedure. The Government have refused to bring ancillary workers within the scope of the protection afforded by the conscience clause of the Abortion Act 1967, despite the recommendation of the Social Services Committee which in its 10th report of the 1989–90 Session recommended:
  "The Department of Health considers extending the provisions of section 4 of the 1967 Act to cover some Ancillary staff".
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: My hon. Friend will be aware that the complaint which led the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) to raise the matter was made by NUPE hospital workers who do not want to be placed in such a position. Perhaps we should be doing something for them.
  Mrs. Winterton: That is precisely why the committee recommended that those workers should be included under the conscience clause. Most ordinary people are revolted by what those workers have to do. A woman's right to choose is lauded throughout the land, but if people realised that others had to clear up the remains of the dead babies they would think more clearly about it at the beginning.
  The Department of Health is responsible for protecting ancillary workers against pressure to be involved in procedures to which they conscientiously object. It was unacceptable and cowardly of the Minister to respond to the Select Committee's recommendation by hiding behind a facade and arguing that matters relating to abortion should be left to private Member's legislation.
  10.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Liverpool,

  889
  Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for raising this subject, not only this evening but in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, giving her the opportunity to deal with the maceration aspects. Her action clearly has the support of the three hon. Members who have spoken in this debate and reflects the view that would be held by any right-thinking person approaching the problem.
  As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill rightly said, the issue before the House is not the main issue of the law governing the availability of abortions, but the practical consequences of the decisions that the House has taken over the years on the formulation of abortion law. The practical consequences are as distasteful to anyone considering the implications of the subject under discussion as the subject of abortion itself.
  We must deal with the relatively narrow issue of how to deal with the unavoidably distasteful consequences of abortion laws, to which all hon. Members who have spoken are vehemently and passionately opposed. The correspondence of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill provided the Minister of State with an opportunity to change the public standards enforced on those responsible for carrying out the distasteful task of disposing of foetal remains.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why a small minority of water authorities had allowed the maceration process to continue over a period of years. I am advised that no narrowly defined health hazard arises from the process. However, that in no way invalidates the proposition that an issue of public taste and standards arises from that method of disposal, and it was the acceptance of that which led my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to intervene in the way she did.
  My hon. Friend's intervention was motivated and governed by precisely the approach adopted by the Polkinghorne committee—that the disposal of foetal remains should be governed by the principle that foetal remains had before abortion the potential for developing into fully fledged human life and are entitled to the respect that any common-sense approach—not to mention any vaguely religious approach—to the subject must require public authorities to observe.
  As a consequence of the correspondence with the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health imposed a new public standard on the disposal of foetal remains—precisely the approach that has been pressed upon me by the hon. Gentleman and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, that that disposal should be informed by the approach adopted by the Polkinghorne report. That is not in dispute.
  I was asked how the changed public standard that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health introduced would be enforced. The answer is twofold. First, as it concerns NHS institutions, it is enforced by guidelines issued by the NHS Management Executive, a copy of which I have before me, which is headed:
  "Action. As soon as possible and no later than 1 January 1992, NHS authorities and trusts must ensure that"—
  then there are three propositions, first
  "account is taken of any personal wishes which have been expressed about the disposal of the foetus".
  That answers the point put to me about the concern of the mother.
  Mr. Alton: It does not entirely answer that point. It says that if wishes are expressed by the mother they will be
  890
  taken into account. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) asked whether the mother would be asked.
  Mr. Dorrell: I would not give the assurance that in every case the mother will be asked. We should remember that mothers who go for an abortion do not take the same interest in the subject as perhaps the hon. Gentleman and every other hon. Member might. None the less, where a personal view is expressed the guidance is clear—that the NHS has an obligation to take that into account.
  Secondly, the guidance says that, subject to the views expressed by the mother about the disposal of the foetus, all foetuses and foetal tissue from the termination of a pregnancy must be incinerated. Thirdly, prior to incineration, all foetuses and foetal tissue must be stored in a secure and opaque container in a safe place.
  The enforcement mechanism is the management guidance issued by the Management Executive for NHS hospitals.
  Mr. Alton: What about the issue of separation and the conscience clause for hospital workers? Surely the remains of unborn children should be removed from the garbage that is in the incinerator or which may be put into the incinerator at the same time. Surely the Minister would accept that.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am coming to the point about the conscience clause, but I wish first to deal with enforcement in relation to the private sector institutions, which is obviously a large part of the issue raised by the question. As to that, a letter was addressed to all approved places and registered bureaux under the abortion law. I will not read it to the House in its entirety, because if I do I shall be unable to cover the other points. However, the key paragraph states categorically:
  "Compliance with this letter is a requirement for continued approval under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967."
  Both as regards NHS management guidance and the licensing system for approved places for abortions, action has been taken to ensure that the raised public standards that my hon. Friend the Minister of State introduced will be observed and met.
  As to the conscience clause, it was correctly stated that the Select Committee pointed out that the existing state of the law provides a conscience clause for medical staff but not for non-medical staff in regard to the disposal of foetal remains. The Government's response has already been published, and states clearly that the Government consider that the changes in primary legislation on that subject should be carried forward by private Members' legislation—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Rubbish.
  Mr. Dorrell: —just as the original conscience clause was put on the statute book by private Members' legislation.
  Sir Bernard Braine: That is cowardly.
  Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend may regard that as cowardly, but the House has a long tradition of approaching such issues on the basis of private Members' legislation. Effective, even half-sensitive management in the health service should ensure that people who have a conscience clause as a management action are not required

  891
  to undertake the disposal of foetal remains or to be involved in the necessary consequences of the abortion decision taken by the House.
  Proposals to change statute law—primary legislation —on the conditions surrounding abortion is something that the House has always dealt with by private Members' legislation. That cannot come as a surprise to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), because it was clearly stated in the Government's response to that Select Committee.
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I tried to introduce a private Member's Bill to allow the conscience clause for ancillary workers, but it was killed by the Government.
  Mr. Winterton: What about that?
  Mr. Dorrell: If my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) secured time for such a Bill in a private Members' ballot, I am surprised to hear that the Government took action to kill it. If, on the other hand, my hon. Friend introduced a ten-minute Bill at the end of a Session, he will know that other considerations will have informed decisions taken at that time.
  If any right hon. or hon. Member draws a place in a ballot for private Members' Bills in seeking to introduce
  892
  legislation to provide a conscience clause for ancillary staff in the health service of the kind that we are debating, that matter would be dealt with by a free vote on which the Government would not take a view.
  Mr. Winterton: Who is pulling the wool?
  Mr. Dorrell: I must tell my hon. Friend that I am not sure. I am stating clearly that the Government would not seek to intervene in a decision taken by the House on a proposal of the kind just suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I mentioned American law on the subject. Why do the Government not have the courage to follow the example set by our American cousins—or, for that matter, by any civilised country?
  Mr. Dorrell: I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn that, as a private Member, I would certainly support a measure of the kind that he proposed. As a Government Minister, we have a long tradition in this country—separate from the tradition in the United States, that matters relating to abortion are handled by private Members' legislation——
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Kent Link
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Transport how much money has been approved for re-equipment of the Kent link services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Approval has been given to the following investment in Kent link:

  Project

  Cost £ million

  Initial build of 400 Class 465 Networker vehicles (to make 4-car trains)

  297

  86 Class 466 Networker vehicles (2-car version of Class 465)

  67

  A further 188 Class 465 vehicles

  127

  Infrastructure (including platform lengthening)

  120

  Total

  611

  The Government have just increased British Rail's external finance limit for next year by nearly £1 billion to a total of over £2 billion. It is for BR to allocate resources to specific schemes within its external finance limit: that limit is not hypothecated to particular projects.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safety precautions will be installed on channel tunnel trains to deal with vehicle fires.

  Mr. Freeman
  The safety precautions required for Eurotunnel's shuttle trains are set out in the report on non-segregation of drivers and passengers from their vehicles, published by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority in March 1990. The report is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to make a further statement on the channel tunnel or its associated transport infrastructure before the next meeting of the joint consultative committee in Kent.

  Mr. Freeman
  If any statement is made on matters of concern to my hon. Friend, I shall write to him.

  Rail Line, Cowlairs
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the railway inspectorate's provisional approval of the single line chord at Cowlairs, to which he referred in his answer of 7 November,Official Report, column 189.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have made arrangements for a copy of Her Majesty's railway inspectorate's provisional approval to the single line chord at Cowlairs to be deposited in the Library.

  Trains (Ages)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the average age of(a) engines and (b) passenger train units currently in service, excluding InterCity, by British Rail region.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available by British Rail region. The average ages by sector are as follows:

  Multiple units

  Locomotives and loco-hauled stock

  Regional railways

  16

  25

  Netword SouthEast

  19

  27

  EC Meetings
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the EC Ministerial Council meetings at which his Department has, or will be, represented during November and December.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Neither I nor my ministerial colleagues have attended any meeting during November. I expect to attend the meeting of the Transport Council to be held in Brussels on 16–17 December.

  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list for himself, and for each of the Ministers at his Department, details of (i) the number of visits made during the past month to destinations outside the United Kingdom but within the European Community on official business related to the European Community, (ii) the number of visits made to Brussels within the past month on official business related to the European Community and (iii) the number of nights spent over the past month away from the United Kingdom on official European Community business;

  (2) if he will list (i) the number of visits made by officials in his Department during the past month to destinations outside the United Kingdom but within the European Community on official business related to the European Community, (ii) the number of visits made by officials in his Department to Brussels within the past month on official business related to the European Community and (iii) the number of nights spent by officials in his Department over the past month away from the United Kingdom on official European Community business.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. Many of my officials attend EC-related meetings outside the United Kingdom. These are very numerous and the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Road Haulage
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he proposes any changes to the fees charged to United Kingdom hauliers for international road haulage permits in 1992.

  Mr. Chope
  I am glad to announce some further fee reductions following the successful negotiation of significant increases in the United Kingdom's bilateral and multilateral quota. This has resulted in greater income from permits without significant increases in costs.
  425
  Our success benefits British hauliers twice—first, from the more plentiful supply of permits and, secondly, from the reduction in fees.

  The fees will be as follows, with the 1991 charges in brackets:

  £

  £

  Single journey permit

  £2

  (£2)

  Multi journey permit for two or more journeys

  £1 per journey

  (£1)

  Annual period permit

  £20

  (£40)

  Three month period permit

  £5

  (£10)

  Multilateral EC/ECMT 3 annual permit

  £40

  (£80)

  Multilateral EC/ECMT 3 month permit

  £10

  (£20)

  Community Removals (annual)

  £5

  (£25)

  Multilateral EC 1 month permit

  £5

  (£7)

  EC 1 month cabotage permit

  £5

  (£5)

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce the outcome of his Department's recent bilateral negotiations on road transport with the Soviet Union and its republics.

  Mr. Chope
  These negotiations resulted in agreement that road hauliers travelling between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union and its republics will no longer need to carry permits as from 1 April 1992. We have also reached agreement with Portugal that road hauliers travelling between the United Kingdom and Portugal will no longer need to carry permits from 1 January 1992.

  These follow my Department's success in February—March this year in negotiating the ending of permits between the United Kingdom and Hungary and the United Kingdom and Czechoslovakia from 1 January 1992.

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information is available on the number of calls made to directory inquiries from his Department since 1 April 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Latest estimates are that about 24,000 calls to directory inquiries are made each year, representing approximately 1·5 calls for each member of staff annually.

  Air Pollution
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to combat air pollution caused by road transport.

  Mr. Chope
  [pursuant to the answer, 22 November, Vol. 199, c. 236]: On 1 October the EC Council of Ministers adopted an amending directive 91/542/EEC prescribing stricter limits on the same gaseous emissions from new diesel-engined trucks and buses over 3·5 tonnes. Limits on emissions of particulates are also set for the first time. There will be two stages, the first to take effect in 1992–93 and the second in 1995–96, with the potential for a third, starting in 1999. The 1992–93 stage substantially reduces the limit for emissions of NOx and establishes limits for particulate emissions. The 1995–96 stage goes further with NOx reduction, so that the limit will be less than half its present value, and reduces the particulate limit to a level of stringency similar to that to be applied in the United States from 1994.

  Both directives set ambitious targets with a challenging but industrially realistic timetable, putting the United
  426
  Kingdom and its EC partners on a course for substantial longer-term progress in improving the quality of air in our towns and cities.

  Regulations will shortly be laid before Parliament introducing the directives into United Kingdom law.

  The Government are also pressing the EC Commission to propose a directive to control CO2 emissions from motor vehicles using a system of tradeable credits to ensure effective control of this important greenhouse gas.

  On 1 November a new MOT emissions check came into effect. If motorists keep their engines in tune, less fuel is burnt and therefore fewer pollutants are emitted. It is expected that the check should improve fuel consumption and hence reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 4 per cent. averaged over the 16·5 million cars and light vans in the MOT scheme, with substantially larger benefits to carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions.

  During 1992 the Government also plan to introduce an instrumented smoke check into the annual test procedure for large goods vehicles and buses.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of(a) the basic state retirement pension, (b) state earnings-related pension scheme, (c) occupational pensions and (d) personal pensions as a percentage of gross domestic product each year since 1979; and what estimates he makes, stating his assumptions, for 1995, 2005, 2015, 2025 and 2035.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The cost of basic state retirement pension and the state earnings-related pension scheme as a percentage of gross domestic product from 1978–79 to 1990–91 is given in the table.

  Estimates of the cost of basic state retirement pension and SERPS are not available for the future years quoted in the question, but estimates for certain years up to 2050–51 are published in the report by the Government Actuary on the second quinquennial review under section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  The Government do not publish assumptions for money GDP for the future years quoted.

  Comparable information on the cost to pension providers of occupational and personal pensions is not available.

  Basic RP Expenditure £ million

  Percentage of GDP

  SERPS Expenditure £ million

  Percentage of GDP

  1978–79

  7,552

  4·43

  —

  —

  1979–80

  8,815

  4·30

  1

  0·0005

  1980–81

  10,518

  4·50

  8

  0·003

  1981–82

  12,107

  4·72

  19

  0·01

  1982–83

  13,509

  4·82

  40

  0·01

  1983–84

  14,553

  4·78

  60

  0·02

  1984–85

  15,181

  4·66

  87

  0·03

  1985–86

  16,443

  4·61

  141

  0·04

  1986–87

  17,560

  4·58

  219

  0·06

  1987–88

  18,356

  4·33

  292

  0·07

  1988–89

  18,857

  4·00

  380

  0·08

  1989·90

  20,171

  3–96

  526

  0·10

  1990·911

  21,990

  4·02

  725

  0·13

  1 Estimated expenditure.

  Carers Charter
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to introduce a carers charter to ensure the mutual financial independence of carers and disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no such plans. However, by the end of the year the Benefits Agency plans to publish its own customer charter which will take account of the needs of all its customers. An independent income for carers is provided in the form of invalid care allowance—ICA. More carers are now able to benefit following recent extensions in the provision of attendance allowance, the introduction of a carer premium into the income-related benefits and increases in the ICA earnings limit, from £12 per week prior to April 1990, to £40 from April 1992.

  Housing and Mortgage Statistics
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will detail the annual figures for(a) mortgage interest tax relief and (b) housing benefit for the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and the projected figures for 1991–92, respectively.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The amounts of housing benefit paid to beneficiaries and the tax relief given on mortgage interest in the United Kingdom for the relevant years are shown in the table.

  Housing benefit1

  Mortgage interest relief £ billion

  1989–90

  4·3

  6·8

  1990–91

  24·9

  37·7

  1991–92

  45·4

  56·1

  Notes:

  1 Excludes Rate Rebates and Community Charge Benefit. Includes Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances.

  2 Estimated outturn.

  3 Provisional figure.

  4 Planned expenditure.

  5 Estimated figure based on the assumption that current interest rates are unchanged for the rest of the year.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the working of the housing benefit direct payment procedure, particularly with regard to delays in payment and failure by recipients of benefit always to make rental payments; what changes are being considered to the guidance notes to local authorities; and what other measures are being considered.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Full statutory responsibility for the administration of the housing benefit scheme rests with local authorities, which are required to ensure that the system is working effectively and in accordance with the rules of the scheme. Regulations prescribe that claims should be processed within 14 days of receipt of all the necessary information, or as soon as possible thereafter. Where, through no fault of the applicant, a claim cannot be settled within 14 days, interim payments should be made.

  An important principle underlying the social security reforms is that individuals should be encouraged to take
  428
  responsibility for managing their own affairs. Housing benefit is, therefore, normally paid direct to private tenants in the form of a cash rent allowance to enable them to discharge their liability to their landlord. Nevertheless, regulations do give local authorities wide-ranging powers to pay benefit direct to a tenant's landlord, for example where rent arrears have accrued or where social or medical problems clearly indicate that help with budgeting is needed. A number of representations have been received about local authorities' use of those powers, and the Department therefore intends to issue further guidance on the relevant legislation to authorities in due course.

  Disabled People and Carers
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what, in real terms, is the increase on expenditure on benefits for disabled people and carers since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  Total planned expenditure on benefits for disabled people and carers for 1991–92 is £11,950 million—an increase of 152 per cent. in real terms over spending in 1978–79.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many computer management and consultancy contracts were awarded by his Department in 1991, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will give the total value of these contracts; how many contracts were subject to competitive tender; and if he will give the value of these contracts.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since January 1991 we have awarded 19 such contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases. The total value of the contracts is about £20 million. Eleven were let by competitive tender; the total value of these is about £13·5 million.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the names of the companies shortlisted for each computer management and computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1991, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Details of companies shortlisted for computer management and consultancy contracts represents commercial-in-confidence information.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will specify the measures being taken to help those in residential care and nursing homes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Special higher levels of income support are available to people in residential care and nursing homes towards the cost of their fees. On 21 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced proposals for substantial increases, from April 1992, to the limits which apply to people in such homes, including increases of £20 a week for two groups of people—the mentally handicapped and the very dependent elderly—and £15 to almost all the other limits.

  From April 1993, new arrangements will be implemented as part of the Government's community care policy for the assessment and provision of care for such people. This will improve the effectiveness and targeting of the resources.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the powers available to inspectors at the Contributions Agency relating to entry of premises, seizure and inspection of documents; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The agency's inspectors have powers relating to entry of premises and inspection of documents to ensure that the Acts and regulations are complied with. The relevant legislation is contained in section 58 of the Social Security Act, 1986, and regulation 32 of the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 1979 which is summarised as follows:—

  Certified inspectors are empowered to:

  (1) enter at all reasonable times any premises where persons are employed or from where any agency or business is being conducted.

  (2) require information to be provided by individuals and inspect any records to ensure that the provisions of the Social Security and related Acts are being complied with.

  The regulations require employers to produce wages sheets and other records relating to the calculation of payment of emoluments, and that such documents should be kept by employers for not less than three years after the end of the year to which they relate. The vast majority of inquiries carried out by the agency are completed in an effective and businesslike manner, without recourse to these powers which are normally used as a last resort.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fire Stations
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are to(a) refurbish existing fire stations and (b) to build purpose-built fire stations in Northern Ireland; and what is the proposed start date for each project.

  Mr. Needham
  The Fire Authority for Northern Ireland's current works programme does not include any projects for refurbishing existing fire stations. It does, however, make provision for the following purpose-built fire stations:

  Location

  Proposed start date 1992

  Glengormley

  January

  Crossmaglen

  February

  Carryduff

  November

  In addition the authority will be providing prefabricated buildings for new retained fire stations at Dromore, Co. Tyrone and Ballywalter, Co. Down. The proposed start dates for these are February 1992 and June 1992 respectively.

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available on the number of calls made to directory inquiries from his Department since 1 April 1991.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not available.

  Belfast Prison
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to identify the senior figure who will carry out an inquiry into prisoner management at Her Majesty's prison Belfast.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am glad to say that Viscount Colville of Culross, QC has agreed to undertake this important task, with the following terms of reference:To review the operational policy in Belfast Prison for the management of paramilitary prisoners from opposing factions; and to make recommendations.

  Lord Colville will begin work immediately and I expect to receive his report early in the new year.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it remains his policy that the agreed budgetary guidelines for the common agricultural policy must be observed; and if he will make it his policy to veto any proposals at the Council of Ministers which would lead to those guidelines being breached.

  Mr. Curry
  The Commission is legally bound to keep agricultural support expenditure within the guideline, the base level of which can be changed only by unanimity. The Government remain committed to ensuring that the cost of agricultural support is contained within the existing budgetary guidelines.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amount in pounds spent on each agricultural product under the CAP in 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  Expenditure on agricultural commodities under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund guarantee section in 1990, is given in the table.

  £ million

  Cereals

  2,697

  Rice

  60

  Sugar

  986

  Olive Oil

  829

  Oilseeds

  2,468

  Proteins

  93

  Textiles

  412

  Fruit and vegetables

  890

  Wine

  529

  Tobacco

  875

  Other arable products

  60

  Milk

  3,518

  Beef

  2,011

  Sheepmeat

  1,031

  Pigmeat

  175

  Eggs and poultry

  127

  Source: EAGGF Guarantee Report 1990

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is available on the number of calls made to directory inquiries from his Department since 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Curry
  This information is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Agricultural Support
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amounts in ecu spent on non-CAP agricultural support for each EC country for 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government monitor, through their embassies in member states, the introduction of new state aids and modifications to existing aids, and draw any that seem to be of doubtful legality to the attention of the Commission. The Government do not keep comprehensive details of the non-CAP agricultural expenditure in other member states, since to do so would not be a cost-effective use of resources.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many disputed milk quota exceptional hardship claims were taken to judicial review following consideration by the diary produce tribunal for England and Wales; in how many of those claims the courts referred the cases back to the tribunal for reconsideration; what was the total litreage of quota at issue in these cases; and what was the actual additional litreage allocated to the producers concerned.

  Mr. Curry
  There have been eight judicial reviews of decisions of the dairy produce quotas tribunal relating to quota claims on the grounds of exceptional hardship, as defined in paragraph 17 of part II to schedule 2 of the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984 and 1986. Of these, four claims were referred back to the tribunal for re-hearing. These re-hearings resulted in tribunal awards of quota totalling just over 1 million litres. Claimants were not required, under the provisions of the regulations, to state the litreage of quota which they considered to be at issue in that case. It is my understanding that none of the four had been awarded exceptional hardship quota in their original tribunal hearing, although two had been given primary quota awards which together totalled over 3 million litres.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting on 28 October 1991.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to the reply, 6 November 1991, c. 163–64.]: I very much welcome the decision by the Japanese Government to ban large-scale high seas drift netting by the end of December 1992, with an interim step halving the use of such nets by the end of June 1992. This is a major step forward in protecting dolphins and other small cetaceans. It is particularly significant as it comes shortly after the European Community's own decision, for which we pressed hard, to stop the development of large-scale indiscriminate drift netting.

  These decisions give clear notice to the world that the major fishing nations are not going to allow the development or expansion of such fisheries.

  I am delighted at the news that the UN resolution calling for a moratorium on large-scale drift netting is having a clear effect. Britain continues to be determined to protect small cetaceans.

ENERGY

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information is available on the number of calls made to directory inquiries from his Department since 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department does not hold this information.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Bill
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the Asylum Bill.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since July we have received approximately 200 letters from hon. Members forwarding correspondence from their constituents and about 820 letters from members of the public. A large proportion of these have been pro forma letters from members of organisations such as Amnesty International, Charter '87, A Charter for Refugees, and the Asylum Rights Campaign. The majority of correspondents have expressed opposition to one or more aspects of the Government's proposals.

  Metropolitan Police (Compensation Awards)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the public have received awards from the Metropolitan police following civil actions brought by them for assault, wrongful arrest, false imprisonment or malicious prosecution in each year since 1985, inclusive; and what has been the total amount of such awards in each of those years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not held in the form requested. However, I understand from the commissioner that the amounts paid by the Metropolitan police under awards made by the courts and out-of-court settlements arising from allegations of wrongful acts, including assault, wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution by Metropolitan police officers, and the number of plaintiffs who have received awards and settlements are as follows:

  Year

  Awards made by the court £

  Number of plaintiffs in receipt of awards

  Out of court settlements £

  Number of plaintiffs in receipt of settlements

  1985

  13,949

  8

  193,588

  58

  1986

  46,836

  11

  330,332

  63

  1987

  11,233

  6

  82,486

  48

  1988

  107,035

  22

  250,557

  59

  1989

  252,904

  30

  266,850

  51

  1990

  188,110

  8

  557,214

  88

  11991

  18,627

  11

  299,691

  74

  1 (to 22 November).

  Tamils
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number in each of the last five years of Sri Lankan Tamils deported from the United Kingdom.
  433
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information available relates to all Sri Lankan citizens deported and is given in the table. No distinction is made in statistical records between Tamils and other Sri Lankans.

  Sri Lankan citizens removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process.

  Year

  Number

  1986

  3

  1987

  6

  1988

  8

  1989

  12

  1990

  4

  11991

  3

  1 January to June.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of Sri Lankan Tamils seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; what number has been granted; and what number has been rejected.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information available relates to all Sri Lankan citizens and is given in the table. No distinction is made in statistical records between Tamils and other Sri Lankans.

