Sitting of 3 February 1992

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

    National Insurance
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the weekly cost to someone on one and a half times male average earnings of abolition of the national insurance upper earnings limit.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Someone earning £490 a week, which is about one and a half times average male earnings, would pay an extra £9 per week in national insurance contributions if the upper earnings limit was abolished.
    Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that abolishing the upper earnings limit would hit well over 3 million people—for instance, policemen, health service workers and those in seasonal occupations—merely because overtime bonuses or profit-related pay would take their earnings over the average in any particular week? People in those categories certainly should not be described as rich.
    Mr. Newton: It is absolutely true that a large number of people who could not remotely be described as rich would
    2
    be hit by the proposal. What is more, they would receive absolutely nothing in return in the form of benefits: they need to be aware of that.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that millions of people have been hit by the actions of his Department over the past 12 years? The Department has taken away the earnings-related supplement, and have got rid of death and maternity grant and income support for 16 and 17-year-olds who would not work on the Tory Government's slave labour schemes. Most of those measures were introduced by the present Prime Minister.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's question about national insurance upper earnings limit?
    Mr. Skinner: Absolutely—and it is the Secretary of State's Department that is guilty of taking benefits away from millions of people who would have benefited if the Labour Government's policies had been maintained over the past 12 years by this tawdry, rotten Tory Government.
    Mr. Newton: I am aware of two things. First, all the groups to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred were hit much harder by the policies of high taxation and raging inflation over which the Labour Government presided. Secondly, all the groups who are considered to be priorities by both the Government and the Opposition—low-income pensioners, low-income families and disabled people—have benefited significantly from what the Government have done in recent years.
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the estimated cost to business if the lower earnings limit for employers' national insurance contributions were abolished.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): We estimate that abolishing the lower earnings limit would cost business around £175 million a year in extra national insurance contributions.
    Mr. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the substantial extra burden that will be placed on employers, well-meaning proposals to extend the benefits of the

    3
    national insurance system to low-paid employees would have the opposite effect to the one intended, as most would lose their jobs?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend, in his usual perceptive way, has put his finger precisely on the import of such proposals. It is interesting to note that they come from the same stable that brought us the national insurance surcharge. It is also interesting to note that, when Labour was last in power, the combined contribution to the national insurance scheme by an employee earning £52 a week and his employer was £10·40, while under the present Government it is £3·43.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister confirm that the present Government have introduced higher taxes than any other Government, and that they have increased national insurance contributions for those on average and low pay by a massive 40 per cent? Is it right that someone earning £200,000 a year should pay only 1 per cent. in national insurance? Should not such people bear their share of the burden?
    Mr. Jack: It is amazing that the hon. Gentleman, who professes knowledge of social security matters, has not alluded to the fact that we restructured the national insurance scheme. I do not know where he has been for the past few years, but we have reduced the rates on lower earnings so that people now pay on average about £3 a week less in national insurance.

    Disability Working Allowance
    Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what alterations he is considering to the disability working allowance scheme before it is introduced; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): None, Sir. The disability working allowance scheme, which will come into effect from April, will provide a radical new opportunity for disabled people who can and wish to work.
    Mr. Madel: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this very welcome new allowance will be extensively publicised and that the allowance itself is not taxable?
    Mr. Scott: Yes. The disability working allowance—like its companion benefit, the disability living allowance—will be tax free. It will be extensively publicised on television and in the press through mail shots and other methods of communication. Incidentally, we shall introduce into our advertising campaign efforts to ensure that the information available can be well interpreted by those with sensory disabilities.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: What is the Government's response to the increasingly strong feeling among disabled people that this measure is not an appropriate one for tackling their now, by common consent, quite shocking employment disadvantages? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the DWA, with its very high marginal tax rates—as high as 94 per cent., leaving disabled people with only 6p in the pound of their additional income as workers—simply substitutes a new poverty trap for the employment trap, making some disabled people actually worse off for earning more?
    Mr. Scott: Hardly anyone will be worse off if they are on disability working allowance. For example, a couple with two children aged six and 11 would still be entitled to DWA if they had a net income of £189 a week. I believe that this is an important benefit. It has been widely welcomed by the organisations of and for disabled people outside the House. One of its most important aspects is that people who go on to DWA will retain their underlying entitlement to any benefit which they may have had before they went on to DWA and that they will not have to requalify, if they fail in their efforts to work.

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many unemployment benefit claimants there were in York in June 1987 and currently; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jack: In June 1987, unemployment in York was 5,542. In December 1991 it was down to 3,816.
    Mr. Gregory: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures. Does he agree that, if my calculation is correct, that is a reduction of 31 per cent. and that the reverse would be the case if we were to move from our free enterprise and initiative policy to a policy whereby state nationalisation took over Northern Electric in York, Yorkshire Water, British Telecom and other similar companies? Is it not right that there would be a reversal of the excellent figures that my hon. Friend gave?
    Mr. Jack: As somebody who, as a child, was brought up in the city of York, I have nothing but praise for the excellent way in which my hon. Friend has represented his constituents. I can confirm that a 31 per cent. reduction in unemployment is the correct figure. My hon. Friend has done much to boost the employment opportunities in York by championing the railways, tourism and other industries from which the city draws its economic well-being. The people of York will have noticed the mocking smiles on the faces of Opposition Members when I referred to my hon. Friend's record.

    Community Care Grants
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number and size of community care grants in Newcastle upon Tyne in the six months April to October 1991.
    Mr. Scott: Between April and October 1991, Newcastle upon Tyne district office awarded 1,250 community care grants, worth over £290,000.
    Mr. Cousins: Will the Minister confirm that the office in Newcastle upon Tyne is in the habit of pricing its community care grants in two well-known catalogue shops and that unfortunately it failed to spot in April 1991 that the Government had increased value added tax? The result was that a constituent of mine—and no doubt many hundreds of others who have just been referred to by the Minister as being included in the 1,200 people who received grants—was short changed and not given the full amount. A disabled constituent of mine was short changed by more than £2 in his community care grant for an orthopaedic bed. Will the Minister investigate the matter

    5
    urgently and ensure that the Department of Social Security office in Newcastle upon Tyne is made aware of the fact that the Government increased VAT last April?
    Mr. Scott: Of course I shall examine the matter urgently and refer it to the Benefits Agency. Given its urgency, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not write to me about such a detailed case, which would have enabled me to deal with it earlier.
    Mr. Bradley: The Minister clearly has no understanding of the damage that the social fund is inflicting on thousands of the poorest people in cities such as Newcastle and Manchester. In 1991, 68 per cent. of applicants were refused community care grant and just over 50 per cent. were given a budgetary loan, which they had to repay from their meagre benefits. When will the Department publish the review of the social fund, which we have long awaited, and when will he restore the right of the poorest in our society to a grant for essential items such as clothing, furniture and cookers, which have been denied them under the current system?
    Mr. Scott: I contest the hon. Gentleman's assertions at the end of his supplementary question. The social fund has given extensive help to people in real need. Some 60 per cent. of applicants are refused community care grant because they do not meet the basic criteria. We have not received the report of the social policy research unit at York, but when we do we will publish it urgently.

    Pensioners (Incomes)
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners are in the top half of the income distribution; and what was the comparable figure for 1979.
    Mr. Newton: Twenty eight per cent. of pensioners were in the top half of the income distribution in 1987 compared with 24 per cent. in 1979.
    Mr. Burns: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that pensioners are worried about a return to the rampant inflation of the mid-1970s and, although it does not directly affect people who have reached state retirement age, a 9 per cent. tax being put on the savings of people who are saving for retirement? People considering retiring early would be caught by that punitive tax.
    Mr. Newton: Pensioners were among those who were hardest hit by the rates of taxation and inflation of the 1970s. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's second point, because it is not yet widely understood by the three quarters of people who go into retirement with savings of their own that, as they approach retirement, their ability to build up those savings would be subject to a 9 per cent. tax as a result of one of the Opposition's proposals.
    Mr. Frank Field: If a higher proportion of pensioners are now in the top half of the distribution, who has taken their place in the lower half, and why? What part have the Government's unemployment policies played in that?
    Mr. Newton: I do not think that there is any question of the Government pursuing a policy of unemployment, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The increased number of pensioners in the top half of the income distribution is the
    6
    result of pensioners' average net incomes rising by a third or more in real terms because of the policies of the Government.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people confuse the level of the state pension with the amount of money that pensioners have available to pay all their weekly bills? Is not it true that the majority of pensioners have extra income from savings, from an occupational pension or from other benefits such as income support?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. As I said earlier, more than three quarters of recently retiring pensioners now have income from savings, and more than 60 per cent. of them also have income from occupational pensions. In both cases, the incomes have risen substantially.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Secretary of State concede that many people are doing better, which we welcome, because of the state earnings-related pension scheme which was introduced by the Labour Government? The people who are not doing well are those without additional income on lower incomes, such as single pensioners, who have lost the equivalent of £15 a week, and married couple pensioners, who have lost the equivalent of £25 a week. Will the Secretary of State take this chance—one of his last—to apologise to pensioners for what he has done?
    Mr. Newton: I make two points: first, the incomes of pensioners in the lowest quintile have risen by 15 per cent. in real terms over this period, and those pensioners will have benefited further since those statistics were compiled by the increases amounting to a third of a billion pounds that have been made in income support premiums in the past three years. Secondly, it is not SERPS that is the major factor in this increase but the increased income from savings and occupational pensions.
    Mr. Harris: Do not the figures given by my hon. Friend underline the point that many pensioners are well off—and we welcome that—and that that is a justification of the Government's policy of targeting extra help on those who really need it? When will the Opposition grasp that simple fact?
    Mr. Newton: Certainly one of the satisfactory developments of recent years is that, taken as a whole and on average, pensioners' living standards have been rising. As I have said repeatedly, there remain a number of people for whom we think it is right to do more, and we have been doing more through the income support premiums.

    Benefits (Greater London)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of people in the Greater London area receiving social security benefits in 1978–79 and the total in 1990–91.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Statistics for the number of recipients of all benefits are not collected on a regional basis.
    Mr. Banks: It does not surprise me that the Minister does not want to know the facts. She must know that, by any standards, the number of people in London who have been impoverished since 1979 has more than doubled. She

    7
    knows that and the statistics are at least available from the Library but not with the precision that she could have given if she had chosen to give them to the House. I have never seen so many unemployed and homeless people begging on the streets of London. Thanks to the Prime Minister, 16 and 17-year-olds cannot claim social security. I suggest that, instead of choosing the mad scene from Lucia di Lammermoor for his desert island disc, the Prime Minister would have done better to have chosen something from the Beggar's Opera because there is a whole chorus on the London streets which could join in.
    Miss Widdecombe: May I suggest that, for sheer consistency in the way in which the Opposition present their numbers, they should perhaps choose the Grand Old Duke of York as their theme. The hon. Gentleman can no more claim that poverty has doubled in London than he can claim that for Great Britain as a whole. Because we have taken more people into the net by raising income support and making other improvements, more are now assisted through the benefits system.
    Mr. Bowis: Is it not a fact that more and more generous benefits covering many different needs are available to people in London and elsewhere? Does my hon. Friend agree that one statistic that needs to be found is that of the number of Londoners who would lose if the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions were to be removed?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. Given the average salary in London, I imagine that there would be an extensive loss if, as my hon. Friend says, that policy were to be implemented. What is more—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier—no compensating benefit would be received by those who would be hit by the abolition of the upper limit. In fact, it would turn Beveridge on its head and use the national insurance system as a tax system.

    Retirement Pension
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received over the level of the retirement pension.
    Mr. Newton: We regularly receive representations and inquiries from a wide range of interested organisations and individuals about the level of the retirement pension.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm an answer recently given to me by a junior Minister—it is in Hansard, of course—to the effect that a large number of pensioners—nearly 40 per cent.—have incomes of £70 or less out of which they pay about £10 to £15 in rent? Is it not a fact that if the link with earnings had not been broken by his Government 10 years ago—indeed, nearly 12 years ago—a married pensioner would be £28 a week better off this April? That is what the country is concerned about, not the lies, smears and distortions organised by Tory central office and the Tory press against the Labour party.
    Mr. Newton: Such calculations take absolutely no account of the increased taxation and inflation which would have resulted from the pursuit of the policy that the hon. Gentleman is advocating. I leave with him the thought, especially as Labour is apparently committed to
    8
    adding another £9 a week to national insurance contributions for 3 million or more people, that if such a policy had been pursued, contributions for an employee on average earnings and his employer would now be about £9 a week more than they are.
    Mr. Ashby: My right hon. Friend referred to the increase in the incomes of pensioners as a result of savings and of occupational pensions. Can he give any idea of what the level of occupational pensions will be by the turn of the century?
    Mr. Newton: I will not attempt to predict what will happen on that front between now and the end of the century because that will depend on many factors. I can tell my hon. Friend that pensioners' incomes from occupational pensions—for those who have them—rose on average from £13·90 a week in 1979 to £27·70 in 1988. That is a virtual doubling of the income from occupational pensions over that period. I expect to see the trend continue if sensible policies continue to be pursued.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what representations he has received from the employees and pensioners of the Maxwell Communication Corporation and AGB companies about the level of their pensions? Is he aware that, due to his culpable negligence in sitting for 19 months on regulations under the Social Security Act 1990, which would have protected pensioners in the event of a company wind-up, thousands of pensioners now stand to lose most or all of their pensions for which they have contributed for up to 35 years? Does not he think it right that all such pensioners should receive compensation when they have lost so much pension due to his complacency and reprehensible laxity?
    Mr. Newton: I presume that the hon. Gentleman thought it right to return to the matter in the House having notably failed to achieve the result for which he hoped by an overheated press release to the same effect which he issued at the end of last week. He knows that he has deliberately raised unnecessary alarm among many thousands of pensioners by the way in which he has presented the matter. It is simply not the case that pensioners in such schemes will get nothing or will be left penniless, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. Under existing regulations, if there are not sufficient assets to secure the guaranteed minimum pensions that is the equivalent of what the pensioners would have got under the state earnings-related pension scheme—the guaranteed minimum pensions can be and would be underwritten by the Government.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend refuse the invitation from the Opposition to treat pensioners as a political underclass? Will he remember that more and more people reaching retirement age wish to have independence in their own hands, which means that they must be in receipt of policies that encourage that independence, including savings, during their working career?
    Mr. Newton: That is absolutely right, and nothing has more clearly revealed the Opposition's attitude to people's wishes in the matter than their persistent hostility to the 4 million or more people who have taken out personal pensions for exactly that reason.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to ensure a more equitable distribution of resources for the social fund.
    Mr. Scott: Each annual allocation of funds to district budgets has been designed to redistribute resources in a progressively more equitable way. As part of our routine annual review of allocations, we shall continue to consider how best to ensure that funds are targeted where they are most needed.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister accept that the distribution of resources under the social fund is extremely inequitable and difficult to get right? Will he also accept the Opposition's view that, with the social fund, the Prime Minister first demonstrated on a national scale his dangerous incompetence? That incompetence later extended to the economy when he was promoted. Does the Minister agree that, in the present state of affairs, some parts of the country have too much money in the social fund and still have money over after meeting all claims, low and high priority, which are legitimate? Some areas can meet only high priority claims, whereas other areas can meet low and high priority claims but have no money over. Is not it an example of what is wrong with the country that the Prime Minister was promoted for trying to reinvent the Lady Bountiful in his first major act as Minister in 1988?
    Mr. Scott: I do not claim—and I do not suppose that the Prime Minister would—that the social fund is perfect. I do claim that it is better than any of its predecessors in meeting exceptional need in exceptional circumstances. I recognise the local pressures which the hon. Gentleman perceives, but I reiterate that we endeavour to see that the resources allocated reflect the need in the localities. That is why South Glamorgan had an extra 10 per cent. allocated in August 1991 and another £50,000 in loans only a week or so ago. We try to ensure that any surplus resources are reallocated sensibly and flexibly.
    Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if he were to convert all loans under the social fund to grants, as has been promised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the cost would be about £130 million and would greatly prejudice the operation of the social fund as it now works?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly understand my hon. Friend's point. I have heard suggestions that that will be Labour party policy, but I have not heard whether the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury agrees with such a policy.
    Dr. Kumar: If the Minister genuinely believes in the equitable distribution of the social fund, may I invite him to review cold weather payments, because the senior citizens in my area of east Cleveland have lost out during the past week? In addition, how are cold weather benefits assessed in the first place?
    Mr. Scott: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the trouble both to read my announcement about the improvements in cold weather payments this year and to go to the Library to see how those allocations are made. All the information is there for him to find. In one of our coldest winters for the past 20 years, the system has been operating successfully and flexibly. I believe that the
    10
    linkages to the meteorological stations have operated more effectively than hitherto. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a particular point about his locality, he should write to me about it and I shall ensure that account is taken of his views.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Sir David Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he has made to ensure that existing recipients of attendance allowance and mobility allowance receive disability living allowance in April.
    Mr. Scott: All attendance allowance beneficiaries aged under 65 and all mobility allowance beneficiaries will transfer automatically to the equivalent level of disability living allowance. We are writing to all existing claimants to let them know how the change will affect them. We are also inviting claimants who currently receive only one of the two existing benefits, and consequently will transfer to only one component of DLA to consider claiming the other component.
    Sir David Price: Will those in the third category, who are claiming extra money to help with personal care and who do not currently receive attendance allowance, have their claims determined by an adjudication officer or a medical practitioner? Will social factors be given equal weight with medical factors when determining such claims?
    Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We shall be substantially demedicalising—to use my word—the whole process for claiming both the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance, and moving to judgments made by adjudication officers. That, in itself, will be an important step forward, but perhaps even more important is the fact that, because of the change, there will for the first time be a proper appeals procedure for those who need help with care.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In attempting to ensure that people are made aware of the DLA, which is something that we all want, will the Minister ensure that there is effective and efficient management? Although I realise that he cannot know of a particular incident that has been drawn to my attention today, is he aware that information has been sent to deceased claimants, thus causing a great deal of distress to the families concerned? If that was an isolated incident I am sure that the Minister will join me in apologising for it, but will he look at distribution methods to ensure that such incidents do not happen on any scale?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly apologise for distress caused by any such incident. We have sent out more than 1 million letters to individual customers to advise them of the change that we are making and the benefits inquiry line has provided back-up information for those who have received such letters. We are doing our best, but I suppose that when something of this scale is embarked upon, it is almost inevitable that the occasional mistake will be made. I repeat that I am sorry if any distress has been caused.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that spending on disability benefits by this Government has

    11
    increased by over 150 per cent., in contrast to the policies advocated by the Labour party, the priorities of which are pensions and child benefits?
    Mr. Scott: I believe that the Government can be proud of their record on benefits for disabled people over the past 12 years. My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the progress that has already been made. The introduction of the two new benefits will help more than 300,000 people at a cost of about £300 million.

    Disability Working Allowance
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the new disability working allowance will come into operation.
    Mr. Scott: Disability working allowance will start on 7 April. The new benefit will be widely publicised from this week onwards. Claims can be made from 10 March 1992.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this new benefit will be widely welcomed? Will he confirm that if we had adopted a scatter-gun approach to benefits, as the Labour Government did, the substantial improvements in help for the disabled since 1979 would not have been possible? Can he say by how much the groups affected by the scheme will have benefited in those years?
    Mr. Scott: As an earlier supplementary question made clear, we have increased expenditure on long-term sick and disabled people by 150 per cent. during the period of this Government at an annual rate of about £550 million compared with about £350 million under the Labour Government, using real-terms figures. Therefore, we have made substantial progress. What is more, we have sought to identify areas of disability that in the past have not had the attention that they deserve, and to meet them with the new benefits.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What will the Minister say to people who will receive the new allowance from April when they learn that last Friday a Conservative Back Bencher talked out the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Was that done with implied or expressed connivance of the Government? In any event, will the Minister condemn it?
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman took pains to read my speech on Friday and see my remarks, he would understand my approach to the matter. The Bill came on second, had less than two hours debate and, according to the normal customs and practices of this House, did not receive a Second Reading. We should see how well efforts to encourage and persuade employers to take note of the needs and the abilities of disabled people to contribute to their enterprises do, before we consider the need for further legislation.

    National Insurance
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many (a) men and (b) women pay national insurance contributions at the upper earnings limit.
    Mr. Jack: On average, 3 million men and nearly 500,000 women who are employed or self-employed will pay national insurance contributions at the upper limit during 1991–92.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that any proposal to abolish the upper limit on national insurance contributions would mean that millions of people who could never remotely be regarded as rich would pay a great deal more in contributions and get nothing extra in benefits?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. It is interesting that he talks of people getting nothing for their additional contributions in the very week when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) writes an article in a magazine in praise of the contributory principle—indeed, in praise of Beveridge in this the 50th anniversary of his excellent proposals.
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is very efficient.
    Mr. Jack: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman says that I am very efficient because that is what we in the Department of Social Security strive to be.
    We now know that the Opposition's approach to national insurance would mean a something-for-nothing society. My hon. Friend points to a further interesting fact: although the figures that I gave were 100 per cent. correct, I would estimate that during five years of any Parliament as we see earnings increase perhaps an additional 500,000 people would be swept into this disreputable proposal from the Labour Benches.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Has my hon. Friend considered consulting people such as members of the Secondary Heads Association to see whether all the heads of comprehensive schoools in my constituency would relish the idea of paying an extra 9 per cent. from their earnings, if the upper limit were removed? While he is at it, he might consult about increased levels of taxation, because secondary heads will not like that.
    Mr. Jack: I should be delighted if my hon. Friend's constituents would care to drop me a note with information on their individual salaries. I could do a little costing exercise for them. I am sure that they, like senior nurses, managers, middle managers and other experienced teachers, will all think carefully about what my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) has said. He has put before the House an illustration of how the Labour party wants to increase the cost of national insurance. Even under the old Labour scheme somebody on £130 a week would pay £26 in national insurance—employers and employees contributions combined—whereas under the Conservative proposals somebody on the same earnings would pay only £19·24. We will stick by our national insurance arrangements.