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom by citizens of Sri Lanka, and decisions1

  Applications2

  Decisions2

  Granted asylum

  Granted exceptional leave

  Refused asylum or exceptional leave

  1986

  1,274

  5

  1,489

  5

  1987

  994

  7

  733

  64

  1988

  402

  6

  226

  52

  31989

  1,785

  10

  840

  30

  31990

  3,325

  10

  455

  10

  3 41991

  2,410

  10

  630

  15

  1Excluding dependants.

  2 Decisions in a particular year do not necessarily relate to applications in that year.

  3 Provisional figures, rounded to the nearest 5. Decisions figures for 1990 and January—June 1991 may understate because of delays in recording.

  4January to June.

  Terrorists
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Irish(a) men and (b) women serving prison sentences in the United Kingdom for terrorist activities have been transferred to prisons in Northern Ireland or Eire in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is not possible to transfer prisoners from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland because the latter has not ratified the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons.

  Information on the number of prisoners transferred from England and Wales to Northern Ireland is given in the table. Statistics are not collated on the basis of the prisoner's nationality, sex or offence. The transfer of prisoners from Scotland to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  434

  1. Permanent transfers of prisoners from England and Wales to Northern Ireland

  Number Transferred

  1985

  3

  1986

  2

  1987

  3

  1988

  6

  1989

  15

  1990

  3

  11991

  4

  Total

  36

  1 to 31 October.

  2. Temporary transfers of prisoners from England and Wales to Northern Ireland

  Number Transferred

  1985

  1

  1986

  1

  1987

  2

  1988

  7

  1989

  2

  1990

  12

  11991

  8

  Total

  33

  1 to 31 October.

  Vehicle Security
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will report on the progress of his talks with car manufacturers concerning the provision of security systems in cars; if he will make such provision compulsory in new vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  At a seminar on crime prevention chaired by the then Prime Minister in 1986, it was agreed that the British Standards Institution and the motor vehicle manufacturers should produce a performance based standard on car security. A five-part standard—BS AU209—was subsequently published, covering mechanical locking systems, in-car entertainment equipment, window etching, central power locking and deadlocking.

  My right hon. Friend is engaged in a series of meetings with the motor vehicle manufacturers to encourage them to adopt these standards for all new cars. Many manufacturers have already made significant improvements in security, but there is still much more that can be done. My right hon. Friend and I will meet the manufacturers again on 11 December to discuss their progress.

  It would be a breach of European Community law for the Government to introduce separate national legislation on vehicle security since this would constitute a technical barrier to trade with member states. It was, however, agreed at the seminar on crime prevention in 1986 that the Department of Transport would seek to have the British standard on vehicle security adopted as an EC directive. That Department, with the support of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, is continuing to take this matter forward in the motor vehicles working group of the European Commission; its efforts have my full support and that of my right hon. Friend.

  Italian Prisoners
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Italian citizens are currently serving sentences in United Kingdom prisons; how many such citizens have been permitted to return home to serve their sentences in Italian prisons; how many have applied to do so; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 30 June 1991, the latest date for which information is readily available, about 45 sentenced prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales were recorded as Italian citizens. Repatriations of prisoners are possible under the European convention on the transfer of sentenced persons provided the prisoner and both countries concerned consent. The Italian Government ratified the convention in October 1989, since when 26 Italian prisoners have asked to be repatriated. In five cases the application has been withdrawn or the prisoner released. In two cases the request has been refused. The remaining 19 cases are outstanding.

  Table A—Number of offenders sentenced at magistrates' courts for offences of unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle of unauthorised taking of a conveyance other than a motor vehicle or pedal cycle by type of disposal 1980–89.

  England and Wales

  Sentence disposals

  Year

  Total for sentence

  Absolute discharge

  Conditional discharge

  Fine

  Probation order

  Supervision order

  Community service order

  Attendance centre order

  Care order

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Otherwise dealt with

  Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle

  1980

  29,910

  137

  2,595

  13,995

  1,659

  1,677

  2,314

  1,712

  434

  1,457

  3,760

  170

  1981

  26,404

  133

  2,436

  11,055

  1,734

  1,428

  2,436

  1,694

  342

  1,352

  3,582

  212

  1982

  23,911

  98

  2,367

  9,766

  1,589

  1,244

  2,284

  1,570

  265

  1,131

  3,416

  181

  1983

  20,677

  86

  2,028

  7,894

  1,553

  1,115

  2,270

  1,493

  197

  737

  3,219

  85

  1984

  19,252

  80

  2,040

  7,036

  1,599

  1,109

  2,291

  1,458

  175

  406

  3,010

  48

  1985

  19,220

  87

  2,079

  6,798

  1,721

  1,179

  2,129

  1,497

  158

  445

  3,080

  47

  1986

  18,072

  84

  2,158

  6,409

  1,681

  1,136

  2,145

  1,292

  126

  377

  2,634

  30

  1987

  17,136

  67

  2,112

  6,091

  1,736

  1,107

  1,973

  1,166

  94

  418

  2,305

  67

  19881

  16,366

  64

  2,163

  5,873

  1,799

  1,013

  1,880

  1,076

  77

  353

  2,006

  62

  1989

  16,790

  150

  2,571

  5,394

  2,011

  1,065

  1,916

  1,213

  63

  358

  1,911

  138

  Unauthorised taking of a conveyance other than a motor vehicle or pedal cycle

  1980

  171

  —

  29

  115

  1

  5

  5

  6

  2

  1

  5

  2

  1981

  174

  11

  26

  114

  3

  6

  3

  3

  2

  1

  5

  —

  1982

  161

  10

  25

  111

  2

  5

  1

  3

  —

  1

  3

  —

  1983

  169

  7

  39

  107

  3

  5

  3

  2

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1984

  164

  2

  27

  115

  —

  6

  2

  9

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1985

  85

  1

  8

  61

  4

  1

  2

  4

  —

  1

  3

  —

  1986

  84

  3

  12

  65

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  48

  3

  18

  21

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  19881

  76

  1

  10

  54

  1

  3

  3

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1989

  124

  —

  23

  63

  10

  5

  13

  3

  —

  2

  5

  —

  1 These two triable-either-way offences were reclassified as summary offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (12 October 1988)

  Table B—Number of offenders sentenced at Crown Court for offences of unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and unauthorised taking of a conveyance other than a motor vehicle or pedal cycle by type of disposal 1980–89.

  England and Wales

  Sentence disposals

  Year

  Total for sentence

  Absolute discharge

  Conditional discharge

  Fine

  Probation order

  Supervision order

  Community service order

  Attendance centre order

  Care order

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Otherwise dealt with

  Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle

  1980

  7,394

  7

  276

  619

  534

  62

  703

  —

  22

  586

  4,535

  50

  1981

  6,911

  13

  262

  465

  535

  44

  737

  —

  25

  569

  4,219

  42

  1982

  6,512

  5

  310

  370

  505

  44

  773

  —

  17

  489

  3,959

  40

  1983

  4,938

  10

  223

  384

  472

  32

  705

  —

  9

  361

  2,667

  75

  1984

  3,421

  3

  209

  297

  478

  16

  577

  —

  5

  233

  1,554

  49

  1985

  3,939

  5

  226

  331

  633

  36

  654

  23

  7

  259

  1,748

  17

  1986

  3,921

  5

  252

  332

  618

  43

  611

  18

  4

  251

  1,764

  23

  1987

  4,195

  3

  259

  377

  669

  35

  749

  30

  4

  300

  1,747

  22

  19881

  4,130

  7

  274

  356

  801

  32

  677

  24

  4

  365

  1,652

  38

  1989

  1,668

  1

  94

  131

  398

  22

  249

  12

  2

  117

  604

  38

  Unauthorised taking of a conveyance other than a motor vehicle or pedal cycle

  1980

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  Primates Register
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to secure the establishment of a European primate register to conserve stocks of non-human primates used in scientific procedures.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Effective measures to conserve stocks of non-human primates are clearly desirable. We are aware of an initiative from the Primate Society of Great Britain in this area and of continuing interest in such a scheme within Europe. The United Kingdom will play its full part in giving thorough consideration to any formal proposals which emerge.

  Vehicle Theft Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing(a) the variety of non-custodial sentences given for the offence of taking a vehicle without consent for the years 1980–88 and (b) a breakdown of custodial and non-custodial sentences for the above offence for 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is given in the tables. 1990 data are not yet available.
  437

  Sentence disposals

  Year

  Total for sentence

  Absolute discharge

  Conditional discharge

  Fine

  Probation order

  Supervision order

  Community service order

  Attendance centre order

  Care order

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Otherwise dealt with

  1981

  8

  —

  —

  5

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1982

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1984

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1985

  5

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  1986

  8

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  1987

  14

  —

  2

  2

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  3

  3

  —

  19881

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1989

  15

  —

  1

  2

  3

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  5

  1

  1 These two triable-either-way offences were reclassified as summary offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (12 October 1988)

  Table C. Number of persons sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for offences of unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and unauthorised taking of a conveyance other than motor vehicle or pedal cycle by type of disposal and sentence length 1989.

  England and Wales

  Offence

  Total immediate custody

  Custodial sentence disposal

  Sentence length

  Young offender institution

  Partly suspended sentence

  Unsuspended sentence

  6 months and under

  Over 6 months and up to 1 year

  Over 1 year and up to 18 months

  Over 18 months and up to 2 years

  Over 2 years and up to 3 years

  Over 3 years

  Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle

  2,515

  1,617

  12

  886

  2,459

  41

  11

  3

  1

  —

  Unauthorised taking of a conveyance other than a motor vehicle or pedal cycle

  10

  3

  1

  6

  9

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Television (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage and type of television programmes will be allowed sponsorship by commercial companies; and what safeguards exist to prevent sponsors from influencing the quality and control of programmes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the Independent Televison Commission code of programme sponsorship, any television programme may be sponsored, except news and current affairs. No sponsor is permitted any influence on either the content or the scheduling of a programme.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the numbers of primates used in scientific procedures in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland which were wild-caught and captive bred, respectively, in each year from 1981 to the current year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Statistics about the origin of primates held or used are not kept centrally. The number of scientific procedures performed on primates in Great Britain for the years 1981 to 1990 is given in table 18 of "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 1990", Cm. 1574, a copy of which is in the Library. In Northern Ireland only two scientific procedures were performed on primates over the period 1981 to 1990.

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is available on the number of calls made to directory inquiries from his Department since 1 April 1991.

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

  Crossbows
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many adults and children have been(a) killed and (b) injured in each of the last five years in incidents arising from the firing of crossbows in (i) public and (ii) private places.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of currently recorded homicide offences where the death resulted from the firing of a crossbow for the years 1986 to 1990 are as follows: 1986 nil, 1987 one, 1988 one, 1989 nil, 1990 three—two in one incident. All the victims were adults. It is not known whether the incidents occurred in public or private places. No information is available on the number of accidental deaths involving crossbows nor on incidents involving injuries whether criminal or accidental.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest estimate of the number of crossbows within the United Kingdom; what existing laws cover the purchase and use of crossbows; and what representations he has received from the police and others about new laws covering the use of crossbows, including licensing the ownership of crossbows.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about the number of crossbows in the United Kingdom is not recorded
  439
  centrally, but I understand from Barnett International, the largest manufacturer of crossbows in the United Kingdom, that its latest estimate of the number of crossbows in circulation is between 250,000 and 300,000.

  The Crossbows Act 1987 prohibits the sale of crossbows to, and their purchase by, persons under the age of 17. The Act also makes it an offence for a person under 17 to have a crossbow in his possession, unless under the supervision of someone aged 21 or over. There are a number of other measures that bear upon crossbow misuse against people, property or animals. These include the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the Protection of Animals Act 1911, the Wildlife and Countryside act 1981 and the Deer Act 1963.

  We have received no representations from the police on crossbow controls since the passage of the Crossbows Act 1987.

  In the last 12 months there has been one parliamentary question on crossbow controls. We have also received 21 items of correspondence on this issue from Members of Parliament and six letters from the public broadly favouring some form of further control.

  Greyhound Racing
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Office of Fair Trading to consider the competitive aspects of bookmaker-owned greyhound tracks supplying races to the bookmaker afternoon greyhound service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. Anyone who believes that they have evidence of anti-competitive behaviour should report the matter to the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals for legislation to put greyhound racing on a par with horse racing; and what plans he has to treat the two industries equally, with regard to off-course betting.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government's views on the need for legislation to amend the law on betting on greyhound racing were set out in our recent reply—Cm 1757—to the Home Affairs Committee's report "Financing of Greyhound Racing"—HC 463.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutes which control the staging of greyhound racing, greyhound totalisators and on-course betting on greyhound tracks.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The statutory controls on betting at greyhound tracks are contained in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, as amended. Further regulations governing the operation of totalisators at greyhound tracks are contained in two statutory instruments made under the 1963 Act. These are the Dog Racecourse Totalisator Regulations 1967, as amended, and the Dog Racecourse Totalisator (Percentage) Order 1980. The Dog Racecourse Totalisator (Percentage) Order 1991 was published on 22 November, and comes into force on 20 December.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Office of Fair Trading considered the competitive aspects of bookmaker-owned greyhound 440
  tracks supplying racing to the bookmaker afternoon greyhound service; how long the inquiry took; and who supplied information to the inquiry.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the Office of Fair Trading's informal inquiries are made under section 2(2) of the Fair Trading Act 1973, which imposes on the Director-General of Fair Trading a duty to keep commercial activities under review and to collect information with a view to his becoming aware of monopoly situations or uncompetitive practices. The OFT has considered whether the ownership of greyhound tracks by off-course bookmakers raises concerns under the competition legislation, but to date no evidence has been received to suggest formal action is warranted. Details of information collected by the OFT are subject to confidentiality requirements, particularly section 133 of the Fair Trading Act 1973, and cannot therefore be disclosed.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what circumstances teenagers are placed in young offender institutions for non-violent offences; and whether he has any plans to end this practice;

  (2) under what circumstances it is his policy for persons aged 15 years to be locked up in prisons or young offenders' institutions; and whether he has any plans to end this policy;

  (3) from what age young people who have committed offences can be dealt with through the prison system;

  (4) if he will bring forward proposals to remove persons under the age of 21 years from the prison system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  From the age of 10, juveniles convicted of murder or manslaughter may be detained under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Section 53 detention is available from the age of 14 for juveniles convicted of other offences carrying a maximum penalty for an adult of imprisonment for 14 years or more. Juveniles aged under sixteen and a half years who are detained under section 53 are normally held in the child care system rather than Prison Service establishments. Detention in a young offender institution is available for males from the age of 14 and females from the age of 15 for any offence for which an adult may be sentenced to imprisonment. Male defendants aged 15 and 16 may be remanded in prison. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 provides for the abolition of courts' power to sentence 14-year-old boys to detention in a young offender institution; for the ending of prison remands for 15 and 16-year-old males: and tightens the restrictions on the use of custodial sentences for young offenders.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he intends to take to prevent suicides at Feltham and other young offenders' institutes;

  (2) what plans he has for a public inquiry into the suicide rate at young offenders' institutions.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim, prepared at my right hon. Friend's predecessor's request last year a report on suicide and self-harm in Prison Service establishments. My right hon. Friend responded to that report in the White Paper
  441
  "Custody, Care and Justice", Cm 1647. We have also received, and circulated to all governors, the summary report of research carried out by Dr. Alison Liebling of the Cambridge university institute of criminology into self-injury among young offenders. A wide-ranging programme of work is in hand to try to reduce the incidence of suicide and self-harm in young offender institutions and other penal establishments. In work with young offenders, the emphasis is on the development of personal officer schemes, the provision of useful activity and measures to address problems of vulnerability and peer group pressure. A recent initiative at Feltham, which I welcome, has been the introduction of weekly case conferences to review the care of the most vulnerable prisoners.

  I do not think that a public inquiry into the suicide rate at young offender institutions would materially advance the substantial efforts already being made at Feltham and elsewhere to provide care for a particularly vulnerable section of the prison population.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how many hours a day he advises that teenagers should be kept in solitary confinement in prisons or young offenders' institutions.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There is no such thing as solitary confinement in prisons or young offenders' institutions. However, an inmate may be removed from association with other inmates where this appears desirable either for the maintenance of good order or discipline, or in his own interests, under young offender institution rule 46 or prison rule 43. The length of time for which an inmate is removed from association will depend on the circumstances of each case. No inmate should be segregated for longer than is absolutely necessary. Each case must be kept under continuous review.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide alternatives to custodial sentences for young offenders.

  Mr. John Patten
  A wide range of community sentences already exists for young offenders. The emphasis is on dealing with young offenders in the community wherever possible. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 establishes a new sentencing framework providing courts with a wider range of strengthened community penalties. The Act creates two new community sentences—the curfew order backed by electronic monitoring and the combined probation and community service order—which will be available from the age of 16.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigation he has made into the psychological effect on persons under the age of 16 years of being held in young offender institutions and being held for long periods in solitary confinement in cells; and whether he has any plans to make further investigations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  An assessment of how young offenders adjust to a custodial environment was the subject of one of the studies in "Applying Psychology to Imprisonment", published in 1987. A further research study was completed this year, which compares regimes in young offender institutions and local authority community homes for juveniles sentenced under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 for serious offences.
  442
  Research has also recently been undertaken by Dr. Alison Liebling of the Cambridge university institute of criminology, into self-injury among young offenders. The need for further research in this area is kept under regular review.

  Visas
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time now being taken between the receipt of interview notes from the United Kingdom high commission in New Delhi by his Department concerning an application for leave to enter by the fiancé of a British citizen and the calling of the fiancé for interview here.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The current average response time for all interview cases referred from India is 75 days; the period is from the receipt of the papers in this country until the dispatch of a report to the post. Separate information on particular categories of cases is not available centrally.

  Gambling
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect the evening opening of betting shops will have on the level of gambling in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No such assessment has yet been made. The effect of evening opening of licensed betting offices on levels of gambling is one of the matters on which the recent Home Office consultation document invited views from interested parties. Evidence received about the effect on levels of gambling will be one of the factors taken into account in the Government's further consideration of whether to allow evening opening.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on gambling as it relates to horse racing and greyhound racing.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is Government policy on gambling, including betting on horseracing and greyhound racing, that it should be subject to statutory control to ensure that it is conducted honestly and fairly, and that gambling should not be positively encouraged.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Home Office began its review of section 19 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963; and how long he expects the review to take.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The review has not yet begun. It will be undertaken as quickly as possible, but the issues are complex and it is not clear at this stage how long it will take to complete.

  Football (Policing)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a pricing policy for the policing of football matches based upon club attendance levels and past records of incidents.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Charges made by police authorities for the policing of football matches under section 15 of the Police Act 1964 reflect the number of officers deployed.
  443
  Home Office circular 36/1991 encouraged chief officers to discuss deployment with football clubs, taking account of all relevant factors, but ultimately it must be for the chief officer to decide how many officers need to be deployed on each occasion.

  Small Shops
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to remove the threat of prosecution from small local shops which have traditionally opened late in the evening and on Sundays to sell their full product range; and what representations he has had from the Greek Cypriot and other ethnic minority communities on this subject.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The institution of proceedings for breaches of the Shops Act 1950 is a matter for local authorities. Proposals for extended evening shop trading hours, and for small local shops to trade fully on Sundays, are among those which have been put to me in my discussions with numerous interest groups about reform of the Act. Records of our correspondents on these proposals are not classified by ethnic community.

  Urban Crime
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to deal with urban crime.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am launching today a new initiative: the urban crime fund. This will provide targeted additional funds to selected forces on an experimental basis. Merseyside, Northumbria and West Yorkshire will each be eligible for additional funding in 1992–93 of up to some £3·6 million.

  The additional funding—made available direct to police authorities through the Government's urban programme—will be targeted on the inner cities, including city challenge areas. This demonstrates the Government's commitment to a co-ordinated attack on inner city problems in partnership with local authorities, the private sector and local communities.

  The three police authorities will be invited to put proposals to me on how they would use the extra resources. I will be looking particularly for effective and innovative measures, including the mobilisation of local communities, in the fight against urban crime.

  Racial Hatred
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his evaluation of the effectiveness of the law making it a criminal offence to incite racial hatred.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 21 November 1991]: The Government deplore any act likely or intended to stir up racial hatred. We believe that part III of the Public Order Act 1986 has played an important part in deterring such acts. We shall continue to keep the legislation and its operation under review.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Off-Balance Sheet Financing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to introduce legislation under which banks will be prevented from selling off-balance sheet financing schemes.

  Mr. Maples
  I have no such plans.

  British Telecom
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any institution which provided a presentation for becoming a retail outlet in the BT share sale was rejected.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government selected eight organisations to act as share shops in the sale of shares in BT plc from among the various proposals received.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those institutions which made presentations with regard to the second BT share offer, in response to his invitation.

  Mr. Maude
  It is for the organisations concerned to disclose whether they made a submission in response to the Chancellor's invitation in his Budget speech for proposals from private sector organisations for a high street share dealing network.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria were used to evaluate the eight retail institutions' ability to undertake at relatively short notice the sale of BT shares, referred to in his answer of 22 October 1991,Official Report, column 505.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government's objective was a network of share shops which, together, could respond to the high volumes of a public share sale while giving the public a choice of institutions. This was achieved with the selection of the eight firms who are participating in the BT share sale. The Government intend to build on these arrangements in future public share sales.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those institutions which wrote to his Department stating an interest with regard to the second BT share offer but did not make a presentation.

  Mr. Maude
  The proposals received from organisations in response to the Government's share shops initiative ranged widely in the extent of detail in which they were made.

  Life Assurance and Pension Payments
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of expenditure of total disposable household income was accounted for by life assurance and pension fund payments in 1990; and what is the estimated percentage level for the current year.

  Mr. Maples
  Household disposable income, and hence expenditure of that income, excludes amounts paid as pension contributions, whether to the state scheme or to occupational schemes. Contributions to the latter type of scheme, together with life assurance premiums paid by individuals, are estimated to have amounted in 1990 to 7·6
  445
  per cent. of households' current expenditure. The latter aggregate has been adjusted to include the occupational scheme contributions. There is no official estimate of this percentage in 1991.

  Contributions to the state scheme are intended to fund social security benefits of all types and no estimate is made of the proportion which notionally finances state pensions.

  EC Membership
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish the effect of EC membership to date on the United Kingdom balance of payments in terms of 1990 prices and on the United Kingdom rate of economic growth forecast by Her Majesty's Treasury in Cmnd. 4289 together with(a) the actual average per capita rate of growth from 1973 to 1990 and comparable data for the decade ending in 1973 and (b) the average non-oil balance of payments surplus or deficit with the EEC Six and with other countries in each period in terms of 1990 prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  It is not possible to produce reliable estimates of the effects of EC membership on the United Kingdom balance of payments or on the rate of economic growth. Data requested on the growth of GDP per capita can be derived from statistics published by the Central Statistical Office in "Economic Trends Annual Supplement", 1990 edition, and on trade balances with the EC Six and other countries from the CSO's "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics Annual Supplement 1991".

  Town and Country Building Society
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the affairs of the Town and Country building society.

  Mr. Maples
  The Woolwich building society issued a press release on 19 November stating that the board of the Town and Country building society had agreed to recommend to its members a transfer of the society's engagements to the Woolwich building society and that arrangements for the transfer, subject to audit and to regulatory and other relevant requirements, were accordingly proceeding.

  TESSAs
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to remind banks and building societies of the specification of section 4 of S.I. 2361/1990 that tax-exempt special savings accounts must be transferable from one society or institution to another society or institution.

  Mr. Maude
  There is no need, since there is no evidence to suggest that institutions are not allowing savers to transfer their TESSAs elsewhere.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gloucester, 13 November,Official Report, column 526, if he will review the extent to which TESSA issuers are departing from the aims of TESSAs, as stated in the 1990 Budget, by levying penalties for withdrawing interest.
  446
  Mr. Maude
  The TESSA rules specify the maximum amount of interest which may be withdrawn without loss of tax exemption. Within those limits, the terms under which withdrawals may be made are a matter for agreement between investors and operators.

  EC(Government Debt)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the unfunded maintenance backlog liability on public sector capital assets by member state of the EC and the effect such unfunding has on the calculation of each member state's Government debt as set out in the draft treaty on economic and monetary union;

  (2) if he will list the unfunded nuclear reactor decommissioning liability by member state of the EC and the effect such unfunding has on the calculation of each member state's Government debt as set out in the draft treaty on economic and monetary union;

  (3) if he will list the notionally funded and unfunded public sector employees pensions liability by member states of the EC and the effect such unfunding has on the calculation of each member state's Government debt as set out in the draft treaty on economic and monetary union.

  Mr. Maude
  Standard definitions of Government debt measure the cumulative liability incurred on past borrowing, which accords with the common usage of the term "debt". They do not include any measure of unfunded liabilities. The requested data on unfunded liabilities are not readily available.

  Single Currency
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the present and future implications for the United Kingdom Budget of proposals for a single currency in the draft treaty on economic and monetary union as a result of different methods of accounting for liabilities in each member state's national accounts.

  Mr. Maude
  National accounting conventions in other EC member states have no obvious implications, either now or in the future, for United Kingdom budgetary policy.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the Government's policy regarding the taxation of company cars and on the increase in the taxation of company cars which has taken place since 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government's policy is that, so far as possible, there should be broad neutrality in the tax treatment of remuneration paid in cash and in kind. In keeping with that policy, the aim has been to ensure that, as regards cars provided to employees by employers, the statutory income tax scale charges realistically reflect the value of the benefit of a car's availability for private use. That has involved substantial increases in the level of the scales since 1979.

  The scale charges and the total tax burden on the car industry are of course kept under close review.

  Friendly Societies Bill
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to introduce a new Friendly Societies Bill.

  Mr. Maples
  The Government remain firmly committed to this legislation and we will introduce the Bill at the earliest opportunity.

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information is available on the number of calls made to directory inquiries from his Department.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Call-logging information for the three buildings in which my right hon. Friend's department is the major occupier shows that 620 calls were made to directory inquiries in October 1991.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  India
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what present aid projects exist in India; and if he will list them.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Projects in India receiving British bilateral aid at present are as follows:

  A. Bilateral country programme financing

  Visakhapatnam slum improvement

  Hyderabad slum improvement

  Indore slum improvement

  Calcutta slum improvement

  Vijayawada slum improvement

  Training and study tours in Aslum improvement

  Indo-British Fertiliser Education

  Rain-fed farming

  Karnataka Social Forestry

  Gujarat Family Welfare

  Orissa Health and Family Welfare

  St Stephen's Hospital Maternity Wing

  Andhra Pradesh School Health

  Andhra Pradesh Primary Education

  Water Training Networks

  Maharashtra Rural Water

  Dadri Power Station Dry Ash Handling

  Obra Power Station Energy Audit

  BEI/NTPC Twinning

  Technical Assistance to the Power Finance Corporation on economic appraisal

  Study on long-term issues in the power sector

  Equipment for the oil and natural gas sector including pipe lathe machine, conduit-type gate valves, and multi-phase pump

  Hindustan Zinc Mine and Smelter

  Churcha West Mine longwall coalmining equipment

  Longwall spares system

  GDK 11A mine longwall coalmining equipment

  Central Mining Research Station

  Longwall Mining Centre

  Technical Assistance to Indian manufacturers of longwall mining equipment

  Study of de-pillaring in coalmines

  Operational assistance and training to coalmines

  Environmental study of Amlohri Coalmine

  Operational assistance, training and spares for Amlohri Coalmine

  Assistance to the health services of Coal India Limited

  Indian School of Mines

  BALCO Power Station

  Rehabilitation of Nagarjunasagar Hydro-electric Power Station

  Power Sector training

  448

  Operational assistance to Rihand Power Station

  Train describer for Delhi Railways

  Equipment for Indian Railways including flashbutt-welding machines, head-hardened rails, rheostatic brakes and turbo-chargers

  Training in railways management, vehicle suspension systems, electrification and bridge technology

  Technical assistance in the health sector for:

  Blood transfusion

  Medical education technology

  Blindness

  Haemoglobinopathy control, TB research

  Viral hepatitis research

  Rotavirus infection

  Mother and child health training

  Other training

  Technical assistance for education on the following topics:

  Indira Gandhi National Open University

  Educational Media Research Centre, Pune

  Central Board for Secondary Education on English training

  Various institutions for training awards

  Technical assistance on Science and Technology includes the following research projects:

  Heat Pumps

  Instrument servicing

  Micro-processor education

  Central research facility

  Naval architecture

  Offshore oil engineering

  Optical fibres

  Instrumentation and photo-fabrication

  Computer for Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi

  Training for public administration on the following topics:

  Development project planning and management

  Public enterprises management

  Planning and management for rural development

  Trainer development

  Foremen

  Parliamentary procedures

  Legal advice

  Taxation

  Public media services

  Technical assistance for renewable natural resources research and extension on the following topics:

  Foot and mouth disease

  Seed technology

  Pathology of oilseeds

  Land resources planning

  Milk marketing

  (Conservation of flora and fauna with Bombay Natural History Society)

  Land and soil survey for forestry

  Management training for agricultural extension management

  Training for rural credit

  Common property management of forests

  Mysore Paper Mills forestry

  Training for various forestry institutions

  Mangalore fisheries

  Bay of Bengal fisheries

  Recombinant DNA technology

  Animal diseases research

  Equine influenza

  Meat species identification

  Equine breeding

  Technical assistance for industry includes:

  Quality control and marketing for export

  Training in telecommunications

  Training in ports management

  Training in road transport management

  Technical assistance in the water sector covers:

  Ganga sewerage treatment

  Water pollution

  Madras water and sewerage management

  Water supply management training

  449

  Groundwater development

  Solid waste management

  Orientation Programme for Urban Health

  Delhi water and sewerage management

  Geographic Information Systems for groundwater development

  Other projects include:

  Andhra Pradesh cyclone relief and rehabilitation

  Various gifts and small projects under the Head of Mission Scheme

  Training on cross-cutting issues including Women in Development; gender awareness; legal literacy for women; environment management, impact assessment and monitoring; and structural conservation

  In addition to this list of projects which are under implementation in 1991–92, there are approximately 70 projects in various stages of formulation, appraisal and approval on which some resources have been expended in their preparation.

  B. Aid and Trade Provision

  Equipment for Uri Hydro-electric Power Station (co-financed with the Swedish Government).

  C. Joint Funding Scheme—agencies and projects supported include:

  Aga Khan Foundation

  School Improvement

  Water shed management development

  Rural support programme

  Rural education and advancement development programme

  Action for Disability and Development

  Orthopaedic workshop

  Development and training groups of people with disability

  Horticultural training programme

  Alternative for India Development

  Non-formal education and skill training for tribal women

  Family planning

  Appropriate technology for Tibetans

  Demonstration integrated farm

  Decentralised dairy

  Improved chulus

  Care

  Rajasthan agricultural and natural resources

  Centre for Human Development

  Harvest help

  Village rehabilitation

  Hedley Roberts Trust

  Income generation for the disabled

  Help Age

  Age care training programme

  Community-based rehabilitation

  Henry Doubleday Research Association

  Genetic conservation and exploitation of prosopis cineraria

  Homeless International

  Housing and documentation

  International Agricultural Training Programme

  Rural trainers programme

  Impact foundation

  Leprosy disability prevention and limitation

  India Development group—rural development training

  Inter-care

  Small farmers wasteland development

  Villpatti integrated village development

  International Boys' Towns Trust

  Afforestation

  450
  ITGD

  Boatyard development

  Kaduna Trust (aid for India)

  Boys Hostel

  Marie Stopes International

  Family Life Education

  Soap Drama—family life/responsible sexual behaviour

  Contraceptive social marketing

  Workplace family planning and preventative healthcare

  Afforestation

  Small business development

  Population concern

  Womens' development

  Project Mala

  Project Mala

  Ryder Cheshire

  Mobile TB units

  Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund

  Community development

  Education for rural development

  Harijan people's awareness project

  Vetaid

  Community dairy

  Village Services Trust

  Health and Community development

  World Vision

  Child Survival project

  Y Care International

  Integrated tribal development projects

  Cafod

  Health and Education programme

  Community health and social education programme

  Christian Aid

  Madras Christian Council Social Services

  Schools project

  Voluntary Health Association

  East Godaviri District Project

  Rural Education Society

  Voluntary Health Association projects

  Rural Education and Action for Development

  Crop agricultural and irrigation programme

  Activists for Social Alternatives

  Tribal Development project

  Save the Children Fund

  Collective Surgery

  Rehabilitation and vocational training for handicapped children

  Rural education project

  Nutrition programme

  This list of joint funding scheme—JFS—projects in India is incomplete. Agencies which receive block grants from the joint funding scheme have yet to notify us of all the projects which they are implementing, this year. For example, OXFAM which used joint funding scheme resources for about 200 projects in India has yet to notify us of its allocations for 1991–92. Other agencies are also likely to add to their list of projects financed from JFS resources.

  D. Commonwealth Development Corporation—Projects include:

  Project

  Activity

  Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd

  Oxo-alcohols production

  Apollo Tyres Ltd

  Tyre production

  Asian Coffee Ltd

  Soluble-coffee factory

  Biax Packaging Ltd

  Polypropylene film

  451

  Project

  Activity

  Consolidated Fibres and Chemicals Ltd

  Acrylic fibre production

  Creditcapital Venture Fund (India)

  Venture capital

  ITC Agro-Tech Ltd

  Vegetable oil production

  Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd

  Development finance

  Modi Threads Ltd

  Synthetic thread production

  Rane Power Steering Ltd

  Production of power steering units

  Sakthi Soyas Ltd

  Soybean processing

  Shipping Credit and Investment Company of India Ltd

  Development finance for shipping and fishing

  Unit Trust of India

  Venture Capital fund

  Haryana Telecom Ltd

  Cable manufacture

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid is being given to, or is under consideration for. Ethiopia in(a) getting relief aid to those in need, (b) stimulating food production and (c) respect for human rights.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Including our share of EC assistance we have committed £53 million emergency aid to Ethiopia since September 1990. Our aid includes £6·2 million for road transport, airlifts and other infrastructure essential for getting relief to the needy.

  We are financing the following projects aimed at stimulating food production.

  Project/Programme

  Description/Aims

  Teff Research

  Collaborative research to improve varieties of Teff.

  Rainfall Monitoring

  Rainfall and crop development estimation and monitoring systems.

  Sidamo Rangelands

  Improved food security for ten local communities in South Sidamo; managed by CARE.

  Koisha Rural Development

  Increase food production and strengthen rural economy in Koisha region of Sidamo; managed by SOS-Sahel.

  Land Use—Western Hararghe

  Introduce sustainable system of land use for 17,000 families in Western Hararghe; managed by CARE.

  Dairy Goat Project

  Increase rural incomes by improving the productivity of dairy goats managed by women; managed by FARM Africa.

  Projects funded under the Joint Funding Scheme

  Action Aid (Small Scale Seed Production)

  Develop economically viable and sustainable small scale seed enterprises.

  Catholic Fund for Overseas Development (Rural Development)

  To increase productive capacity of land.

  OXFAM (Delanta Agriculture)

  To promote post drought agricultural rehabilitation and prevent environmental degradation of the land.

  OXFAM (Hararghe Agricultural)

  Construct a new seed store and to replace seed stocks lost in the drought.

  Projects funded under emergency relief aid

  Christian Aid

  Agricultural tools for Ethiopia.

  We have made clear to the Ethiopians the importance we attach to respect for human rights. We are considering what help we might give for this and other aspects of good government.
  452
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of aid to Ethiopia; what was the level in each of the last 10 years at current prices; and what plans he has to increase the level of aid before 1993.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1991 we have committed over £26 million bilateral emergency assistance to Ethiopia including 79,000 tonnes of food. We expect to continue to respond generously to meet emergency needs. Our development programme for 1991 is worth about £3·5 million.

  Between 1981 and 1990 the United Kingdom provided bilateral aid—development and emergency assistance—to Ethiopia as follows:

  Year

  Total (£,000)

  Total at constant 1990 prices (£,000)

  1981

  563

  941

  1982

  5,645

  8,769

  1983

  3,433

  5,068

  1984

  7,004

  9,884

  1985

  28,058

  37,446

  1986

  9,627

  12,409

  1987

  8,552

  11,399

  1988

  18,544

  21,324

  1989

  11,691

  12,570

  1990

  20,042

  20,042

  As to future levels of development aid, I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 25 November, at column 388.

  UNICEF
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial pledge was made by the United Kingdom in support of the United Nations children's fund at the New York pledging conference on 5–6 November; what proportion of the total funds available to UNICEF for 1992 will be provided by the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the future of UNICEF in the light of its funding base.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In common with most other major donors we have not yet announced our pledge for UNICEF's 1992 programme. I expect to do so early next year.

  Over recent years UNICEF has acquired a very strong funding base and the current pattern seems likely to continue, but, for the reasons I have given, the total amounts available in 1992 are not yet known.

WALES

  Surgical Procedures
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of new health technology on surgical procedures and treatments in Welsh hospitals.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The NHS in Wales continually assesses the costs and benefits of new health technology.

  As part of this process, in 1990 the Welsh health planning forum commissioned an expert report on the

  453
  possible impact of emerging and future technologies on the delivery of health care. It was circulated widely and prompted a useful debate between scientists, clinicians and managers in NHS Wales.

  Building on this, the planning forum, in partnership with the World Health Organisation and the King's Fund college, held a conference in Cardiff in October this year focusing on the potential for shifting care from the hospital to the home. It brought together international experts and raised awareness of technology's potential for creating a more people-centred and community-based health care service.

  The conference pointed up the opportunities for de-institutionalising health care in an environment where before too long perhaps up to 60 per cent. of surgery will be performed on a day basis with over 80 per cent. being bloodless.

  The use of endoscopy is transforming clinical practice in the fields of gynaecology, orthopaedic and general surgery. Endoscopes are flexible tubes used to examine, photograph and take biopsies from the body's cavities and organs without the trauma of surgery, and often while the patient is conscious.

  Similarly, lasers have superseded some more traditional surgical approaches to treating skin, eye and gynaecological disorders and a wide range of other conditions.

  In addition, new techniques commonly referred to as key-hole surgery are becoming widely used. Laparoscopic cholycystectomies—lap-cholies—are replacing open abdomen gall stone operations. In the field of orthopaedic surgery, a damaged knee cartilage can be removed without opening the knee joint. Recovering from these operations is much quicker than the earlier kind and people do not need to stay in hospital so long. Some coronary artery bypass surgery can be avoided by using balloon angiography. This technique passes a balloon into the artery in a catheter. The balloon is then inflated to enlarge the artery, remove blockages and allow the blood to flow freely.

  These and similar developments are having a profound effect on the size and nature of our hospitals. What counts is not hospital bed numbers but providing people with the right services in the right settings.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amounts of grant he has given the Sports Council for Wales, in real terms, for each of the years 1980 to 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The grant in aid allocations to the Sports Council for Wales for the years 1980–81 to 1991–92 adjusted by the gross domestic product—market prices—deflator at 1990–91 prices, are as follows:

  £ million

  1980–81

  4·176

  1981–82

  4·297

  1982–83

  4·482

  1983–84

  4·143

  1984–85

  4·058

  1985·86

  4·529

  1986–87

  4·852

  1987–88

  4·726

  1988–89

  4·788

  1989–90

  4·769

  1990–91

  4·782

  1991–92

  4·860

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of farms currently covered by environmentally sensitive area agreements in Wales are subject to whole farm agreements.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Farmers who choose to join the Lleyn peninsula environmentally sensitive area scheme must enter all their land into the scheme; all farms in the scheme are therefore covered by whole farm agreements. In the Cambrian mountains ESA, it is only that area of the farm which is classed as semi-natural rough grazing which has to be entered and, optionally, woodland and hay meadows. In consequence, none of the ESA agreements in the Cambrian mountains scheme cover the whole farm.

  Ministers (Travel)
  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many miles he and his Ministers have travelled on British Rail during the course of their official duties during the last year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In excess of 50,000 miles.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those companies in the Wrexham area which have qualified for regional selective assistance in the last five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Details of offers of regional selective assistance are confidential to the company and the Welsh Office. The following information relates to accepted offers of assistance by companies for projects in the Wrexham travel-to-work-area over the last five years which have received publicity.

  Betts and Co.

  Brother Industries (UK) Ltd.

  Courtaulds Films and Packaging (Holdings)

  Cyanamid of GB Ltd.

  Dowty Koike Ltd.

  E & L Instruments Ltd.

  Environmental Services (NW) Ltd.

  European Fine Blanking Ltd.

  Fibrax Ltd.

  GKK Plastics Ltd.

  Honkley Eng. & Marine Co. Ltd.

  Hoya Lens UK Ltd.

  Impetus Packaging Ltd.

  Kronospan Ltd.

  Label Research Ltd.

  M & C Plastics Ltd.

  Microtech Precision Ltd.

  Nationwide Boards Ltd.

  Olaf Foods Manuf. Ltd.

  Owens Corning Fiberglass (GB) Ltd.

  Processed Timber Products Ltd.

  Rexham (UK) Ltd.

  Richard Burbridge Ltd.

  Rubery Owen—Rockwell Ltd.

  Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd.

  Stadex Holdings Ltd.

  Vossen Ltd.

  Wrexham Lager Beer Co. Ltd.

  Wrexham Scaffold Ltd.

  Zeta Communications Plc

  Local Government
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the proposed changes to the structure of local government in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend has received responses to his consultation paper from both Welsh local authority associations; from each Welsh county council and district council; from individual community councils, and their representative bodies; from a number of professional bodies and societies; and from many individuals, including several Members of Parliament. The vast majority of these responses express support for the establishment of a system of unitary authorities in Wales.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the present level of unemployment in the Clwyd, South-West constituency.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On 10 October 1991 there were 2,314 unemployed claimants in the Clwyd, South-West parliamentary constituency.

  Valleys Loan Scheme
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many loans under the valleys loan scheme have been made to date; what is the total value of such loans; how many jobs they have created or safeguarded; and how many of the recipient firms are still in business.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since 1 April 1988, a total of 178 loans have been placed by the Welsh Development Agency to companies in the valleys programme area. The total value of these loans was just over £1·5 million with an expectation that 799 new jobs would be created. One hundred and twenty-seven—71 per cent.—are in place, with a projection of creating over 550 new jobs and a value of £1·2 million. These figures include loans made under the valleys small loan scheme, the valleys enterprise loan scheme and the rural small loan scheme.

  Value of grant paid by year (£ million)

  Scheme

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Regional Development Grant II1

  7·3

  9·9

  17·2

  7·7

  6·9

  Regional Selective Assistance

  8·7

  9·3

  11·6

  8·2

  7·1

  Regional Enterprise Grants2

  —

  —

  0·1

  0·2

  0·5

  Total

  16·0

  19·2

  28·9

  16·1

  14·5

  1 RDGII closed to new applications 31 March 1988.

  2 Scheme introduced 1 April 1988.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the annual changes in unemployment by local authority districts in the valleys

  Unemployed Claimants—Annual changes (October to October)

  District1

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Blaenau Gwent

  -651

  -725

  -500

  594

  Torfaen

  -346

  -473

  -53

  648

  Islwyn

  -542

  -773

  -86

  557

  Merthyr Tydfil

  -462

  -386

  35

  397

  Cynon Valley

  -377

  -721

  -163

  880

  Rhondda

  -805

  -702

  123

  973

  Valleys Programme
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a breakdown of expenditure, by local authority district and by category of expenditure, under the valleys programme from 1988 to date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Provision for the programme for the valleys area over the five years of the programme is £800 million. A breakdown of outturn for 1988–89 to 1990–91 and estimated outturn for 1991–92 by category of expenditure is shown in the table. It is not possible to provide a breakdown by local authority district except at disproportionate cost.

  Programme for the Valleys Expenditure

  (£ million)

  1988–89 Outturn

  1989–90 Outturn

  1990–91 Outturn

  Urban Programme

  11·950

  16·000

  19·400

  Urban Development/UIG2 1

  2·600

  7·200

  6·000

  RIG2 1

  28·875

  16·100

  14·500

  WDA

  Factories

  20·730

  20·950

  23·100

  Land Reclamation

  11·900

  15·500

  14·700

  Environmental

  0·780

  0·600

  0·600

  Urban Renewal Unit

  0·700

  1·570

  3·260

  Investment1

  1·325

  1·750

  2·730

  Business Development

  0·720

  1·000

  1·000

  Corporate Planning/Research

  0·100

  0·100

  0·050

  Roads

  11·100

  11·730

  15·270

  Employment Department

  48·600

  49·670

  48·200

  Total

  139·380

  142·170

  148·810

  1 1991–92 figure gives provision rather than estimated outturn.

  2 These programmes are demand-led.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total sum spent in regional aid in the valleys programme area, by year and by category of expenditure,(a) in the two years before regional development grants were abolished and (b) since regional development grants were abolished.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  programme area, and the comparable information for Wales and the United Kingdom as a whole from 1988 to date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is given in the table.
  457

  District1

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Ogwr

  -610

  -254

  -35

  393

  Lliw Valley

  -354

  -336

  -124

  359

  Neath

  -364

  -508

  53

  256

  Afan

  -158

  -155

  10

  145

  Brecknock

  -49

  -123

  26

  53

  Taff Ely

  -853

  -719

  -78

  823

  Llanelli

  -272

  -191

  -70

  248

  Dinefwr

  -128

  -157

  21

  132

  Rhymney Valley

  -1,120

  -593

  161

  939

  Total Valleys programme area

  -7,091

  -6,816

  -680

  7,397

  Wales

  -30,367

  -31,169

  -484

  31,059

  United Kingdom

  -632,522

  -483,018

  34,776

  755,370

  Source: Employment Department.

  1 Data relate to wards within the districts covered by the Valleys Programme Area and not to the district as a whole.

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information is available on the number of calls made to directory inquiries from his Department since 1 April 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department undertakes exercises at six-monthly intervals to assess usage of this service. The last monitoring exercise showed an average of 50 calls per week from the main offices in Cardiff.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales at what level he proposes to set the total of revenue support grant to Welsh local authorities in 1992–93.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I announced on 23 July that I proposed to set the total of aggregate external finance— AEF—the level of central Government support for local authority revenue spending, at £2·383 million, an increase of 6·7 per cent. over the equivalent amount for 1991–92; but that this figure would be adjusted to reflect the transfer out of local authority control of the six major higher education institutions in Wales, including the Polytechnic of Wales, from 1 April 1992. I have concluded that this adjustment should be confirmed at £34·6 million, the provisional sum I identified in July. I now propose that the level of AEF for 1992–93 should be £2,348·4 million.

  A comparable adjustment will be made to the level of total standard spending of £2,639 million that I announced in July.

  AEF support has three components: the distributable amount of non-domestic rates, the total of relevant specific and supplementary grants, and revenue support grant.

  As I announced to the House on 6 November, I intend to specify that the distributable amount from the non-domestic rating account be £536 million on the basis that the Welsh national non-domestic rating multiplier for 1992–93 will be 42·5.

  I propose that relevant specific and supplementary grants towards local authority revenue expenditure should total £195·3 million.

  I further propose that the total of revenue support grant should be £1,617·1 million of which £1,616·0 million should be paid to Welsh county and district councils and £1·1 million to certain specified bodies.

  My officials are today writing to Welsh local authorities setting out my proposals for the component amounts of
  458
  AEF and inviting their views. I am placing a copy of that consultation letter, which details the relevant specific and supplementary grants and the amounts to be paid to specified bodies, in the Library of the House.

  I will also provide an additional £5·985 million, outside AEF, for the payment of a special grant in 1992–93 to meet the estimated revenue cost to Welsh district authorities of council tax implementation. The special grant arrangements will be the subject of a separate consultation letter to be issued shortly.

  Early in December I will be notifying Welsh local authorities of my proposals for the distribution and population reports setting out the basis on which I propose to distribute revenue support grant among county and district councils, and the rules for calculating the relevant population of the areas of county and district councils for the purpose of the distribution of non-domestic rate income. I shall lay these reports before the House in due course.

  Charge Capping
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has proposals for community charge capping of Welsh local authorities in 1992–93.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today written to the leader and the chief executive of each Welsh local authority informing them that I do not intend to announce charge-capping criteria in advance of next year's annual budgetary round. This is a continuation of the arrangements that have applied in Wales for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  In my letter I have warned that I will subject to very careful scrutiny the expenditure proposals of Welsh local authorities for 1992–93 and will not hesitate to exercise my charge-capping powers in respect of any authority whose budget proposals I consider to be unacceptable.

PRIME MINISTER

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will publish the names of the trustees of the natural history museum and their respective remaining terms in office.

  The Prime Minister
  The names of the trustees of the natural history museum and their respective remaining terms in office are:
  459

  Date

  Sir Walter Bodmer FRS FRCPath (Chairman)

  31 December 1993

  Sir Owen Green

  31 December 1995

  Raymond John Carter

  31 December 1995

  Gerald M. Ronson

  31 December 1991

  Dr. Euan N. K. Clarkson FRSE

  31 December 1992

  Mrs. Jennifer d'Abo

  31 December 1993

  Professor Brian Follett

  31 December 1993

  Denys Henderson

  31 December 1993

  Professor Robert McCredie

  31 December 1993

  Professor John Harper

  16 February 1996

  Sir Anthony Laughton

  7 February 1995

  Forensic Evidence
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that the methods and thoroughness of forensic evidence gathering employed following incidents in Northern Ireland are of the same standards as those employed at the recent incident in St.Albans.

  The Prime Minister
  All explosions in Northern Ireland which, like the incident at St. Albans, cause fatalities are subject to a level of forensic scientific examination which is commensurate with their particular nature and appropriate having regard to the circumstances in which they occur and to whatever security considerations may apply at the time.

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister what information is available on the number of calls made to directory inquiries from his office since 1 April 1991.

  The Prime Minister
  No record is kept of the number of calls made to directory inquiries from my office.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what bilateral discussions he is having on RECHAR and additionality and with whom.

  The Prime Minister
  None, but Ministers and officials of the Departments concerned have discussed the subject fully with the European Commission and with interested parties in the United Kingdom.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mrs. Maureen Paleschi
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made to repatriate Mrs. Maureen Paleschi from prison in Cairo.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We continue to take every suitable opportunity to seek the early release of Mrs. Paleschi on humanitarian grounds. I have no progress to report at present.