    Pensioners (Savings)
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average pensioner's income from savings.
    Miss Widdecombe: The latest figure, for 1988, shows that the average pensioner's income from savings is £19·90 per week.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that many pensioners have built up savings throughout their lives, partly from income and, occasionally, from redundancy payments, and that it is rare that that income from savings is unearned? Is she aware of the great unease among pensioners about the fact that an additional surcharge may be put on their fairly modest level of income from savings? Will she confirm for those pensioners that their savings are safe with us?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, I would say that savings in general are safe with us. Those who are most likely to be affected by the Labour party's proposals to surcharge savings are those who are just coming up to retirement. They will want to save, but they will not enjoy the exemptions provided to pensioners. They have reached the crucial point at which they can save because they have discharged other liabilities, but they will find such saving difficult.
    On savings, the one thing that we do not want is a return to the Labour Government's policies of the 1970s. We do not want to see pensioners' or anybody else's savings eroded by the inflation levels sustained by the then Labour Government. It is worth noticing that since the Government came to power, pensioners' income from savings has risen by 8·6 per cent. It would be a dim prospect for them if we returned to the policies of the Labour party.

  THE ARTS

    Arts Sponsorship
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to improve sponsorship of the arts.
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the operation of the business sponsorship incentive scheme.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): The business sponsorship incentive scheme has been a great success and I am giving further encouragement to sponsorship of the arts by increasing its budget by £1 million a year to £4·5 million. From April this year, second-time sponsors will be matched by £1 of BSIS money to every £2 of extra sponsorship. Businesses that have sponsored for more than three years will also be brought back into the scheme.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although business sponsorship of the arts is extremely important and welcome, it would be just as beneficial for the arts, particularly local theatres such as the Civic theatre in Chelmsford, if we had a national lottery to which everyone could contribute to help to raise funds for the arts? Can he confirm whether he will use his immense powers of persuasion to try to obtain a manifesto commitment to a national lottery?
    Mr. Renton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to Chelmsford borough council for their regular support of the Civic theatre. I agree with my hon. Friend about the usefulness of a national lottery. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave a warm welcome to the principle of a national lottery when he spoke in the House the other day. I am sure that the revenue from such a lottery could,
    14
    for example, be useful for the repair of existing theatres and in helping to commission new arts buildings in the years ahead.
    Mr. Sims: I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend was not able to accept my invitation to attend the concert of the Royal Choral Society on a European theme at the Festival hall on 7 March, particularly as I hope to take part in it. However, I understand his commitments. Is he aware that that concert is possible only because it is being sponsored by St. Ivel with a matching grant from the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts—ABSA? That is a good example of the continuing success of the scheme.
    Mr. Renton: I am very sorry that I will not be able to attend the concert at which my hon. Friend will be singing. He always sings in close harmony in the House, and I am sure that his voice will be harmonious on 7 March. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, because the significant fact about St. Ivel's sponsorship is that it is a perfect example of sponsorship working very well and of the use of the business sponsorship incentive scheme, which I just mentioned.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: I accept the valuable role played by the Minister, but does he accept that, although sponsorship is valuable, even more important is the fact that institutions such as the Royal Opera House cannot go much further in the sponsorship race and will require funding? Will he now look at those matters seriously because, in the present recession, those institutions are in a grievous plight about which the Minister must do something?
    Mr. Renton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for recognising the value that I have put into the arts. I appreciate his comment. However, we have just had the third record increase in the amount of money that the Government have given to the Arts Council of Great Britain, which is directly responsible for passing on such moneys to the Royal Opera House, the Birmingham Royal Ballet and other companies. The increase for the year that has just begun is 14 per cent.—a further £27 million. I am delighted that that has happened, because it shows the Government's firm commitment to the cause of the arts throughout the country.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I believe that the Minister will soon come to the London borough of Newham on an official visit to hear about our arts policy. I hope that that does not come as a total surprise to him, as it appears to. His visit will give us an opportunity to show him the problems in getting sponsorship from businesses in an area like the east end of London. The recession is one of the problems and the sheer absence of businesses is another. Will the Minister therefore consider a way to equalise national sponsorship from business, so that areas with few opportunities can derive some of the benefits from areas with ample opportunities?
    Mr. Renton: The reason why I consulted my brief was because I am to visit the Young Vic shortly and I was not certain whether the hon. Gentleman would appear on the stage or in the audience on that occasion. He is a natural actor and I thought that he might have a part in the play. May I remind him that the London Arts Board, which has just taken over from Greater London Arts, is settling

    15
    down well to the work of funding arts associations throughout London. It is extremely well led by Clive Priestley as chairman and Tim Mason as director. I hope that the London borough grants scheme, which got into such a terrible muddle last year, will do much better this year in awarding available money to London boroughs.

    British Library
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will meet the chairman of the British library to discuss resources.
    Mr. Renton: I meet the chairman of the British library regularly. Our discussions include the library's resources and other matters of interest of the board.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister confirm that the British library's acquisitions budget has been cut by 41 per cent. in real terms, resulting in thousands of scientific periodicals no longer being stocked? Are not the Government bungling the building of the new British library, with expensive delays and omissions? In particular, is not the lack of reading space a fiasco, with the new reading room providing only 7 per cent. more space than the old one? In those circumstances, is not Treasury pressure to sell off the spare land on the site a national disgrace? [Interruption.] My last point—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One question please.
    Mr. Renton: The acquisitions budget for 1992–93 will be £250,000. The question of spare land is the subject of a study by the British Library Board into what the British library's needs will be after the new St. Pancras building has been opened in 1996 and how needs may be satisfied. No land will be sold before 1994 and there is every intention of having a serious study before then. I regret the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the British library, because it will be a great new building. There are difficulties at present, particularly with regard to paintwork and shelves in the new basement, but, once complete, it will be one of the finest buildings built in this country this century.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister now answer my hon. Friend's excellent point about why the Government have cut the acquisitions budget of the British library by 41 per cent. in real terms in the past four years? If the British library is, as the Minister said, the greatest English language library in the world, why are the Government not providing acquisition money or adequate transitional money? Why has the Minister deliberately blocked the money promised by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce), who promised in May 1990 that the Government would make money available for works of art for the opening of that new building? The Government are neglecting what should be a great jewel in the British crown.
    Mr. Renton: I understand why the hon. Gentleman may be frothing at the mouth at the thought that, after all the years that he has spent preparing as shadow arts Minister, were the Labour party to be elected—horror of horrors—it would not be him but Melvyn "Time to Dance" Bragg who would be Labour's arts Minister. That must be a
    16
    disappointment. There would be loud applause for the suggestion from Labour Back Benchers, but he has my sympathy.
    We are giving grant in aid next year of £65·4 million to the British library—
    Mr. Steen: A great deal of money.
    Mr. Renton: As my hon. Friend says, it is a great deal of money. How the British library decides its acquisitions budget, as distinct from other parts of its budget, is up to that organisation. But it is receiving a large amount of money—in addition, it receives £61 million specifically for the new St. Pancras project.

    Museums and Galleries (Improvements)
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will report on the museums and galleries improvement scheme.
    Mr. Renton: I am very pleased to announce that, thanks to the generosity of the Wolfson Foundation and family charitable trust, the museums and galleries improvement fund has been extended for a further two years to 1995–96. It is already supporting more than 100 projects.
    Mr. Steen: The whole House will want to congratulate the Minister on wresting the 14 per cent. increase in the arts budget from the Treasury. That will have a dramatic effect across the country as the money can be spent on all sorts of arts projects. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the 14 per cent. increase goes to arts projects—the museums and galleries improvement schemes and other proposals that his Department funds—and is not caught up in too much bureaucracy. I am particularly interested in the project in Dartington.
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend; I know of his interest in Dartington hall and the Cookworthy museum in Kingsbridge. I insisted that the large increase that I was able to give to the Arts Council of Great Britain be matched by a reduction in the administration costs between the council's headquarters and the regional arts boards. That meant that last year £1 million was knocked off the total administration budget so that as much as possible of that handsome increase should go to the artists and performers, not just in metropolitan London but throughout the country.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Executive Agencies
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the "next steps" programme.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): "Next steps" is progressing well. We plan to launch at least a dozen more agencies in April, when 50 per cent. of the civil service will be working fully on "next steps" lines. Agencies are achieving targets and are at the forefront of delivering the better services called for by the Government's citizens charter.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is it not absolutely clear that the "next steps" agency approach of the 1980s proved extremely successful in improving accountability, promoting a better

    17
    service to the public and giving agency employees greater job satisfaction? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the 1990s the citizens charter, particularly the charter mark, should continue and intensify those excellent developments?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I agree. I certainly hope that every executive agency will apply for a charter mark, which will be seen as a clear reward to those in public service who provide customer satisfaction, which all too often in the past has been sadly missing. That position has already changed with the executive agencies, and the improvement will be rewarded with the charter mark.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware of the increasing acts of violence and threats against Benefits Agency staff by claimants? Is he aware that there has been at least one case in which, having seen a name badge, a claimant looked in the phone book and traced the Benefits Agency employee to his home. Is it not about time to bring to a halt the silly idea which threatens the safety of Benefits Agency staff?
    Mr. Renton: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I have been to the Benefits Agency in my constituency, where the manager and staff made it plain to me that if staff were concerned about their safety they would not wear a name badge—but most of them want to because they want to be able to be identified by the public, so that if someone rings up a week later he can identify the person to whom he spoke a week before. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks more to the Benefits Agency in his constituency to persuade its members of the wisdom of adopting this course.

    Public Appointments Unit
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on progress in increasing the number of women registered with the public appointments unit.
    Mr. Renton: Yes, Sir. The number of women registered has increased from 18 per cent. of the total in 1986 to 33 per cent. in 1992. There are now clearly 2,000 women on our list. I welcome this increase.
    Mr. Coombs: I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome that increase, although there is clearly still a long way to go to reflect the fact that women constitute 51 per cent. of the population. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, just as the number of women on the list has increased, it is also important to increase the number of women appointed to various positions in the public service? Can he reassure the House that there is no risk of discrimination against women who possess excellent qualities when appointments are made to such positions?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Of course it takes time for the increased number of women on the list to work through into actual appointments, but one of the purposes behind the Prime Minister's initiative was to see that they did work through into actual appointments. Every Whitehall Department now has a nominated Minister who is specifically responsible for promoting equal opportunities in public appointments.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: If the Minister cannot tell us how many women have been appointed, will he tell us a statistic
    18
    that I am sure that he will know? How many of the extra women on the list are card-carrying members of the Conservative party?
    Mr. Renton: Unlike the Labour party and the Militant Tendency we tend not to have card-carrying women, but I can tell the hon. Lady, although I was not asked this question, that precisely 50 per cent. of those appointed to public bodies as a result of public appointments unit nomination this year are women.
    Sir John Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree, in the calmness of being on his own, that all this is just trendy nonsense? What we want in the public service are the best people, irrespective of whether they are men or women.
    Mr. Renton: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend, whom I have known for many years and for whom I have a great affection, would agree that about half the best people are women.

    Unions (Morale and Recognition)
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of civil service unions to discuss morale and recognition.
    Mr. Renton: I meet civil service trade union representatives from time to time to discuss a variety of issues. It is the job of managers in Departments and agencies to achieve our aim of having an efficient, effective and well-motivated civil service.
    Mr. Fisher: When the Minister next meets the trade unions will he explain to them why the Government threatened not to recognise trade unions representing employees on Ministry of Defence property when those trade unions are affiliated to the Labour party? Will he remove that slur on the loyalty and patriotism of those employees and give a categorical assurance that there is nothing incompatible about membership of the Labour party and membership of the trade unions in question?
    Mr. Renton: Of course I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He knows the answer very well: the instance that he has mentioned was a matter for the Ministry of Defence, which looked further into the matter and decided not to pursue it.
    Dr. Marek: If that is so, will the Minister go a bit further? The Universities Funding Council is resisting recognition of civil service unions. Professor Graeme Davies, its chief executive, says that he does not want any unions in his building. What can the Minister do about such "ignorant and proud of it" behaviour?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman knows well that the UFC is not one of my responsibilities. I am surprised by what he says; if he cares to write to me or to the Secretary of State for Education and Science I will certainly have the matter looked into.

    Executive Agencies
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what initiatives are being taken to introduce private sector practices into agencies.
    Mr. Renton: The "next steps" initiative is making use of the best and most appropriate management practices from

    19
    all sectors, such as contracting out, recruitment of chief executives from the private sector, performance pay, publication of reports and accounts, customer surveys, trading funds, and financial flexibility to carry money between financial years.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most museums in the private sector have opening hours that suit the wishes of the public—the consumers and customers—whereas museums in the public sector tend to have opening hours that suit the wishes of the trade unions? Will he see what he can do to persuade the public sector to follow the private sector's practice in this case?
    Mr. Renton: I take my hon. Friend's point about the independent museums. In defence of some of my clients in the national museums and galleries, I should point out that, for example, the Victoria and Albert museum has been able to extend its opening hours. One of the reasons why it has been able to do so is its policy of charging for special exhibitions. Therefore, I regret Labour's stated intention of abolishing all museums charges, because that would remove from museums the opportunity to be flexible about staying open later, to improve services and generally to meet the added requirements of the public.

    Civil Servants
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants in employment at the latest date are (a) men or (b) women.
    Mr. Renton: All of them.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that when the Property Services Agency is privatised, many men and women will lose their jobs? Will he also condemn the scandalous proposal that when the PSA is privatised, up to £85 million of taxpayers' money should be handed over by the Government to Tarmac, which will take it over, so that any proposed redundancies of men and women in the PSA will be paid not by the privatising company but by the taxpayer? Since that is nothing short of a swindle, should not the Minister stop it?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the privatisation of PSA are fanciful and ridiculous in the extreme. Speaking of that, I wonder just what the hon. Gentleman had in mind when he tabled this question. Even with his fancifulness, it is hard to imagine the civil service employing anyone who is not either a man or a woman.

President Yeltsin and UN Security Council
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about President Yeltsin's visit to London on 30 January and about the special meeting of the UN Security Council in New York on 31 January. I was accompanied to New York by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
Both meetings came at an important time in Russia's relationship with the rest of the world and at a critical time for world peace and stability. Russia has, in President Yeltsin's own words, thrown off the shackles of communism. She remains a nuclear super-power. As such, and as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, she has world responsibilities. It is essential for our own peace and security that Russia continues to play the positive role on which President Gorbachev embarked and which President Yeltsin is set to continue and to develop. I believe that we should offer them our support in this.
I called the meeting in New York during our chairmanship of the Security Council so that the council could meet at the highest level to reaffirm and develop its commitment to peacekeeping and peacemaking. The timing was particularly apt following the appointment of a new Secretary-General and with Russia taking the seat in the Security Council formerly held by the Soviet Union. The meeting was successful, and I should like to highlight the key points.
This was the first time in the 47 years of its history that the UN had met at the top level. For the first time ever, the Heads of State and Government of the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain sat around the same table and pledged themselves, with the other members of the council, to collective security, to international law and to our commitments under the United Nations' charter.
A statement was agreed by all the members of the Security Council. Copies are in the Library of the House. In it we reaffirmed that all disputes between states should be resolved peacefully in accordance with the provisions of the charter. We committed ourselves to the fight against terrorism. We asked the Secretary-General to make recommendations for a more effective role for the United Nations as peacekeeper and as peacemaker. Under article 99 of the charter, the Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. We hope the new Secretary-General will use those powers. He will report to us within six months with his recommendations. We committed ourselves to arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation and to the conclusion of a chemical weapons convention this year. The council endorsed the idea put forward by the British Government, and recently endorsed by the General Assembly, of a UN register of conventional arms transfers.
During his visit to London, President Yeltsin noted that Britain had been the first country to denounce the August coup, and the first to recognise Russia; the first to propose
22
Russian membership of the International Monetary Fund; the first to propose an April deadline for that membership; and the first to support a stabilisation fund for the rouble.
It is essential that Russia join the IMF at the earliest opportunity, and I believe that a stabilisation fund may need to follow if Russia is to have a prospect of establishing a successful market economy. There is, of course, a financial cost in this, but the cost of failure and a return to dictatorship and the cold war would be infinitely higher. It is in our national interest and in the interests of the west as a whole to help Russia, and we shall continue to take a lead in doing so. I undertook to make it one of the priorities of our presidency of the European Community later this year to carry through an improved trade and co-operation agreement with Russia.
In our discussion of arms control issues, President Yeltsin committed Russia to further significant reductions in the Russian strategic and international arsenal. I told him that we had already committed ourselves to a cut of one half in our sub-strategic nuclear weapons and to smaller conventional forces. I told him also that Britain's only strategic weapon would be the minimum deterrent constituted by Trident. President Yeltsin accepted that Trident was indeed a minimum deterrent and that the focus of arms control negotiations should be on the arsenal of the two super-powers.
We agreed to co-operate in handling surplus Soviet weapons and in safeguarding nuclear materials. I offered to send a technical mission to Moscow to assess the immediate needs at first hand. I have also offered to send a small number of officials from the Ministry of Defence to the Russian Ministry of Defence to advise on the restructuring and control and financing of armed forces in a democratic society. We discussed the problem of the possible leakage of expertise from Russia in the field of weapons of mass destruction. President Yeltsin has made proposals for handling this problem, and we have offered our help as part of an international effort.
The President and I agreed to establish a secure telephone link between our two offices. This is not meant as a crisis hot-line; it will enable us to conduct the significant amount of business we have to undertake.
We signed a joint declaration—the text of which is in the Library of the House—on relations between our two countries. It will form the basis of a treaty which the President and I hope to sign during the official visit to Britain which he will make later this year. It will be the first such treaty since 1766.
This is a time of great hope in international affairs, but also of uncertainty and potential instability. The two meetings on which I have reported to the House have shown our determination to work for a safer world and a new partnership with Russia in the cause of peace.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: In thanking the Prime Minister for his statement, may I first confirm our welcome for President Yeltsin's visit to London and for the United Nations Heads of Government meeting?
May I also take this opportunity to wish the new United Nations Secretary-General success in his efforts to prepare recommendations for improvement in the preventative diplomacy, peacemaking and peacekeeping capacities of the United Nations?
There is clearly force in Mr. Yeltsin's view that greater support for economic development is essential for political stability and for the prevention of any possibility of a

23
return to totalitarianism and militarism in the former Soviet Union. Will the Prime Minister therefore tell us what specific proposals he has made for supporting economic projects in the republics of the former Soviet Union, particularly in the distribution industries, which are obviously of basic importance to economic growth and to the development of markets?
The Government's announced change of policy on export credit facilities for the republics of the former Soviet Union is welcome, but can the Prime Minister clarify the extent and the effectiveness of these changes in practice, as it appears that the conditions limiting the operation of those credit guarantees is likely to make them unusable for several years to come?
May I express my satisfaction that the Prime Minister does not now take the reluctant attitude towards the establishment of a rouble stabilisation fund that he did in July and August last year when I put that proposal to him? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what support he is receiving from other G7 countries for his recent endorsement of a rouble stabilisation fund?
Can the Prime Minister say also whether he has encouraged discussion of the establishment in the new democracies of a payments union similar to that which played such an important part in western Europe's recovery after the second world war?
Following his contact with Mr. Yeltsin and with other leaders of former Soviet republics and Warsaw pact countries, does the Prime Minister accept the need for a co-ordinated international aid and support programme—a modern Marshall plan—as proposed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe? Does he not agree that such a programme could, amongst other things, establish an effective linkage between western support for economic development and the response from the newly independent states in terms of schedules for comprehensive, verifiable, and quicker disarmament?
I endorse the Prime Minister's request to the Security Council that all member nations "commit" themselves
"anew to … reinforced measures of arms control."
With that in mind, can the Prime Minister tell the House what his response is to President Yeltsin's call for Britain, France, and China to participate in the process of international negotiations for reduction in strategic nuclear weapons? What is the Prime Minister doing to promote a comprehensive test ban treaty, and what proposals does he have for strengthening the nonproliferation treaty?
The Prime Minister's declarations of support for the United Nations are, as ever, to be commended. I therefore invite him to express his regret that, according to the figures published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last week, United Kingdom support for United Nations development agencies has been cut by 38 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has any intention of reversing such cuts? Does he not agree that, without such a radical break with his previous policies, his statement that
"a new situation in the world needs new ideas and a new impetus"
will not carry much conviction?
I welcome the Prime Minister's use of the words "partners and friends" to describe the relationship with the new democracies. We on this side of the House will
24
continue to propose and to support policies which give practical effect to the hope for a new and durable world order of peace, liberty, and prosperity which was expressed again at the United Nations last week.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for President Yeltsin's visit, and for the broad welcome that he gave to the outcome of last week's United Nations meeting. I am pleased that we have a joint view on so many matters of such importance.
As to economic support, one noticeable difference in the circumstances within the former Soviet Union over the past few weeks is that the price of a liberalisation programme has been put in place. That is a vitally necessary component of creating a free and open market there—but it necessarily brings with it great short-term difficulties. It was an immensely brave step for President Yeltsin to take, and on that basis I believe that it is right for the United Kingdom to change its policy on a rouble stabilisation fund—as an indication that we are prepared to support the reform programme that is now in place.
There will be need for support in that fashion, and that can satisfactorily come only through the International Monetary Fund. For that reason, I proposed that Russia should join the fund, and that has the support of other members. We propose that that process should be concluded not later than April, but it is immensely to be hoped that it can be done far more speedily. Once Russia is a member of the International Monetary Fund, that will make it possible for Russia to receive sustantial assistance in cash to deal not only perhaps with a stabilisation fund but balance of payments support—which I personally suspect will be needed in the Soviet Union. It is equally likely that Russia will need ECGD or comparative support in the months and years ahead, not just from this country but from others.
Let me respond to the specific ECGD point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. We have announced the availability, for Russia and the other republics, of £280 million worth of ECGD support this year, but that is dependent on an IMF programme's being in place. I hope that that will be the case not later than April; it may well be a good deal earlier. The arrangement is also dependent on the Russian republic's continuing to meet its debt obligations in the future, as in the past.
As for the arms control matters, we have been working to improve the measures of arms control. During my discussions with President Yeltsin, he explicitly accepted the disproportion between the British nuclear deterrent, Trident, and the nuclear capacity that will be available to the Soviet Union even after it has carried out the reductions to which it has committed itself, and which will take a decade or more to implement. That point was explicitly recognised by President Yeltsin in our private discussions, and also acknowledged in public after our meeting.
The United Kingdom has spoken bilaterally to a number of countries about the non-proliferation treaty. We have raised it through the United Nations, and we see the United Nations as the primary focus for encouraging a much wider group of countries to sign the treaty and abide by it. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have made very large contributions to the development agencies, and we shall continue to do so.
As for the question of partnership and friendship in the 1990s, the joint declaration that we signed sets out a series