  EC Economic and Social Committee
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the British members of the economic and social committee of the European Community, indicating in each case which interests they are intended to represent.
  460
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  British members of the economic and social committee are as follows:

  Group I (Representing employers)

  Group II (Representing workers)

  Group III (Representing various interest groups)

  Neville Beale

  Campbell Christie

  Wilfred Aspinall

  Michael Bell

  Peter Dawson

  Jocelyn Barrow

  John Little

  Tom Jenkins

  William Black

  Kenneth Gardner

  John Lyons

  Angela Guillaume

  Felix Kafka

  Ada Maddocks

  Robert Moreland

  Michael Mobbs

  William Morris

  Sue Slipman

  Ann Robinson

  Roy Sanderson

  Michael Strauss

  John Whitworth

  Alexander Smith

  Andrew Tyrie

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is available on the number of calls made to directory inquiries from his Department since 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff are encouraged to make economic use of the telephone.

  Gibraltar (Human Rights)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he takes to ensure that residents of Gibraltar have their human rights protected under the European convention on human rights.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The European convention on human rights applies in full to Gibraltar and provides Gibraltarians with the right of individual petition in relation to the rights covered by the convention. Furthermore, Gibraltar's constitution contains a chapter setting out the fundamental rights and freedoms of Gibraltarians and provides for their enforcement through the courts.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Mrs. Pamela Dix of UK Families Flight 103 concerning the Lockerbie disaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Ms. Pamela Dix has written three times to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concerning the Lockerbie disaster. Ms. Dix wrote most recently on 4 November 1991 enclosing a copy of a status report by UK Families Flight 103. My right hon. Friend replied to Ms. Dix on 19 November.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his answer of 20 November,Official Report, columns 198–99, what information he has regarding the current whereabouts and fate of the leadership of the site 8 camp.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We understand that all but two of the members of the former site 8 leadership have returned
  461
  to refugee camps on the Thai/Cambodia border, 10 of them to site 8. The exact whereabouts of the others is uncertain, but we understand that the two who remain inside Cambodia are safe.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), of 18 November,Official Report, columns 52–56, he will place in the Library copies of the reports of each of the UNSCOM visits to Iraq listed in his reply; if he will list by name and expertise each of the United Kingdom inspectors or technical experts involved in each UNSCOM visit; and if he will set out the new information provided to Her Majesty's Government by the UNSCOM inspection visits, subsequent to knowledge of the Iraqi nuclear programme as at 19 April 1990.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 25 November 1991]: Reports of the IAEA nuclear inspections are already available in the House of Commons Library in the form of Security Council documents as follows: UNSCOM 1 and 4 in S/22788 of 15 July; UNSCOM 5 in S/22837 of 25 July; UNSCOM 6 in S/22986 of 28 August; UNSCOM 14 in S/23112 of 4 October and UNSCOM 16 in S/23122 of 8 October. We expect the report of UNSCOM 19 to be issued shortly. Reports of other inspections have not yet been made public.

  United Kingdom nationals serving on the inspection teams have skills and expertise requested by the UN special commission and appropriate to the nature of the inspection for which they are provided. For reasons of personal security, I am not prepared to reveal their identities.

  New information on Iraq's WMD programme is set out in the above documents and in the report submitted to the Security Council by the executive chairman of the special commission which is being made available in the House of Commons Library—document S/23165 of 25 October.

  Algerian Nuclear Facilities
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he intends to make to the International Atomic Energy Agency to improve its surveillance of Algerian nuclear facilities.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 25 November 1991]: The Algerian research reactor operating at Draria is already under safeguards and the Algerian Government have given a public guarantee that the nuclear reactor under construction at Ain Oussera will be subject to IAEA inspection. We welcome this assurance, and look to the Algerian Government to invite the IAEA to inspect Ain Oussera as soon as possible.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Corporate Governance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the cost to his Department of seconding staff to the Cadbury committee on corporate governance.
  462
  Mr. Leigh
  There is no cost to the Department for the secondment of a member of its staff to the committee on the financial aspects of corporate governance.

  Company Investigations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions he has secured repayments of the costs of any investigations carried out by DTI inspectors, under section 439 of the Companies Act 1985.

  Redwood
  The Government are seeking recovery under section 439(4) of the costs of the Animal Defence Society Limited.

  Inspectors Reports
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his Department's policy(a) on the timing of the release of one of its inspector's reports where the subject of the report is also the subject of a current trial and (b) on the relative timing of the release of an inspector's report to those mentioned in the report and to Parliament.

  Mr. Lilley
  My Department would not expect to publish a report where the subject of the report was also the subject of a current criminal trial. A copy of the report could, however, be made available to those affected by its contents in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act and against suitable undertakings of confidentiality from the recipients. The timing of such release would depend upon the reasons for the request for the report.

  Reports are made available to Parliament on publication. It has been the practice of my Department to allow persons whose interests may be affected by the report, on request and on payment of the prescribed fee in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 1985, to have copies, against undertakings, shortly before the proposed date of publication.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those countries covered by Export Credits Guarantee Department provision.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Some export credit insurance cover is currently available from the Export Credits Guarantee Department, including from the Insurance Services Group which is shortly to be privatised, for all but three countries—Iraq, Libya and Zambia.

  BBC External Services
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will outline the arrangements made to co-ordinate the duties of the BBC external services and of the Export Credits Guarantee Department with respect to promotion of United Kingdom commercial interests.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The BBC World Service and the Export Credits Guarantee Department are two separate organisation with separate aims and objectives. However, ECGD does keep the BBC World Service informed about its activities. There are no plans to co-ordinate more closely their respective roles.

  Cumbria Action Team
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the proportion of the budget of the Cumbria action team allocated for(a) administration, (b) new work space in Copeland and (c) new factories in Copeland.

  Mr. Leigh
  On 13 June the Secretary of State announced a package of special measures for Barrow and West Cumbria. These included:

  (i) The establishment of the Cumbria action team, with a special fund of up to £1 million to support local initiatives in the area. No money from this special budget has been allocated for administration.

  (ii) A £15 million programme under which English Estates will provide new sites, factories and work space in Copeland and Furness. There is no formal allocation for Copeland, but we expect the programme to be roughly equal between the two areas.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the European Commission to release the RECHAR programme for implementation in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 21 November 1991]: This is a question for the Commission. I can make no prediction, but I hope that it will be released very soon.

  ECGD Insurance Services Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) further to his answer of 18 November,Official Report, column 37, what is his most up-to-date estimate of the number of current Export Credits Guarantee Department staff who will be given additional paid leave after 1 December, pending transfer to other duties;

  (2) how many existing Export Credits Guarantee Department staff will be retained after 1 December, on full pay with no duties pending early retirement with full civil service entitlement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 21 November 1991]: Management are stilt considering the most effective deployment of staff following the privatisation of the Insurance Services Group.

  Cumbria
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he proposes for the improvements to communications recommended by his Department's consultants in their report, "Cumbria's Economy, Strategic Needs and Opportunities in the 1990s."

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 22 November 1991]: Following my right hon. Friend's announcement of measures for West Cumbria and Furness on 13 June, the Cumbria action team was promptly established in the area with bases at Barrow and Cockermouth. The team has established close and regular links with business leaders, key local agencies and others concerned with the economic development of the area.

  A steering group involving the regional directors of Government Departments has also been established to
  464
  ensure effective liaison at senior level between Departments on issues concerning West Cumbria and Barrow. In addition to regular meetings between Departments, this group has held other meetings with representatives of key agencies in the area with a follow-up arranged for mid-December. I plan to be in Whitehaven on that occasion and to attend the meeting.

  Cars(Recycling)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has to date on corporate projects to dismantle and recycle cars in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the remainder of European Economic Community countries.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 November 1991]: I am aware of a number of initiatives being taken with regard to the dismantling and recycling of motor cars. In the United Kingdom, for example, BMW (GB) Ltd. has announced a pilot recycling and disassembly scheme and the Rover Group has announced plans to undertake a programme of research with the Bird Group—one of the leading United Kingdom and European materials reclamation and recycling organisations—which aims to establish the optimum level of disassembly as well as standards covering a wide range of marques. I am also aware of the proposal for an industry steering group whose initial function would be to initiate action and to co-ordinate information on the range of projects being undertaken.

  Elsewhere in Europe, we are aware that BMW—who are co-operating closely with other manufacturers—have a pilot disassembly plant at Landshut and have opened an operational recycling centre in Munich. Also in Germany, GM Europe—Opel Vauxhall—has initiated a programme with RED Darmstadt and Ford have started a vehicle dismantling plant at Cologne. In France, the PSA Group—Peugeot/Citroen—has established a joint project, near Lyon, with a scrap metal processor and a cement maker to remove pollutants, to recover metals, and to produce fuel pellets from the residues. The results from all of these projects will be applied in the United Kingdom.

  Additionally on the European front, the European Commission—DGXI—has designated end-of-life vehicles as a priority waste stream and discussions will start next month on identifying the scale of the problem and ways in which it can be tackled.

  Recycling is not new to the motor industry. About 75 per cent. of the material in the average car is already recovered and there is a long commercial tradition in the United Kingdom of recycling car batteries, of reconditioning engines, gear boxes and radiators and a variety of other used parts.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Council of Ministers meeting on the regions on 18 and 19 November.

  Mr. Leigh
  I attended on these dates the informal meeting in the Hague of EC Ministers responsible for regional policy and physical planning. The meeting considered two subjects: the Community structural funds, and the Commission's reference document "Europe 2000, Outlook for the Development of the Community's Territory". As it was an informal meeting, not a Council, no formal conclusions were reached.
  465
  Ministers had a broad exchange of views on the implementation of the structural funds to date and on certain aspects of their future. The importance of proper evaluation of the effectiveness of the funds was recognised and several ideas for improving the efficiency of their administration were discussed. The principle of subsidiarity and its relevance to the operation of the funds was acknowledged; I and some others expressed our Governments' wish to be more fully responsible for determining the eligible areas for and the detailed uses of the funds. Both Ministers and the Commission felt that there should in future be fewer "Community initiatives", a type of grant scheme exemplified by RECHAR.

  The reference document "Europe 2000" was generally welcomed, although I and others emphasised that it should not lead to any Community "spatial plan" contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission intends to carry out further studies. The intention of establishing a committee or working group, to facilitate exchange of information and experience on matters relevant to the Community dimension of "spatial development" in the member states, will be considered in detail at official level.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Channel 4 Commission on Education
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department supplied the Channel 4 commission on education with statistical information or comments on the performance of education in England and Wales.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department did not supply the Channel 4 commission on education with statistical information or comments on the performance of education in England and Wales. It was, however, in contact with the makers of an accompanying television programme.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he received a copy of the report of the Channel 4 commission on education; and what response he has made to the views expressed.

  Mr. Eggar
  A copy of the report of the Channel 4 commission on education was received by the Department on 22 October. I responded to the views expressed in a television debate on Channel 4 transmitted on 23 October.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to extend the system of mandatory and discretionary awards to students on courses of further or higher education whose disabilities or medical conditions oblige them to study on a part-time basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Education Act 1962 gives local education authorities the power to make discretionary awards to part-time students on courses of further or higher education, but restricts mandatory awards generally to designated full-time and sandwich higher education courses. The student support arrangements are kept under review. We have, however, no present plans for primary legislation to extend mandatory awards to part-time courses.
  466
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make special provision for people to have access to education or retraining if they become disabled after the age of 19 years through accident or illness.

  Mr. Eggar
  Existing education and training arrangements already provide for those who become disabled in adult life. Local education authorities' responsibilities towards disabled adults will be carried forward into the new further education structures under the Further and Higher Education Bill. Department of Employment schemes give priority access to people with disabilities.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure suitable transport to and from college for disabled students in further education who do not have access to public or private transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the Further and Higher Education Bill currently before Parliament, the provision of transport for disabled and other students in further education will continue to be the responsibility of local education authorities.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that students with special educational needs wishing to pursue further education receive a full and appropriate assessment of their needs; and if he will specify the methods by which their academic achievements will be acknowledged.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the Further and Higher Education Bill currently before Parliament the assessment of further education students' needs will continue to be a matter for the colleges. It would be inappropriate for the Government to specify the methods by which examining and awarding bodies assess the academic achievements of students with special educational needs. The Government expect those bodies to ensure that their assessment arrangements take account of the needs of students with special educational needs.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will extend the statutory age limit for entitlement to further education for students with special needs who need extra time to develop independence skills and to catch up academically with their able-bodied peers.

  Mr. Eggar
  There is no such statutory age limit. The duty to secure provision of further education applies to 16 to 18-year-olds and to adults of all ages. The Further and Higher Education Bill currently before Parliament carries that duty over into the proposed new further education structures.

  Official Journeys
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the number of official journeys to Bradford made by the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) during 1990 and the current year to the most recent practicable date and the total cost of rail fares for himself and civil servants together with the associated costs of meals and any other expenses.
  467
  Mr. Eggar
  The Government have a strong commitment to promoting inner city regeneration. As Minister with special responsibility for Bradford and Leeds, it is invaluable for me to maintain personal contact with those involved in this vital process—including both Bradford city council and important private sector and partnership bodies such as the Bradford chamber of commerce, the Bradford and District training and enterprise council, the Bradford Breakthrough and the Keighley business forum, not to mention the many voluntary sector and community groups which are contributing to the development of new initiative and new partnerships in the district.

  My many and frequent contacts with local people are also invaluable in steering the work of the Bradford and Leeds city action team and the Bradford task force which between them invest over £1·5 million a year in the city—and which seek to co-ordinate the impact of central Government programmes especially in the fields of environment, employment, training and enterprise. There is no substitute for seeing things personally and learning at first hand.

  Since July 1990, when I became Minister of State, I have made 11 official visits to Bradford, nine by train. From the records currently available the total cost for myself and civil servants is as follows:

  £

  a) Rail fares

  1,692·58

  b) Associated costs

  285·85

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information is available on the number of calls made to directory inquiries from his Department since 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not possible to give complete statistics of all directory inquiry calls made by departmental personnel. While telephone logging equipment is now installed at the Department's main offices in London and Darlington, it is not available at small outstations or the divisional and local offices of Her Majesty's inspectorate.

  Data collected during October suggest that approximately 80 calls are made daily to directory inquiries from the Department's two principal sites.

  Schools(Health and Safety)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on local education authority inspections of schools for health and safety.

  Mr. Atkins
  It falls to local education authorities to ensure that their inspection arrangements are appropriate for the discharge of both their statutory duties and wider responsibilities with regard to health and safety.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Rents
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his Department's guidelines for rents of council homes in Lambeth in 1992 and 1993.
  468
  Mr. Yeo
  Guideline rents are the assumptions about each local housing authority's rental income used in the calculation of entitlement to housing revenue account subsidy. They are calculated by each authority in accordance with a formula determined annually by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. For 1992–93 my right hon. Friend has proposed that guideline rents should be increased by between £1·20 in low value areas to £4·50 in high value areas. If the proposals are confirmed, the Department estimates that Lambeth's guideline rent for 1992–93 is likely to be £30·39 a week. No decisions have been made about guideline rents for 1993–94.

  Red Telephone Boxes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria changes have taken place which has resulted in English Heritage listing an old-style red telephone box outside the London inn in Ivybridge, Devon, in 1988, but removing it from the list in 1991; and how many red public telephone boxes will remain in Ivybridge.

  Mr. Yeo
  The criteria for assessing traditional red telephone kiosks for listing have not changed since June 1987. The kiosk outside the London inn, Ivybridge, was rejected for listing on 24 June 1991, because it is not considered to fulfil the listing criteria. It had not previously been assessed for listing.

  It is for British Telecom to decide how many red telephone kiosks are to remain in Ivybridge.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1981 which local authorities are spending their receipts from right-to-buy sales at the maximum permitted rate; what are the amounts; which local authorities are spending their receipts at less than the maximum permitted rate; what are the amounts they spend; and what are the amounts they could spend.

  Mr. Yeo
  Data on the spending of receipts from right-to-buy sales has not been collected from local authorities.

  Liverpool Obstetric and Gynaecology Unit
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what grant aid has been sought through the Merseyside task force towards the cost of the proposed obstetric and gynaecology unit in Liverpool;

  (2) what grants are being made through the Merseyside task force towards the costs of the proposed obstetric and gynaecology unit in Liverpool.

  Mr. Key
  None, but the Liverpool city action team has given grant support to the development team of Project Rosemary, of which the proposed new hospital would form a part. This support includes payment of the salary of a community development officer. The main costs of the new unit will be met by the district health authority under its usual allocations, details of which are a matter for the chairman of Mersey regional health authority, Sir Donald Wilson.
  469

  City Challenge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of grant the Government will be contributing to city challenge schemes; and what proportion local authorities will have to raise themselves.

  Mr. Portillo
  The proportion of grants contributed by local authorities and the Government in city challenge are as follows:

  Urban Programme

  For revenue projects grant will be available at 90 per cent. rather than 75 per cent.; the local authority will be expected to contribute 10 per cent. of approved costs.

  For capital projects, grant will be available at 75 per cent. and supplementary credit approvals (SCAs) at 25 per cent.

  Estate Action

  For estate action projects there will be 100 per cent. SCA support.

  Local Authority Derelict Land Grant

  In respect of local authority derelict land grant projects, all city challenge areas will receive 100 per cent. support, in the form of 50 per cent. grant and 50 per cent. SCAs in Lewisham and Tower Hamlets and 100 per cent. grant elsewhere.

  Non Local Authority Derelict Land Grant

  Grant on approved expenditure on non local authority derelict land grant projects will be given at a rate of 50 per cent. in Lewisham and Tower Hamlets and 80 per cent. in other areas.

  Private Sector Housing Renewal

  City challenge support is available under section 132 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and for environmental works in renewal areas under section 96 of that Act. Grant will be paid on 90 per cent. of a local authority's eligible expenditure for group repair schemes and on 90 per cent. of the eligible expenditure incurred in carrying out environmental works in renewal areas; the local authority will be required to contribute the remaining 10 per cent.

  City Grant

  For city grant, grant will continue to be paid directly to developers and assessed on the deficit between project costs and project value.

  Housing Corporation

  For schemes funded by the Housing Corporation grant will be paid on mixed funded schemes and public funded schemes in 1992–93 at the appropriate rates for the area in accordance with Housing Corporation circular 33–91.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the funds for city challenge have been top-sliced from existing inner-city programmes.

  Mr. Portillo
  Yes; £82·5 million for 1992–93 has been top-sliced from the following programmes:

  Estate Action

  Urban Programme

  City Action Teams

  City Grant

  Derelict Land Grant

  Private Sector Housing Renewal

  Housing Corporation

  470
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will provide continuing revenue support to the city challenge schemes after the five year cut-off point.

  Mr. Portillo
  Revenue support for city challenge schemes will be provided for the period agreed in their action plans.

  Police Authorities (Finance)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions a police authority has become insolvent in that its current expenditure in the current financial year exceeds its income; and what powers he has to deal with such an eventuality.

  Mr. Key
  No single-service police authority has reported to us that it has ended any year with a deficit. The management of its financial affairs, including dealing with any deficit, is a matter for each individual authority.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions he or his predecessors have advised police authorities to run revenue deficits on the assurance of income in future years; and what powers he has to offer such assurances.

  Mr. Key
  None. We have no such power.

  House Repossessions
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were repossessed by building societies in the first three quarters of 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  The latest available information is the number of properties taken into possession during the first half of 1991 by building societies and other members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders. This, with the corresponding information for earlier periods, appears in table 11 of the November 1991 edition of "Housing Finance", which is in the Library.

  Council Tax
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide examples for council flats or two-bedroom terraced properties for the same areas as he provided in his press release of 19 November for a 1960s built three-bedroom semi-detached house.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing his estimate of the council tax bill payable and the community charge bill payable in 1991–92 for a couple living in(a) a 1960s built three-bedroom semi-detached house and (b) a 1960s built four-bedroom detached house for each English council.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have today placed in the Library tables providing the information requested.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the addresses for each of the 1960s built three bedroom semi-detached houses used to illustrate comparison between the last rates bill, current poll tax bill and the future council tax bill published in a press release from his Department on 19 November 1991.
  471
  Mr. Key
  The figures published on 19 November were based on estimates of value provided by the Valuation Office. These estimates relate to typical properties rather than actual addresses.

  Nitrate Pollution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 28 zones which are the subject of an action by the EC against the Government for failure to meet EC nitrate levels.

  Mr. Baldry
  The 28 zones covered by the European Commission's 1989 case against the United Kingdom, which is to be heard in the European Court on 27 November, are shown in the table, together with the date by which each will comply with the nitrate standard in the EC drinking water directive.

  Date by which to comply

  Anglian Water

  Dessingham (2 sources)

  1—

  Docking

  1991

  Hunstanton

  1991

  Bowthorpe

  1993

  Hoveton (2 sources)

  1992–1994

  Moulton/Kennet

  1993

  Wisbech

  1993

  Immingham (2 zones)

  1995

  Harrowby (2 sources)

  1992–1994

  Barrow

  1992

  Binbrook

  1992

  Market Rasen

  1992

  Middle Rasen (2 zones)

  1992

  Sleaford (2 zones)

  1994

  Metheringham (2 zones)

  1994

  Barrowby

  1994

  Ely

  2—

  Severn Trent Water

  Oakley Farm

  2—

  Puleston Bridge

  2—

  Farnsfield

  2—

  Lilleshall

  2—

  Lee Valley Water Company

  Luton (Crescent Road)

  1993

  South Staffordshire Water Company

  Lichfield (5 sources)

  3—

  Trent Valley

  2—

  1— 1 source now complies/second 1994.

  2— Now complies.

  3— 1 source now complies/remainder 1993.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will agree to meet representatives of mobile home dwellers in Dorset; and if he will make a statement on his Department's current discussions on their circumstances.

  Mr. Yeo
  Consultants appointed by the Department carried out a research study into physical and social 472
  conditions on residential mobile home sites over the summer. We shall be publishing their report in the near future. We also intend to publish a consultation paper on future mobile homes policy, although no major changes to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 are contemplated. We shall be initiating discussions with representatives of mobile home residents and site owners at the appropriate time.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what investigations and surveys he has undertaken in the past two years into the size and extent of the problem of people sleeping rough in snow or extreme cold outside London; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what inquiry he has made into the number of people who slept rough in snow or extreme cold in Leicester last winter.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department has not undertaken any research into the number of people outside London sleeping rough during the last two winters. The most reliable estimate of the numbers sleeping rough outside London is in the 1991 OPCS census supplementary monitor on people sleeping rough, which was placed in the Library on 9 July. This reported that 33 people were sleeping rough on the streets of Leicester on the night of 21–22 April.

  MINIS-12 Report
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what inquiries have been received by his Department since the start of October concerning(a) the content and (b) the availability of the MINIS-12 report for 1991.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 25 November 1991]: My Department has received only a handful of inquiries since the beginning of October about MINIS 12 returns. The returns were published in July and their content is a matter of public record. Copies were placed in the Library of the House and are available for purchase from my Department. Inquirers are referred to these sources as appropriate.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the levels of pollution from each incinerator operating in England; and to what extent they comply with EC legislation.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 25 November 1991]: Information on levels of pollution from individual plant is not available. The European Community has set limits on emissions to air from municipal waste incinerators with which incinerators built since 1 December 1990 must comply now. Municipal waste incinerators with a capacity of 6 tonnes/hour or more in existence on that date have until 1 December 1996 to be brought up to the European standards.

SCOTLAND

  Nuclear Power Plant, Torness
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether spent nuclear fuel allocated to the dry storage facility planned for the Scottish nuclear power plant at Torness will be subject to the EC proposal for a Council directive (COM(90)328 final) amending EC directive 80/836/EURATOM.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The draft of EC directive COM(90)328, which is still being discussed by the Council of Ministers, relates to the control of shipments of nuclear material. The effect of any directive on any dry storage of spent fuel is therefore speculative. No formal application to construct spent fuel storage facilities at Torness is before the Secretary of State.

  Children (Special Needs)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the education of children with disabilities or special needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Primary responsibility for the education of children with special educational needs lies with education authorities. It is their duty to make available for all children in their area adequate and efficient school education which must include provision for children with special educational needs. Additionally, for children and young people with pronounced, specific or complex special educational needs requiring continuing review, authorities have a duty to open a record of needs and to ensure that the provision they make provides fully for the needs described in that record.

  Financial provision to enable authorities to carry out these duties is included in the aggregate external finance settlement.

  Traffic Accidents (A1)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths and how many injuries have occurred as a result of road traffic accidents on the A1 road between Musselburgh and the English border in each of the last 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following table provides the information requested on road traffic accidents on the A1 road between the Dolphingstone interchange east of Musselburgh, and the English border. Information for 1991 is available centrally only up to June and is provisional.

  Number of casualties on the A1 between Dolphingstone interchange and the English border by severity 1981–90, and to June 1991

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1981

  7

  36

  77

  120

  1982

  4

  54

  51

  109

  1983

  8

  35

  46

  89

  1984

  7

  55

  54

  116

  1985

  7

  52

  73

  132

  1986

  4

  62

  78

  144

  1987

  12

  43

  66

  121

  1988

  15

  41

  57

  113

  1989

  7

  46

  75

  128

  474

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1990

  10

  47

  95

  152

  11991

  1

  11

  39

  51

  1 January to June 1991 (provisional).

  Road Crossing
  Mr. McMaster:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to provide local authorities with responsibility for roads with additional finance for the specific purpose of providing accessible and safe road crossings for people with mobility or visual impairments; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for local authorities to include projects for the provision of accessible and safe road crossings for people with mobility or visual impairments in their transport policies and programme documents and financial plans. These will then be taken fully into account in determining capital allocations. Local authorities have been given detailed guidance about the provision of facilities at pedestrian crossings for disabled and visually impaired people. It is for the authorities themselves to decide what priority should be given to providing these facilities and other road safety measures.

  Lyme Disease
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the incidence of Lyme disease in the highlands of Scotland and in each of the other health board areas in each of the last three years; and what steps are being taken to prevent its spread.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Lyme disease has been a notifiable disease in Scotland since January 1990. Information about its incidence in earlier years is not available. The number of notifications, by health board area, for 1990 and 1991, to 8 November, is as follows:

  1990

  11991

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1

  2

  Grampian

  4

  11

  Greater Glasgow

  2

  2

  Highland

  3

  2

  Tayside

  2

  —

  1 To 8 November.

  Lyme disease is transmitted from animals to man by the bite of the adult female tick. It is not a common condition in Scotland, but the notification requirements which have been introduced will enable careful monitoring of its incidence to be maintained.

  RNIB Needs Survey
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to his answer of 12 November,Official Report, column 485, whether he has yet received a copy of the RNIB needs survey on blind and partially sighted adults in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend has now obtained a copy of this comprehensive report. He will consider its contents carefully in relation to planning and delivery of the wide range of services for blind and partially sighted people for which he is responsible.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the current unemployment figures for the Kilmarnock and Loudoun district.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In October 1991, the latest month for which figures are available, there were 4,295 people unemployed in Kilmarnock and Loudoun district. This figure is given on the unadjusted basis.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest unemployment figures for Dundee and Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In October 1991, the latest month for which figures are available, there were 9,641 people unemployed in Dundee travel-to-work area and 220,396 in Scotland. The figures shown are given on the unadjusted basis.

  Craigtoun Hospital
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of Craigtoun hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend hopes to announce his decision shortly.

  Cumbernauld High School
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth on 11 November,Official Report, column 381, whether Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools have had discussions with Strathclyde regional council concerning the implementation of the recommendations made by the inspectorate in its report on Cumbernauld high school: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: The implementation of the recommendations made in the published report following the inspection of Cumbernauld high school were discussed fully with the divisional education officer in May 1991 following the follow-up inspection, and have been the subject of further discussions. Progress was being made on all the issues raised in the published report, although the authority had been unable to respond immediately on those in relation to the replacement of windows and other maintenance, and decoration. That work has been phased. Window replacement is being undertaken in three phases with the second to be completed in 1992 and the remainder undertaken in the course of the financial year 1992–93. Early preparation for redecoration is under way and plans have been made to complete that in 1992–93.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth on 11 November,Official Report, column 381, if he will outline those subject departments, or areas of weakness, at Cumbernauld high school which necessitated Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools to undertake a follow-up inspection of the school in January 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: In terms of Scottish Office Education Department
  476
  circular No. 1095 a follow-up visit is paid to all schools inspected to determine the progress made by the authority and the school in responding to the recommendations made in the published report. The report on Cumbernauld high school made recommendations for action by both school management and the education authority. In relation to the former, action was suggested to be necessary to provide clearer statements of school policies and to ensure effective monitoring of the implementation of these, to provide more differentiation of demand within courses to match the range of ability of pupils, and in relation to aspects of provision in history, technical education, home economics, music and computing. On the evidence of the follow-up visit, substantial progress was being made, with the support of the education authority's advisory service, to bring about improvements in all these areas.

  M80
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the line of route of the M80 to Haggs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a decision has yet been reached on the line of route for the M80 from Haggs to Stepps; and when the work is likely to commence.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 November 1991]: Over the past six months the road project team in the Scottish Office roads directorate managing the M80 Stepps-Haggs scheme has been heavily committed in a major review of the strategic trunk road network in north Lanarkshire. This review, together with essential preparatory work for the forthcoming M8 Newbridge to Edinburgh public inquiry, has regrettably delayed the consideration necessary to enable a decision to be made on the line of the M80 between Stepps and Haggs. It is hoped that formal presentations can be made to regional and district councils early in the new year and a decision taken thereafter. The date of a start of the works will depend on the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures and the availability of funds.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to declare a moratorium on new management agreements under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, pending a review of the system.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 November 1991]: No.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations(a) the Scottish Office and (b) the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland have received from Lord Kimball on the need for management agreements in north-west Sutherland under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 November 1991]: Lord Kimball has served notices of intent under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to undertake agricultural, forestry and other operations. These proposals are being assessed by the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland which will decide whether management agreements should be offered under section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968.
  477
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact of management agreements, currently being negotiated, on the proposed budget of Scottish Natural Heritage.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 November 1991]: All matters affecting the funding requirements of Scottish Natural Heritage will be taken into account by my right hon. Friend in deciding the amount of the grant in aid which will be allocated.

DEFENCE

  RAF Machrihanish
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the future role of RAF Machrihanish;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the use of facilities at RAF Machrihanish by United States armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF Machrihanish is primarily established as a wartime forward operating base for NATO, including United States, maritime patrol aircraft. United States navy aircraft occasionally use the station for exercises. Additionally, the station accommodates a United States navy mobile mine assembly group and special warfare unit. There are no current plans to change this role.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts have been awarded for construction work at RAF Machrihanish during 1990–91; and what is their individual cost.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Contracts awarded in 1990–91 for construction work at RAF Machrihanish cover airfield paving, aviation fuel storage installations, an operational and administrative building, a range of accommodation buildings, a civil aviation terminal and a public road. These exclude minor works and have a cumulative value of £28 million—of which some £15 million falls to United States and NATO funds. It is not possible to give the costs of individual contracts for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many residential properties owned by his Ministry are in Scotland; and what is the current percentage rate of occupation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 30 September 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, MOD owned 6,361 houses and flats in Scotland, of which 5,107 were occupied representing 80 per cent. of the total stock. Many of the unoccupied properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, some were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly, and others were being considered for disposal. In addition, 372 properties were in the process of being sold.

  Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many residential properties owned by his Ministry are in Fife; and what is the current percentage rate of occupation.
  478
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 30 September 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, the Ministry of Defence owned 1,436 houses and flats in Fife, of which 1,222 were occupied, representing 85 per cent. of the total stock. Many of the unoccupied properties were either undergoing major maintenance work or modernisation, some were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly and others were being considered for disposal. In addition, 108 properties were in the process of being sold.

  Thurleigh Airfield
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what consultations have taken place since the announcement of the closure of the airfield at Thurleigh, Bedfordshire between his Department and agencies and the local authorities in the county; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to discuss the terms of the proposals covering Thurleigh airfield with the local authorities involved before completing negotiations with United Parcel Services;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to ensure that North Bedfordshire borough council is requested for planning permission for a change in use for Thurleigh airfield from military to civilian flying;

  (4) how many applicants have approached his Department for authority to use the airfield at Thurleigh for (a) flying and purposes connected therewith, (b) commercial users, other than as an airport, (c) recreational purposes and (d) housing; and whether any negotiations have been completed;

  (5) what account he takes in considering the future of Thurleigh airfield in Bedfordshire of (a) noise, (b) planning blight, (c) environmental despoliation and (d) loss of amenity.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Since my announcement on 9 May of our intention to dispose of Thurleigh (Bedford) airfield on relocation of research and experimental flying to Boscombe Down, consultants acting on our behalf have held several discussions with Bedfordshire county and North Bedfordshire borough councils in the course of stage II of their study into disposal and marketing strategy. We anticipate a continuing, more detailed, dialogue, once the consultants' findings have been evaluated. We are not, in the meantime, in formal negotiation with either United Parcels Service or the 10 other commercial concerns which have discussed their informal interest in alternative use for the airfield site with our consultants.

  In considering the disposal of Thurleigh airfield, our objective is to agree a way forward with the local authorities concerned that is consistent both with our duty to maximise the potential return from sale and with legitimate local environmental and infrastructure concerns, which it would be our intention to address in an environmental impact assessment. Any subsequent developments within the context of current planning legislation would be the subject of a formal submission to North Bedfordshire borough council.

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is available on the number of calls made to directory inquiries from his Department since 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information on calls to directory inquiries from my Department is not held centrally and the number of such calls could be calculated only at disproportionate cost. Access to this service is restricted.

  Staffordshire Regiment
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the record of the Staffordshire Regiment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Staffordshire Regiment and its predecessors have a long and honourable history. They have served with distinction in campaigns from Guadaloupe in 1759 to the recent conflict in the Gulf. Full details are available in the Army List and regimental histories.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to maintain the Staffordshire regiment in its existing form.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As part of the restructuring of the Army, the Staffordshire Regiment will amalgamate with the Cheshire Regiment in 1993. I am, however, confident that the traditions, identity and loyalties of both the Staffordshire Regiment and the Cheshire Regiment will be successfully carried forward into the new regiment.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the Director of Infantry's current guidelines on amalgamation of regiments in respect of the relative priority for amalgamation of those regiments which have already been amalgamated since 1945 and those which have not;

  (2) if he will list the order of preference for amalgamation submitted by the Cheshire regiment to the Army board.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The detailed basis on which the Army board came to its decisions about regimental amalgamations is an internal matter. The board took account of all relevant factors.

  Service Medals
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is being given to the striking of a humanitarian medal for service personnel; and when he expects to announce a design.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The possibility of an award for service personnel who take part in operations of a humanitarian nature is under consideration, but no decision has yet been taken.

  South African Defence Material
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what oversight his Department maintains over the sale of South African-made defence material by companies based in the United Kingdom.
  480
  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have been asked to reply.

  Exports of defence equipment are subject to control under the Export of Goods (Control) Order and a licence is required to export such goods to any destination.

HEALTH

  West Middlesex University Hospital
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what building works costing more than £5 million he expects to be carried out at the West Middlesex University hospital during the next 12 months.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has not received any approval-in-principle submissions from North West Thames and consequently no funding has yet been identified for any major scheme at West Middlesex. The regional health authority, however, recognises the case for investment there and is currently awaiting submission of the proposals being developed by the district.

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing the funds allocated for the current year per head of population to each health district within the South East Thames regional health area.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information about the funds allocated to health districts is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Peter Barker, the chairman of South East Thames regional health authority, for details.

  Residential and Care Homes
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number, by region, of inspectors of residential and care homes; what is the minimum number of annual inspections of these; and what further measures will be taken to maintain standards of care in residential and care homes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about the numbers of inspectors employed by local authorities is not held centrally. Authorities are required to inspect registered private and voluntary residential care homes at least twice a year.

  The regulation of residential care, in which inspection plays a major part, safeguards the welfare of residents and helps uphold high standards. It is for this reason that over the last 12 months the Government have required local authorities to set up inspection units specifically to begin inspecting care homes in the public sector; have instituted arrangements allowing authorities to ask the police to check the antecedents of new proprietors and managers of homes; and, in regulations due to come into effect on 1 December, have introduced a requirement on applicants to provide details of criminal convictions, as well as to provide proof of identity on request.

  We are also actively seeking to encourage improvements in the quality of life of residents in care homes. The social services inspectorate is publishing and promoting a series of documents on standards in homes with the generic title "Caring for Quality". Considerable progress has also been made in the caring in homes initiative, an action research programme which the Department is funding at a cost of some £2 million. The initiative is

  481
  working to promote good practice and enhancing residents' quality of life, drawing on recommendations made in the report "Residential Care: A Positive Choice". The final results will be made widely available next year. Copies of the existing publications are available in the Library.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the salaries, remuneration, pension entitlements and other benefits payable to(a) each chair or shadow chair of each national health service trust or proposed trust in the Northern region from 1 December, (b) members of each national health service trust or proposed trust in the northern region from 1 December and (c) when he proposes next to revise salaries and other remuneration for trust chairs and board members.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The chairmanship and non-executive directorships of NHS trusts are not salaried posts, although chairmen and non-executive directors receive remuneration for their services. Remuneration, though taxable, is not pensionable. The rates of remuneration from 1 December are given in table 1. Chairmen and directors are also entitled to claim travel and subsistence allowances, the current rates of which are given in table 2. The timing of the next review of remuneration and allowances has yet to be decided.

  Table 1

  NHS Trust Chairmen's remuneration

  £

  Band 1

  19,285

  Band 2

  17,145

  Band 3

  15,125

  Banding criteria

  Turnover

  in excess of £50 million

  Band 1

  between £20–£50 million

  Band 2

  less than £20 million

  Band 3

  Note: Turnover means the unit's turnover for 1988–89.

  Table 2

  NHS trust chairmen, non executive directors, committee members and sub-committee members

  Travelling and other allowances

  Current rates

  1. Public transport allowances (from 1 June 1990)

  20·1p

  2. Motor mileage allowance (from 1 April 1991)

  a. Up to 1500cc

  Up to 7000 miles

  35·7p

  Over 7000 miles

  13·0p

  b. 1500cc to 2000cc

  Up to 7000 miles

  37·0p

  Over 7000 miles

  15·0p

  c. Over 2000cc

  Up to 7000 miles

  39·0p

  Over 7000 miles

  17·0p

  3. Motor cycle allowance (from 1 April 1991)

  a. Up to 125cc

  Up to 5000 miles

  15·4p

  Over 5000 miles

  5·5p

  b. Over 125cc

  Up to 5000 miles

  24·7p

  Over 5000 miles

  8·1p

  482

  Current rates

  4. Overnight absence allowance (from 1 August 1990)

  Inner London

  £98·70

  Elsewhere

  £85·85

  5. Day subsistence allowance (from 1 August 1991)

  5–8 hours

  £3·90

  Over 8 hours

  £8·60

  Over 12 hours

  £12·50

  NHS Hospitals
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy for the amalgamation of NHS hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Hospital and community health services at a local level are the responsibility of regional and district health authorities, which should seek local agreement to significant changes in the provision of health services.

  AIDS
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to mark World AIDS Day; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  World AIDS Day is a World Health Organisation initiative held on 1 December each year designed to expand and strengthen the worldwide effort to curb the spread of HIV infection and AIDS. The theme this year is "Sharing the Challenge", calling for a partnership of nations, groups, individuals and organisations from all walks of life to combat the pandemic.

  As in previous years, we asked Mrs. Margaret Jay, director of the National AIDS Trust, to form a group to steer the United Kingdom response. The membership of the group has included people from the United Kingdom statutory, voluntary and media sectors. The day is being marked by many events throughout the United Kingdom.

  On Friday 22 November I launched the Surrey and East Hampshire AIDSlink as a charity. In the week running up to World AIDS Day I am attending events in Bristol and in London. There will also be a preview of an exhibition of photographs of innovative local initiatives on HIV/AIDS. On 28 November the Chief Medical Officer and I will address the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS. My final World AIDS Day engagement will be to open a nursing conference on changing attitudes to AIDS in Cambridge on 2 December.

  On World AIDS Day itself the Chief Medical Officer, the Chief Social Services Inspector and the Deputy Chief Nursing Officer will attend an ecumenical service at Southwark cathedral. They will also visit people with HIV and AIDS and those who care for them, at the London Lighthouse and the Mildmay Mission hospital. These organisations have pioneered the provision of palliative care and support for people with HIV and AIDS. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will also visit London Lighthouse on 4 December.

  We hope that the press, radio and television will help focus national attention on action to curb the spread of HIV infection and foster compassion and support for those already affected.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-haemophiliacs in England, Wales and
  483
  Northern Ireland who have contracted HIV infection as a result of contaminated NHS blood-tissue transfers (a) remain alive, (b) have developed AIDS and remain alive and (c)developed AIDS and have since died.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There have been 51 reports in England, Wales and Northern Ireland of HIV infection in people who received blood or tissue transfer in the United Kingdom. The number of infected persons thought to be alive is 26.

  The number reported with AIDS is 27, of whom 22 are known to have died. We have no information on the cause of death.

  NHS Residential Estate
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the report of the national health service residential estate commissioned from CSL Group Ltd.

  Mr. Dorrell
  CSL Group Ltd. was commissioned to examine the utilisation of national health service staff accommodation. Its report analyses NHS residential accommodation by type and number of units and recommends target rates for utilisation and availability. This will be incorporated in guidance about to be issued to the NHS. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Home Care Standards
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessments his Department has undertaken of standards of nursing home care provided by national health service hospitals;

  (2) what consultations he has had with local health authorities over the standards of home care provided by national health service hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Continuous nursing care may be provided in long-stay NHS hospital wards, community units, directly managed nurse-led units or through independent providers. It is for health authorities to decide the appropriate type and level of care and how best to secure it, taking account of local needs and priorities. Independent nursing homes are subject to the registration and inspection procedures laid down in part II of the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Health authorities as purchasers of health care services are expected to ensure that their contracts include appropriate quality standards and to monitor the delivery of care. The Department is in continuous contact with the health service through the NHS management executive.

  Nasogastric Feeding Tubes
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 409, when he expects to complete his consideration of whether to make nasogastric feeding tubes available on general practitioner prescription.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A decision on whether to make nasogastric feeding tubes available on general practitioner prescribing depends on the resource implications for the family health services and consultations on the transfer of a service that is currently the responsibility of health authorities.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has plans to introduce a charter for dental patients.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have no such plans.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to review the working of the capitation system for dental treatment for children; and whether he will introduce an item of service payment formula within the capitation framework.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We keep all aspects of the working of the new dental contract under review. The capitation system includes provision for item of service payments. These are listed under item 41 of the fee scale in the "Statement of Dental Remuneration".

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been paid in pre-entry payments for children on a monthly basis in the period since the inception of the new dental contract.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is given in the table.

  Month/Year

  Payment (£)

  October 1990

  336,560

  November 1990

  4,100,607

  December 1990

  6,928,169

  January 1991

  6,079,356

  February 1991

  6,579,365

  March 1991

  6,709,034

  April 1991

  6,541,420

  May 1991

  5,834,846

  June 1991

  5,301,253

  July 1991

  5,309,673

  August 1991

  4,587,857

  September 1991

  3,349,053

  October 1991

  4,138,035

  Note: The figures refer to payments made under items 42(a) and 42(b) of the fee scale published in the "Statement of Dental Remuneration".

  National Health Service News Management
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of establishing the national health service management executive news management unit; and what is its budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The NHS management executive does not have a news management unit.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce an additional option for accommodating children midway between secure accommodation and open children's homes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  If a child needs to have his liberty restricted it should be in premises which can hold him safely and securely and in accordance with the statutory safeguards provided by section 25 of the Children Act 1989.

  Radiotherapy, Sunderland
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the average waiting time for patients needing radiotherapy treatment in Sunderland district health authority.
  485
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally. At March 1991 there were no patients waiting for radiotherapy treatment in Sunderland district health authority.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has received from regional health authorities as a result of their being requested by his Department to notify the Department of approaches to regions from the hon. Member for Peckham about patients on waiting lists.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Mr. D. H. Bullock
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the case of the constituent of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston, Mr. D. H. Bullock, who was admitted to Broadgreen hospital, Liverpool on 25 September 1991, discharged on 9 October 1991, and re-admitted on 13 October 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received a full report on this case, which concerns a patient who contracted legionnaires disease at the cardiothoracic centre, Liverpool. We are satisfied that the hospital took immediate action to both isolate the infection and to take the necessary measures in line with the two codes of practice issued by the Health and Safety Executive and this Department.

  Healthy Eating Campaign
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he has given the food industry and educators with regard to the healthy eating campaign running alongside the HEA publication "Enjoy Healthy Eating"; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will issue additional advice to the food industry and educators as to the role they can play in working towards a healthier nation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched the COMA report on dietary reference values in July, he asked the Health Education Authority to take the lead in developing a healthy eating campaign. The booklet "Enjoy Healthy Eating", which was published on 5 November, a copy of which is available in the Library, represents the start of that campaign. Further nutrition education resources for both professionals and the public are being developed.

  So far as the food industry is concerned, the Government maintain a constructive dialogue with it on issues such as food labelling and the production and marketing of healthy choices in food supplies.

  In the context of the Green Paper "The Health of the Nation", the responses of those representing the food industry have given a positive welcome to the initiative and have signalled their intention to play a full and constructive role.

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available on the number of calls made to directory inquiries from his Department since 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Only two months' information is kept on telephone calls from the Department. Since 16 September, 3,900 calls have been made to directory inquiries.

  Psychiatric Facilities
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the level of provision of medium secure psychiatric facilities in Wessex regional health authority; and whether there are any plans to develop them.

  Mr. Dorrell
  West Dorset health authority has been invited to co-ordinate the purchasing requirements of all the health authorities in Wessex for the provision of medium secure psychiatric facilities.

  A decision will be taken about the nature, location and size of future provision, taking into consideration the recommendations emerging from the current national review of services for mentally disordered offenders and others requiring similar services.

  Juveniles (Secure Accommodation)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make assistance available to local authorities to meet revenue expenditure in repect of the provision of secure accommodation for juveniles.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Secure accommodation in community homes forms part of a range of residential facilities provided by local authorities for children they are looking after. The revenue costs of such accommodation fall to the providing local authority, which may recharge other local authorities making placements there. The local authority associations have an opportunity to express views on pressures that might lead to additional expenditure, or savings, on personal social services as part of the discussions leading to the annual local authority settlement.

  Grant aid is available from central Government to meet the full capital cost of providing secure accommodation in community homes.

  Patients Charter
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the cost of production and distribution of(a) the patients charter and (b) the summary of the patients charter.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The costs of the production and distribution of the patients charter and the summary of the patients charter were £200,000 and £1,400,000 respectively.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training Credits
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to report on the training credit pilot schemes.
  487
  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. and learned Friend was delighted to be able to announce yesterday the names of the training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies that will be developing a second round of training credits schemes, to come into operation in April 1993. This second round of credit schemes will build on the experience of the existing training credit pilots and we hope to publish evaluation results from the first nine months of operating the pilots in the spring of 1992.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to protect employees against unfair dismissal when they are trying to enforce a statutory right.

  Mr. Forth
  Employees who qualify can complain of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to amend the existing legislation.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will amend the qualifying conditions for unfair dismissal for employees trying to enforce section 8 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to amend the qualifying period for unfair dismissal when employees are dismissed for trying to enforce a statutory right.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to amend the existing legislation.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which are the latest figures for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  This month's rise in seasonally adjusted unemployment of 15,700 is the smallest since September 1990 and the third successive fall in the rate of increase. In Scotland, Wales and the Northern region seasonally adjusted unemployment fell in October 1991.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were unemployed in the United Kingdom on the latest date for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure published in November 1979.

  Mr. Howard
  On the seasonally adjusted, consistent basis, there were 2,472,900 unemployed people in October 1991 compared with 1,052,500 in October 1979.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement about the operation of the wages councils.

  Mr. Forth
  The wages councils have no permanent place in the labour market, but so long as they exist, the wages inspectorate will continue to enforce wages orders effectively.

  Government Training Schemes
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are participating in Government training schemes now relative to 1979.
  488
  Mr. Howard
  A total of 737,000 people entered Government training programmes in 1990–91 compared with 108,000 in 1978–79—a sevenfold increase.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Jackson
  All 82 training and enterprise councils are now operational and turning their ambitious plans into practical action to improve training and business services in every part of the country. The enthusiasm and commitment shown by the top business people leading the TEC initiative is without parallel and is laying a firm basis for the high-skill, high-productivity economy this country needs.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will give information showing the differences between profiled and actual expenditure by each training and enterprise council/local enterprise company and area office for each of the training and enterprise councils/local enterprise companies five funding blocks in each region and for Great Britain in total in 1990–91 and the latest available period; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what were the differences between profiled targets and actual performance of training and enterprise councils/local enterprise companies and area offices for (a) youth training starts, (b) youth training non-vocational qualifications I and II, (c) youth training non-vocational qualifications III and IV, (d) employment training starts, (e) employment training positive outcomes and (f) enterprise allowance scheme starts, in each region and for Great Britain in total in 1990–91 and the latest available period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is not possible to provide the information requested. Profiles are produced for internal management information purposes only.

  The part of the question that relates to local enterprise companies is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to answer.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many directors of training and enterprise councils are (i) men, (ii) women, (iii) from ethnic minority backgrounds and (iv) from the private sector; what information he has about from which industrial sectors directors with a private sector background come; and, of those non-private sector directors, how many are from(a) local authorities, (b) local education authorities, (c) other educational organisations, (d) trade unions, (e) voluntary organisations, (f) ethnic minority organisations, (g) employers' associations and (h) others.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information available is shown in the table. Information on the industrial sector background of directors from the private sector is not held centrally.

  Category

  Number of directors

  (i) Men

  1,014

  (ii) Women

  122

  (iii) Ethnic minority background1

  40

  (iv) Private sector

  805

  (v) Non-private sector directors local authorities

  331

  489

  Category

  Number of directors

  of which;

  (a) Local authority

  97

  (b) Local Education Authority (not included in (a))

  48

  (c) Other educational organisation

  27

  (d) Trade Union

  58

  (e) Voluntary organisations

  42

  (f) Ethnic minority organisations

  4

  (g) Employer Association

  11

  (h) Others

  44

  1 Based on information collected in June/July 1991: 12 Directors preferred not to state their ethnic origin.

  Unemployment (North Tyneside)
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will announce his proposals to reduce young male unemployment in north Tyneside.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Employment Service and Tyneside training and enterprise council deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help unemployed people in north Tyneside, including young men. In particular, the Employment Service and Tyneside TEC, together with the local authority, other local bodies and residents, are involved in action to help the regeneration of the Meadow Well estate.

  Wages Inspectorate
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to expand the wages inspectorate.