25
of bases on which we can improve our relationship with Russia. We intend that joint declaration to be turned, during this year, into a comprehensive treaty between Russia and the United Kingdom—the first that we have had since 1766.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a Back-Benchers' day, and a motion has been tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). I shall allow questions to continue until 4.30. I hope to be able to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak before then, provided that single, brief questions are asked.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, through his energy and skill, he has now given a powerful send-off to the new United Nations and its new Secretary-General in the very complex and difficult tasks that we expect the UN to have to face in the post-cold-war world?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that much the most important and immediate task now faced by the international order is to ensure that there is not a quantum leap in the number of countries with access to smaller, tactical and battlefield nuclear weapons and nuclear warheads? Will he assure us that everything will be done, as a matter of urgency—both by this country and by the Security Council and its agencies—to ensure that that task is tackled, collectively, with the utmost vigour? Failure now would involve colossal cost later.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind welcome for what has been achieved.
I think that there are two aspects to the question of a quantum leap in nuclear weapons. First, there is the success of the non-proliferation treaty, and the inhibition on extra states' developing a nuclear capability; secondly, there is ensuring that the nuclear capability—particularly the sub-strategic capability—that is at present spread throughout the republics of the former Soviet Union remains under strong control, is brought together and is dismantled at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that many people in Great Britain greatly welcome the fact that the first Heads of Government meeting in the United Nations' history was chaired by a British Prime Minister? Does he further realise that what will also have been welcomed and noted is the difference in attitude between the Prime Minister and that of his predecessor towards the United Nations? Those of us who have criticised the Government's and western nations' lack of urgency in providing appropriate assistance to the Soviet Union will also welcome the new steps and the energy that is being shown in this area
If, as the Prime Minister rightly says, the protection of non-proliferation is the absolute key to world peace, why are the Government seeking to increase the number of nuclear warheads that are carried on Trident, when they have the option of keeping the number the same, at a time when the rest of the world is decreasing them? How can it be consistent— perhaps the Prime Minister will answer the question now, since he did not answer the Leader of the Opposition—for the Prime Minister's policy to be as expressed in the statement but for that policy to be opposed to a comprehensive test ban treaty?
26
Finally, if the Prime Minister says, as he rightly does, that one of the centrepieces of reshaping the United Nations so that it can cope with the new challenges to world peace is to strengthen the United Nations' peacekeeping capacity, why is it that the Government are, I am told, $8 million in arrears with their dues towards United Nations' peacekeeping?
The Prime Minister: On the first of the right hon. Gentleman's three points—how many nuclear warheads we have—he knows that we have never indicated how many warheads there will actually be: I do not believe that it would be in the interests of our security for us to do so. However, we shall maintain the minimum necessary. That has always been our position, and I reaffirm it again today.
As for the nuclear test ban treaty, for as long as it is necessary for us to have nuclear weapons, we require the ability to test and we propose to keep the ability to test. For Opposition Members to suggest that we should have nuclear weapons but not the ability to test shows how little they understand the responsibility that lies with a nuclear power.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem faced by the United Nations in recent decades has been entanglement in east-west confrontation and that at this stage of its development it does not need to embark on an extremely controversial and difficult period of structural reform but should make greater use not only of the United Nations charter but of the existing United Nations machinery? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that we need greater United Nations intervention in the sovereign affairs of sovereign states—as in Iraq, where there is gross violation of human rights and massive oppression of minorities?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend's second point. In the Gulf war the United Nations played a part of immense importance. I hope that in similar circumstances in the future it would do so again. I share also my hon. Friend's view about the reform of the United Nations. There are parts of the United Nations that certainly could work better. We are keen to help them to do so, but the Security Council is working well and reform is neither necessary nor desirable.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Did the Prime Minister discuss the anti-ballistic missile treaty? Is not the United States trying to scrap the ABM treaty so that it can push on with its star wars programme? Does the Prime Minister agree that we do not want the militarisation of space, and that in any case it is not needed? Will he put his weight against that treaty being abrogated?
The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman is chairman of the Labour party's defence committee and that therefore he is a specialist in these matters. On the ABM treaty, he will know that the United States is also talking to Russia about acting jointly in that matter.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: May I enthusiastically welcome the enhanced role for the United Nations, particularly the excellent choice for its new Secretary-General? My right hon. Friend will be aware, however, that contributions to the main United Nations budget have not in the past always been paid on time or in full, even by members of the Security Council. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the additional funds

27
that the United Nations needs to carry out these increased responsibilities will be provided by the members of the United Nations?
The Prime Minister: I cannot answer for other members of the United Nations, but in our meeting last week I certainly drew attention to the necessity for ensuring that the United Nations had the right financial and material aid to complete the tasks that we have set it.
Mr. Tom Clarke: The Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) that the Government make a large contribution to the UN development agencies, but he must be aware that our contribution has been cut by 38 per cent. since 1979. What would happen if other advanced nations did the same? When do the Government expect to meet the target for overseas aid of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product?
The Prime Minister: Before the hon. Gentleman lectures me about the 0·7 per cent. commitment, he should bear in mind that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that that is an aspiration and not a commitment. There is no indication that the Labour party would meet it.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although I welcome the economic measures to assist the Soviet Union—granted, as he rightly says, because of the courage of President Yeltsin in implementing his reforms—the other side of the coin is that it would have been a terrible mistake if we had jumped the gun and granted the assistance before the reforms were implemented? It is unlikely that Boris Yeltsin would be implementing those reforms if we had jumped the gun, as the Opposition wanted.
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The important fact is that President Yeltsin is there now, and we have an obligation to assist him; it is in our own interests to do so.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is not one of the most serious threats to stability and peace in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union the presence of large minorities within the new states that do not necessarily recognise those states? I realise the major problem of recognising new borders, but did the members of the Security Council discuss new machinery or initiatives to deal with those potentially tremendous conflicts? Yugoslavia was the most extreme case, but there are many other examples that could threaten stability in central and eastern Europe.
The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the potential causes of instability, but that was not the subject of our discussion last Friday and it was not discussed other than in the margins of the meeting.
Mr. Michael Mates: May I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that he has agreed to President Yeltsin's request to send advisers to help the Russians with the traumatic changes that they must make to their armed forces as a result of the change in the situation? Will he instruct them to explore further the possibility of greater co-operation so
28
that we can work, train and perhaps exercise with the Russian forces? It is becoming clear, day by day, that our interests and theirs are growing more and more together in our determination to achieve stability in the new Europe.
The Prime Minister: We are content to explore any and all of those matters; indeed, a number of them have been the subject of detailed discussion. We have agreed in principle on some completely new ideas of co-operation between Britain and the Russian defence ministries and the armed forces, in particular on the handling of military budgets, co-ordination between military and civilians, accountability to Parliaments and such matters.
On the safe disposal of nuclear weapons—a critically important matter to the House and elsewhere—NATO made a general offer of co-operation in December. I again offered our bilateral co-operation to President Yeltsin last week, and we are prepared to make United Kingdom expertise available to the Russians.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Prime Minister rightly emphasised the question of non-proliferation. Why, therefore, does he continue his nuclear fatalism through his pursuit of the Trident programme, which increases the number of nuclear warheads on Polaris from 192 to 512? He may wish to confirm or deny those figures. How does that set an example to countries that he wishes to discourage from adopting nuclear deterrence? If he believes in friendship and partnership, at whom will we be pointing the Trident warheads?
The Prime Minister: I dealt with the first part of the hon. Lady's question in reply to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). She will recall that Britain halved its sub-strategic nuclear weaponry only last year.
Sir Peter Blaker: Is it not clear that the welcome improved prospects for an effective United Nations are due to the Soviet Union's abandonment in the late 1980s of the aim of intimidating western Europe into submission and expanding its power generally? Was not that change in turn due to a realisation by the Soviet Government that the Governments of western countries, particularly the British Government, were not going to adopt a policy of one-sided nuclear disarmament, despite the urgings of Opposition Members?
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's analysis on that point. I think that the right decisions were taken in recent years on the deployment of cruise and other nuclear matters, and we are now seeing the benefit of that.
Mr. Chris Mullin: How can the Prime Minister possibly justify spending £23,000 million in capital and maintenance on a missile system which does not work properly, which does not deter, which is not independent and against whom there is now no one to target it?
The Prime Minister: I do not accept the figure, I do not accept the analysis, and I do not accept the premise.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most important subjects on which he obviously made so much progress with President Yeltsin was that of non-proliferation? Can he tell the House a little more about any plans that he and the Government may have to recruit or to find peaceful

29
employment for some of the rocket scientists and nuclear experts of Russia and, perhaps, even of the Ukraine? It seems to many of us that that would be one way to limit the spread of nuclear know-how which could be one of the longer term dangers of the issue.
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I discussed the question of the nuclear scientists with President Yeltsin last Thursday. He has put forward some interesting ideas for international centres to redeploy nuclear scientists on civilian work. We have agreed to examine that with him and to see in what way the United Kingdom and other countries can help Russia and the other republics in the Commonwealth of Independent States to use the talents of their nuclear scientists for peaceful purposes.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister rule out United Nations military action against Libya?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the vast quantity of surplus conventional and chemical weaponry held by the former Soviet Union states? Did he attempt to get undertakings from President Yeltsin that he would use his best endeavours to ensure that they resist the temptation to sell that weaponry to unreliable states in the middle east and elsewhere?
The Prime Minister: I am able to say to my right hon. Friend that I raised that matter with President Yeltsin very forcibly indeed.
Mr. Kevin Barron: I am sure that the House will agree that the United Nations' enhanced role in the issues that the Prime Minister has mentioned will be most welcome. However. as that role will need to be funded, does he support the Government's policy of cutting aid to the United Nations development agencies by 38 per cent. since 1979? Does not he think that we are a bad example to tell people to act through the United Nations when we as a Government have failed to do so?
The Prime Minister: We have been one of the foremost supporters of the United Nations, and the Government have played the prime role in enhancing the position of the United Nations in the past few years.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust leadership of the United Nations last week. Was he able to discuss with President Yeltsin the problems of the old Soviet bureaucracy in Russia and the way in which it is inhibiting the ability of the people of Russia to receive the aid that they deserve? Will he consider setting up in Moscow a unit composed of people from British industry, from the British Government and from the British-Soviet Chamber of Commerce to try to help the Russians receive the aid that is being held from them by the stupidity of their bureaucracy?
The Prime Minister: One of the principal difficulties faced by the Russians at present is that they have no effective distribution system whatsoever to deal with the aid that is available to them. That distribution system fails at the bureaucratic level and in terms of the direct transport available. That is a matter of discussion between
30
the Russians and the European Community at present, and the Community has stated its willingness and ability to assist.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister reconsider his answer on nuclear tests? Does he realise that, statistically, the one test a year that Britain carries out is not sufficient to verify that our bombs would work if, tragically, they were ever to be used? However, one test a year causes major increases in radiation and problems of cancer. The Prime Minister's answer is wholly illogical, as he would say that if there were one nuclear weapon left in the world there should be tests. Is it not time that we followed the Russians and went for a permanent test ban for all weapons?
The Prime Minister: I do not feel inclined to reconsider my earlier answer. It is necessary to have a minimum level of testing, which is precisely what we have. We test for safety reasons, and it is right that we do so. We will continue to do so.
Sir Peter Hordern: Given the scale of the problem both in the size of the capital required and in the need to stabilise the rouble, does my right hon. Friend agree that the International Monetary Fund is by far the best body to deal with the problems? How soon can Russia become a member of the IMF? Does it not to some extent depend on the willing co-operation of the United States? Is the IMF not far and away the best organisation to deal with such matters, given its long experience of dealing with the ravages of socialism?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that the IMF is by far the best organisation to assist in the circumstances. I hope that Russia can become a member speedily—in any event, not later than April. I assure my hon. Friend that the United States also supports Russia's membership of the IMF.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I welcome the Prime Minister's decision to consider a stabilisation fund for the republics. That is a major and important development. What are his preliminary views on the conditionality that would have to apply to the republics if such a fund were set up?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his earlier remarks. The conditionality must be determined in the light of the IMF discussions with the Russians when we shall have a clearer view of precisely what Russia's needs are and of the capacity that Russia has to meet its current problems. Although I am sure that there will be conditionality of some sort, I believe that it is necessary to move as comprehensively and as speedily as possible to provide the rouble stabilisation fund and possibly other assistance as well.
Sir Robert Rhodes James: During his discussions with the new Secretary-General and with President Yeltsin, did my right hon. Friend raise the importance for the future of the United Nations of the restoration of the idea and the reality of the true international civil service? That was contained in the charter and some of us endeavoured to fulfil it. It has been fulfilled by certain individuals, the most conspicuous of whom is my former colleague and assistant Mr. Piccu.

31
That ideal and reality, opposed so bitterly by the former Soviet Union, surely should be restored as a major part of the future of the United Nations.
The Prime Minister: I did not discuss that particular matter with the Secretary-General or with any of the other United Nations officials. I share my hon. Friend's view that it is an important matter, and I will take an opportunity to discuss it in the future.
Mr. David Winnick: Some of us will be able very shortly to assess the position for ourselves. For the immediate period and during the winter months, is it not essential for food to get into the shops and, whatever problems there are with distribution, for the west and the other developed countries to help? Should we not make it clear when we are in the former Soviet Union that aid from the developed countries is conditional only on two factors—no going back to any form of dictatorship, and no armed conflict between the republics?
The Prime Minister: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said on both points. The food aid—the humanitarian aid—which is necessary now is unconditional; there can be no question of conditionality for the food aid. A substantial amount of that has already been delivered. There is a good deal more which is in the pipeline committed by the European Community but which is not yet in Russia. It is intended that it will go to Moscow and Leningrad and beyond those two major cities.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Is it not the case that the present serious conventional and nuclear arms reductions have been brought about by the twin policies of determination and constant vigilance, especially in this country and through its Government? Is not the success of those policies the answer to those who sought in the past or who will seek in the future to undermine those policies and to question the value of the nuclear deterrent?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no necessity to add to what he has said.
Mr. Keith Vaz: The Prime Minister told the House that the new Secretary-General is conducting a review of the machinery of the United Nations. As the chairman of the meeting, does the right hon. Gentleman have any thoughts of his own about which current members of the Security Council should give up their permanent seats and which other countries that seek permanent seats should be given those seats?
The Prime Minister: I see no need for change at the moment.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his historic initiative and speech. Does he agree that the central theme that emerged from the meeting was that proactive diplomatic intervention is always preferable to reactive military intervention? If that is to be acheived, and if there is a hope for the United Nations in the future, does he agree that that hope lies not so much in building up a United Nations army as in finding a common political cause among the members of the Security Council?
The Prime Minister: I agree, without reservation, with what my hon. Friend has said. Proactive diplomatic intervention is precisely what we increasingly see as the role of the United Nations. I hope that the report from the new Secretary-General will lead us further in that direction.
Mr. Peter Shore: This was clearly a successful and possibly historic meeting of the Security Council, but I am sure that the Prime Minister will accept that it is time that deeds followed words in a number of relevant international commitments. Therefore, was anything said either in the Security Council itself or, more probably, in the margins about bringing the Uruguay round to a successful conclusion, upon which success so much of the world's economic prosperity rests?
The Prime Minister: Not in the meetings because that is not the purpose of the Security Council. However, in the margins and in the bilaterals in New York, the Uruguay round was the matter that was first discussed with President Bush and other leaders. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that nothing is more important at the moment than the successful and speedy conclusion of the Uruguay round.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Does the Prime Minister agree that certain historic inherited tensions and forces must be overcome in the former Soviet Union if the objectives that were agreed last week are to be achieved? By what means are the reforms, the democratic achievements and the other agreements that were reached last week to be measured and implemented?
The Prime Minister: They must be implemented by the Russian Government and the Governments of the republics, but the framework of the economic reforms will no doubt be set by the International Monetary Fund in the report that it will submit before making available the loans that I expect to be made available. Once an IMF programme is in place, it is monitored by the International Monetary Fund.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, when he refused to answer an earlier question about Britain scabbing on its contributions to the United Nations fund to the tune of about $8 million, he was no different from somebody who refuses to pay the poll tax? Is it not ironic that, when Britain holds the chair of the United Nations, Britain is not up to date with its subs? Is it any wonder then that, despite not having nuclear power, Japan and Germany look like taking the United Kingdom's seat at the United Nations Security Council? What state have we reached when, after 13 years of Tory Government, Germany and Japan are pushing us out of the Security Council? What a sorry state we have reached.
The Prime Minister: We can always rely on the hon. Gentleman for a little light relief. We can rely on him also to sink below any occasion, as he has yet again this afternoon. No one is pushing the United Kingdom out of its Security Council seat, as I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who appeared to suggest that that might be desirable.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I welcome especially my right hon. Friend's commitment to a reinforced effort on the part of the United Nations in peacekeeping and peacemaking. In that regard, did my

33
right hon. Friend have the time, either in the margins or in bilateral meetings with his United States and French counterparts, to discuss progress in sending peacekeeping troops to Yugoslavia? Is there any prospect of that being acceptable in the Serb-dominated areas of Croatia?
The Prime Minister: No, that subject was not for discussion in New York on Friday, although it is under constant discussion among my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, his fellow Foreign Ministers in the European Community and the United Nations.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: On Russia's debt obligations, will the Prime Minister respond to the urgent pleas in private of President Yeltsin's advisers and consider the suspension of interest payments, at least in the short term? What is the point in giving money with one hand and taking it away with the other?
The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the Paris Club, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and it is best discussed there.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: In addition to the important issues of world citizenship and Government-to-Government relations, will my right hon. Friend consider, in recognising the 100 or so administrative regions within Russia, that it might help to get delegations from the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and local government at both officer and councillor levels to have seminars in Russia so that people can start breaking down the bureaucracy and make the system better able to deliver what is now needed there?
The Prime Minister: As ever, my hon. Friend has produced an intriguing idea.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the conditions of the export credit facilities? There seems to be a widely held view that, if the current conditions are maintained, Russia and the other former Soviet republics will not be able to take advantage of those facilities. It is obvious, too, that if the former republics are to revive economically, those export credit facilities must be used soon.
The Prime Minister: That, of course, is a reason why I am pressing for such an early IMF entry and IMF facilities. In that way the export credit facilities can be available not just from this country but from the other western countries that broadly take the same view.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the important role of the International Monetary Fund. In the autumn there were talks leading to some progress that might be made on Russia becoming a member. Was my right hon. Friend able to discuss with President Yeltsin the problems of the Ukraine? The other republics are undoubtedly severely affected by any problems with the rouble. For them, too, a rouble stabilisation fund would have a significant impact.
The Prime Minister: There was no detailed discussion of the position in the Ukraine or other republics because there were sufficient matters to discuss on Russia itself. The subject was touched on generally, and I understand my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Prime Minister believe that the imposition of massive food price rises and mass unemployment on the Russian people, together with his statement that we will spend £23 billion on the Trident missile system, represents anything but a backward step in a world that is already bitterly divided between north and south? What we need are economic and arms strategies that bring world justice and world peace. Do his policies do any of those things?
The Prime Minister: I believe that we are making progress, and so does President Yeltsin. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman dissents.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to tell President Yeltsin that in 1984 he was a member of the Government's Whips Office urging Conservative Members to vote for the deployment of Pershing and cruise missiles, which resulted in the end of the cold war, a major reduction in nuclear weapons and the election of President Yeltsin? Perhaps that does credit to my right hon. Friend's judgment.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is very ingenious. I did not mention that particular point. Had I done so, I could also have mentioned that some cruise missiles were stationed in my constituency.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I say how much we welcome the death-bed conversion of the Conservative Government to supporting the United Nations—something that we have done consistently? Will he direct himself to answering the question put to him several times this afternoon: how much money does the United Kingdom Government owe to the United Nations? Is it true that the United States owes hundreds of millions of dollars?
On a personal note, may I say, sadly, that I do not care which country the Prime Minister visits so long as he does not come to Stamford Bridge.
The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's good humour has been improved by Chelsea's result at Liverpool. It would seem not.
I cannot answer for other countries' arrears to the United Nations, although on Friday I made the point that I hoped that all countries would meet their obligations to the United Nations—
Mr. Banks: What about this one?
The Prime Minister: —including this one; and we do.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend say more about the enormous numbers of chemical weapons held in Russia and the former states of the Soviet Union? Does he agree that their elimination and that of other such stockpiles around the world must be a prerequisite of proper progress in wider world disarmament?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of our agreements at the Security Council was to seek a comprehensive chemical weapons ban this year.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Prime Minister recall that, five months before the start of the Gulf war, one of his Ministers, in an answer to me, refused to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspections of Iraq on the ground that Saddam Hussein

35
had signed the non-proliferation treaty? As such, the Government had full confidence that Saddam Hussein would not work on nuclear weapons. After that bitter experience, will the Prime Minister assure us that attempts to strengthen the IAEA safeguards will be real and serious and will remove the greatest danger that faces the world now—the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to countries ruled by people such as Saddam Hussein and other paranoid butchers?
The Prime Minister: I draw two lessons from what the hon. Gentleman said. First, at the moment, we are seeking to enhance the status of the IAEA, and, secondly, in view of the uncertainties that the hon. Gentleman set out, I believe he makes a very comprehensive case for this country keeping its own nuclear weapons.
Mr. Paul Boateng: Given the Prime Minister's stated commitment to improving the effectiveness of the United Nations and its agencies, when will Great Britain, once again, play a full and active part in UNESCO, bearing in mind the major reforms that have been carried out to that agency?
The Prime Minister: We play a full part in all the important aspects of the United Nations.
Mr. John Fraser: I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that one of the greatest threats to the survival of President Yeltsin is the fact that people are cold and hungry. What practical help did the Prime Minister offer the Russian oil industry—we have great experience in oil production—to enable it to earn hard currency and distribute its products more efficiently to its own people?
The Prime Minister: On Thursday, we did not discuss the particular question of the Russian oil industry, but there will be continuing discussions between this country and Russia to determine which areas of its economy we can assist. The oil industry may be one of them. In the time available on Thursday, we dealt with macro matters rather than the position of individual industries.