  Mr. Forth
  None. The wages inspectorate has adequate resources to enforce wages council orders effectively.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been lost in the textile industry during the latest period for which figures are available; and what steps are being taken to prevent further losses.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of employees in employment in the textile industry in Great Britain decreased by 2,100 in the month to September 1991. The Government have created and will maintain a climate which encourages enterprise and diversification, so that industry as a whole remains competitive. It would be counter-productive to try to support any individual sector.

  Cumbria TEC
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of Cumbria TEC to discuss its budget plans.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. and learned Friend spoke to all TEC chairmen in England including the chairman of Cumbria TEC on Wednesday 6 November immediately following the autumn statement, to inform them of the Department's budgets next year as they affect TECs.

  Youth Training
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the number of trainees on YT schemes in the Bristol, South constituency.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that Avon training and enterprise council has supplied the hon. Member with the information requested.

  The Government have guaranteed that all young people who are under 18 and not in full-time education or a job and are seeking training are offered, and if necessary re-offered, a suitable youth training place. The Government remain committed to ensuring that the YT guarantee is met and has ensured that adequate funding is available to do so.

  Wage Rises
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research he has funded in his Department into the effect of wage rises on the level of employment.

  Mr. Howard
  The estimation of the effect of wage rises on employment is best dealt with by using a model which considers the economy as a whole. We therefore use results reported by the Treasury which indicate that a 1 per cent. rise in the average real wage lowers employment by about 110,000 to 220,000 overall.

  My Department commissions much research on labour market issues and some projects may also shed light on the wage-employment relationship in particular sectors.

  Services(Redundancies)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the participation of people leaving Her Majesty's forces in the full range of training and employment schemes which are made available for the unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Employment Department group does not collect statistical information about ex-HM forces members entering training schemes or participating in Employment Service programmes.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provision including the levels of funding he is asking training and enterprise councils/local enterprise councils and the Employment Service to make available in 1991–92 and over the next three years to members of Her Majesty's forces to resettle into employment following "Options for Change"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Employment Service's full range of programmes and services is available to forces personnel to help them resettle into employment. Additional funding was allocated to the Employment Service in 1991–92 to allow it to introduce new programmes for newly unemployed people. These programmes are particularly suited to the needs of forces personnel and comprise job review workshops, which help with careers advice, and jobsearch seminars to improve job hunting techniques. The Employment Service has a long tradition of helping
  491
  ex-forces personnel into employment and it is discussing with the Ministry of Defence ways in which this can be built on.

  Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies will take account of the training and enterprise support needs of members of Her Majesty's forces seeking resettlement, as they will for any particular group. Ex-service personnel may enter employment training through a special eligibility route.

  The proportion of training and enterprise budgets used to train ex-service personnel is the responsibility of individual training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies and is determined by local needs and priorities.

  Disablement Resettlement Officers
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been on the caseloads of disablement resettlement officers in Great Britain and each standard region in each month since September 1990; how many interviews disablement resettlement officers have carried out in each of those months; what information he has on the outcomes of those interviews; and if he will make a statement.

  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.

  Midwives
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many midwives were employed and registered as unemployed in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Jackson
  I regret that information is not available on midwives registered as unemployed.

  The following information on midwives, including student midwives, employed in English NHS hospitals and community health services has been supplied by the Department of Health:

  NHS midwifery staff in post at 30 September each year in England: whole-time equivalents

  Number

  1987

  23,300

  1988

  23,300

  1989

  22,900

  1990

  23,800

  EC Meetings
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the EC ministerial council meetings at which his Department has been or will be represented during November and December.

  Mr. Jackson
  I attended the Labour and Social Affairs Council in Brussels on 6 November. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State shall be attending the next Labour and Social Affairs Council in Brussels on 3 December.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what change there will be to the employment figures as a result of the redefinition of full-time work from 24 hours to 16 hours for those on income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  There will not be a change to the definition of full-time work in the employment series. It will remain at more than 30 hours per week, as it has for the last 45 years.

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information is available on the number of calls made to directory inquiries from his Department since 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Jackson
  The statistics available show that an average of 56 calls are made each day to directory inquiry services, from Employment Department and Employment Service headquarters buildings in Sheffield. No similar information is collected for other Employment Department group sites.

  Employment Service
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress the Employment Service has made towards meeting the targets set out in its annual performance agreement for 1991–92.

  Mr. Jackson
  We were informed by the chief executive of the Employment Service that in the period April to September 1991, the Employment Service placed a total of 710,000 unemployed people into jobs. Some 16·8 per cent. of these placings were long-term unemployed people, 2·4 per cent. were disabled and 34 per cent. were unemployed people in inner cities, against annual targets of 16, 2·4 and 34 per cent. respectively. To take account of the extra resources we have allocated to the Employment Service to help unemployed people, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced in June, we have decided to increase the ES target for 1991–92 for placing unemployed people from 1·3 million to 1·335 million.

  Over the same period, details of new claims were input into the computer within six days of claim being made in 89·3 per cent. of cases, and the total value of correct payments of unemployment benefit was 96·4 per cent. of the total value of payments, against annual targets of 91 and 95·5 per cent. respectively. In addition, the number of people who withdrew their claim to benefit after contact with ES fraud inspectors was 24,450. In the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement in August to allocate additional resources to this area of work, we have decided to increase the ES annual target of claims withdrawn following fraud investigation from 45,000 to 49,000.

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

Heveningham Hall
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they intend to purchase Heveningham Hall for the nation.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the terms on which Heveningham Hall was sold in 1981 gave the Secretary of State a right of pre-emption. My right honourable friend has until 11 th December to decide whether to exercise that right; he will announce his decision shortly.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I cannot say that it was a very helpful one. Does she appreciate that unless the Government exercise their option to buy back Heveningham Hall by 11 th December—which, after all, is only about two weeks from now; and this matter has been going on for many months or even years—the receiver will be obliged to sell it to the highest bidder regardless of whether the new use will be compatible with an historic house of such outstanding quality? Surely there will be no obligation to reimpose the convenants which provided for public access and maintenance and no guarantee as to how long the sale will take.
As the Minister's right honourable friend is reported as expressing regret that he sold Heveningham Hall in 1981, will she tell him that he now has the opportunity to buy it back so that access can he maintained and the furniture which is currently in his care (is it not?) can be restored to the house?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, it is not for me to comment on speculation in the press. To my knowledge, my right honourable friend has not said that he regrets that decision. Secondly, we are in the middle of very serious considerations about all the various options which are available to us before 11th December. We have until that time to make the decision. Thirdly, I should say that whoever becomes the owner of Heveningham Hall will be subject to all the restrictions of owning a Grade 1 listed building.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while Heveningham Hall is of the greatest possible heritage value to this country, it is almost certainly a commercial liability to whoever owns it? Therefore, it is very questionable as to whether it really ha s a commercial value. Will my noble friend be very careful before she jumps in prior to 11 th December and makes an offer which I understand, under the terms of the original deal, might be subject to arbitration? It would be much better to wait until it is subject to commercial forces when, it is to be
1268
hoped, the Government will be able to buy the house extremely cheaply and use the money that is available to endow the National Trust so that it can look after the house properly for ever.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend has raised an important point. First, as regards the significance of Heveningham Hall as a Grade 1 listed house, I point out that that is not in question. Secondly, he pointed to at least one of the considerations which we have to take into account; namely, that it is not possible for this house to have a commercial future. Therefore, any ownership of the house will clearly represent a considerable liability. We shall have to think very seriously about endowment. There is the notion, which I am afraid is not true, that acquiring it and handing it over to the National Trust will somehow or other be at little cost to the Crown. It will be a very expensive option and one which should not be rushed in to.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is it true that when the Government sold the house in 1981 they retained 12 acres of land near Walpole village and that the Department of the Environment subsequently gave planning permission for new houses to be built? Further, is it true that they have since been sold? If so, what were the proceeds and what has happened to the money?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has me at a disadvantage as regards land owned at Walpole. I know that the Vanneck family sold a great deal of land prior to the sale of Heveningham Hall, but I am not aware of the Walpole connection. However, I shall inquire into the matter and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give some assurance that, in this case in particular, it is not possible to assess commercial considerations as against what is part of a priceless heritage and one of the finest Palladian buildings with beautifully landscaped gardens? Surely those considerations should predominate.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. It is not a matter of considering whether we—or, indeed, anyone—have a commercial future. The point that I believe my noble friend was making was that it is doubtful whether Heveningham Hall has a commercial future at all. Therefore, ownership of the house, whether private or public, will be an expensive option.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what consultations the Government have had with the National Heritage Memorial Fund whose experience and expertise regarding the problems of large country houses must be unrivalled in our country? Further, can she say what advice they received from the fund?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the National Heritage Memorial Fund is of course aware of the problems over the future of Heveningham. We know its views. We are not talking specifically to English Heritage, the National Trust or the National Heritage Memorial

1269
Fund; after all, they are mostly an extension of our department. We are very aware of all the options, of which, of course, involvement by the National Heritage Memorial Fund is one.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, despite several press reports, the English Heritage Report of last August, although no whitewash, not only found the restoration generally satisfactory, but found that the structural condition of the house was as sound as it has been since 1980? Does she also agree that the restoration of the east wing and the orangery is widely acknowledged, even by SAVE, as being of high quality?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is unfortunate that there has been a great deal of misinformed comment and criticism about the quality of the restoration work. Legitimate criticism can be levelled at the state of the gardens, but we all know that restoring gardens is infinitely less difficult than restoring the structure of the building. The structure of the building is sound and much of the restoration work is of high quality.

Rented Housing: Resources
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the current shortage of houses for rent, they will consider making increased resources available in order to enable housing associations and local authorities to deal with the problem.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government's spending plans were announced in another place on 6th November. While there are local shortages of rented housing in parts of the country, we have taken steps to increase supply. The Housing Corporation's capital programme will rise to over £2 billion a year by 1993–94. Together with housing associations' ability to attract private investment, that will increase output from 22,000 dwellings to around 40,000 by 1993–94. Deregulation of the private rented sector has also led to a welcome increase in private letting.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware of the report in the Institute of Housing's journal of 8th November in which Mr. Jack Perry, the head of professional practice, referring to the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, said:
"We are looking for a substantial real increase in spending, but it looks as if spending will not even keep up with this year's level".
Bearing in mind that repossessions are still increasing, that local authority waiting lists are increasing, that homelessness is increasing, and that the number of people sleeping rough is increasing, are not the people calling for 100,000 new tenancies a year right, and will not the Government's programme meet less than half of that demand?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong about there being no increase in available resources. I have said a number of times at the Dispatch Box that Housing Corporation money is set to rise from £1.2 billion to over £2 billion by 1993. I have also said a number of times that there has been a switch away from local authority direct provision of housing to the Housing Corporation. There are a number of initiatives on a number of different fronts: the private sector partnership initiatives to produce low-cost housing where development permission is being applied for; inner city initiatives, some of which I have been involved with, using city grant; flats over shops, funded to bring such flats back into use; circular 7/91 which encourages local authorities to require low-cost housing in major new developments —we believe that the scope there is potentially substantial—the exceptions policy for rural areas, and, as I have already said, deregulation of the private rented sector.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I have to come back immediately, because that was a lengthy answer. Is the Minister saying that when the Institute of Housing, which is not a political body and which has expertise in this matter, says that there will be a cut in real terms, it has got it wrong? I do not believe that it has. Does the Minister understand that organisations such as Shelter are saying that the 48,000 new homes to be built by the housing charities in the next two years will be far too few and only half what is wanted? When will the Minister understand that we want houses and not facts and figures?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not criticise the seriousness of the reports of the Institute of Housing. I am critical of the over-simplistic interpretation of what is being said about the provision of housing. What I said was that there is an increase in resources. The noble Lord said that there is not. I also said that the housing shortage is being tackled on many fronts. The Institute of Housing considers that more houses are being built. One has to take into account the private, the voluntary, the Housing Corporation and the local authority sectors when considering house building in the round.
Baroness Young: My Lords, will my noble friend say how many houses are now being occupied as a result of deregulation of the private rented sector? My understanding was that there were some 500,000 empty properties. Do we have any idea how many have come back into use? In particular, are flats over shops being brought back into use?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I certainly cannot be specific about numbers. However, I can say that we realise that there is a difficulty here; namely the resistance of many private owners to allow their homes to be rented. So we have encouraged the housing authorities to offer themselves as managing agents to private owners to bring some of the empty properties back into use. We believe that that will be a very successful policy.
I also mentioned that a fund is being made available to bring flats over shops back into play. That

1271
produces two benefits. One is that there will be more units for people to live in; secondly, it brings much needed residents back into many city and town centres.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the policy of the Housing Corporation of reducing grant rates in all new developments next year must lead to an increase in rents? If there were more generous funding, could not the Housing Corporation then afford to revert to the previous more generous rates, enabling more houses to be built at lower rents?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the housing associations, which are in the business of satisfying social need for housing, have to balance a number of interests. Those include income from rents, providing new un is for people to live in and making sure that what they do is cost effective. I believe that the extra resources that will be made available to the housing associations will benefit in a number of ways but they must not throw rents out of kilter with the need to provide homes for people. We have a very buoyant policy of subsidising people individually as opposed to subsidising property.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that since 1979 £23 billion has been raised through the sale of council housing? Would it not be possible for the Minister to say now to unemployed building workers, painters, and decorators, "Get off the unemployment list, we shall now start to build houses and give you a job"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are two points. We are unashamedly on the side of the right-to-buy policy. I do not know whether what the noble Baroness said is any kind of criticism of the right to buy. Secondly, there is a buoyancy in building houses. Clearly, it is not as great as one would wish and the noble Baroness would like more. However, that involves more public spending. We are committed to spending what we believe people can afford. I understand that that is to be the policy of the party of noble Lords opposite. Certainly, John Smith tells us that. I wonder whether there has been a move away from spending what the country can afford.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, following that excellent question from my noble friend Lady Fisher, will the Minister confirm that new household formation continues apace and will do so for the next four or live years? Under present circumstances, with house building at such a low level, will there not by the mid-1990s be a God-awful housing shortage? Is not now the time to do something about it, perhaps by the means suggested by my noble friend?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I profoundly disagree. This is not an easy issue; it is extremely complex. Many initiatives are addressing the problem of housing needs right across the spectrum. I have every confidence that the gloom which the noble Lord predicted will not come about if we remain in power but could well come about if the noble Lord gets into power.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me saying so, I asked her about the problems which will be raised as a result of new household formation which is going on now and will continue until the mid-1990s. She did not answer that question. Will she confirm that it is going on?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not agree with the scenario set out by the noble Lord. I believe that all the ways in which we are addressing housing and new household formation, which the noble Lord suggested were the basis of the problem, will not give rise to the difficulty that he predicts.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister referred to my party's policy if we win the election. I have to tell her that the main plank of that policy in terms of houses to rent will be immediately to free local authorities once again to start building houses for people to rent. Why do not the Government stop behaving so stupidly and let local authorities resume that role?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is a very interesting statement. The only way the noble Lord can do that is by substantially increasing local authority and government spending. I understand that the honourable gentleman in another place has set his face against that. It is the only way in which extra house building by local authorities can be achieved.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, it will decrease the unemployment pay.

UN Development Aid Target
2.55 p.m.
Lord Cheshire Lord Cheshire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their commitment to the United Nations development aid target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP still holds good.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Government's policy has not changed. We accept the UN target in principle. However, as we have made clear, the future level of aid expenditure will continue to depend on our economic circumstances and on the many other calls on public resources. The aid programme is growing in real terms, is of high quality and well targeted.
Lord Cheshire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and for the assurance, which I accept, that the programme is well targeted and well directed. However, I am sure that he will know that those of us who move in the developed and developing world, and who see the immense poverty and hardships, feel deeply about this, just as is the case with housing.
Perhaps I may ask the question that was implicit in my specific Question. Are the Government still committed to the principles which were laid down in the original UN charter and were stated again in the 1970 Resolution 2626? It stated, among other things, that the essential path to peace and justice is

1273
development—that is well understood —and cooperation between developing nations and ourselves. We should be grateful for the Minister's assurance on that.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am pleased to acknowledge the work of the noble and gallant Lord. His concern in the matter is shared in many parts of the House. We have had no change of policy and are committed to the target, although I cannot comment on the timescale.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that with the grotesque needs now developing in East and Central Europe, any response to these will be met from the peace dividend and not at the expense of commitments to the third world? In other words, the Government will avoid the temptation to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no question of robbing Peter to pay Paul. With the aid programme, anything we do in Eastern Europe will not be at the expense of the rest of the programme.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend say what steps the Government are taking to make sure that these moneys go to the benefit of the pathetic figures whom we see in pictures, illustrations and appeals, and not to their rulers who are too often directly responsible for the misery of these people?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Development Assistance Committee (the DAC) of the OECD, has repeatedly praised the quality of our aid. In direct response to my noble friend, on poverty focus, on evaluation and efficiency we rank with the best.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government cannot afford not to increase the aid programme, admittedly in sensible ways? I have heard answers from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, suggesting that an increased contribution to the world population fund would be spending the people's money unnecessarily. However, is the Minister also aware that we have just announced the employment of 500 extra people in government service to deal with immigration into this country? The only real way is to educate, for example, the people of the Maghreb in birth control, to keep the population steady. At present, while the GNP is rising, the GNP per head is falling. It is a good investment to help with this kind of programme.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am not sure whether I have been asked a question. However, I can only agree with practically everything the noble Lord has said. As regards the GNP falling, I believe there has been a misunderstanding in that regard. The figure for the calendar year 1990 of 0.27 per cent., which the noble Lord may have seen, did not reflect the underlying growth in the aid programme. The corresponding figure for 1989 was 0.31 per cent. The reason was that the UK plans and accounts by
1274
financial years and a disproportionate amount of our 1990 expenditure fell in the first quarter of 1991. There was a subsequent distortion in the figures which the noble Lord may have seen.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord may have misunderstood my question. I hope I may put him right. What I said was that while the total GNP rose in the Maghreb, the GNP per head in that country was falling in spite of our aid and in spite of efforts made in that country.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I shall have to study the question and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the work of his department with the limited resources that are now available. Those resources were mentioned in the excellent report produced by the Minister's department. That report is available to all noble Lords who wish to study it. Does the Minister feel, however, that the aid-trade provisions which are part of the aid supplied by his department are adequate? Considering the limited resources that are available for aid trade provisions, are not our exporters placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with those in other countries that benefit from larger budgets in this field?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am constrained for time. I should like to write to the noble Lord on his interesting and detailed point. I acknowledge and thank the noble Lord for his tribute, particularly as it affects my right honourable friend Mrs. Chalker who has made amazing efforts in this field.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, apart from the urgent—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has provided an Answer to this Question which does not differ from the Answer that has been provided over the past 12 years. How does he equate his statement that the percentage of GNP given in overseas aid will rise when our economy rises with the fact that when the so-called economic miracle took place there was no rise at all in that percentage? Further, how can the Minister say that the Government still stick to the figure of 0.7 per cent. when during that 12-year period the percentage figure has fallen from 0.53 per cent. to the figure the Minister used, 0.31 percent.?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the replies given by my department have been consistent for 12 years and will continue to be consistent during the next 12 years.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I must protect the interests of the noble Lord who has tabled the next Question.

Salmon Fishery: Drift Netting
3.3 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as a result of the North-East coast salmon netting review, they can indicate the timescale for phasing out the use of drift nets.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, as your Lordships will know, it is our firm intention that the salmon drift net fishery should come to an end as those currently holding such licences leave the fishery. We have asked the National Rivers Authority to come forward with proposals to achieve this as soon as possible.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, if that is the Government's intention, why is it that the National Rivers Authority has only recently established a by-law inviting renewals and new tenders for drift net fishing?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, to ensure that the fishery remains tightly regulated, the Northumbrian region of the NRA had no option but to advertise a temporary extension of the existing net limitation order governing the number of commercial salmon licences in that region. Net limitation orders limit the number of commercial fishing licences which the NRA may issue. They also set criteria for eligibility of applicants.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am pleased that the Government have recognised that this fishery has been guilty of bad management practice and that it should cease to operate. As the present licence holders cease to use their licences for whatever reason, I hope that the Minister can assure me that no new licences for this offshore drift net fishing will be issued. Further, can the Minister assure me that both the Yorkshire and Northumbrian regions of the National Rivers Authority are co-operating in phasing out this fishery?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the review that was conducted covered both Northumbria and Yorkshire. It is for the NRA to decide how to handle this matter. I have no evidence that drift net fishing has been badly managed. We have no evidence either of an immediate threat to stocks. Existing licensees should not therefore be deprived of their licences as that would cause unnecessary hardship. For management reasons the NRA has been asked, following that review, to consider changes —and I have a copy of that review—to reduce the number of offshore drift net licences as those currently holding the licences leave the fishery, as I said in my original Answer.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I welcome the Government's decision to phase out the drift nets in the North East. That step was advocated by a number of us five years ago in this House when we debated the Salmon Bill. Is the Minister aware that under the net
1276
limitation order which has been mentioned the National Rivers Authority may be obliged to issue a small number of new licences? Those licences may be taken up by young fishermen who would thereafter be able to renew them year after year and continue to use drift nets for many years to come. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that her department will examine this problem with the National Rivers Authority to ensure that the intentions of Ministers are not accidentally frustrated?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I have already said, it is for the National Rivers Authority to make its own plans.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although the authorities of Northumbria and Yorkshire are both English authorities, the effect of drift net fishing on Scottish rivers is considerable? The Government have a responsibility to do something about this matter.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am informed that as things stand the net loss to Scottish fisheries is 6 per cent. However, there are a great many reasons why catches in 1990/91 have been disappointing. That pattern has been shown by all fisheries throughout the UK, irrespective of whether rods or nets are used. Many North Atlantic salmon fisheries have experienced declines in their catch levels and that indicates that the problem arises when salmon are at sea. Our salmon drift net fisheries cannot be blamed for that.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, as part of Her Majesty's Government's efforts to find a solution to this problem, will representations of a meaningful kind be made to the Irish Government about the illegal taking of fish off the Irish coast? It would be a tragedy if we did not obtain the full benefit of phasing out drift net fishing off the North East coast because of the illegal fishing that is taking place.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I feel rather like a fish out of water as regards this whole matter. The review only considered salmon net fisheries off the North East coast of England and part of the East coast of Scotland. Clearly the future management of the North-East English fishery will continue to be a matter for the NRA under its statutory duties.

Dog Control and Welfare Bill [HI.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a dog control and welfare council and to amend Section 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 4 to 16,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 17 to 20,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 21 to 36,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 37 to 58,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 59 to 67,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 68 to 83,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 84 to 90,

Schedules 8 and 9.—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause I [Changes to constitution]:
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, after ("State") insert ("after consultation with those professional bodies and other persons representing the interests of nurses, midwives and health visitors,").
The noble Baroness said: I understand that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have been grouped together. The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to ensure that the Secretary of State takes the opportunity, prior to appointing members to the United Kingdom central council, to consult with representatives of the relevant professions.
The Government's stated aim with this Bill is to ensure that as many detailed matters as possible regarding the conditions and procedures for the UKCC should be determined by the professions themselves, acting through the UKCC. Clause 1 of the Bill states that the UKCC will have a membership of 60 people, of whom two thirds will be elected and one
1278
third appointed by the Secretary of State. The timetable for those appointments, as set out in the Bill, is six months.
There is no doubt that the professions themselves will undertake detailed consultations within the three branches of the profession as laid down in the Bill. That is recognised. As that body will be regulating both standards of practice and codes of conduct of —what is the word I want?
A noble Lord: Conduct?
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I have already used the word "conduct". The matter is important because the body has complete power over both standards of practice and professional conduct. It therefore makes sense for the Secretary of State, too, to give careful consideration to the one third of the representatives to be appointed by him.
Apart from appointing a balanced number of representatives from the professions, the Secretary of State also has to take into account the geographical distribution and expertise of those appointed. I should have thought, and it should be written into the Bill, that the Secretary of State should consult the professions. That should not be assumed; it should be written into the Bill before he nominates the one third of the members of the UKCC he has the power to appoint. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I was glad to add my name to the amendment. It is a subject which we touched on at Second Reading, and there is no need for me to go into detail as the matter has been explained very well by the noble Baroness.
The changes to the 1979 Act which we are considering dictate the operation and constitution of the five bodies which govern nursing, midwifery and health visiting. The next amendment deals with appointments to national boards. We feel that it is important that there should be proper consultation. Without being in the least political, I should point out that there has been some anxiety about the nature of the appointments to boards of hospital trusts, for example. This is a different situation, but there is a general feeling among the professions concerned that they would be encouraged if the nature of the consultation was written on the face of the Bill. They would then not be anxious that the Secretary of State would not carry out the consultation which we all agree is so necessary if the Bill is to be effective.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: In speaking in support of the amendment I should like to express my confidence in the appointments that have been made by the Secretary of State over the years. I believe that I am right in saying that this is the 50th year in which there has been a nursing division at the Department of Health. Through those years we have come to rely on the advice which the Secretary of State receives from a department of high integrity.
Nonetheless, I recognise the sensitivities of the professions named in the Bill. Through the UKCC they will be responsible for standards of practice and

1279
codes of conduct. Therefore it is arguable that consultation with those professions would be in the interests of the work of that council.
Baroness Hooper: Of course I remember the anxieties which were expressed in connection with this issue at Second Reading. I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's record on consultation is excellent. In regard to the Bill before us, the announcement of intention was made in a consultation document in February this year. That resulted in a very thorough period of consultation with a group which comprised representatives of the four UK health departments, the UKCC and the four national boards. Very thorough consideration was given in that forum to the composition of the council.
In making his own appointments to the council the Secretary of State will in any case be required under Clause 1(5) to select people who are either registered nurses, midwives, health visitors or medical practitioners or who have such qualifications and experience in education or other fields as in his opinion will be of value to the council in the performance of its functions.
I happily take the opportunity to reaffirm what I said at Second Reading, namely, that I undertake that my right honourable friend will consult those with an interest before making his appointments. As has been said, under the present arrangements nominations are invited from a very wide range of professional organisations. Whether such arrangements will remain appropriate in the context of the new style UKCC will need to be considered carefully. We may wish to consult an even wider range of groups and organisations. My right honourable friend will need to take particular care in making his appointments, given the fact that two thirds of the council will in future be directly elected by the professions. It is clearly more important than ever that the wider public interest in the regulation of the professions should be adequately reflected in the appointed membership.
Therefore, the amendment we are discussing, by restricting consultation to professional interests only, implies a rather narrower focus than I believe would be desirable. I do not believe that statutory prescription is required in this matter any more than it has been in the past. Legal arguments about who should or should not be consulted on a particular appointment would not be desirable.
I hope that in the light of that explanation and the very clear undertakings that I have been able to give, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do about the amendment I should like to raise a point which has aroused some anxiety. Subsection (5) (a) includes the words:
"the need to secure that the members of the Council include registered nurses, midwives and health visitors".
I assume that one could interpret that as meaning that those appointments will be in the majority of the appointments made on the Bill. It merely states that it will include them. It is important that they will be in the majority of the appointments that are made.
Baroness Hooper: We are talking here about appointments for the purposes of subsection (4) which relate to only a third of the membership of the body. A wide range of interests must be considered and consulted in relation to the appointments to be made by my right honourable friend.
Lord Carter: I am sorry to prolong the discussion. Subsection (4) states that the appointments will be made "from among persons". Subsection (5) states that the appointments will include those people. We assume that those professionals will be in the majority of the appointed members. It would he helpful if the Minister could confirm that point.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord can take that as read.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I thank the Minister for her reply. However, we must keep in mind the fact that this body is being given new powers and that it controls the standards of practice and codes of conduct of the professions that we are considering. It is not difficult for the Secretary of State to appoint, within the number that he is entitled to appoint to the UKCC, members of the profession who are geographically spread; nor is it difficult to find members with educational expertise.
I take the Minister's point that there should be a proportion of outside interests on any body, but consultation with the professional bodies should take place. I accept her statement that the majority of the members would be members of the three professions. Until I have read her reply in detail and thought about it a little further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

Clause I agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Changes to constitution]:

Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 19, after ("made") insert ("after consultation with those professional bodies and other persons representing the interests of nurses, midwives and health visitors,").
The noble Baroness said: This is another amendment about which I feel strongly because it relates to the national boards, appointments to which are completely in the hands of the Secretary of State. It is important that the members appointed to the national boards are the kind of people who can create the right relationship between the UKCC and the national boards. That is the most important part of the new structure. The Government have stated that they intend to ensure that the interests and expertise of the profession are adequately represented on each board.
It is even more important in this amendment, regarding the appointments to the national boards, than in the previous amendment, that the Secretary of State should take the opportunity to consult the relevant professions. When the appointments are made, if the Secretary of State commits himself to

1281
consultation, the working relationship between the national boards and the UKCC will be immeasurably improved and the confidence of the three professions enhanced. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: The only point to add to those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, is that the boards will have no elected members. They will all be appointed. It is therefore important that consultation is carried out as suggested in the amendment. We have discussed this matter in relation to many Bills. There is always a reluctance on the part of departments to spell out in the Bill the nature of consultation. The Government give assurances that they intend to consult but, as we all recognise the need for proper consultation, one wonders why there is a reluctance to spell it out in this Bill as in many others.
Baroness Hooper: I accept that different considerations apply to the national boards than to the council in that all the members of the national boards will in future be appointed by the responsible Secretary of State. Once again, I am happy to give an undertaking that my right honourable friend will consult those with an interest before making appointments.
However, as I said before, statutory prescription in that area is inappropriate. We made it clear that the new national boards will be smaller executive bodies appointed by and accountable to the responsible Secretary of State, even though they will have a majority of professionally qualified members and will be required to discharge their functions subject to and in accordance with the council's rules. As I said, the Secretary of State will certainly wish to consult those with an interest, particularly professional organisations, before making appointments. We are happy to consider any suggestions about how the mechanics of that might work. But a formal and statutory requirement to consult representatives of particular interests would cause unnecessary inflexibility and risk blurring the responsibility which the Bill confers upon the Secretary of State.
I hope that, in view of the fact that wide consultation took place before the recommendations of the Peat Marwick report were incorporated in the Bill and in view of the undertaking that I gave regarding consultation, the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I thank the Minister for her reply, but I should like to draw her attention to the fact that communication between those various bodies in the past has not always been very good. Perhaps she will reflect on whether those communications between bodies that are appointed purely by the Secretary of State, without a written-in need to consult the profession, would be improved. After all, knowing how government works, to write in the need to consult is not necessarily the same as accepting the responses to consultation, but it would allow the professions to feel that they had something to contribute to the appointments to those national boards which are important to them. It would help to improve the relationships between the national boards and the UKCC.
1282
I hope that the Minister will ponder those arguments. I may return to the subject at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 21, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
("(b) have such qualifications and experience in the teaching of nursing, midwifery and health visiting, or other fields as in the opinion of the Secretary of State will be of value to the Board in the performance of its functions.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. It may look at first sight to rest on a rather pedantic distinction between education and teaching. Clause 1(5) (b) refers to:
"the need to secure that qualifications and experience in the teaching of nursing, midwifery and health visiting are adequately represented on the Council".
Clause 4(3) (b) refers to persons who:
"have such qualifications and experience in education or other fields".
We feel that the two subsections should march together. As the functions of the national boards are to ensure that the requirements of the UKCC are met regarding the standard, kind and content of education programmes, it is important to ensure that at least one nurse, midwife and health visitor teacher is appointed to each national board. This requirement reflects a desire to ensure that to assist the work of the boards there are adequate numbers of appropriately qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors, able to contribute to educational policy-making related to the professions of nursing, midwifery and health visiting.
We want to ensure that teachers rather than theorists, people with experience of teaching nursing, midwifery and health visiting, are specified. It is not entirely clear why the Government have chosen to emphasise teaching in Clause 1 and referred to education or other fields. It is an alternative. The whole of Clause 4(3) states:
"Appointments … shall be made from among persons who … are registered nurses, midwives or health visitors, or … have such qualifications and experience in education or other fields".
This is an attempt to improve the drafting of the Bill, which we are always anxious to do. It is a probing amendment to discover whether the intentions of the Government in this area would be clearer if the wording of the Bill were to specify teaching rather than just education. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: I wish to speak briefly in support of this amendment, if only to invite the Government to look at the phraseology used in the existing Clause 1(5) (b) which seems to have been lifted verbatim from the 1979 Act. The phraseology does not strike me as particularly happy. It may be that as a matter of simple drafting it should be looked at again.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I also should like to speak in support of this amendment. The functions of the boards are to approve institutions in relation to the provisions for nursing education set down by the council. It would be unthinkable if on those boards there were people experienced perhaps in general

1283
education in many fields but with no expertise in the teaching of nursing. I feel that the boards need to have among their number those who have had down to earth experience in the teaching of nursing.
Baroness Hooper: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for explaining the effect of his amendment. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, that Clause 1(5) (b) incorporates some of the words from the existing Section 5(6) of the 1979 Act; namely, that:
"the Secretary of State shall have especially in mind the need to secure that qualifications and experience in the teaching of nurses, midwives and health visitors are adequately represented on each board".
Those words have now become part of the revised Section 5.
There is a similar provision in the existing Section 1(5) of i he 1979 Act relating to the Secretary of State's appointments to the UKCC. That is substantially reproduced in Clause 1(5) (b) of the Bill. There is clearly a need to give the Secretary of State the duty to ensure that nursing and midwifery teaching are adequately represented on the new council, as the noble Baroness said, as it cannot be guaranteed that the electoral arrangements will automatically ensure elected members with adequate expertise in these areas.
In fact those considerations will no longer apply to the national boards, given that in future they will be wholly appointed bodies. The Secretary of State's fail-safe or fall back powers in the existing Section 5(6) will no longer be required, as he himself will be able to ensure when he makes his appointments, that all the necessary expertise is represented as a result of the consultation exercise that we have been discussing.
Therefore, in the light of what I have said, I hope that the Committee will agree that the amendment is unnecessary. In making their appointments, clearly my right honourable friends will in practice need to ensure that qualifications and experience in the teaching of nursing, midwifery and health visiting are adequately represented. But they will also, as they do now, want to look more widely at the broader education field. That is the message of Clause 4(3) (b) of the Bill as it stands, which in this regard reproduces the wording of the existing Section 5(5) (b) (ii). Narrowing the scope of that provision, as the amendment seeks to do, might give the wrong kind of signals. Nevertheless, we shall look at the wording in the light of the comments that have been made, as indeed we always endeavour to do. I hope therefore that the proposer of the amendment will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Carter: I certainly intend to withdraw the amendment and not to press it. We are puzzled over the drafting and the distinction between the first clause which mentions teaching and this clause which mentions education. We felt that it would be clearer if both said the same thing. We are grateful to the Minister for her commitment to look at it and consider whether it needs rewording. In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) In making appointments to a National Board, the Secretary of State shall bear in mind the need to secure that the members of the Board include registered nurses, and practising midwives and health visitors.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a very important point. I know that the Minister is aware of the disquiet felt, certainly by midwives and health visitors, about the fact that they should not be swamped by the larger profession and by the way in which the new structure will operate. The Minister will know that the Royal College of Midwives is anxious that membership of the national boards should not be without a guaranteed place for a practising midwife. As we understand it, there is no guarantee at board level of midwife membership (or indeed of health visitor membership), or provision for the means by which midwifery matters will be dealt with by the boards. We shall come to midwifery matters a little later in another amendment.
We know that the board will continue to have a specific and influential responsibility relating to midwifery education, midwifery practice and supervision of midwives. Therefore those who advise us feel that those responsibilities present a strong argument for the need to have a guaranteed midwife membership of the boards. I am sure the Minister is aware that some alarm was aroused at Second Reading when she said:
"It may not therefore be appropriate to guarantee that a practising midwife or a health visitor must be a member of each board".—[Official Report 12/11/91; co1.508.]
That statement set up some alarm in the midwifery and health visiting professions.
It would appear that it would be inappropriate for a body with a specific remit relating to a specific profession not to have guaranteed in its membership a member or members of that profession. Whatever the change in the status and functions of the boards, they will remain the statutory bodies exercising responsibility for nurses, midwives and health visitors. The involvement of each of the three professions in the decision-making process relating to the work of the boards should be guaranteed.
There is a feeling that the framework for midwifery will be considerably weakened if this matter is not addressed within the Bill. The same applies to the anxiety expressed by the Health Visitors' Association. We know that the joint committee will cease to operate under Clause 6(b) of the bill. There is a feeling that as a result, health visitor representation has been eroded. We understand that in discussions between the Health Visitors' Association and the department, it was said that this was largely a technical point made on the insistence of the parliamentary draftsman. It would be interesting to know why it was felt important to emphasise the omission of health visitors as a technical point of drafting. Health visiting is experiencing an alarming and unprecedented change on the education and practice side and a profound change in the management and delivery of care in the community as a result of the implementation of community care plans in April 1993. For all those reasons it would be helpful if the Minister would state

1285
clearly why the department has adopted the line that it has and does not feel able to guarantee membership for the minority professions, if I may use that phrase, in the three professions referred to in the title of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I support the amendment. On many occasions in the past the midwifery profession felt that it had been excluded. It is important under the new structure that the national boards have proper representation of practising midwives.
Whatever the changes of status of the boards they still have responsibility for governing all three professions. It is important that all the professions should be properly represented.
Baroness Hooper: I am of course aware of the anxieties that have been expressed in particular by the midwifery profession about the boards' role in relation to the minority professions. I wish to take the opportunity of clarifying what I said at Second Reading about midwifery membership of the boards. Perhaps it would have been more felicitous if my reference to the guarantee had been elaborated upon: that it was not necessary to have a guarantee in legislation, as opposed to a rather more general form of guarantee. However, I hope that we have made it clear throughout our discussions with the statutory bodies that the Government will wish to ensure that the interests and expertise of each of the three professions are adequately represented.
I accept that in practice the membership of each board will have to include, either as an executive or a non-executive member, a registered nurse, a registered health visitor and a practising midwife. I should like to put that clearly on the record. I am not personally aware of the meeting between the Health Visitors' Association and the comments with regard to the technical drafting requirement. However, I shall look into that matter.
I do not believe that it would be appropriate for there to be statutory provision setting out which groups within the profession should be represented on the national boards and in what numbers. That would cause unnecessary and perhaps unhelpful inflexibility. In the light of the commitment that I have given, I hope that the proposers of the amendment will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Carter: That is extremely helpful. Before the next stage of the Bill, perhaps the noble Baroness will write to me and to others interested in the technical drafting requirement which puzzled the Health Visitors' Association. That would be helpful with regard to the next stage of the Bill.
I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation that she gave. I am not sure that it was a guarantee. It may assuage a little of the alarm that I believe she realises that she caused by the rather bald statement she made at Second Reading. I shall read Hansard with care. However, having exchanged views between now and the next stage of the Bill I hope that we shall not need to come back on the issue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Functions]:

3.45 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (2) the words from "including" to the end shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 6 is similar to the previous amendment. It seeks to protect the interests of all groups which will be represented, both majority and minority. We are amending another Bill. Therefore we have the problem of referring to both the 1979 Act and the Bill before us.
We believe that it would make the functions of the national boards absolutely clear if we removed the words,
"including those with minority representation",
in Section 6(2) of the 1979 Act. It would then state:
"The National Boards shall discharge their functions subject to and in accordance with any applicable rules of the Council and shall have proper regard for the interests of all groups within the professions".
That makes the position absolutely clear. If that form of wording were adopted it would be clear that all groups were included in such proper regard. In that way each of the three professions which have to act within the ambit of the Bill will be absolutely clear.
There is no need to repeat the functions of the board relating to validation, approval of training arrangements and so on. If the proposed wording were adopted and the Bill were amended to take into account the 1979 Act, the position would be much clearer. It is not simply a drafting point. We believe that it would emphasise that all the groups will be represented and their needs and wishes clearly understood in the operation of the new structure. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: A number of noble Lords expressed concern at Second Reading about Clause 5(5). I said at the time that I recognised their preoccupations, and we have subsequently had the opportunity to reflect further on what was said.
I should say at the outset that we remain of the view that Section 6(2) of the 1979 Act is not, as it stands, consistent with the new constitution and role of the national boards. The new boards will not have the same representative function. That will be for the UKCC. Therefore the reference to "professions … with minority representations" would, at best, look rather odd. I do not believe, therefore, that it is appropriate to accept Amendment No. 7 as it stands.
Having said that, I recognise the concerns that have been expressed, in particular as they apply to the boards' role with midwifery. With the disappearance of the statutory midwifery committees at board level, there will now no longer be any, as it were, organisational focus at that level to ensure that the special position of midwifery is adequately reflected in the way the boards carry on their day-to-day operations. I acknowledge that the boards will need to continue to have a special concern for midwifery, if only because of their continued responsibility under

1287
Section 16 of the 1979 Act for issuing advice and guidance to local supervisory authorities for midwives.
I therefore agree that there should be some provision in Section 6 of the 1979 Act dealing with the boards' functions requiring them in discharging their functiors to take into account special considerations which apply to particular groups within the professions, including midwives. The extent to which such provision might reflect, at any rate in part, the existing wording of Section 6(2), as proposed in Amendment No. 6, is a matter that we wish to consider further. If noble Lords agree, and if the proposers feel prepared to withdraw their amendments today, I undertake to ensure that an appropriate government amendment is brought forward at a later stage
Lord Carter: The Minister's reply was extremely helpful and most encouraging. It is difficult to redraft one Bill during the course of another, but the Government have resources which are not available to us. I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) After section 6 of the 1979 Act (functions of national boards) a new section shall be inserted as follows.
"Funding of nurse education.
6A.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants out of money provided by Parliament towards the cost of providing courses of training with a view to enabling persons to qualify for registration as nurses, midwives or health visitors and for courses of further training for those already qualified.
(2) Grants made in accordance with this section shall be used solely for the provision of such courses as defined under subsection (1) above.
(3) The Secretary of State shall, not later than 30th November in the year preceding any financial year lay before Parliament his estimate of the total amount of grant likely to be distributed under this section in respect of that financial year and forecasts for the amount for the following two years.").
The noble Baroness said: In my view this is one of the most important amendments tabled today. The Bill ends the responsibility of the national boards to fund nurse education and enables the Secretary of State to transfer it to health authorities and to health boards During Second Reading we received a partial reassurance that such funding would be ring-fenced. However, we received no assurance about the length of time that it would continue. The amendment aims to give that promise a statutory force.
It is interesting to note that most of the proposals in the Bill have been taken from the recommendations in the report compiled by Peat Marwick McLintock. However, the report did not recommend the transfer of funding for nurse education from the national boards to the regional health authorities. It stated that the allocation of resources by the RHAs to individual schools would provide some guarantee as to their use. However, the RHAs have a serious problem: they
1288
must divide the resources for training and strategy between the number of people whom they believe they must train and provide funding for resource allocation and management. The national boards must provide professional advice and approve and monitor courses. I believe that it is wrong to split those two responsibilities.
The Government have decided that the RHAs should be the funding bodies and one hopes that the ring-fenced amount will be the minimum that is required. The RHAs will be considering the number of nurses whom they believe they will need to train. However, there will not be the same impetus and need to safeguard money for further education—that is, post-registration education. We shall need a large number of post-registration courses as we move from one type of National Health Service to another which is more community based. I am extremely anxious that the funding for such education will not be forthcoming from the RHAs to the same degree.
There have in the past been problems within the National Health Service in providing specialist training for the type of nurses that we shall need in the future. That need is now even greater. I hope that the Government will guarantee that ring-fencing will continue and will not be limited to only one year. If it is limited the threat to nurse education will be great. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I was pleased to add my name to the amendment. I am sure that like me the Minister has a sense of déjà vu when discussing ring-fencing. We spent many happy hours discussing the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Members on this side of the Committee were able to persuade this Chamber of the merits of ring-fencing but unfortunately we could not convince another place. We welcome the announcement that the Government will ring-fence these funds, but we have tabled the amendment in order that they might stiffen their resolution.
The Minister gave the game away when on Second Reading she said:
"In reply to the specific question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and by my noble friend Lady Cox, the length of time that the ring-fencing will be in place will be as long as it proves necessary".—[Official Report, 12/11/91; col. 509.]
I should have intervened then to ask who will decide when it is no longer necessary. The Minister must answer that crucial question. We are glad that the Government have seen the need to ring-fence the funds at the outset. We hope that it will be a permanent feature. The arguments were expressed extremely well by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson; we fear that the budgets will be eroded if they are not ring-fenced. The Minister will satisfy all Members by answering that simple question. We believe that it will be necessary to keep the ring-fencing arrangements in place for a long time, but we should like the Minister to confirm that.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I speak in support of the amendment. There are real fears that in passing the budget for nursing education to the regional health authorities it could be eroded by the need for cuts in

1289
the allocation of budgets. Those fears are real because within the profession live memories of the problems of Birmingham in recruiting a sufficient number of paediatric intensive-care nurses. The problem arose because not enough were trained. At present there is a reduction in the number of district nurses and health visitors who are being trained for important roles in the community. In such key professions within the health service there is a need to train not only to the level of registration but at post-registration level with many specialised roles being taken up. Therefore, we believe that there is a need to protect the budget for nursing education against any possible erosion.
In response to a question I asked on Second Reading the Minister indicated that a special grant had been made in moving towards Project 2000. It included a contribution to additional library costs in the implementation of that project. The grant was made in order to meet a crisis need for library costs. Project 2000 implements a much broader-based curriculum for the nurses of the future. That is necessary if they are to take an intelligent place in the service. I believe that the library is focal to all the work that nurses will have to undertake in that broader foundation programme of education. In addition, library resources are essential in post-registration courses.
I look to the future with the boards approving colleges and centres to run those courses. However, the boards will not be able to do so unless library facilities are adequate. Library resources in certain schools and colleges of nursing have been pathetic. Not only are the stocks of books and journals inadequate for the new curriculum, but the library staff are also inadequate. Many colleges of nursing no longer have a trained librarian. In looking to resources for the future it is essential that those needs are identified.
4 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: As I understand it, there are three elements to the new education budget. First, there are the bursaries that are awarded to student nurses which amount to about £100 million per year. That is allocated to regions to build into contracts with health authorities. Secondly, there is the costs of the individual colleges in terms of their fabric and day-to-day maintenance. That cost used to be borne by health authorities and is now transferred to the principal of the college. I welcome that because it strengthens local management.
The third element is the costs of nurse tutors and their support staff. As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said, from 1993 that budget, which is now held by the ENB, will be devolved to regions. Therefore, for the first time ever we shall be able to match the size, experience and skills of the teaching faculty with the number of students. I think that everybody agrees that that makes sense.
For the system to work smoothly regions must draw up a workforce plan with other purchasers; that is, the health authorities at district level, the family health service authorities and to a lesser extent GP
1290
fund holders. Regions will have to assess the health care needs of their populations and forecast the number and skills of all staff required to meet those needs. That will include therapists, technicians and other support staff. It will include the need not only for those coming into the profession for the first time but also those who need post-basic education.
Once agreement is reached on the size of the budget, district health authorities will then need to allocate those finances and convert them into contracts with individual colleges of nursing education on an annual basis to ensure that there are sufficient numbers and quality of staff.
Health authority contracts in turn must be linked into the ENB approval mechanism, so really it is a triangle, with all three points firmly connected. It seems to me that one of the chief benefits of the system is that there will be local assessment of the work needed to be done, unlike the proposal in the amendment, which seeks to place responsibility for quantifying the numbers and skills of nurses on to the shoulders of the Secretary of State, or more realistically the Department of Health. In my view that is not possible. I do not believe it is possible for the centre—for Whitehall—to assess the detailed needs of a population of 56 million. We are required to do that at regional level, and even to do it for 3 million is quite a task.
The Project 2000 proposals recognise that we need a new type of nurse to meet the demands of the 21st century: someone who will lead a clinical team, who is a practitioner in her own right, who is better educated and who will assess and supervise health care for individuals. As a nation we have invested large sums in the training not only of nurses but more recently of health care assistants. We have established a national vocational qualification. I believe it is essential that those people are sensibly and effectively used. It may be that in order to provide sensitivity and appropriate health care, flexibility will have to be exercised within the total region training budget.
I know that there are strong views among members of the nursing profession that we must have initial stability; and I agree with that. But I believe that that can be achieved not through ring-fencing, which rather smacks of an old-fashioned command economy, but through the corporate contract which regions negotiate annually with the management executive. We should make the best use of the new management tools which are incorporated in the reforms. However, we also need to maintain maximum flexibility since health care is such a dynamic discipline, with fast moving consumer demands, highly sophisticated new technology and tragically the introduction of new diseases such as AIDS. Therefore, with great regret, I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Carter: The whole area of corporate contracts is new and everybody must try to feel their way. Is the noble Baroness suggesting that the Government should not ring-fence the RHA budget at the outset? I am not entirely clear whether she suggests that ring-fencing is wrong in principle; whether she feels that we need it at the beginning while we are working

1291
things out and—if so, for how long?—or whether she feels as some of us feel that because these matters become eroded overtime that protection should be in place for quite a long time.
Baroness Cumberlege: I am against ring-fencing in principle but I want to ensure that there is initial stability because I understand the fears. I am suggesting that we have a management tool, which is the corporate contract between regions and the management executive. That is monitored very closely on a quarterly or half-yearly basis. We should use that tool rather than ring-fencing because it is much more pertinent and sensitive to the needs of the individual regions. There is an overall view from the management executive that it allows the fiexibilities which I think we need in the future for health care.
Baroness Hooper: This is an important topic. We take education and training very seriously since it affects the quality of care of patients, which at the end of the (lay is what the National Health Service is all about. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, for explaining the thinking behind her amendment, although, as drafted, the effect of the amendment is unclear. It states that the Secretary of State is to be required to make grants for nursing and midwifery education and training. However, it is not clear to whom he is supposed to make those grants, although we have a good idea as a result of this afternoon's exposition.
The Government's policy on the funding of nursing and midwifery education and training was explained by my tight honourable friends the Secretaries of State responsible for the health departments in a Statement made in another place on 4th February this year, which does not appear to have been repeated in this Chamber. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I reiterate the main features of that Statement as it relates to the matters raised in the amendment. I shall relate my remarks primarily to the position in England. The position in Scotland and Wales is broadly similar having regard to the different organisational structure of the NHS in those countries.
In the Government's view there are two main principles which should underlie arrangements for organising and financing nursing, midwifery and health visiting education. The first is that decisions governing the supply of trained nurses, midwives and health visitors should be taken as close to the point of service delivery as possible to ensure that such decisions are responsive to local needs and to the changing requirements of employers.
Secondly, the Government have a duty to ensure that overall there are mechanisms in place to ensure an adequate supply of properly trained nurses, midwives and health visitors to meet the health needs of the nation. The financial arrangements in force since April of this year under which the health service purchases services through contractual arrangements with providers do not jeopardise that supply.
Against that background it is our policy that regional health authorities, in consultation with employers, should have the main responsibility for
1292
identifying the level of demand for qualified nurses and midwives which needs to be met, for deciding the number of students who need to be recruited and trained and for funding pre-registration nursing and midwifery training. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege, as chairman of a regional health authority, described the responsible attitude of the regions in that respect. To enable that to happen, Clause 5(2) removes the existing duty of the national boards to provide or arrange for others to provide education and training courses. In future, that function and the funding which goes with it will be transferred to regional health authorities. In that context, library costs, to which the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, referred, will be one of the items which regions will need to take into account in setting their top-sliced bids.
In the Government's view, however, it is important that the resources to be allocated to pre-registration nursing and midwifery education should be specified in a clearly defined budget. It is moreover important that the budget should be protected; in other words, once regions have decided on the sum to be allocated to pre-registration nursing and midwifery education, that budget should normally stand for that full financial year, and commitment to existing students should in any case always be honoured. We shall continue to monitor regional provision for training in this sphere in order to ensure that our overall responsibility for safeguarding the supply of nurses and midwives is adequately discharged. The exact mechanisms for this monitoring are still under consideration. They will be important.
So far as concerns post-registration training for nurses, midwives and health visitors, our view is that, while general in-service training—for example, management and IT training—should continue to be the responsibility of individual employers, post-registration education and training designed to produce specific professional skills should, for the time being at least, be funded from a separate and protected regional budget, managed in a similar way to that for pre-registration training. We have made it clear that these specific arrangements for post-registration training will be subject to review in the light of experience. But I can assure the Committee that, as in the case of the protected budget for pre-registration training —in respect of which I gave the commitment at Second Reading quoted by the noble Lord-the current arrangements will continue as long as is necessary. How long that will be, will be a matter of fact at the time.
I hope that I have adequately explained to the Committee the Government's commitment to ensuring that adequate resources are made available for this area of education and training and that in the light of what I have said the proposers of the amendment will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with the amendment I should like to congratulate the Minister on producing the best post hoc argument I have ever heard. She said that this,
"will be a matter of fact at the time".