Points of Order
4.21 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on whether it is in order for the motion relating to the supplementary estimate for £450 million of unlawful expenditure, and the attached pledge to legislate to make that payment possible, to be on the Order Paper and considered by the House of Commons in any way?
The facts are clear and specific. The European Community's Council of Ministers has power to fix a budget and, of course, it has done that. The European Parliament has the power to increase that budget by a specified amount, specified by EC law, and it has done that. However, the European Parliament increased the budget even further, in breach of all EC legislation, as stated on page 8 of the estimate paper No. 182, published by the Treasury. The purpose of the supplementary estimate which we have been asked to consider is to provide the United Kingdom's share of that quite unlawful expenditure, which comes to £450 million.
I am aware that the House of Commons is all-powerful and can, by resolution, do almost anything it chooses. However, if, as in this case, the House is being invited to approve expenditure which is illegal under EC legislation, I suggest our powers simply do not exist. It was made abundantly clear in the treaty of Rome that EC law is superior to our law and that spending has to be in conformity with that law. I suggest that the United Kingdom Parliament has no power to consider this motion. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to authorise its removal from the House of Commons Order Paper forthwith.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with one at a time.
I thank the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) for giving me notice of his point of order, because that has enabled me to look into it in great detail. The situation that he has described has happened before and has been dealt with in the same manner as is now proposed. The point was covered in the second report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee of the 1981–82 Session, in House of Commons Paper 226. The matter is fully debatable tomorrow, and I notice that the hon. Gentleman has already tabled an appropriate amendment. If, however, it were alleged that public money was being spent in a manner that was not in accordance with the law, that would be a matter for the courts.
Mr. Hain: As the custodian of Members' interests, would you, Mr. Speaker, institute an early inquiry into the disturbing spate of burglaries from Labour Members' computers for professional intelligence gathering? Could that also include possible intelligence services' and Conservative party supporters' involvement? If the Leader of the House can make public statements on the matter, why can he not make a statement before the House?
Mr. Speaker: I looked at that article in The Observer yesterday. Thefts reported to the Serjeant at Arms or the

37
police are always carefully investigated. If further incidents of theft have not been reported, I suggest that they be reported urgently to the House authorities. I understand that the alleged theft from the hon. Gentleman was not reported at the time.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I was referred to, may I make it clear that the House authorities investigate all complaints about thefts and, in the majority of cases referred to in The Observer, some of which took place some time ago, no request was made for an investigation. It is not possible for me to have those matters investigated if no complaints were made at the time.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I was one of six hon. Members who reported thefts from their offices. The thief, who was a window cleaner, was interviewed at Bow street following traces that were put on my Vodaphone. It is remarkable —
Hon. Members: What is the point of order?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it is appropriate to go into the method by which the culprit was apprehended.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is whether it is right that, when a thief is identified in the House of Commons, he should simply be given a police caution at Bow Street and not be charged. When I rang the police and complained, I was told that it was a matter of police discretion and their decision. Is that right? Is not the problem the fact that we do not prosecute? That is why we are not catching and dealing with the thieves.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have no responsibility for the sentences in those cases.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on Sessional Orders. Last Tuesday, Mrs. Banks drove me to the House of Commons so that I could vote. She then went off to do some parliamentary business and came back to collect me, and when we went back outside we found that Mrs. Banks's car had been towed away by the Metropolitan police. She now faces a fine of £80. In view of the fact that she was conveying a Member of Parliament on his legitimate business, will you, Mr. Speaker, offer some assurance to Mrs. Banks that she will also be protected by the Sessional Orders?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should have complained about that matter last week if it took place on Tuesday. However, it is a serious matter. The House knows that, on one or two occasions, there have been problems with cars left outside St. Stephen's entrance. In one case, we had to allow extra time on a Division because the car was not identified and it was thought that it might constitute a threat to us. Therefore, cars should not be left unattended at that place.
Mr. Banks: Mrs. Banks will not be happy.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should you not consider the question of stolen disks and tapes with a little more concern, in view of the fact that, the last time a Labour Government looked like being returned to power, before 1974, it was later
38
disclosed through Peter Wright that the security agencies were engaged in trying to destabilise the prospective Labour Government? They continued to do so after a Labour Government had come to power. The matter should be approached with some zeal instead of being brushed off, albeit that some hon. Members may not have reported it to the police. In view of the spate of thefts of sensitive material, it is important that the matter should be investigated at the highest level, particularly as we face an impending general election.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I need any more help on it.—[Interruption.] Order. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who raised the point of order, please listen? Such matters should be reported to the Serjeant at Arms and, if they are, will always be investigated. I have looked carefully at the allegations in the article, and the incidents involved were not always reported.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the answer given by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to questions about Friday afternoon's business and the end of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, will the Speaker confirm that there is no convention or rule requiring any private Member's Bill introduced on a Friday to take up a minimum amount of time before it is put to the vote? That is a matter of concern not only to me, but has been raised by other colleagues. The Minister's answer implied that there was an established convention which meant that the matter could not be determined on Friday.
Mr. Speaker: It was a matter for the occupant of the Chair at the time.
Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: I hope that this is not a further point of order about disks.
Dr. Reid: It is, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that it will be helpful. I do not want to over-dramatise events, but there is obviously suspicion among Conservative Members that that matter has only just been raised. In my case, there were two reasons why the matter was not reported. First—
Mr. Nicholas Baker: It was top secret.
Dr. Reid: It was not top secret. I have nothing to hide on my computer—the hon. Gentleman may have.
The first reason was that, in my case, nothing was stolen, although it was obvious that someone had gained access to the computer.
Secondly, it was not until much later that it was obvious, not to me but to my researcher, that the incident was part of a pattern of events which was not obvious at the time. That pattern involved the theft of computer equipment and people gaining access not only to my computer, which does not have a lock, key or password, but to other computers that do. I hope that that explanation helps to show why, even though the incidents were not reported at the time, in retrospect, they may be far more significant than I or others realised.
Mr. Speaker: That may be, but I repeat that, if such incidents occur, they must be reported; otherwise, it is not possible to look into them.

BILL PRESENTED
  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES
  Mr. John MacGregor, supported by Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. David Mellor and Mr. Tim Renton presented a Bill to establish Boards of Trustees of the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery and the Wallace Collection; to transfer property to them and confer functions on them; to make new provision as to transfers to and between the collections of certain museums, galleries and libraries; to make provision for and in connection with the vesting of land in the governing bodies of such institutions; to make provision for the financing of such institutions and of the Museums and Galleries Commission; to make further provision with respect to the giving of indemnities against the loss of, or damage to, objections on loan to certain institutions; to change the name of, and to make further provision with respect to, the British Museum (Natural History); and to amend certain enactments relating to museums, galleries and libraries; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 63].

Nuclear Proliferation
4.33 pm
Sir Michael Neubert: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the potential dangers of the rapidly changing world order, welcomes the recent proposals for substantial reductions in nuclear weaponry, the growing support for the non-proliferation treaty and progress in the implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions concerning the dismantling of Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities; urges the Government to play their full part in helping the relevant authorities in the Commonwealth of Independent States to dismantle their nuclear devices, to safeguard their nuclear components and to discourage the proliferation of nuclear expertise; and believes it is of the first importance that Britain retains an effective and credible minimum nuclear deterrent as security in a world where there remain many sources of instability.
A year ago we were at war in the Gulf; victory was still a month away. It is a mark of the speed of events that Iraq, despite remaining unfinished business, should be succeeded so quickly by other more pressing items on the international agenda—the splintering apart of the Serbs and Croats, and the break up of the Yugoslav federation, with serious loss of life and destruction of property. Then there was the internal coup against the authority in the Soviet Union and President Gorbachev, leading to his retirement from the world stage. There was also the attempt at Maastricht, against the trend of these events, to create a federal union within the European Community; and the emergence of the state of Russia, under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin, as the dominant partner and major force in the Commonwealth of Independent States.
All these developments have occurred within less than 12 months. The world is showing a remarkable degree of volatility. That not everyone has come to terms with this is only too clear from the criticism of Mr. Yeltsin in recent days that he is "unpredictable". That criticism was renewed after his sudden two-day disappearance recently to deal with the question of the allegiance of the Black sea fleet and the future of the Crimea. When events themselves are so unpredictable, how can the men who seek to match them be otherwise?
Despite this succession of dramatic developments, we should not lose sight of the significance for collective security and for the future of the United Nations of the successful conduct and conclusion of the war against Iraq.
My first interest in politics was triggered by a sixth form conference organised under the auspices of the United Nations across Parliament square in Central hall. So the United Nations' existence over more than 40 years is almost contemporary with my own active life.
Inevitably, the United Nations had inherited from my father's generation a legacy of hopes betrayed by the League of Nations—a post-war, weary disbelief in the idea that international collaboration could ever be effective in practice. And during the United Nations' first four decades there was much to sustain that disbelief. The United Nations' responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security was often paralysed in the Security Council by the single Soviet syllable "nyet". The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation assumed responsibility for the defence of the free world, and the cold war set in.
With the emergence of Mr. Gorbachev and the new leadership of the then Soviet Union, a gradual political warming took place. For almost the first time, the

41
permanent members of the Security Council began to act in concert, and to great effect, notably in relation to the conflict between Iraq and Iran and the associated threat to international shipping, and in the long-running problem of Namibia.
This was the start of the process of change to which the Prime Minister's initiative on Friday at the Heads of Government meeting at the Security Council in New York has given renewed momentum. The perception of that meeting by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)— as a glorified photo opportunity—was a characteristic misjudgment, completely failing to see its significance in this context and once again failing to rise to the level of the challenge.
The earlier changes were the background to the remarkable reaction of the United Nations to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. The speed and resolution displayed by the Security Council gave real encouragement to long-dormant hopes of effective international action on security. But before we assume that that example was a firm safeguard for the future, we would do well to recognise the significant coincidence of national interests that made it possible—the skills of the professional diplomats notwithstanding. As one who saw at close quarters Anthony Parsons in action on the floor of the Security Council at the height of the Falklands conflict in 1982, I for one do not underrate the contributions made by our diplomats.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would return to the question of behaviour at the United Nations. Is he aware that, in the 40 years between the foundation of the United Nations and last year, more vetoes were put on Security Council decisions by Britain and the United States than by the Soviet Union and China?
Sir Michael Neubert: That was a sterile comment to make at the beginning of a debate about the United Nations' new role, new powers and new determination. The hon. Gentleman goes into a degree of detail about the history of the past 40 years which I do not intend to pursue. No doubt if he has the opportunity he will give us more of the same.
Four major factors came together in the Iraq conflict. The first was the invasion of a small, virtually defenceless country by its more powerful neighbour. The second was the threat to a large proportion of the world's oil, its principal source of energy and the lifeblood of the modern world. The third was the unbridled egomania of a military tyrant provoking comparisons with the dictators of the 1930s. The fourth, and the most relevant to today's debate, was the prospect of this man possessing long-range weapons of mass destruction.
All these were clear-cut issues on which world opinion was immediately ready to give a majority verdict. Each on its own raised issues of principle on which legitimate action could be justified without difficulty and which was by no means unique. Examples are so numerous as to be commonplace—the small change of international currency —and are seldom the subject of concerted action. The combination of all these factors persuaded the international community that this was a difference of character and not of degree. Moreover, the action that was taken by the United Nations was strictly limited by the governing
42
resolutions and the need to observe these if the 30-nation coalition was to remain intact and the sensibilities of the Arab people not to be offended.
As a result, for many people the task was left in part undone and the peace incomplete—hence the need, for example, for the Prime Minister to take the lead and in particular to undertake the safe havens initiative to protect the Kurdish minority in Iraq. There was no choice. If we were seeking to uphold the international rule of law, we had to observe the United Nations resolutions to the letter. As it was, the ceasefire resolution—Security Council resolution 687—required first the dismantling of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, then compensation for the victims of its aggression, the demarcation of the Iraqi-Kuwait border and the provision of humanitarian relief. That was an ambitious agenda, and it is significant that it is the proliferation factor—the removal of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological capability—that is proving difficult.
Repeated inspections under the auspices of the United Nations have met with Iraqi obstruction and concealment. It seems clear now that Iraq was much closer to achieving an explosive nuclear device than was previously supposed—perhaps only six or 12 months away. There was a massive, covert nuclear weapons programme under way, including the building of an industrial-scale centrifuge enrichment facility, yet this threat to world peace was only one of four factors that prompted international action. If Saddam Hussein had not invaded Kuwait, proliferation would have proceeded with all speed.
As a consequence of the work of the special commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations must now maintain long-term surveillance and inspection to ensure that Iraq can never again have the capacity to threaten its neighbours with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Our Government must play, as they are playing, an important part in this, with the provision of technical expertise for inspection.
All our worst fears and apprehensions about Iraq were discovered to be fully justified, fortunately in time but only just in time. Much has been learnt about the difficulties of discerning between materials and equipment intended for military use and similar materials for civil use, given the compatibility of much civil and military nuclear development.
The threat of nuclear proliferation, however, is not confined to Iraq. India and Pakistan have significant facilities and nuclear programmes—an uneasy back-ground to the heightened tensions of the sub-continent. In another part of the world, Argentina and Brazil have made recent commitments to nuclear non-proliferation and to bringing all nuclear material in their territories under IAEA safeguards. These commitments are to be welcomed. North Korea and Israel are constant concerns. Algeria, in association with China, and Iran are further examples of countries that have developed nuclear facilities.
Potentially, the non-proliferation treaty can be effective, and the growing support for it is encouraging. However, the Iraq experience demonstrates that it needs strengthening. After all, Iraq was a party to the non-proliferation treaty. Powers of special inspections with minimum notice are essential. If agreements are found to have been breached, the Security Council can take action, as it did with Iraq.

43
This brings us back to the importance of the convening, by the Prime Minister, of the New York summit last Friday. That initiative betokens the clear intention to strengthen the United Nations, principally by providing the means for a more powerful peacekeeping role for the UN. There is also at least one specific British reference to strengthening controls against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in this case in biological warfare, to which the Prime Minister referred in his statement earlier today. New legislation will outlaw named biological agents and toxins as a means of controlling the export of materials that could be misused for military purposes. The post-summit communiqué also extended the UN's role in preventing the spread of technology on nuclear weapons.
The summit was remarkable also for the first appearance at it of President Yeltsin, who has assumed the Soviet Union's former seat on the Security Council and declared himself dedicated to the dismantling of the totalitarian order. History has never seen such a spectacular dissolution of an empire as has happened with the break up of the Soviet Union within the past few months. After all, it occupied one sixth of the world's land surface and breaking it entailed the sundering of no fewer than 16 socialist republics.
It is here that the most acute and extraordinary issues of nuclear proliferation arise. The vast arsenal of Soviet nuclear weapons had to be brought under new arrangements for command and control. Agreement was reached at Minsk on 30 December that President Yeltsin would be the one to be empowered to use nuclear weapons, subject to the agreement of the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine and following consultation with the heads of the other nations in the Commonwealth of Independent States. Given the capacity of that nuclear arsenal to destroy the whole world many times over, it is a remarkably precarious arrangement and, with memories of Chernobyl, not entirely reassuring.
It is imperative that the Government afford all possible assistance to the new independent states in dismantling nuclear weapons—a huge task in itself and likely to take many years—safeguarding the components from falling into the wrong hands and providing alternative livelihoods for redundant nuclear physicists and engineers who would otherwise be a tempting prospect for would-be Saddam Husseins attempting a short cut to nuclear capability.
These are all practical technical measures, but in the political and diplomatic sphere we must also press all the former Soviet republics to join the non-proliferation treaty as soon as they can meet that treaty's obligations. Ten have already joined the conference on security and co-operation in Europe. These and other moves will bring the newly independent republics within the family of western nations, and are welcome. They are the best way to avoid dangerous imbalances of power developing. The European Community must also widen its horizons to take in these newcomers rather than drawing closer and closer into itself.
In the interim, as these processes continue, there will inevitably be instability. In these circumstances, the people of the United Kingdom need a sure defence against all eventualities. That sure defence must include the possession of an independent nuclear deterrent. President
44
Bush and President Yeltsin have made announcements of substantial reductions in nuclear weapons. That is obviously good news, and further evidence of reducing tensions and the end of the cold war. However, it is no reason for us to abandon our strategic deterrent. That remains the ultimate safeguard of our national security. The world remains far too dangerous a place for us to think of relinquishing our plans for the Trident submarine-based deterrent.
We cannot know what future threats may develop. Twice in the past 10 years the unexpected has happened. As always, it is better to be safe than sorry. The admission that Soviet missiles have been targeted on our cities demonstrates the validity of the nuclear argument since the war. These armaments are now to be scaled down by the United States and Russia, as the successor to the Soviet Union, but these are reductions in degree by the two major super-powers. We were never in that league. As an illustration of this, I point out that the proposed arms cuts by the United States alone will save $50 billion—a nice round figure. The sterling equivalent is £27·8 billion—more than our defence budget in total. Even with the most recent cuts announced, the United Kingdom's nuclear arsenal will be only about one fifteenth the size of that of the United States or Russia. If we are to be safe rather than sorry, we must retain our minimum nuclear deterrent. With the evidence of potential proliferation and with unstable characters like Saddam Hussein and General Gaddafi on the world scene, it would be folly to do otherwise.
If deterrence is to be effective, it must also be credible. That is why we are planning a four-boat Trident force to replace a four-boat Polaris force. The fourth boat provides the indispensable assurance that over the lifetime of the force, extending well into the next century, there will always be one boat on station at all times, day and night, deep beneath the sea, invulnerable to pre-emptive attack. The first of these boats—Vanguard—is due to make its appearance at the end of this month. It will carry 16 missiles, each capable of carrying a maximum of eight warheads, and will be followed by the second and third of its class.
But what of the fourth, in the unlikely event of a Labour Government? Its future would be, to say the least, uncertain. But "uncertain" describes the defence policy generally that we would see under a Labour Government. Although the Labour party has already lost at least one general election in large part because of its lack of commitment to a sound defence policy, and although it may attempt to profess otherwise this time—perhaps even this afternoon—its underlying unsoundness in respect of defence has not changed. Its instinct remains anti-military, anti-nuclear and anti-American.
Whereas our Secretary of State for Defence ranks eighth in the Cabinet, the Opposition's spokesman on defence did not even rank election to the bottom place in the shadow Cabinet. Who are the officers of the Labour Back-Bench defence committee, and where are they this afternoon? The chairman of that committee is the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), and the vice-chairmen are the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). What do these three have in common? They are all members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. But what is surprising about that? The CND is an organisation that, until very recently, had the support and membership of the Leader of Her

45
Majesty's Opposition, of his wife and of an estimated 130 members of the parliamentary Labour party, which totals not much more than twice that number. It seems, therefore, that Back-Bench officers are entirely representative of the parliamentary Labour party as a whole. We shall be interested to hear their contributions to this debate.
Mr. Keith Mans: My hon. Friend will know that the Labour party's Back-Bench defence committee is elected on the basis of a free vote. Does he agree that were the Labour party to have a free vote on this issue its members would again support CND?
Sir Michael Neubert: It would be extremely interesting if members of the Labour party were allowed to vote at all, let alone vote freely, on a defence matter. They avoid the issue by failing to go into the Lobbies. The honest 28 not only state their differences but are prepared to back them by opposing the Government and their own party.
At its conferences the Labour party regularly votes for a defence budget reduction of £6 billion. That is the saving which would result from abolition of the Army, the Navy or the Air Force—which one, the party never says. That being the case, anybody concerned for the nation's defence, for the maintenance of conventional forces adequate to meet any likely eventuality, and all those employed in defence manufacturing industries can have no confidence at all in the prospect of a Labour Government.
The Opposition can certainly claim no credit for the extraordinary events of recent years, which have liberated communist-controlled countries across Europe. As we were reminded only this weekend through documents apparently found in the archives of the Kremlin, the Labour party opposed the deployment of cruise missiles with all the strength that it and its CND friends could muster. Yet it was this crucial trial of strength, when the west stood firm, that brought the Soviets to the negotiating table and precipitated the process that created today's new freedoms and resulted in the collapse of socialism.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the hon. Gentleman point to anything—any so-called revelation—in these Kremlin documents that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was not saying in the House of Commons at the time?
Sir Michael Neubert: The papers found in the Kremlin simply confirm views that are sometimes known to be held but are very often disowned and are certainly not professed with great conviction in this House or elsewhere.
The ambiguity of the Labour party's position on defence has been evident to the British people for many years, and it remains today. If the Labour party had been in power at the time to which I refer, we should have long ago laid down vital arms. A Labour Government would have left us virtually defenceless in the face of the force of the Warsaw pact. In recent days the German Defence Minister, Dr. Stoltenberg, revealed that the Warsaw pact was not a defensive alliance like the North Atlantic. Treaty Organisation but had an active plan of attack and had even minted war medals. That danger is now past. How can the Labour party and its fellow unilateral disarmers sleep with their consciences?
There are now new dangers, to which my motion draws attention. Our minimum nuclear deterrent remains the essential safeguard for our independent future. Only the
46
Conservative Government have the necessary conviction and commitment to ensure the nation's defence at all time and in all circumstances. The British people and the House of Commons can rely on them.
4.55 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) has raised a most important question—in some respects, the most important question arising from recent events in Europe and in the world. Although I disagree very strongly with some of the things that the hon. Gentleman has said and with some of his recommendations, I am of the opinion that it is good for the House to have an opportunity to discuss these matters. Indeed, the House of Commons is probably the best place for such discussions.
I agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Iraq. He has underlined the danger that was created for the entire world by the supply of arms to Iraq, which was helped to come close to becoming a nuclear power. I am not sure how close the country came to achieving nuclear status, but I have to say that second only to the dangers involved in the indiscriminate proliferation of nuclear weapons was the horror that the world recently inflicted upon itself by way of the well nigh indiscriminate supply of arms to countries such as Iraq. That was an altogether disgraceful affair, and various Governments throughout the world should bear some of the blame for it.
I am sorry to say that the British Government cannot be acquitted of any fault in this matter. Indeed, the question of the supply of guns and other equipment to Iraq has not yet been resolved, and the Government have demonstrated no eagerness to resolve it. There is no doubt that, up to about a month before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, supplies that might have been of assistance in the acquisition of a nuclear arms capability, and certainly were of assistance in establishing the country as a major military power in the near east, were going to Iraq. In this regard, the British Government do not have a clean record.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), has to say when he replies for the Government. Up to almost the day before the invasion of Kuwait, the Government strengthened Iraq's ability to inflict such horrors on other peoples and, indeed, on its own people. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will comment on that matter, and I hope that, in future, the Government will demonstrate some understanding of the fact that this is a question not merely of dealing with the proliferation of nuclear weapons—a matter to which I shall come in a moment—but also of whether we are now prepared to embark upon a new policy for the protection of the world against the proliferation of weapons that, while not quite as dangerous as nuclear weapons, are capable of inflicting appalling disasters on the world and appalling injury in some countries that suffer grinding poverty as a result of having the weight of armaments imposed upon them.
Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, when the Iraqis gassed some 5,000 people at Halabja, the British Government's response was to double the credit available to Iraq.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman makes a telling point, and I hope that the Government feel some contrition.
I trust that the Government do not need my next warning, but one can never tell. In view of the common revulsion that was felt throughout the country and the world at the policies pursued by Iraq against the Kurds and others, I hope that there will be no rush to support Iran, as if that is the way to protect the situation.
The Iranian Government's human rights record is as bad as that of the Iraqis. It is worse in some respects, and that continues. The horrors committed year after year, month after month, and almost day after day in Iran are appalling for the world to see. I hope there will be no less strict a refusal to rebuild Iranian military strength than there should previously have been in respect of Iraq.
I know that there was some conflict as to which side Britain should support in the Iran-Iraq war. The British Government made many mistakes at that time, and on the whole supported Iraq against Iran. The Governments of both countries—and many others too—have barbaric human rights records, and committed appalling offences against common decency throughout the world. They continue to threaten our own citizens with death, and even to carry out death penalties against them. I hope that the Government will stress that we must refuse to make any concessions to Iran in the new situation.
Iran, in common with other countries, is seeking to become something of a nuclear power. I hope that that prospect will terrify people sufficiently when they even contemplate it.
The hon. Member for Romford referred also to events on the Indian subcontinent, where nuclear proliferation is one of the most dangerous aspects of the world situation. I was on the Indian subcontinent a few years ago, and again recently. There has been a serious deterioration over the past two or three years in the assessment of what can be done about nuclear proliferation on the Indian subcontinent.
At present, as the Minister knows, the Indian Government do not want to subscribe to any proposed non-proliferation treaty, believing that it would inhibit their rights or possibilities in comparison with Pakistan. When I was in India four years ago and saw Rajiv Gandhi when he was Prime Minister, his main message—which I was to carry back to this country and to convey to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—was, "You must understand the danger of nuclear proliferation and of the nuclear build-up in Pakistan."
He asserted that proliferation was supported by the Americans, and to some extent by the British Government. He warned, "If that is allowed to continue in Pakistan, we will be unable to resist the pressure to match it in India." The same argument is made by people in this country, when they say that Britain must have nuclear weapons to protect itself—and it is used also on the Indian subcontinent today.
If the Indian Government feel unable to back to the full, even in the new situation, a non-proliferation treaty, I hope that we will be able to use British, American, and United Nations diplomacy to overcome that. The United Nations may be able to exert the greatest influence on the Indian subcontinent, and I hope that we will be able to use all its strengths to ensure that the appalling disaster of a nuclear arms race on that Indian subcontinent does not develop. What could be madder than that? India ought to
48
spend the huge sums that would be diverted to a nuclear capability on relieving poverty and all the other evils in that country.
A special effort should be made by the British Government, who still command some credit with both Pakistan and India, to avoid a new arms race in those countries. If the Government are to have any chance of achieving that, they must consider fresh initiatives.
Despite the strength of the argument made by the hon. Member for Romford, it is no use thinking that we can say to Pakistan and India, "You should give up any idea of becoming nuclear powers—but you cannot take a lesson from us, because we are determined to remain a nuclear power whatever happens." It seems that, whatever develops over the next decade or so, the British Government and the motion of the hon. Member for Romford make it clear that we will remain a nuclear power.
If we continue to say that, the Pakistanis and the Indians will not listen to us very carefully. Why should they? They can argue, "If it is such a good form of defence, we will have it too. We will take the lesson from your Defence Ministers." If that happens, the arms race will be on.
The Indian Government are responsible; they are not in the same category as the others that I mentioned in Iran or Iraq—although they may not always show it—in the way that they let off many terrorists, or guide and support terrorist activities in many parts of the continent.
I hope that a tremendous effort will be made to ensure that Britain will use its influence. I do not suggest that we can change our own nuclear policy immediately, but if we are effectively to implement a full policy for stopping nuclear proliferation, we must be prepared to consider our contribution to that process.
Mr. Mans: Why would it be impossible to convince Pakistan, for example, to give up its nuclear weapons unless we do the same? For decades, the right hon. Gentleman has used precisely that argument to encourage Britain to give up its nuclear weapons while other nations retain theirs.
Mr. Foot: It is difficult to persuade any country to surrender its nuclear capability when Britain argues that it is the only defence. It is not. On several occasions in the history of the world British Governments have taken a different and wider view than the hon. Gentleman, who merely says, "Let us go on reiterating the policy that we have followed for years—and whatever happens in Pakistan or India does not make any difference, because proliferation will continue."
The motion of the hon. Member for Romford refers to the non-proliferation treaty. The British Government, rightly, were a strong supporter of that treaty, and claim to be a strong supporter of it still. It is right that we should support that treaty, which bears the signatures of more than 100 nations, and which is the basis on which something bigger can be built.
There would, however, have been no conceivable possibility of such a nuclear non-proliferation treaty had it not been for the preamble, which stated that the aim of all signatories should be the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons. Had it not been for that, nations would not have signed the treaty, or urged others to sign it. Now, people are saying, "We should not worry about the preamble."

49
When I went to see the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who helped to overthrow the previous Prime Minister—I shall always remember that wonderful speech he made—he did not seem to understand or accept the fact that the treaty required its signatories to aim for eventual abolition; but that is only common sense.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Worthy though the preamble may be, the reality—as the right hon. Gentleman said earlier—is that some of the countries, such as India, that are now striving to obtain nuclear weapons are not responsible countries. Irresponsible countries will not respond to leadership or example from us, whatever we do. Unless we have some means of deterring such countries from attacking not only us but their innocent neighbours, there will be nothing to restrain the whirlwind.
Mr. Foot: That is the gospel of despair. If such a doctrine is adopted by our country and our Government, there will be no possibility of ending the nuclear arms race. We should be much wiser than that—particularly at what we all understand to be a new moment in history. I am just about the only hon. Member who was present at the 1945 San Francisco conference: I was there as a journalist. That, too, marked a new moment in history. We were trying then to establish a more powerful United Nations, which could wield real political authority in such circumstances. The Labour Government of the day, incidentally, wanted to go a good deal further than the other Governments.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps the most positive step that the Government could take to prevent nuclear proliferation would be to agree to a comprehensive test ban treaty? When the Prime Minister was asked about that today, he retorted that we needed to improve our weapons. He does not appear to grasp the fact that, if such a treaty were signed, other countries—unless they were given nuclear weapons—would be in no position to develop such weapons secretly. A comprehensive test ban treaty represents one of the most fundamental assets in the prevention of proliferation.
Mr. Foot: I entirely agree. That is one of the biggest gaps in what the Government are now saying. A test ban treaty is one of the means whereby we might secure the more general agreement for which we are aiming. Conservative Members have said that that is impossible, but there have been occasions in post-war history when the world has been more ambitious—for instance, in 1945 and 1946, when we were only beginning to discover the implications of developing atomic weapons. Proposals were advanced from the other side of the Atlantic—admittedly, they were recognised to be one-sided, in that they were not fair to the Soviet Union—for international control of such weapons. Full-scale international control would have been possible if our attitude then had been more forthcoming.
Conservative Members say that people will not listen, and that there is no possibility of persuading them. Some advantages have come about as a result of what has already been happening in the world: for instance, the means of inspection are far better than they were 10, 15 or 20 years ago, when the arms race was at its height, and I have no doubt that they could be developed still further.
50
Moreover, I understand that President Yeltsin himself has issued fresh proposals for full-scale international ownership and control of all nuclear weapons. Such developments were proposed in 1945, and have been proposed on other occasions.
Over the past few weeks, I have heard people talk as though there had never been agreements in the past between the west and the Soviet Union. Of course there have been such agreements; sometimes they were in the interests of the Soviet Union as well.
United Nations resolution 242, for example, still represents the best way of dealing with the middle east crisis. A Labour Government suggested the resolution, which won the support of both the United States and the Soviet Union. So far-seeing was that proposal—advanced in 1967—that it is still seen as the best and fairest way of approaching a middle east settlement. If we set our sights higher, better agreements can be secured; and there can have been no more important occasion for such agreements than the present time.
I have a close connection with many of the controversial events recorded in the most recent edition of The Sunday Times. The way in which it recorded them constitutes one of the most shameful acts that I can remember a journalist perpetrating, and that is saying something. Even the editor seems pretty ashamed—and if Mr. Andrew Neil is ashamed, or even partly ashamed, something very degrading must have been done.
It was suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and I were partially engaged in the shocking, terrible activities that the paper described. Let me say that, if I am to finish up as a red under the bed—if that is to be my last role in political life—there is no one whom I would rather find under that same bed than my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. For many years, he was regarded as the most powerful anti-Soviet warrior of the lot; the idea that he once yielded—cringed, even—to Soviet power is so absurd that not even Mr. Andrew Neil should have had the nerve to suggest it.
I vividly remember going with my right hon. Friend to Moscow in late 1982 or early 1983, when we had some discussions with the Soviet leaders. At that time, the Russians had put the SS20 missiles in place, and similar nuclear tactical weapons were either in place or being mobilised by the west. What we proposed then was very different from what is described in The Sunday Times. We proposed not only that both sides should make reductions in their stocks of nuclear tactical weapons—although, of course, we preferred that option to the option of piling them up, which was being suggested—but, better still, that all such weapons should be abolished, on both sides. In other words, we proposed the so-called zero option.
That proposal was not, however, accepted by the Russians. They put forward some of the same arguments that have been put to me in the debate by Conservative Members. They believed that the only credible defence was that which was based on nuclear weapons. We said that we should go for the zero option and abolish, first, all tactical nuclear weapons, and that later we might also be able to abolish the even more dangerous strategic nuclear weapons.
When we returned to London a few days later, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East and I were furiously denunciated for having made such a scandalous proposal. We were called traitors, or whatever the popular

51
term at the time was. We were told that we had behaved scandalously in putting forward the zero option, but two or three days later President Reagan made a broadcast on this very subject in which he said that he was in favour of the zero option.
I went on television, or radio, and said that I was very glad that President Reagan had come round to our view. However, we were still denounced—I forget by whom but it was a junior Foreign Office Minister, the David Mellor of his day. He said that to adopt the zero option would be treachery. However, when President Reagan said that perhaps the zero option was the way forward, there was much more of a welcome for it.
My right hon. Friend and I were the very first to put forward the zero option. So far from it leading to disaster in the negotiations, it helped them forward. That is the true history, although I do not suppose that it would be published if it were to be unearthed in the Kremlin minutes. What is certain is that, if it were uncovered, it would not be published in The Sunday Times, The Sun or in any other such newspaper. That is why I believe that it is right to recite the facts in the House of Commons. The facts suggest that we are able to use our diplomatic strength and our position as a country with almost as good a record as that of most other countries to serve the peace of the world.
Recently, the Government have shown more enthusiasm for the United Nations. What infuriated India was that, time after time, we voted against proposals for test ban treaties and other treaties, as well as against disarmament and other proposals. Proposals that would have eased the situation were rejected time after time by the British Government, who used their veto, together with the Americans and a few others, or just said that they did not agree with the proposals.
The British Government used their veto not just against the test ban treaty proposal but against the first use of nuclear weapons and similar proposals. It is all on record. Time after time, the British Government voted, by a minority of one, two or three, in the United Nations against proposals put forward not by wicked communists from the Soviet Union—Mr. Gorbachev's predecessors—but by the Indians, the Yugoslavs—as they were then—and many neutral countries that had better ideas than ours throughout that terrible period of the cold war.
I am glad that the cold war has come to an end. Its end is one of the happiest developments in the history of mankind. However, when the Government try to pretend that its end is due to their policies on armaments and the rest, they insult the intelligence of most people who have looked at the facts, as well as the intelligence of all these other nations. They, too, have rights and claims. I know that some Conservative Members believe that the Indians and Pakistanis do not count because they may not yet have nuclear weapons. If India and Pakistan had nuclear weapons, I suppose that Conservative Members would respect them a little more.
We are entering a different world. We want a Government who will provide a new and much more ambitious programme for the United Nations as a whole. The most urgent of all those measures is the establishment of a new non-proliferation treaty, which the British Government must be prepared to sign and implement.
5.24 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) has done the House a service in bringing before the House this unexceptionable motion. He moved it in a measured and well-considered way. I congratulate him on his felicitous drafting. One would expect no less from a former author of the annual blue revue at the Conservative party conference. He has honed his skills as a wordsmith in long, dedicated and effective service in the Ministry of Defence main building in Whitehall.
It is a timely debate which was admirably introduced. In particular, I liked my hon. Friend's phrase "political global warming" when he described the end of the cold war. The global warming process is held to offer potential risks: the break-up of the ice caps and rogue icebergs on shipping lanes. The phrase encapsulates the problems inherent in the ending of old certainties that endured throughout a long and very intense cold war.
Foremost among those uncertainties must be the question of nuclear proliferation. I would argue that this question should lead to a fundamental re-examination by the alliance of old assumptions and outdated defence strategies. It has already done so. However, any re-examination by the United Kingdom—the "Options for Change" exercise represents a preface to that process—must be founded on certain definite fixed principles: deterrence, defence and diplomacy.
Deterrence will continue to be vital in an uncertain world, as it was during the certain dangers of the cold war. For as far ahead as can be seen we shall need an effective, independent strategic nuclear deterrent. However, it will be, as the French chief of staff once described it, "A tous azimuts"—a multi-directional deterrent. The threat may not come, as it did in the past, from the Warsaw pact. It may lie elsewhere. It must, therefore, be an omni-directional deterrent. I am sure that the choice of Trident is as right now as it was when it was first made at the beginning of the 1980s.
I believe that we shall still need four strategic nuclear submarines—the SLBMs, the Trident boats. My hon. Friend was so right to emphasise that point. Trident will be the minimum effective system. At the same time, it is an ultimate system in a way that no other strategic deterrent can be. It is minimal, because there is total flexibility on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the selection of the number of warheads that will be deployed on the missiles. There is also a certain flexibility over the number of boats that will be on patrol.
There is geographic flexibility over the deployment of those boats, and to which oceans. For example, they might conceivably be deployed in the western Pacific if it were felt that China posed a threat to our interests rather than Russia, or any of the other Commonwealth of Independent States countries.
It should not be forgotten that we are making an investment for a generation. I believe that Trident will stand the test of time. I do not foresee Trident boats being vulnerable to interception; nor is it likely that a truly effective countermeasure to the multiple independently targeted warheads inherent in the Trident missile system will be devised.
A geographically mobile system that can be deployed to any ocean is a step forward for our people, compared with,