1293
Of course it will be a matter of fact at the time. We all know that. But when is the time? The noble Baroness said at Second Reading "as long as it proved necessary". She has just said "for the time being at least". How long does she think this ring-fencing is likely to last? It is causing a good deal of anxiety among the professions. They would like to have some idea of the time scale that the Government foresee.
Baroness Hooper: I have indicated that we are doing this initially on an annual basis and that we shall review it on an annual basis. It must be clear that for the first few years it will be reviewed on an annual basis.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I am not very happy with the Minister's reply to the amendment. For some years I was a regional chairman, and I had the greatest admiration for my successor at the South-West Thames Regional Health Authority. However, it has been my experience in the health service and in every other walk of life in which I have been involved, including industry to a slight extent, that when there is a shortage of money, education and training are always chopped first. It has happened in this country, which is why we are in a mess at the moment. We do not have enough skilled labour. We are just waking up to the problem.
The noble Baroness said that the RHAs would have to take into account matters such as library costs when they make their top-sliced bids. She said that they would have to have a clearly defined budget for nurse education. She added that it would normally stand for the financial year. What does "normally stand for the financial year" mean? What if something untoward happened on which the RHA preferred to spend the money? That is why we are asking for the education slice to be ring-fenced. It is desperately important that there should be some guarantee.
We are living in a greatly changing world. Nurse education is changing enormously with the development of Project 2000. It has already changed. It is possible that nurse education will be taken out of the health service altogether. It may become the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science and be funded quite differently. If that happened it would be tremendously important for the amount of money transferred to the Department of Education and Science to be ring-fenced.
The issue raised in the amendment is important for pre-registration nurses, post-registration training and postgraduate education and training. The issue is important not only for the nursing profession but for the whole of our society. I am sure that we shall return to this amendment. If the noble Baroness does not like the wording perhaps we can come back with an amended form. We shall try to make it clear that it is one subject that we should like to see written into the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Suspension]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("and") and insert:
("(bc) a person whose registration has been neither removed nor suspended may be made the subject of a formal caution; and").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns the very modest widening of the powers of the United Kingdom central council to administer a caution in appropriate circumstances. It has received all-party and cross-party support. I am grateful to the noble Lord and to both noble Baronesses whose names appear with mine on the Marshalled List. I am also aware that other noble Lords support the amendment. In particular, my noble friend Lady Cox wishes me to say how much she regrets not being here today to support the amendment.
The wisdom of enshrining an additional power to enable the United Kingdom central council not only to remove or suspend from the register but, in appropriate circumstances, to caution those practitioners who come before the professional conduct committee was widely appreciated and supported at Second Reading, and not least by my noble friend the Minister, who undertook to look again at the issue. I understand that after further consideration she is very sympathetic towards its aims. Because of that I shall not re-debate the issues but merely make four points.
First, the members of the United Kingdom central council, the registrar and his officers are deeply concerned at the length it takes for a case, once reported, to be heard by a professional conduct committee—anything up to two and a half years—which results in a disturbingly long backlog of cases. This amendment, in conjunction with the other measures in the Bill, will reduce the time to six months and eliminate the backlog.
Secondly, without the power to caution, cases have to be pursued,
"with a view to removing the practitioner from the register".
In fact, only 45 per cent. of the cases heard result in this draconian sanction. To remove a qualified practitioner from the register not only debars that person from practising their profession, but in many cases results in years of unemployment with subsequent misery and deprivation. Removal from the register is surely the final sanction. There needs to be flexibility and interim disciplinary measures as is the case with many other professional bodies.
There is of course incorporated in the Bill an additional power of suspension which the UKCC has not had previously. But that too can have the same effect as removal from the register albeit for a shorter period. My third point is that without the power of caution, cases are inappropriately brought before the professional conduct committee because of a rightful concern that if the case is not brought, although it is recognised that the ultimate sanction is inappropriate, the profession and the public believe that unprofessional misdemeanours are being condoned and the wrong message is sent out to the public and the profession. That was a point very well made at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
The fourth and final reason is that the measure is not included in the Bill because of a difference of opinion between lawyers. Parliamentary counsel states that inclusion of a specific power to caution is unnecessary. But on two previous occasions the UKCC has sought to make rules introducing the caution under the existing Section 12(l) of the 1979 Act and has had its request rejected. The UKCC recently sought counsel's opinion to clarify the matter once and for all and was strongly advised that the power should he incorporated in the Bill and appear on the lace of the Act.
Disagreement between lawyers is expensive, but a test case carried through all its stages is not only an unfair financial burden to be borne by hardworking nurses whose subscriptions support the UKCC, but is also totally unnecessary given the opportunity afforded in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give us hope and bring forward a government amendment to ensure that these goals are reached. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I am pleased to support the amendment from these Benches. The arguments in its favour have been expressed extremely well by the noble Baroness. I believe that it is the first time that she has moved an amendment to a Bill. I understand that the Government are going to accept it in principle although they may want to reword it. Before the noble Baroness becomes too excited I should warn her that if my experience is anything to go by, that situation will not last although it perhaps helps to start on the same side as the Minister.
The arguments have been well put. I understand that there has been a technical legal argument (we hear them often during the passage of a Bill) as to whether this matter needs to be on the face of the Bill. I understand that the Government now accept that it should be, although they may wish to have their own wording. I am pleased to support the amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: Perhaps I may also speak briefly in support of the amendment. In the very comparable situation of the medical profession, governed as it is by the medical Act and the rules derived therefrom, which were approved by the Privy Council, any medical practitioner appearing before the professional conduct committee may, at the end of the hearing, be subject to five possible alternative disciplinary sanctions.
The first is admonishment; the second is to attach formal conditions to the doctor's registration; the third to postpone judgment which is a little like putting the doctor on a state of warning as to his or her future conduct; the fourth is suspension; and the fifth is erasure from the register. This amendment would have the same effect as the General Medical Council admonishing a doctor. Therefore, it is something which the Committee should support.
Lord Meston: I too support the amendment, which is important and required by the UKCC. It is difficult not to repeat points made at Second Reading. It is also difficult not to express the disappointment which was then felt at the Government's unwillingness to accept
1296
the need for the power to caution to be stated expressly in the Bill. I am glad to hear hints that the Government have had a change of heart.
The need for such an amendment exists if only to avoid any uncertainty about whether the UKCC has such a power. It is apparent that the Government do not oppose it in principle. We all seem to want the same thing. The fact is that the UKCC has had conflicting advice from government lawyers as to the necessity for an express statutory power. The risk is that the omission of an express power to caution might be regarded by the courts as a deliberate omission. Therefore, there must he a risk that the courts would not feel willing or able to hold that there was an implicit power to caution. In reaching that conclusion the only people to benefit would be the lawyers. Undoubtedly, as has been said, it would be to the detriment of nurses. On this occasion I am happy to speak against the interests of my own profession. To adopt the phrase of the Minister earlier today, the omission might cause "unhelpful inflexibility". Therefore I ask the Government to put the matter beyond all doubt.
Lord Auckland: Without going into legal technicalities I am sure that the amendment will be welcomed by the profession for bringing it into line with, for example, the armed services where a soldier or other member can be admonished or reprimanded as opposed to being cashiered or sentenced to a term of detention or imprisonment. With its very reasoned terms this amendment will undoubtedly be very much welcomed by the profession concerned.
Baroness Hooper: A number of noble Lords strongly represented at Second Reading that there should be a specific provision on the face of the Bill for a matter which we believed was implicit. In the light of those views, I undertook to look at the issue again. Since Second Reading, officials from the department have had useful discussions with the UKCC about the details of how the proposed power to caution might be exercised.
I understand that most if not all of the Members of the Committee may have seen the helpful note which the UKCC has now circulated about this matter. We have looked again at the legal position in the light of this clarification and in particular at the way in which a caution would be administered at the initial investigation or preliminary proceedings' stage of the process. I can say to the Committee that we now accept the principle that there should be specific reference to the power to caution in the legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, said that the UKCC had received contrary advice from government lawyers to the effect that there was no power to administer a caution under the existing Section 12. Unfortunately, neither we nor the UKCC have been able to find clear documentary evidence for such advice. However, it appears that the question at issue on the earlier occasion was whether or not the national boards, not the UKCC, could be given powers under the rules to administer a caution as part of its duty under Section 6(1) (e) of the Act to carry out initial investigations in professional misconduct

1297
cases. That power is repealed by Clause 5(4) of the Bill. The UKCC is in future to be responsible for all stages of the investigation of professional conduct cases. That is relevant to the question of how the powers available under Section 12 should be interpreted.
In view of this happy agreement that we should accept the principle of the specific reference, nevertheless I would like the opportunity of considering further exactly how that can best be achieved. I have been advised that the amendment before us does not quite do the trick. It seems to imply that the administration of a caution is a formal and an appealable penalty on a par with removal or suspension from the register rather than what I understand is in fact intended that it should be—a warning, albeit a formal one, as to future conduct.
There are a number of technical difficulties arising from the drafting which need to be clarified. Therefore, if Members of the Committee are in agreement on the withdrawal of the amendment at this time, I undertake to ensure that a government amendment meeting the intentions of this amendment is brought forward at a later stage.
Baroness Cumberlege: In the light of the remarks made by my noble friend the Minister, it gives me pleasure to withdraw the amendment. We look forward to reading the exact wording which she brings forward from the Government. I should also like to thank those Members of the Committee who spoke in support of the amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

4.30 p.m.
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 10:
Before Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Consultation between Council and Midwifery Committee
. In section 4(2) of the 1979 Act (which requires the Council to consult the Midwifery Committee) after "consult" there shall be inserted "with and not unreasonably reject any recommendation or and after "relating to" there shall be inserted "or in any way affecting".").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to ensure that there is adequate consultation with the midwifery committee by the UKCC. As the areas of responsibility are shifting we are doing here what my noble friend Lord Carter has already mentioned: we are amending another Act in the course of passing this Bill.
The purpose of the amendment is to amend Section 4 of the 1979 Act. As amended, the section would read:
"The Council shall consult with and not unreasonably reject any recommendation of the Committee on all matters relating to or in any way affecting midwifery".
Consultations used to be concerned only with matters relating to midwifery. We are seeking to widen the scope of consultation to cover matters "affecting" midwifery. I am sure that this amendment will be welcomed by all sides of the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I may reaffirm what I said on Second Reading (at col. 509 of Hansard); namely, that there is no evidence that the current situation whereby the council is required to consult the midwifery committee on midwifery matters, but which does not restrict its powers any further, has not worked. It is not our intention to use the Bill to make any changes in the council's constitutional role in respect of any of the three professions which it regulates. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to make this particular amendment at this time, given that the existing provisions have not caused any problems.
I believe that consultation and consideration of recommendations are areas where a great deal depends on a constructive and mutually respectful relationship between the bodies concerned. It would appear that the amendment could erode rather than enhance that relationship. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Desai: I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 9 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Central Council rules: consultation]:
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("after") in line 13 and insert:
("(1) Section 22 of the 1979 Act (duty of Central Council to consult about rules) shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (3) (b) there shall be inserted "and, insofar as the proposed rules are relevant to the Boards functions prescribed in section 6 of this Act."
(3)").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a matter which relates to consultation. Certain functions of the national boards are being transferred away from them to the new health authorities but they will still be responsible for validation of courses and other matters. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the UKCC continues to consult the national boards and that there will be a positive requirement for such consultations to be carried out. There is not much more that one can say about the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am aware that concern has been expressed that the words which this amendment seeks to replace appear to give too much discretion to the council in determining what is and what is not relevant to the boards' functions. I must say that I do not consider that this really amounts to a point of substance. Someone has clearly got to be given the job of formally determining the matter and it is difficult to see that the body could be anyone other than the council. To leave the issue rather in the air would be unsatisfactory.
If a doubtful case did arise, it would be most unlikely that the council would not in practice consult the board on the issue. Moreover, at the end of the day, if the council acted unreasonably in not consulting the board, it would of course be open to the board as a last resort to seek redress in the courts. But

1299
that seems to me to be a most unlikely scenario. In view of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Desai: I am most grateful to the Minister for that assurance. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1991
4.35 pm.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft regulations, laid before the House on 14th October, be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 14th October. I understand that it will be convenient to consider at the same time the equivalent Scottish regulations which were laid before the House on 16th October. Accordingly, I shall speak to both sets of regulations.
The regulations, which have been considered in another place, introduce a number of changes—which have al been subject to public consultation—to the parent regulations for England and Wales approved by Parliament in 1989 and for Scotland in 1990. The first change is an across-the-board increase of about 20 per cent. in the level of fees for planning applications. It follows a similar increase which took effect from 2nd January this year. The Government are committed to increasing the proportion of relevant local authority costs met from fees to 100 per cent. Relevant costs include all aspects of the consideration of planning applications and any ensuing appeals. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the additional revenue which this increase will generate will be very welcome to local authorities yet will represent a very modest proportion of the overall cost of the projects to which the planning applications relate.
The second and third changes both arise from discussion during the passage earlier this year of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The second change—and here I must give credit where it is due to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, whose suggestion we have taken, albeit in a slightly modified way—involves doubling the deemed planning application fee payable in the context of an appeal against an enforcement notice. The Government consider that it is reasonable for a fee, to be paid to both public bodies involved in the administrative service that the appellant obtains. Accordingly, one half of the fee will be paid to the local planning authority and the other half will go to the Department of the Environment, or to the Welsh or Scottish Office as appropriate. In future the planning merits of any development enforced against
1300
will be considered only on an appeal against the enforcement notice after payment of this higher fee. The increased charge is not intended as a penalty or a charge for making an appeal. The third change eliminates the 75 per cent. concession which currently applies to duplicate or twin-tracked planning applications. That practice enables an applicant to negotiate with the authority on one application while appealing in respect of the non-determination of the other. It has potential for wasting local authority resources; yet it can be an applicant's only effective lever for encouraging some authorities to process applications with reasonable speed. Although the Government have concluded that it would be unreasonable to deny applicants the option of submitting duplicate applications, we can see no justification for the regulations to include a concession to encourage applicants to twin-track.
The final change is confined at present to England and Wales. It introduces a £20 fee to be paid when an application is made to a local planning authority for a determination whether its prior approval of some details of the development is required before the start of certain agricultural or forestry development permitted by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. No further fee will be payable in those cases where authorities decide that they need to give formal approval for the relevant aspects of the development. The introduction of a parallel amendment to the Scottish fees regulations must await an appropriate amendment to the Scottish GDO. The Secretary of State for Scotland intends to bring forward such changes as soon as is practicable. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations, laid before the House on 14th October, be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee]—(Viscount Astor.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome the increased fees; and behind us, the local authorities welcome them, particularly in the light of the Statement made in another place earlier today on rate capping and the RSG. That will ensure that local authorities will doubly welcome any increased income.
We support the move to more realistic charging. We welcome not just the increased fee for appeals, which the Minister was gracious enough to acknowledge was the result of amendments moved on this side of the House, but the increased fee, and therefore loss of subsidy, for twin-tracking. Much of the debate during the Planning and Compensation Bill involved the problem of twin-tracking and the way local authorities simultaneously were forced to negotiate an appeal while at the same time trying to respond to the original application. Twin-tracking was encouraged by the fact that there was a reduced fee for the second application. We are happy to see that that fee has now been brought into line. I should have liked to have seen it go even further, but I accept that this is not the appropriate forum in which to pursue that argument.
There are a few questions that I should like to ask the Minister. I have given him brief notice of them. I

1301
[BARONESS HOLLIS OF HEIGHAM]
therefore accept that he may not yet have all the answers. The questions are meant to help local government. I take it that the fees are designed to make development control self-financing, as the Minister said. When will he expect to see that process completed by? Are we talking about annual tranches or biannual tranches of increases in fees or what?
Secondly, if the control is meant to be selffinancing, does the Minister assume that within the fee will be included the cost of an application refusal? In other words, does it relate to that dimension of development control? Will the fee also include the full cost of publicity and advertising? That is a pertinent point, because within the Local Government Bill that is about to go into Committee there is pressure to go for full and proper consultation. That involves extensive costs to the local authority. Will the Minister tell us whether local authorities will in the future be expected to recover those increased costs for publicity and notification through increased fees?
Thirdly, will the fee include the cost of advice given at inquiries? Again, that is associated with the appeals procedure. Further, will it also reflect the additional costs involved in handling developments associated with listed buildings? I am sure that the Minister and everyone in the Chamber will accept that the officer and staff input associated with a listed property is a more sensitive and demanding a job than that involved with straightforward new build on a council or private estate. Can we hope to see that factor also reflected?
My final point, of which I informed the Minister, is that, rightly, the fees are graduated according to the number of dwelling houses or the number of hectares involved in the development. Clearly at a certain point a qualitative distinction has to be made in relation to proposals for a major shopping mall of perhaps 500,000 square feet in which the maximum costs of £2,500, or £5,000, as the case may be, in no way begin to reflect the months and months of officer and member time involved in handling superstore developments. Are the fees meant to be realistic in the future? In other words, behind the raft of questions I have put to the Minister, I should like to know whether individual fees are meant to fund the costs of individual development inquiries or are they meant to be self-financing across the authority as a whole. If that is the case, I fear that the smaller developer will be cross-subsidising the larger developer. Will the Minister reassure us on that point?
Having said that, the general thrust of our response is to welcome the increase in fees. As the Minister rightly said, they are a small proportion only of the total cost of schemes. It will be a helpful and useful addition to local authority incomes at a time when they are hard pressed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as I understood my noble friend the Minister, these proposals, on the whole, increase the charges by 20 per cent. in addition to an increase of 20 per cent. at the beginning of this year; in other words, a 40 per cent. increase in the year. I should be glad to hear from him what is the argument in favour of so substantial an increase, and
1302
whether, having set the precedent of an increase of 40 per cent. a year, the Government have it in mind to make even further increases in the near future.
It would also be helpful to know what sums of money are involved. In particular, what will be the additional revenue derived from this increase, and what was the additional revenue derived from the January increase?
Finally, I must express some hesitation and doubt as to whether swingeing increases of this kind in charges made in respect of the grant of planning permission are sensible in the present situation. Your Lordships are only too well aware that the building industry is going through a difficult time. If there ever were a time when increasing the charge for planning permission was inappropriate, I should have thought that it was now. I can well understand, as the noble Baroness said, that the increase is welcomed by the local authorities. Local authorities are always thankful for any money upon which they can lay their hands; but the Government have to consider not just the degree of avaricious excitement which the proposals generate among local authorities, but the impact on the building industry.
I do not wish to exaggerate the amount involved as compared with the cost of building, which I concede is marginal; but psychologically to be increasing the charges at this moment would seem to be flying in the face of what are the necessities of the moment. I say that in particular, because I had the privilege of hearing the Secretary of State for the Environment at lunchtime today indicate his anxiety for the building industry, and his hope that house building would be encouraged and revive. I should be most grateful if my noble friend would answer those questions as well as those which the noble Baroness put to him.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I shall deal first with the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. She asked what the fees are meant to cover. They cover a range of tasks performed by local planning authorities under the umbrella of development control. They include considering and determining planning applications for schemes, both large and small; dealing with any subsequent appeals; discussions with developers and statutory consultees; and dealing with inquiries from the public about proposed developments.
The regulations apply to applications for planning permission, not applications for listed building consent. However, some planning applications will involve considerations which are relevant to listed building consent.
The noble Baroness also asked me about the cross-subsidy of small developers by large developers.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Large developers by small developers.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, vice versa. We recognise that a small proportion of applications will cost local authorities considerably more than the present maximum level. We shall examine this when considering simplification and further reform of the fees scale next year. We have said, and I repeat, that

1303
we appreciate the anxiety mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the increase in the level of fees proposed by this is above the current level of inflation. Nevertheless, the Government are committed to progressive increases in fee levels until they generate enough income to recover 100 per cent. of the local authorities' development control costs. An application fee is still a small component cost of a development, and 80 per cent. of applications are granted.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked me whether the current initiative should provide a more reliable basis for estimated local authority costs in future. The report of the Audit Commission's study on development control is due in January 1992. Research is to be commissioned by the Department of the Environment into the cost incurred by local authorities determining planning applications and performing other tasks under the heading of local control.
I hope that I have managed to answer most of the questions raised by your Lordships. If I have missed any, I shall consider them and write to noble Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend was good enough to say that he was prepared to answer the questions already put to him. However, he has not so far answered two that I put to him. One is as to the amount of money in cash terms which these regulations will extract from developers, the cash flow, and whether it is the same amount—and if not, what the difference is—as that under the January increase. Those are the two figures of increased payments that will have to be made. Secondly, he rather conspicuously did not answer my question whether there was an intention to introduce further increases in the near future.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. I forgot to answer the last point. There is an intention to increase it in the future. As I said before, it is our intention progressively to raise fee levels until they generate enough income to recover 100 per cent. of the local authority's development control costs.
On the second point, I cannot tell the noble Lord what the level of income will be. It totally depends on the number of applications that come in. Therefore one cannot foresee exactly what the level will be. We can look at the numbers of applications as they come in. Local authorities will examine their costs and we shall consider all those matters closely when we come to decide the increase of fees. As I have said before, it is our intention to try to generate enough income to recover 100 per cent. of the local authority development control costs.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, with respect, surely my noble friend can answer the question as to the amount of money that will be brought in, on the basis of the amount brought in under the previous dispensation and applying a 20 per cent. increase to it. That may not be 100 per cent. accurate, but it would give your Lordships some idea of the scale. It is no use my no ale friend saying, "Oh, this is so small that it is marginal", unless he is prepared to tell us what it is.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I said that as regards any developer undertaking a development, the fee is a comparatively small component part within the total amount of money spent on that development. I do not have the figures for the number of applications that were received last year. We discussed them under the previous Bill. My noble friend knows as well as I do that it was a substantial amount and that it changed from month to month.
I have certain figures that could be of some help. Provisional figures for the April to June quarter 1991, based on 85 per cent. of the returns indicate that 59 per cent. of applications were determined within eight weeks. Application numbers continue to fall. The figures I have are: 682,000 in 1988–89; 628,000 in 1989–90; 532,000 in 1990–91. That is quite a large drop. I take my noble friend's point but it is almost impossible for me to tell him what amount of money will come in.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1991
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations, laid before the House on 16th October, be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

King's Cross Railways Bill
A message was received from the Commons that they have made the following orders, to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bill be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the last Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.

Avon Weir Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified; Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes before
five o'clock.

  LARGE PUBLIC WORKS: EC CORRESPONDENCE
  LARGE PUBLIC WORKS: EC CORRESPONDENCE
  THE PATIENT'S CHARTER
  THE PATIENT'S CHARTER
  AUTHORISED PRACTITIONERS: CONSULTATION ON REGULATIONS
  AUTHORISED PRACTITIONERS: CONSULTATION ON REGULATIONS
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CELLS: COST PER NIGHT
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CELLS: COST PER NIGHT
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CELLS OCTOBER/ NOVEMBER 1991: NUMBER
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CELLS OCTOBER/ NOVEMBER 1991: NUMBER