53
for example, the 1950s and 1960s when THOR medium-range ballistic missiles were based in Britain in a fixed and immobile way and targeted in only one direction.
We shall need graduated deterrence. To that end, it will be important to maintain a tactical element in our deterrent capability. The alliance is rightly destroying battlefield artillery. We are getting rid of our Lance short-range missiles, but we shall need something short of the ultimate deterrent of Trident. I support the Government's determination to keep a modern and credible air-launched deterrence system, which, for as far ahead as can be foreseen, will be Tornado. It is dual capable and, as such, is inherently flexible and, like Trident, with the aid of in-flight refuelling, it can be deployed rapidly to any part of the globe where it is needed. If a threat emerged from Iraq, Libya or Kazakhstan, Tornados equipped with stand-off weapons would be effective deterrents. To be effective, they must have that stand-off capability. The Gulf war showed how necessary it is to minimise our losses and to make it quite clear to the potential enemy that atomic warheads can be delivered. This is another aspect of the deterrent that we are seeking to maintain.
The deterrent must be tactical, mobile, flexible and dual-capable. I have no firm views on whether the missiles should be developed with the French or the Americans, but we shall need them. I am pleased that, so far at least, the Government have shown no intention of getting rid of that option.
More emphasis will be placed on defence in our security planning. It is an aspect that we have neglected in favour of offence in past decades. We shall need to enhance and improve confidence-building measures. I applaud the initiatives that are being taken by the Western European Union to persuade west Europeans to develop a surveillance satellite system that can give early warning of potential risks and conflict and of the build-up of chemical or nuclear armaments. I hope that the WEU will go ahead with the construction of such a satellite system a nd the associated data processing, that we shall play an important part in it and that we shall extend the hand of friendship to associates of WEU—the new democracies of central Europe such as Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the countries of eastern Europe such as Russia, Byelorussia and Ukraine. Such a confidence-building approach has much to commend it.
For the purposes of early warning and to sustain confidence and intelligence, we need to follow up the ideas mooted by President Bush and now by President Yeltsin of creating a space-based strategic defence system. It is hard to know how the world will look in 10, 15 or 20 years' time, but there will always be a risk of a rogue state's emerging, developing a nuclear potential and releasing a nuclear weapon. We will not necessarily wish to retaliate in kind, but if we are on the receiving end we will most certainly wish to intercept its missiles. "Global protection against limited strikes" and other missile defence concepts being developed in the United States should have the support of west Europeans and I hope that they, the Russians and other interested parties of goodwill will work together to make those concepts a reality.
We shall also need not only an umbrella over the top and confidence building, but point defence. We saw in the Gulf war how important the Patriot system was against Scud attacks. If one can imagine what it would be like to be on the receiving end of a missile attack not only with
54
conventional warheads but nuclear or chemical warheads, one can comprehend the necessity of building effective point defences. Perhaps something like the Patriot is required. Lockheed is developing a theatre air defence missile system, and such systems will be necessary to ensure security so that in the event of a rogue attack we do not have to launch a dire nuclear retaliatory strike.
The third aspect of my remarks will be directed to diplomacy and constructive dialogue with potential adversaries to ensure that the right climate of understanding and goodwill is maintained. Collective security systems have stood the test of time in the post-war world—NATO above all, but also, for the duration of their existence, the Central Treaty Organisation in the middle east, the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation in the far east and the Western European Union in western Europe.
The United Kingdom should do everything within its power to strengthen and enhance the effectiveness of NATO. I particularly welcome the NATO co-operation council to bring into dialogue the countries of central and eastern Europe which belonged to the Warsaw pact. I also hope that the WEU will extend the hand of friendship in that direction.
We require not only collective security but a more effective United Nations. It was most encouraging to hear the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon. He reiterated his commitment, and that of the Security Council, to effective peacekeeping and, perhaps more importantly, to peacemaking by the United Nations. He welcomed, at least implicitly, the idea of a more intrusive inspection regime to back up confidence-building measures through reconnaissance satellites and signals intelligence with the proof which on-site verification can bring. I trust, too, that funds will not be lacking to enable the International Atomic Energy Agency to do its work on our behalf.
Last but not least in this process of diplomacy, we must ensure that potential tyrants and aggressors do not arm themselves with chemical and nuclear weapons or, above all, with the delivery systems required to further their ambitions by military means. Timely trade embargoes and measures taken early on by the United Nations to prevent potential aggressors acquiring nuclear missile technology and chemical weapons will be needed as never before.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford said, it is a more hopeful world. I know that the old certainties have gone, but, please, let not the chancellories of the west look back with nostalgia to the cold war and the old east-west confrontation. The monolithic Soviet Union with its satellites system and Warsaw pact posed a far greater threat to our liberties than do the multitude of burgeoning democracies which are seeking economic development and greater prosperity for their peoples. I recognise the fact that such a world will be far harder to order, but the best balance of power will lie within the Commonwealth of Independent States. Georgia, Armenia, Byelorussia and the Ukraine do not have any desire for Russia to become over-mighty and expansionist.
We live in a more optimistic world and I am pleased with the initiatives that the Government are taking. We shall continue to need a forward-looking defence policy. I welcome the motion moved so ably by my hon. Friend who has alerted us all to the dangers of nuclear proliferation.
5.41 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: Like other hon. Members, I compliment the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) for introducing this timely motion. During the previous debate on nuclear defence, on a Government motion on 14 January, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said:
"I feel a sense of disappointment that there is nothing in the motion about how we might limit nuclear proliferation."—[Official Report, 14 January 1992; Vol. 201, c. 851.]
This motion corrects that deficiency and allows us to respond more generally to the enormous changes in the former Soviet Union which present us with not only huge opportunities but large, tangible risks.
The situation requires us all to review our defence position and, likewise, our aid commitments. I think that whatever the result of the election, there will be a further defence review afterwards, but the urgency of aid brooks no delay and that was reflected in what the hon. Member for Romford and other hon. Members have said.
Time is very limited and I shall confine my remarks to five brief points. Hon. Members can say, "At least he is on his fourth point" and feel some relief. I was always told that to say, "Finally" and "In conclusion" several times was the thing to do because that encouraged optimism among one's listeners.
First, if one is interested in non-proliferation, one must surely deal with the question of the test ban treaty. We cannot get around that. I heard the Prime Minister say this afternoon that he has no intention of doing so, but it should go on record that my party—its members are here in spirit, at least, in great numbers—does not take that view. Indeed, many others believe that pressure for some agreement and the effective monitoring of it is essential.
Secondly, as the hon. Member for Romford said, the monitoring of nuclear activity in Iraq was not especially successful, despite the fact that Iraq had signed the non-proliferation treaty. Despite the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, developments occurred about which we knew nothing. Therefore, it is essential to improve monitoring and to reach a situation in which the international authority can investigate where it wishes at will. I wonder what the Government's view is on that point, because it is an important one.
We must also consider how to co-operate in dealing with what might be described as the nuclear risk and the question of fissionable material coming from Iraq if it is recovered. That issue is of direct interest to my part of Scotland in view of the reprocessing which is done and has been done for many years at Dounreay in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Therefore, I take this opportunity to put it on record that in agreeing to help to deal with the Iraqi problem the Government took the right decision.
However, that was not the view of the Scottish National party, which is much in the news these days. On 8 October 1991, an article appeared in my local newspaper, the Inverness Courier, under the headline "SNP vows to stop Iraqi nuclear waste". It stated that the SNP candidate warned:
"The Scottish National Party would be prepared to use civil disobedience to stop Iraqi nuclear waste coming to the Highlands for reprocessing".
56
However, the candidate's mother went considerably further. She declared that reprocessing would go ahead only "over my dead body". I am not sure whether that is an extreme form of civil disobedience. I draw attention to it because, in view of the SNP's claims to international status, it is important to remind the SNP that international status involves international obligations.
Thirdly, it is estimated that in what was the Soviet Union there are about 5,000 atomic scientists who have sufficient knowledge to help in the development of nuclear weapons. As the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, many other countries are anxious to obtain the expertise of those Soviet scientists, not only maverick countries such as Libya or Iraq, but India and others. I understand that President Yeltsin has proposed joint action between Russia and the United States with a view to a common star wars project which would have an effect on the whole world and which could be used to absorb all of those scientists. I hope that that plan goes ahead. If not, the Russians should not be too hesitant about using immigration procedures to prevent scientists leaving to go to such countries.
I remember being in the former Soviet Union a couple of years ago talking about the Jewish refuseniks. The line of the then Soviet Administration was to not let them out because they were security risks. In this case, the Soviet scientists leaving the country are a security risk not only for the Soviet Union but possibly for many other countries.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which has some force. However, I am sure that he will acknowledge that such controls could be used as a cover for denying exit visas to many people who do not pose the risk that he describes. We must be cautious about advocating such a course of action.
Sir Russell Johnston: I do not quarrel with that. Of course, such risks would exist. I am saying merely that it is terribly important for us to consider the possibility of scientists skilled in atomic matters leaving to go to countries which undoubtedly have plenty of money to attract them and which want their help in developing atomic weapons.
Fourthly, I rather disagree—in fact, I disagree—with what the hon. Member for Romford said about the integration of political and defence questions in Europe. It was one of the notable failures of the Maastricht conference in which the Government unfortunately played such a prominent part that we did not succeed in moving towards a common defence policy in the European Community. The proposition was in no way intended to undermine NATO—it was a question of making the European part of NATO function better. For example, the German Government deeply regret that failure, as I heard Gerhard Stoltenberg, the German Defence Minister to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, confirm in Bonn as recently as last Wednesday at a Western European Union meeting.
Sadly, one can already see the nationalist stand-off position adopted by this country finding an echo in the German public. It was uncovered by a recent opinion poll which showed that the Germans were moving in a

57
nationalist direction as well. I pray that we shall not look back on Maastricht as an enormous opportunity missed, although I fear that there is a danger that we may.
We shall have more co-operation through the Western European Union, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said. That will lead us inevitably to address the nuclear question both in this country and in France.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member far Fife, North-East said on 14 January:
"It would be morally indefensible to continue to deploy nuclear weapons if there was no justification for doing so. Nothing would be more reprehensible than to indulge in an intellectual scramble to create some ex post facto justification for weapons that it had already been decided to keep. The deployment of nuclear weapons can be justified only if it is appropriate to the risk."—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 201, c. 852.]
I agree with that.
Hon. Members may remember that in the days of the Liberal-SDP alliance my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who was then leader of the Liberal party, and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who was then leader of the Social Democrat party, went to Paris to talk about whether there was a possibility of achieving some rationalisation between the French force de frappe and the British nuclear deterrent. I can remember more recently listening to the then French Defence Minister, Mr. Chevenement, arguing strongly for that because he was a great proponent. He wanted those two deterrents eventually to become a European deterrent. His enthusiasm for the idea was matched only by his failure to be specific about how that was to be achieved. Nevertheless, he was politically enthusiastic and we shall have to consider that proposition. It may be difficult, but it will have to be considered.
Fifthly, the Liberal Democrats accept a minimum deterrent even if, from the political and cost points of view, that suggests at some time ahead coming together with France in a European context. One must always keep that under review. We fail to understand why we should be committed to increasing our nuclear firepower with more nuclear heads on Trident than was the case with Polaris, especially when Trident is more accurate than Polaris.
I have not mentioned chemical and biological weapons, not from a lack of realisation of their great importance and of the enormous difficulty in monitoring them, but simply because of time pressures. The United Kingdom has, after all, a good record on chemical weapons about which we rightly speak. However, rather than claiming all the credit for the United Nations arms sales register, we should realise that it was proposed by Genscher on behalf of the Federal Republic in 1980 or 1981—certainly a decade ago.
I conclude by reiterating my view that, thanks to the hon. Member for Romford, this has been a useful debate at an important time. As an election is extremely near, it may also be the last occasion on which we hear a speech from the most compelling orator in the House whom I can remember and probably the most compelling orator in the post-war period. I refer to the right hon. Member Blaenau Gwent, whom I shall always think of as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. 1 salute him. I have often disagreed with him, but his rhetoric was always brilliant and sometimes savagely funny. I doubt whether the House has ever known a greater gentleman.
5.53 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on calling this debate, because it is extremely timely. We must consider two significant issues: first, the state of British public opinion and, secondly, our assessment of the threat.
There is a growing belief in this country that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, we face no threat in the area of defence. That is exemplified by early-day motion 593, tabled by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) among other left-wing luminaries. It calls on the Government, among other things, to
"respond by withdrawing Polaris and replacing the Trident programme with a programme of peaceful investment."
It is clear that Labour Members will push that superficially attractive line with all the enthusiasm that they have long put into the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and all its works. We must realise that siren message, which must be refuted.
A debate on the subject five years ago would have achieved a consensus of public opinion, which might not have included Labour Members. The threat was clear: it was from the Soviet Union, which had a capability of 27,000 nuclear warheads and the means of delivery. Today, things are different politically, but the successors of the Soviet Union still have that capacity. We should ask ourselves where the 27,000 warheads are. They are spread out across Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Byelorussia. They are only now going through the slow process of withdrawal to Russia and towards being dismantled.
We should ask ourselves who is in control of the vast nuclear array. The leaders of the Commonwealth of Independent States agreed at their conference in Minsk on 30 December that the decision to use nuclear weapons would be taken by President Yeltsin with the agreement of the leaders of Byelorussia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, and following consultation with the heads of the other member states of that commonwealth. How reassuring is that? It relies on the amity between the members of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the submission to authority by the military leaders.
The debate is especially timely because of the meeting tomorrow in Minsk between President Yeltsin, President Kravchuk and the other leaders of the Commonwealth of Independent States. The auguries for that meeting and for the future are not good. Last week, President Yeltsin stood up the middle east peace conference and the Japanese Foreign Minister to fly to Novorossiysk to sort out Russo-Ukrainian disagreements over the Black sea fleet.
Ukraine's leader, Leonid Kravchuk, has been hard-line over the allegiance of the Black sea fleet, and he may take a similar line on nuclear weapons within his own territory. There have even been rumours of a blockade of the fleet at its base in Sevastopol unless it submits to Ukrainian control. It is worth remembering that Sevastopol was Russian until 1954 when the Crimea was administratively transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev, himself a Ukrainian. All that is a source of instability.
How stable is President Yeltsin himself? We read almost daily reports of indiscipline and even mutiny within the red army. We read reports of sales of supplies, equipment and even munitions by the men in that army. For how long will the red army put up with the crumbling

59
of its world and all it believes in? Last August, we saw a revolt by the old guard of the Communist party, a trembling, nervous coterie of boozers, who failed to have the nerve and efficiency to carry the coup to a successful conclusion. Who can doubt that in the high command of the Soviet armed forces there are officers who have both qualities? A real and coherent threat could rapidly re-emerge.
We are quite rightly doing everything possible to assist President Yeltsin. Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described the considerable steps which this country is taking to assist. In defence, the Prime Minister has announced that we have agreed to co-operate on handling surplus Soviet nuclear weapons and safeguarding nuclear materials, and that we will send a technical mission to Moscow to assess the immediate needs at first hand.
Furthermore, my right hon. Friend told us that this country has agreed to co-operate in other areas of defence, including on the transformation that is required to ensure the restructuring, control and financing of armed forces in a democratic society. He has offered to second a small number of Ministry of Defence officials to the Russian Ministry of Defence.
It may be that a steady multilateral reduction in nuclear weapons will allow us to wind down our own independent minimum deterrent but, in the meantime, it would be absolute folly not to maintain that deterrent. We should be clear about what is meant by a "minimum nuclear deterrent." Unlike both the United States of America and the old USSR, Britain has consistently followed a policy of minimum nuclear deterrence. For that reason, the size of Britain's nuclear arsenal has never been related to the size of those of the super-powers. To do so would be to make a false analogy. This country's policy has been determined by one consideration alone—to possess the minimum number of warheads required to inflict unacceptable damage, in retaliation, upon any would-be nuclear aggressor. The definition of "minimum" must relate to need.
The prospective firepower capacity of Trident has come in for a good deal of unjustified criticism. It is misleading in the extreme to claim that, if Trident is a minimum nuclear deterrent, Polaris must be inadequate. Polaris is, indeed, adequate in 1992, but Trident is to be operative until well into the 21st century and, throughout its long shelf life, must be capable of deterring any aggression, especially nuclear. That is the reason for its having a greater firepower than that possessed by Polaris.
Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have unequivocally claimed that they support Trident, but do they? In a debate in the House on 14 January, the Labour party was invited unequivocally to support nuclear deterrence and the introduction of Trident. When it came to the vote, the vast bulk of Labour Members abstained on the orders of the party leadership, while a brave 28 hon. Members, led by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), voted with their consciences against nuclear deterrence and sound defence. Given that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) says that he is aiming for a majority of 20 seats after the next election, it is obvious that any future Labour Government would be held to ransom by the die-hard unilateralists who regard unilateral nuclear disarmament as an article of faith.
60
It was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield who claimed recently:
"if we can change our minds to win an election, we can change our minds back again afterwards".
We should be warned clearly by that statement. The likelihood of a robust and firm stand is in question when 17 members of the shadow Cabinet have anti-nuclear backgrounds, in a party with a notable unilateralist tradition. It is noteworthy that 75 per cent. of Labour Members standing for re-election have anti-nuclear or unilateralist backgrounds.
The message that must ring out from this House must be, "Stand firm and do not drop your guard, least of all against the background of the turbulent world that we have at present." One day we may reach a world in which multilateral disarmament achieves the total and absolute elimination of nuclear weapons. We must work towards that honourable goal, but in the meantime we must be prepared against any eventuality.
6.3 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to associate myself with the generous tribute that was paid by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I well recollect the afternoon when our mutual friend, the late Leslie Hale, who was at that time the Member of Parliament for Oldham and no mean orator himself, listed as one of his pleasures in the House of Commons for 30 years listening to the two right hon. Members for Ebbw Vale. I say no more on that subject other than to associate myself with those who have commented on the respect in which my right hon. Friend is held because of his contributions to Parliament.
I address myself simply to that part of the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) which
"urges the Government to play their full part in helping the relevant authorities in the Commonwealth of Independent States to dismantle their nuclear devices, to safeguard their nuclear components and to discourage … proliferation".
I have never been more concerned about nuclear matters as a champion of nuclear power than about the prospect that we now face of all those nuclear weapons—I do not know whether they number 27,000 or more and, more importantly, nor do the Russian authorities—being in the Soviet Union when the people who are supposed to maintain them are, so we are now told, going off to jobs in Iran or other parts of the middle east. Such being the bureaucracy of those places, I am informed that those people have not even told their successors of the location of the maintenance manuals. That constitutes a highly dangerous situation.
I should like to put a number of specific questions on this issue to the Foreign Office. The problems that were discussed recently in The Guardian article may be overstated, but we do not know of any technical reasons for a time limit on the safe dismantling of nuclear weapons and disposal of the materials. The sealed ampoules, which were referred to in the articles, may contain compounds of tritium, which has a half-life of approximately 12 years and is likely to require them to be refurbished in nuclear weapons from time to time.
As someone who is speaking in good faith and who has a general knowledge of nuclear physics and experience of handling radioactive materials in a civil nuclear

61
environment, I believe that that begs a question that concerns a number of serious people. I ask for a Foreign Office answer.
Secondly, in the event of an explosion of the conventional trigger mechanism during the dismantling of the weapons, it is extremely unlikely that a nuclear explosion would occur, but the conventional explosive mechanism could spread contamination, although its extent would be reasonably limited. That means that a few kilometers might be reasonable. As well as the spread of radioactive materials, toxic compounds such as beryllium would be a problem in such an event. If it is the view of the British authorities that there would be such a problem, what constructive help can we give?
Thirdly, we in Britain are not aware, as far as I know, whether suitable facilities exist for dismantling such a large number of weapons in the Soviet Union. The United States has a suitable plant at Plantex Amarillo in Texas, but whether the Russians have addressed that problem is deeply questionable. How can we ask them to dismantle weapons if they do not have the technical facilities to do so?
Fourthly, the west could provide assistance in dismantling the weapons by providing the necessary expertise or finance to allow the Russians to retain their existing experts. It is important to ask the Russians what is happening to their experts. If they are going off to the near east or leaving for other jobs so that they can keep their families—it is difficult to blame them at a human level—in the interests of humanity it is important that some of the maintenance engineers remain at their posts, looking after what they are charged to look after. Facilities such as Dounreay or Burghfield could play a part.
Fifthly, after the weapons are dismantled, the materials would have to be stored or processed. Both options involve risks of criticality incidents, radiation hazards for staff and the potential for the spread of radioactive contamination. Those problems are, however, well understood and can be avoided by the application of suitable controls. Are we doing anything to help to provide those suitable controls?
Sixthly, the disposal of the weapons should be subject to international safeguards, which should include verifiability via independent audits of the materials during storage or reprocessing to ensure that nothing is lost. My information is that a great deal may be lost—and that would be dire.
Seventhly, a high level of security will be required to protect the materials from terrorist activity. It is not only terrorist activity; it is the possibility of nuclear theft by people who are simply desperate to provide themselves with money to feed their family. This is an urgent, crying problem.
Eighthly, safeguards will be required to ensure that the dismantling and disposal processes are irreversible. What monitoring do we have?
Ninthly, since weapons are generally refurbished worldwide, experience of the technology required to dispose of the nuclear weapons material on this scale is limited, for obvious reasons. It is likely to be in demand as, for example, the Americans dismantled their weapons.
There appear to be no insurmountable difficulties in constructing facilities for the ultimate disposal of the weapons material. It should be possible to blend it with other materials to construct fuel for use in civil reactors. In this respect, highly enriched uranium can be blended with
62
natural uranium to make some reactor fuels into plutonium, which could be used in mixed oxide fuels. The question is whether we can use our fast reactors.
There are a number of hopeful signs. One is the honourable part that Scottish Nuclear is playing in solving the civil nuclear problems of the Soviet Union. Scottish Nuclear has a successful twinning exchange with Russia, which has been established between Smolensk and Torness. A continuing programme of technical exchanges is being developed. A protocol agreement between the two stations was signed in November 1991 which establishes an exchange of work experience between the two power stations, involving exchange visits by staff over a period of six months in 1992. A party of Torness staff spent a week in Smolensk during September 1991 and a return visit to Torness was made by Smolensk staff in November 1991. What do the Government intend to do to provide more resources and finance for such highly desirable exchanges?
Equally, with the Ukraine, contact has been established with a leading nuclear engineering institute in Kiev. Most urgent of all may be Bulgaria. The World Association of Nuclear Operators is exceedingly concerned about Kozlodui. John Hall, a Scottish Nuclear engineer from Hunterston on the outage assistance team there, has been asked to head up the section responsible for the requalification of units 1 and 2. The work performed by the WANO to improve operating standards at Kozlodui will be funded as part of an £8 million European Community aid package to the Bulgarian nuclear industry.
In partnership with the National Nuclear Corporation, Scottish Nuclear has agreed to provide technical assistance to the Energoproject, the Bulgarian nuclear design and construction organisation, for its nuclear programme. Together with matters relating to Czechoslovakia and Hungary, this is important work.
A long time ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent did me the honour of making me his science spokesman. I was never able to repay him because of a difficulty over some unrelated matter. As someone who for 30 years has followed scientific matters in the House of Commons, never have I spoken with more concern than I do about the stability of the 27,000-plus nuclear weapons that are floating around eastern Europe.
6.13 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I welcome the reduction in nuclear weapons agreed by the United States and the former Soviet Union. The debate, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), is most timely. The subject of the debate is the best ways of preventing nuclear proliferation.
Earlier the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) talked about reducing areas of instability, for example, on the Indian sub-continent. There is, indeed, tension between India and Pakistan. We should address its causes to see whether we can use our good offices to reduce that tension.
For decades one of the main bones of contention between India and Pakistan has been Kashmir. The United Nations resolution of 1949 that the people of Kashmir should have the right to their own self-determination is right, just and proper. What could be more democratically respectable than for the people of that unhappy land to have the say-so in their own future?

63
They should be given that right. If both countries agreed to go along with the will of the people of Kashmir, that source of tension would be removed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I find it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the motion before the House. I hope that he will relate his remarks to the motion.
Mr. Summerson: I was about to say that if that cause of tension is removed, a reason why both India and Pakistan wish to acquire the bomb will also be removed. We are talking about preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. My point is that if tension between countries can be reduced or removed altogether, the will or what may be seen as the necessity to possess these weapons will also disappear. The removal of tension should equate with the removal of the will to own nuclear weapons.
For a long time, our ownership of nuclear weapons has been in tandem with the responsibility and willingness of all Governments to state clearly that that ownership is only for the purpose of defence. For example, in 1982 the United Kingdom did not find it necessary even to consider using nuclear weapons in the Falklands conflict. It would have been appalling if we had used them. Our nuclear weapons are only for use against countries that threaten us with their nuclear weapons.
The reason why we possess nuclear weapons in the first place goes back to the cold war. To a large extent, the cold war overshadowed the fact that other countries were attempting to possess nuclear weapons. That has always been the case, but the existence of the cold war overshadowed that fact. Now that the cold war is over we can concentrate on the fact that other countries are attempting to acquire these weapons. That brings me back to the subject of the debate. The very idea that a country such as Libya or Iraq should gain possession of such weapons is highly dangerous. If, by some dreadful mischance, they succeed in acquiring these weapons, surely they are far less likely to be tempted to use the weapons against countries that have a massive retaliatory capability. For that reason alone, it is absolutely essential that we continue to possess nuclear weapons in this dangerous, turbulent world.
6.18 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am sorry that time does not permit me to go into detail on the various ways in which I agreed with the first two Conservative speakers about the need for surveillance, and inspection and the encouragement of non-proliferation.
It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) the reason why Trident is equipped with a far greater number of warheads, with far greater power, than Polaris. He justified that in terms not of meeting the dangers of 1992, but of future, imaginary and as yet unknown dangers. He does not seem to realise that, by the same logic, there is nothing to prevent every other country from adopting precisely the same policy, thereby endangering the world with a grotesque level of proliferation.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Gravesham that I was one of 28 hon. Members who voted against the Government policy, as outlined in a recent debate, and I
64
voted for the Labour amendment. I will take great pleasure and pride in supporting anything that a Labour Government do to bring about peace and to make the world safer. The hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt about that.
Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
Mrs. Fyfe: I shall not give way, as time is extremely short.
People want peace and are desperate for safety in the world. The people of the former Soviet Union and of the United States are delighted that, at long last, far less is to be spent on nuclear weapons, because they need that to be spent on social welfare. There is appalling poverty in both those continental masses. Britons want the same.
We should stop this play-acting nonsense of seeking to make cheap political points inside and outside the Chamber. The people of Britain are disgusted at such childish nonsense. They want us to address the issue seriously, so that we can try to bring about peace and a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons held.
6.20 pm
Dr. John Reid: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on raising the topic of nuclear proliferation, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said, it is a subject of great interest to the people of this country. This is not a summation, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on those bits of his speech which he obviously wrote himself. It is a pity that, towards the end, he padded it out by reading from what obviously was essentially a Conservative central office party briefing.
We have heard many expressions of concern about nuclear proliferation, and justifiably so. The break-up of the Soviet Union has created greater uncertainty than ever before as to the future safe keeping of that vast nuclear arsenal.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Did the hon. Gentleman write this?
Dr. Reid: I wrote it and thought it up myself. I even typed it. I accept that the subject is probably beyond the capacity of some Conservative Members, but not of all of them.
What is more worrying still is the prospect of new regimes, of varying reliability, acquiring a viable nuclear capability in the next couple of decades. Several hon. Members have voiced concern about that. As long as that potential threat exists, there will be a continuing need for Britain to maintain a mixed defence with a nuclear capability included at an appropriate level. That is not the issue in question tonight, even if we disagree on what should be regarded as the appropriate level. The issue at stake tonight is proliferation, a subject which I am glad that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) addressed.
The issue is vital for three reasons. First, although it was normally assumed that proliferation would be established as a result of new weapons systems being developed by old and established states, old and established weapons systems are now being distributed to newly established states, particularly in the wake of the disintegration of the former Soviet empire. Secondly, it is

65
no longer just a matter of nuclear technology crossing frontiers; we now face the real prospect of nuclear technologists themselves crossing frontiers.
Thirdly, nuclear deterrence depends, as always, on the absolute certainty that a potential adversary will make a rational and logical calculation. Put quite simply, the adversary must understand that any nuclear aggression on his part would provoke a response so unacceptable as not to make that aggression worth while. But what happens when we are faced, as we may be increasingly, with a nuclear-armed adversary who for one reason or an other is beyond the boundary of that logic? That is not a possibility that we should dismiss lightly because it affects deterrence and proliferation; nor should we believe that this is only a modern problem.
Mao Tse-Tung gave a chilling insight into the workings of just such a mind. Lest any Conservative Members feel the impulse to run to telephone The Sunday Times, I have not personally met Mao Tse-Tung. However, when he met Khrushchev, he said:
"If the worse came to the worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain, while imperialism would be razed to the ground."
Thirty years later, we find ourselves confronted with the same type of mentality in the form of Saddam Hussein. Given what he was prepared to allow his people to endure during the Gulf war and what he inflicted on them afterwards, can we have any confidence that Saddam Hussein would have been deterred from using nuclear weapons?
It is for those three reasons that the Labour party remains sceptical about the argument that deterrence alone will always provide a foolproof means of avoiding nuclear holocaust. The possession of nuclear weapons in a nuclear world may be a necessary condition of security, but it is not, in itself, a sufficient condition of security. Better, we say, to prevent potential enemies from acquiring nuclear weapons than to place our trust in the logic of deterrence after the event.
The credibility of the Government's record on defence cannot, despite the efforts of Conservative Back Benchers, concentrate exclusively on Britain's independent nuclear deterrent. It must also include an assessment based on the Government's ability to secure effective measures to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. If we assess that, we soon see that the Conservative party's claim to be the party of defence and security is a hollow sham rather than one of substance.
Last week, it was announced that the Government will draw together a package of measures designed to safeguard nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and to ensure that nuclear scientists do not sell their services to emerging nuclear weapons states. That announcement came fully three months after the Labour party called for action to be taken on that very issue—three months in which the Government once again dithered and prevaricated. God alone knows what has already happened in the intervening period in the leakage of nuclear technology from the Soviet Union.
Today the Prime Minister gave another example of the Government's attitude. In his statement, he boasted:
"We committed ourselves to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation and to the conclusion of a chemical weapons convention this year."
However, within minutes, that same Prime Minister categorically stated that we would certainly never confirm the number of warheads we possess. How on earth can we
66
pledge ourselves, on the one hand, to enter a system of verifiable nuclear systems control and, on the other, say that we, above all others, will never tell anyone else how many warheads we have?
On the question of nuclear proliferation, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence are like the three wise monkeys. They do not see the threat of nuclear proliferation, they will not listen to those who warn them of the dangers, and they certainly never speak about what action they propose to take to stop it. The truth is that the Government are not only morally but intellectually bankrupt when it comes to protecting Britain from the modern nuclear threat and providing modern security. They are mentally locked into a security time warp, bent on resurrecting the corpses of yesterday's threats, yesterday's fears and, for good measure, as we saw at the weekend, yesterday's smears.
No one will take those smears seriously, particularly when they come from this Government. After all, on the very morning of the Soviet coup, the Secretary of State for Defence was interviewed on radio, and the interviewer could not believe what she heard. That interview was given before the Secretary of State for Defence or the Prime Minister knew whether that coup would be effective. The interviewer could not believe what she heard and pressed the right hon. Gentleman—before he knew whether the coup had succeeded or failed—by saying that we were not
"surely intending to do business with a hard-line, eight-man emergency committee who are clamping down as they are today."
The Secretary of State, according to the Tories, is not a cringer, and he is not one to be craven. He replied with all that lack of cringinity and cravenness for which he is famous:
"Well I've met Marshal Yazov, I think anybody who'd been to the Soviet Union realised people who were there who had their concerns about the speed of the reforms and the tensions and difficulties that they were causing within the Soviet Union".
What a stalwart for the free world! What a shining example to us all of resolution in its equivocation!
The interviewer, who was still surprised, then said:
"So we have to do business with whoever is in power in the Soviet Union",
to which the stalwart Secretary of State replied:
"Well we obviously bitterly regret the news that has happened. But we have to look objectively at our own interests".
Those are the words of a Minister trying to parade the Government's patriotism and objectivity with regard to democracy before the British people, but it will not wash.
Nowhere is the Government's time-warped mentality more abundantly clear than when it comes to dealing with a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. The Labour party believes that such a treaty would represent one of the most significant achievements in helping to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology. As it is extremely difficult to develop an effective nuclear capability without nuclear testing, a ban would obstruct those countries seeking to acquire such weapons. As it is impossible to explode a nuclear device of sufficient size undetected, any country breaching the ban would be discovered, thus allowing the international community to take appropriate steps.
The argument is extremely simple. Such a treaty would therefore prove invaluable in preventing the spread of nuclear technology. I do not pretend that it is a sufficient condition of stopping the spread, but it is a necessary

67
condition to start the stop of proliferation. Yet the Government have persisted in their shameful opposition to it.
The Prime Minister believes that nuclear testing is essential. I had not understood that he was a nuclear scientist, which may be why his academic past is shrouded in mystery. His claim that testing is necessary in order to maintain Britain's existing nuclear capability is bogus. As J. Carson Mark, the former head of the theoretical division of the Los Alamos national laboratory, whose O-levels are on record, said:
"The reliability, effectiveness, safety and security of our nuclear arsenal can be maintained without nuclear tests."
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has been arguing that testing is not necessary. Will he reconcile that with the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who said:
"Any country which becomes able to manufacture nuclear weapons needs to test them".—[Official Report, 14 January 1992; Vol. 201, c. 837.]
Dr. Reid: Precisely. I am coming to that very point. I am glad that the Minister confirms the consistency of our remarks.
The testing of a nuclear component is not necessary, and I have just quoted on that, the former head of Los Alamos who goes on to say that, by testing the non-nuclear components of existing systems they can be maintained in service, but that testing is necessary only for the development and design of new types of warhead or for developing a warhead from scratch. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said in the paragraph that the Minister quoted. That is why the Prime Minister and the Government guard testing so jealously, irrespective of its cost in the international scene, or the undermining of our legitimacy in stopping proliferation. They guard it because it is necessary for the development and design of new types of nuclear warheads and new nuclear thresholds.
The debate about a comprehensive nuclear test ban is of added significance, as the refusal of the United States and Britain to accept one is preventing international agreement on measures to strengthen the non-proliferation treaty. We have heard much tonight about what the Government have already done, and the Minister will no doubt say more about getting rid of nuclear weapons. However, on the question of nuclear arms control, the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Britain's allies.
In announcing the package of reductions proposed by NATO last October, the Secretary of State could barely conceal his sulking resentment. In examining the elements of that announcement, we discover that it boils down to the scrapping of two systems that we did not own, the storing of weapons that we could not use, and the reduction of a number of bombs that we no longer have the capacity to deploy. So we might use the paraphrase, in arms control terms, "Big deal."
Those facts, together with the Government's attitude towards a test ban, have proved that they are not interested in preventing nuclear proliferation and have nothing positive to contribute to the process of international arms control. Indeed, their complacency and inactivity pose a real threat to the country's security because Ministers' attitudes betray their real reasons for
68
refusing to act—their contempt for the idea of non-proliferation, which has been shown time and again tonight by Conservative Members' speeches.
On 18 June 1990, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement compared the non-proliferation treaty to the 1938 Munich agreement, and said that those who believed in it were "naive". On 22 November last year, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
"I am not sure that I can see other nations agreeing to the intrusive inspection regimes that will be necessary to find all nuclear systems."—[Official Report, 22 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 600.]
In other words, everyone else must open their books, but the United Kingdom is not prepared to do so. The Government's opposition is clear. In mitigation, they point to those systems that they have already got rid of. Before the Minister of State for the Armed Forces arrived —I am sure that he has had many engagements this evening—I was explaining what those amounted to.
How do the Government know that no one else will accept an inspection regime? They base their assumption on their own volition and judgment. They have proved to be one of the most obstructive Governments in the world when it comes to nuclear arms control. It would be naive to expect them to take the lead in strengthening the non-proliferation treaty as a means of ensuring Britain's security. They not only have contempt for it but are guilty of breaching its spirit.
Article 6 of the treaty states explicitly:
"Each of the parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
I am tempted to ask Conservative Members to raise their hands if they believe in that article, but I shall not embarrass them, because I know from their speeches that not one of them believes in the articles that the Government signed and purport to support. Instead of negotiating for disarmament, as the Government are obliged to do under the treaty, they are guilty of a qualitative and quantitative vertical proliferation of nuclear weaponry by proposing to increase the number of strategic warheads held by Britain from 192 to 512—an increase of 250 per cent.
It seems that the collapse of the Warsaw pact, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the deep unilateral cuts currently being made by both the United States of America and Russia are to have no impact in the Government's defence posture. What possible rationale can there be for this country to embark on such a programme? There is neither logic nor legitimacy in the Government's plans to replace the 192-warhead Polaris system with the 512-warhead Trident system. Either Polaris is a minimum deterrent at a 192-warhead level, in which case the 512-warhead Trident is a massive escalation, or Trident is a minimum deterrent, in which case Polaris falls well beneath the minimum credible deterrent, and the Government's whole posture of deterrence has been based on a lie for years past. They cannot have it both ways.
For years we have been told that we must improve our nuclear arsenal because it counts for so much. Now we are being told by the Prime Minister, as he told Mr. Yeltsin, that we must improve our nuclear arsenal because it counts for so little. Is not that typical of the hypocrisy that the Government have brought to those issues? If their

69
position lacks logic, more importantly it lacks legitimacy. Naturally, under pressure of the need for economic aid, the Russian leadership may accept, for the time being, a British nuclear build-up at precisely the time when Britain is urging Russia to slash its arsenal.
But how long will that last? What moral or political legitimacy can be claimed by a British Government who are intent on multiplying their own nuclear forces in urging cuts in the nuclear forces of Russia, Byelorussia, Kazakhstan or the Ukraine? With what moral authority can a nuclear-hiking British Government urge self-denial on the nuclear-seeking nations of the world—Algeria, South Africa, Argentina, North Korea, India and Pakistan? The answer is none. It is not logical, legitimate or moral for the Government to do so, and they have no authority for such action. No Government has the moral authority or legitimacy to hold a position which, as codified to the rest of the world, is, "Don't do as I do, do as I say."
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): The number of warheads currently in the Soviet Union is 27,000; the hon. Gentleman gave a figure of 512 for the United Kingdom. If the Soviet Union or any other country does as we do and reduces their total to 512, we shall welcome that action.
Dr. Reid: I am not being patronising when I say that the Minister is an intelligent man. He will know that, in placing all the warheads of the Soviet Union together as he does, he assumes a massed attack on Britain not just by Russia, but by Kazakhstan, the Ukraine, Byelorussia and every other Soviet republic at the same time. The republics have enough problems trying to unite to run the Black sea fleet without launching a united, pre-emptive nuclear strike against Britain or other bases. The Minister must know that.
The excuses offered by the Minister and the Government for their acts of proliferation and escalation represented by the Trident programme do not stand up to investigation. Even if they did, we should look askance at a Government who say that they are intent on stopping the proliferation of armoury throughout the world when they have done nothing but replicate the appeasement of the 1930s with one of the world's worst dictators.
The Government have sent to Iraq aircraft engines, armoured vehicles, vehicle spares, artillery fire control and artillery boards. They have sent to Iraq's dictator body armour, ejection seats, explosives, helicopter engines, laser rangefinders and long range surveillance. They have sent to Iraq, with love, mortar-locating radar, naval spares, night vision goggles and trainers, pistols, rifles, shotguns, satellite communication equipment, speech scramblers, tank helmets and much more. The Government do all that while stating that they are a Government who wish to stop the proliferation of arms to dictators, and meanwhile their Members make speeches such as those we have heard today.
The Government supplied Iraq with those weapons and propped up a dictator—as did their predecessors in the 1930s—through a policy of appeasement and aid. They need to be replaced by a Labour Government committed to stopping proliferation. We shall freeze the number of warheads in Trident at a level no higher than those currently being carried in Polaris, while entering the long-term strategic arms negotiations. We will declare a
70
moratorium on nuclear testing and promote agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty with a type verification regime. We shall support the strengthening of the non-proliferation treaty to include intrusive verification and the use of United Nations sanctions against countries found in breach of it. We shall work towards a more powerful and better resourced International Atomic Energy Agency.
Those policies will be allied to a full defence review designed to produce a British defence configuration as a response to the complex nature of today's security problems, not the cosy certainty of yesterday's cold war stand-off, so beloved of the Conservatives. Living in the past may save the Government from having to change, think, and shape new approaches or dream up new slogans or smears. However, it will not save this country's security, and it will do nothing to save the Government at the long-postponed election.
6.44 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Those who have just listened to the somewhat excitable speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will know that, in reality, and if in power, the Labour party would substantially reduce our conventional forces and almost certainly pursue a policy of unilateral disarmament.
The motion was introduced cleverly and carefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). The proliferation of nuclear weapons represents a unique threat to international order and security. Therefore, the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to debate the motion which involves two related, though separate, issues. The first is proliferation, and the second is the need for a nuclear deterrent.
On 14 January this year, the House debated the need for an independent nuclear deterrent. I set out my views then, so in today's debate I propose to concentrate primarily on the subject of proliferation. However, I shall first echo a number of points raised by my hon. Friends on the need for an independent nuclear deterrent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) was entirely right to say that the risk to this country's security has not disappeared. It has changed and is probably less than it was, but it remains. I strongly endorse the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Romford and for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), who urged on the House the need to retain an independent nuclear deterrent. Like my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, I deeply distrust the Labour party's policy on this subject.
Until recently, Labour Members were, as far as one can judge, wholeheartedly unilateralist. The Labour party fought the 1983 election on that manifesto and the 1987 election largely on such a manifesto. The amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in the debate on 14 January positively deleted the reference to Britain having an independent nuclear deterrent.
In the course of an extremely long speech, the right hon. Gentleman never once uttered a wholehearted commitment to the retention of Britain's nuclear deterrent. I do not find that surprising when I consider that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the Leader of the

71
Opposition, was until 1991 a paid-up member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and then allowed his subscription to lapse. In seven of the nine previous years, he resolutely endorsed the key policies of CND, saying that they were his own. I deeply distrust the Labour party's policies on both conventional and nuclear weaponry.
The core of the first part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) seemed to be that the United Kingdom was a prime supplier of arms to Iraq, and that we had markedly increased that country's military capacity. That statement is wrong. I do not know what happened betweeen 1974 and 1979, when the Labour party was in government. It is possible that, during that period, when strict rules were not in place, Iraq purchased substantial quantities of weaponry, which it kept in its arsenal. I do not know whether that is correct, but I know for sure that in 1980 Her Majesty's Conservative Government tightened the rules and resolutely placed a total ban on the sale of lethal equipment and ammunition.
Those rules were further tightened in December 1984, when the Government resolved not to supply any material that could increase the military capacity of the warring countries. I do not suppose that there is any country with a sizeable arms industry that contributed less to Iraq than did the United Kingdom. Allegations to the contrary are unworthy of Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) raised a different point that needs more serious consideration—Export Credits Guarantee Department cover. He was right to say that it was increased, but ECGD cover does not constitute a loan. It is not a facility offered to a country to increase its purchasing capacity. It is cover for exporters who are bound by the rules then in place, which I have described—
Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hogg: No, I have not much time, and I intend to press on.
Testing was focused on by a number of right hon. and hon. Members—for instance, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). It is important to bear in mind the small scale of British testing when contrasted with that of other countries. Since 1963, the United Kingdom has tested slightly less than once a year, on average. The United States has conducted more than 600 tests, the USSR, as was, more than 460, and France more than 130.
The Government believe it necessary to retain a testing capacity for as long as we have a nuclear deterrent, so as to ensure the safety and efficacy of the device in question. Opposition Members argue that we do not need to test in order to acquire a weapon, and that a test ban—
Dr. Reid indicated dissent.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman had better be careful if he is saying that he does not argue that. What is more, the Opposition argue that a test ban is an essential ingredient in preventing the proliferation of weaponry. I do not believe that this is so. On 14 January 1992, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill)—he does not agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton—said:
72
"There is no longer any need for full-scale nuclear testing. There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that non-nuclear tests—computer simulations and other technical means—can provide adequate information on safety and reliability."—[Official Report, 14 January 1992; Vol. 201, c. 898.]
I do not entirely agree with that, but one import of his remarks was that a test ban is not a necessary element in preventing the proliferation of weaponry because, as he put it, one does not actually need a test in order to have a crude bomb. The Iraqis proved that point, because they were close to having a bomb without having carried out a test.
Mr. Flynn: The Minister says that the Iraqis were close to having a bomb. I remind him that, when I pressed the Government in April 1990 to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspections of the Iraqi nuclear programme, the Government said that they had no intention of doing any such thing, giving the reason that Saddam Hussein had signed the non-proliferation treaty. The Minister's predecessor told me that the Government had every confidence that Hussein would abide by his international obligations and not work on a nuclear weapon. The Government were fooled then: who is fooling them now?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to read the evidence more carefully. He will know that the British Government led the pack in strengthening the safeguards. He will also bear in mind the fact that my predecessor, now Secretary of State for Health, had been urging the case for special inspections for some time. I would like to think, although I have not heard confirmation of this, that the hon. Gentleman supported him in that endeavour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) raised two points of significance, one dealing with Trident, the other with the tactical air-to-surface missile. My hon. Friend was kind enough to tell me that he had a surgery in his constituency and hoped that the House would forgive his absence later in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood described the Trident system as flexible, mobile and a minimum deterrent. He was right on all those points, and I want to emphasise that Trident is a minimum deterrent. The Government have said that 128 warheads per Trident boat is the maximum. We shall deploy the minimum that is required, which may in certain circumstances be substantially fewer than 128 warheads. We want to be able to load the missile boats with the number that we regard as needed to ensure our security. The maximum is 128 warheads per boat, but that is not to say that that number will be carried.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood also dealt with the issue of a sub-strategic weapon. I agree that it is important to have a sub-strategic weapon, and we must soon make some decisions on the nature of such weapons. We are approaching the time when the free-fall bomb will pass its shelf life. There is a powerful argument for an air-launched missile, and my hon. Friend made it. We are entirely convinced of the need for a sub-strategic weapon, but as yet no final decisions have been made about the nature of the weapon that we will want in our arsenal.

73
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked 11 or 12 questions; I could not do justice to them all now. He based many of them on an article in The Observer—
Mr. DalyellNo, I did not.
Mr. Hogg: Well, some of them anyway—
Mr. Dalyell: No.
Mr. Hogg: Well, I heard the hon. Gentleman refer to The Observer. If I misunderstood him, I apologise. Nevertheless, I should like to reply to most of his questions in writing.
In the meantime, I would like to touch on a more general point that he raised relating to the Russians' facilities and the assistance that the United Kingdom Government and others can give the Russians. The Russians have certain facilities; the question is whether they have enough to achieve the dismantling over a reasonably short period, and that is extremely questionable. They have two great problems—with transport and with storage. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow will have heard the Prime Minister say, we are going to send a technical team to Russia, leaving on 10 February, to explore the ways in which we can assist the Russians.
I do not pretend that we stand alone in this. Under-Secretary of State Bartholomew from the United States went with a team a few days ago and carried out an exploratory visit. In this matter, we all need to stand together; we all have a contribution to make and it must be made collectively—
Dr. Reid: The Minister has still not said anything about non-proliferation.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman grumbles, but I am answering questions raised by his hon. Friends. It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had not spoken for so long.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow was also right about nuclear scientists. There is a serious risk connected with the leakage of expertise. We need to try to assist the Russians and the Governments of the other republics to find ways of keeping their scientists within their frontiers. That is essential, and we shall work with the Russians and others to that end.
On the broader question of non-proliferation, I have not had sufficient time to cover the subject as fully as I should like, but hon. Members are the first to grumble if I do not reply to the points that they have raised, and that is what I have tried to do. For us, the core is the non-proliferation treaty.
6.59 pm
Sir Michael Neubert: This has been a helpful debate, and it would assist the House if we reached a decision on the question.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, recognising the potential dangers of the rapidly changing world order, welcomes the recent proposals for substantial reductions in nuclear weaponry, the growing support for the non-proliferation treaty and progress in the implementation of the UN Security Council Resolutions concerning the dismantling of Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities; urges the Government to play their full part in helping the relevant authorities in the Commonwealth of Independent States to dismantle their nuclear devices, to safeguard their nuclear components and to discourage the proliferation of nuclear expertise; and believes it is of the first importance that Britain retains an effective and credible minimum nuclear deterrent as security in a world where there remain many sources of instability.

Overseas Development and Co-operation
7 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move,
That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.
I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we also consider the draft African Development Fund (Sixth Replenishment) Order 1992.
I bring to the House the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who was tonight to have been in Angola. However, on her way to Angola she caught an ear infection when in Zimbabwe and had to curtail her visit and return home. She is sorry that she cannot be here, but I am confident that she will be well and back in the House soon.
The purpose of these orders is to authorise further payments to the replenishments to the African development fund and the special development fund of the Caribbean Development bank. In common with similar international financial institutions, the banks have two main lending arms: the bank itself, which borrows in the financial markets for on-lending to its regional members; and the funds, which lend at concessional rates. These are sometimes referred to as the "hard" and "soft" windows respectively. These draft orders authorise payments for the "soft" windows. The United Kingdom was a founder member of the African development fund, established in 1973. Its purpose is to contribute to the economic development and social progress of its regional members.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: How does the Minister know whether funds that are allocated under the "soft" window are allocated to projects that should be funded through that window rather than through the other one?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall deal with that point at greater length in my winding-up speech. For the Caribbean development fund we have an executive who is a board member and for the African development fund we share with three other countries, which include Germany and the Netherlands, a representative who would be privy to these decisions, and we are able to review the situation in the light of those appointments.
The fund is part of the African Development bank group and lends on concessional terms. Its resources are replenished every three years with contributions agreed through a process of multilateral negotiation with donor Governments. These negotiations provide the opportunity for donors to review past performance and agree policy directions for the future, as well as agreeing an overall target for the replenishment and relative burden-sharing among donors. Negotiations on the sixth replenishment of the fund began in June 1990, and were concluded last year. The replenishment that we are discussing will cover commitments made over the period 1991–93.
The agreed replenishment total was 2·65 billion fund units of account, or approximately £1·8 billion. This represented a modest increase in real terms over the fifth replenishment. The United Kingdom increased its share from 3·55 to 4 per cent., a total full commitment of, in today's money, £71·9 million. This sum will be paid in
76
three equal instalments in the form of non-interest bearing promissory notes which will be encashed over a number of years.
A report was drawn up which set out understandings on policy issues which will serve as guidelines for the management of the fund over the next three years. In particular, it was agreed that allocation of resources should be based to a much greater extent than in the past on the performance of borrowing countries. Donors emphasised that, given the demands on concessional resources, it was important to ensure that these are allocated to programmes and projects where they will be used most effectively. Borrowing countries which are pursuing sound economic policies, which are making efforts to reduce poverty and achieve growth with equity, or which are committed to development which is sustainable both in environmental or other terms are those on which the fund should be concentrating its efforts.
With reference to economic management, donors agreed that the bulk of the funds resources should go either to countries implementing adjustment programmes supported by the International Monetary Fund or World bank, especially within the umbrella of the World bank's special programme of assistance for Africa, or to those countries with a sound policy framework.
Sound economic management is an essential pre-requisite for renewed growth and development in Africa. We hope that the greater weight given to performance in fund operations will act as a spur to those countries that have not yet begun the process of economic reform to do so as quickly as possible.
Good government is also vital if aid is to provide sustainable development. This includes not just sound economic policies but competent administration, democratically accountable institutions and respect for the rule of law. We emphasised the importance of these points during the sixth replenishment negotiations, and we are encouraged by the extent to which the African Development bank is lending its weight to promoting this concept in its dialogue with borrowing countries.
A second major policy theme in the negotiations was that of poverty alleviation. The obvious lesson that a sustainable reduction in poverty is not possible without economic growth was underlined. So, too, was the need to ensure that the poor get a bigger slice of the benefits of growth, and the need for direct help to the poorest, especially in the provision of basic health and primary education. The bank has set up a task force to prepare a strategy on poverty reduction.
The bank also agreed to initiate work on population problems. Population growth rates in sub-Saharan Africa are among the highest of any region of the developing world. They have reached a rate of 3 per cent. a year. This means that population will double in 25 years, with clear implications for poverty reduction efforts, and of course, pressure on social infrastructure and the environment.
The bank's performance on environmental issues has been criticised in this House and elsewhere. Management has finalised an environmental policy and is now implementing operational guidelines. The bank is also preparing a forestry sector policy paper, and has undertaken to consult with interested non-governmental organisations before this is finalised. Donors asked that environmental impact assessments be provided for all

77
projects which could have a significant effect on the environment and urged the bank to strengthen its professional staffing in this area as quickly as possible.
These measures taken together should considerably enhance the quality of assistance provided by the fund to its low-income borrowers. The majority of these countries are classified as moderately or severely indebted countries. They cannot afford to borrow on commercial terms and add to their crippling burden of debt.
Their debt problems, of course, are being addressed in other ways. The Government have consistently taken the lead in promoting concerted debt relief measures for those poorest countries which owe most of their debts to Governments. I am delighted, as the House will also be, that in mid-December we successfully achieved consensus in the Paris Club to grant improved debt relief to the poorest, most heavily indebted countries. Under these new terms, up to 50 per cent. of eligible debt service will be written off. This important advance is, of course, a direct result of proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1990. The new arrangements represent a good start to implementation of the Trinidad terms, and we shall continue to press for improvements in the terms offered, along the lines of my right hon. Friend's original proposals.
I should now like to turn to the second order. The Caribbean Development bank was established in 1969 and lends only to the Commonwealth Caribbean. There are 17 borrowing member countries, of which five are dependent territories. The United Kingdom and Canada were the two non-regional founding members. For many years the special development fund—the "soft" window—was funded by a variety of voluntary contributions, each with its own conditions attached. The procedure was simplified in 1984 when a unified fund was established.
The main support for the special development fund comes from the non-regional members, whose numbers expanded in the late 1980s to include France, Italy and Germany. Negotiations for the third replenishment were concluded in May last year. The total agreed was $118 million—more than £62 million. That figure may increase slightly as further pledges are received. The United Kingdom's share is £10·6 million—about 17 per cent. of the total. The United Kingdom's share of the second replenishment was £9·3 million, so there has been a significant increase. The replenishment will cover the period 1992–95, and, as with the African development fund, our contributions will be paid by promissory note. We see the Caribbean Development bank as playing a key role in channelling development assistance to the region.
The CDB operates on a much smaller scale than the African Development bank. The island communities that borrow from it are for the most part small and rely on one or two commodities only, and tourism, and are therefore exceptionally vulnerable to market forces. Emphasis in its programme is given to the development of human resources, through education schemes—secondary, technical, vocational, and teacher training in some cases—in co-operation with the World bank. The CDB is a focal point for skilled manpower within the region, and is manned entirely by people from the Caribbean. It also supports projects to diversify agriculture to reduce the dependence on export crops.
Attention is given to the establishment of new enterprises, and the bank recently expanded its lending to
78
the private sector further to encourage local initiatives. The Caribbean islands are in a hurricane belt and are subject to regular storms and severe flooding. To help reduce the effects of tidal waves and regular erosion of the coastline, the bank supports schemes to strengthen coastal sea defences. The Caribbean Development bank is assisting in the economic recovery programme for Guyana. Those are examples of practical ways of helping the small island communities, five of which are still British dependent territories. The special development fund concentrates on the most vulnerable parts of those communities. The third replenishment will enable the fund to continue to provide valuable support to those small but valued members of the Commonwealth.
The funds to be authorised under the two orders thus represent a significant contribution to our efforts to help Africa and the Caribbean. I commend them both to the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): As the Minister has said, it is in order for motions Nos. 4 and 5 to be debated together.
7.14 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I want my comments on the role of the African development fund and the Caribbean Development bank to be understood as being in the context of the role of the British Government vis-a-vis the development challenges facing the African continent.
This debate is taking place at a crucial time. The Minister mentioned two particular initiatives that he thought were most important. The first of these is the Prime Minister's Commonwealth debt initiative. Although we have always welcomed this, it must be put in the context of the fact that it is no compensation at all for the Conservative Government's aid cuts. Although debt relief for the poorest countries is a step forward, it is absolutely no substitute for aid. While the Government have been prepared to cancel debts—many of which were not being serviced anyway—they have cut aid, as a percentage of gross national product, to the lowest level on record: 0·27 per cent. last year, compared with 0·51 per cent. in 1979 under the last Labour Government. In 1979, under Labour, Britain's contribution as a percentage of GNP was the second highest in the group of seven richest countries; now Britain's contribution is the second lowest. While the Governments of African countries may be paying out a little less in debt servicing, they are no better off if less is coming in by way of aid.
The third world has lost £10 billion because of cutbacks in aid as a percentage of GNP from the 1979 level under Labour, which was 20 times the maximum estimated debt relief under the present Government's new scheme. The Prime Minister's initiative is too limited, and Britain has failed to secure the agreement of its international partners, especially the United States of America, on the issue. The initiative applies only to country-to-country bilateral debt; it does not apply to amounts owed to the international institutions. In fact, the Government actually blocked a proposal that debt to the European Community be written off. A Labour Government would press for such agreements.
The initiative does not apply to amounts owed to the commercial banks. The Government have a hands-off approach to the commercial banks, while granting them

79
large amounts of tax relief in respect of these debts. During the Committee stage of the Finance Bill of 1991 Labour pressed for the withdrawal of this tax relief if banks did not write off the debts.
The initiative applies to only a small group of the poorest countries. Other very poor countries, such as Ethiopia, are not included. Many millions in Africa still face famine. Only this week the United Nations appealed for an extra $621·6 million for emergency operations in the Horn of Africa. The total pledged by donors so far is only three quarters of what is needed.
Long-term poverty is also on the increase. In a relatively optimistic projection the World bank estimates that, on the basis of present trends, the number of people in Africa living in absolute poverty will rise from the present 180 million to 265 million in the year 2000. In that time the continent's share of the world's poorest people will double—rising from 16 per cent. to 32 per cent. Before the Minister congratulates the Prime Minister again, perhaps he will bear those figures in mind.
The Minister stressed also the importance of population policies, but in a parliamentary answer that I received today, the Government admit to massive cuts in funding to key United Nation agencies. The United Kingdom's 1990 contribution to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, for example, was cut by 65 per cent. between 1979 and 1990. While the Prime Minister espouses the Government's support for the United Nations, in reality they have savaged Britain's contribution to key United Nation agencies with proven track records. The Minister ought to review the figures before stressing the importance of policy initiatives that the Government have been particularly tardy in supporting with cash.
As we debate tonight, 23 million people's lives are at risk in the Horn of Africa. The urgent appeal to the international community has yet to find receptive ears. The intensifying of internal conflict, breakdown of law and order in parts of the region, massive population movements, and continuing drought-induced famine in some areas are taking their toll.
The eye of the storm must be Somalia. The Prime Minister's fine words this afternoon about the United Nation's newly enhanced role as peacemaker in the new world order must be tested against Somalia's pressing case. Many Somalians who for months looked to Britain, with all her historic links with that country, to take a leading role in the peace process were disappointed with the Government's reluctance and unimpressive response. Although the recent United Nation resolution is a welcome sign of a vigorous approach, I am sorry that it did not feature more prominently at the recent summit.
The appalling suffering of the people of Somalia and the impact that it is having across the region must be a top priority for the United Nations. The world's attention has focused on the needs of the Commonwealth of Independent States—the former Soviet Union. I do not deny the necessity for action there, but Africa's desperate needs have not gone away. The imperative for action is all the greater because so many opportunities exist among the gloom. In some areas, the problems to which the United Nations Secretary-General is pointing are, with cruel irony, caused by improvements to security and good
80
government—such as that seen in Ethiopia—that are allowing people to return to their homes. It would be an even greater tragedy if support were denied to help the thousands of refugees who are returning to their homelands after years of war and exile.
The immediate crisis is being played out against the background of Africa's prolonged economic crisis. According to the World bank, incomes per head in sub-Saharan Africa fell by 2·2 per cent. a year between 1980 and 1989. Excluding those in oil-rich Nigeria, most Africans are by that measure worse off today than in 1965.
There have been enormous external economic pressures on the continent. A steady decline in Africa's terms of trade in the 1970s was severely compounded by a drastic fall in the purchasing power of the country's exports of more than 40 per cent. between 1980 and 1986. Debt problems have mounted. More than one fifth of Africa's export earnings are swallowed up in debt servicing. That level would be much higher were it not for constant rescheduling and the continuing build-up of arrears.
Against that background, there is in parts of Africa clear evidence that long-term malnutrition is on the increase, while average lifespans and primary school enrolment levels are decreasing. Internal factors, including autocratic government and internal mismanagement, play a significant part. Nevertheless, there has in recent years been a remarkable, continuing trend towards economic reform and democracy. Great opportunities are opening up in Africa—as great in scale in many ways as those that exist in the former Soviet Union.
However, Africa cannot do it alone. Many African Governments feel a sense of betrayal that, having implemented the painful reforms advocated by rich countries, they are not being supported. Britain must play a much fuller part in tackling the African crisis and building on the potential offered by reform. We must provide emergency relief. We are watching the Government closely to see whether their high-minded talk of support for the United Nations manifests itself in a major response to the United Nations Secretary-General's appeal for the Horn of Africa.
We must support also the process of recovery. We are shocked by the Government's refusal to support the second phase of the UN's special programme for Africa. Despite the widely acknowledged success of the first phase in channelling support to small farmers to help them recover from famine, in the urgent task of growing more food, and improve the incomes of the rural poor—and the programme's good work and accumulated experience—the Government are prepared to see it die. They seem prepared to allow the support of other donors to go to waste by not making a United Kingdom contribution.
A Labour Government will not be content to allow that to continue happening to that important and crucial fund. We believe that Britain should join other donors who have said that they are prepared to contribute their share to ensure the special programme's continuation, provided that others do the same.
Britain must respond to the mood of reform and extend support for long-term economic development in the region. I refer to the specific role of the African development fund. We support the distinctive and positive contribution made by the African Development bank, and that of the fund in particular under the bank's energetic presidency. We welcome the importance attached to agriculture, which is the top priority for economic

81
development in Africa, and the promise made at the last replenishment to devote more resources to poverty-reduction programmes and those that benefit women.
The bank does not have a faultless record. There are concerns over whether it is keeping its environmental pledges, and we urge it to reconsider whether it is the appropriate instrument for structural adjustment lending. However, the fund's overall contribution has been increasingly positive, and it deserves more support than Britain has given.
In the past, scepticism was expressed about the role of the African Development bank by comparison with other regional development banks—but that has, rightly, faded. One of the most important reasons for supporting the bank is its role as a distinctly Africa-based body.
One of Africa's key needs is to build up its own development institutions, and the African Development bank has made significant advances in that regard in recent years. Those advances are especially important given the eagerly awaited movement to a fully democratic South Africa which, we hope, will take place in the near future. If South Africa played an active role in the ADB—as we hope that it will—it would do a good deal, in the next decade, to help South Africa's reintegration with other African economies, and also to help it play a positive role in the development of the rest of southern Africa and that of the continent as a whole.
Despite the movement by African Governments towards reform, British support of Africa—including its funding of the African development fund—has, in our view, been niggardly. Notwithstanding Britain's extensive links with Africa, its support for the continent is quite a long way behind that of our international partners. Perhaps the Minister will confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was told recently by the Minister for Overseas Development; we are sorry to hear that the right hon. Lady is unwell, and hope that she will soon return to the House. According to the right hon. Lady, United Kingdom funding for Africa is half that of our G7 partners Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States, and less than a fifth of that provided by France.
The current, sixth replenishment of the fund represents only a 17 per cent. increase over the previous 50 per cent. replenishment. That is barely enough to keep pace with inflation. Within that meagre replenishment, Britain's contribution has been very poor. According to the most recent statement of total subscriptions available from the ADB, Britain's contribution is less than that of any other G7 country. It is even less than Sweden's contribution, and equal to that of Norway. Britain simply is not pulling its weight.
Although I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom is contributing to the fund, this is a very small slice of a modestly sized cake. It does not do justice to the major economic and political changes that are now being undertaken by African Governments. Must we be confronted yet again with images of mass starvation before Britain makes more effort to act now on long-term investments to prevent the famines of the future? What we need now is action to improve north-south terms of trade, reduce debts, and increase aid—I stress that point, and I do not think that the Minister will be able to defend the Government's position and protect the world's environments.
82
Let me say a word about the Caribbean Development bank. Although the poverty and economic decline in the Caribbean are not of the same magnitude as those in Africa, there are many parallels between the two regions, in regard to both problems and opportunities. Debt problems in the Caribbean remain considerable, and—as in Africa—relate primarily to official debt, including debts to multilateral institutions. The decline in trade has affected a number of Caribbean commodities, such as bauxite, although possibly less severely than in Africa. At recent meetings with representatives of sister Caribbean parties, I, as a representative of the British Labour party, was able to hear at first hand both about the economic pressures and about the development of democratic institutions in the regions.
Will the Minister tell us the extent of our support for three areas of major importance to the Caribbean? First, what support does the bank give to the development of interregional trade? I am glad to see that that subject is back on the Caribbean agenda. Secondly, how is the bank seeking to foster diversification programmes to help countries reduce their over-reliance on a single crop commodity? Thirdly, what programmes is it supporting to bring about food security in Caribbean nations that remain heavily reliant on the expensive import of basic foods?
Although Africa's emergency needs will continue throughout the current year and the rest of the decade, it should be an increasing priority for the north to support the positive changes that are sweeping the continent. More resources are needed now to aid recovery and development. In countries such as Ethiopia and Angola, which have seen a dramatic end to decades of civil war, support is needed to resettle displaced people, demobilise soldiers, rebuild shattered societies and economies and help safeguard fledgling democracies.
Those aims are as important as assisting the emerging democracies in the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe with massive aid and debt relief, if not more important. The equally fundamental changes sweeping Africa have not been rewarded to anything like the same extent—although Africa's needs are so much greater.
7.36 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: The orders are not contentious in principle; they are open to criticism only in terms of degree, and of the extent to which the Government are following up their rhetoric with realistic contributions to those in need. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has just been telling us about that.
In the case of Africa—to which I shall confine my remarks—linking aid with the development of democracy, the pursuance of better-balanced economic policies, the evolution of effective administration, the spread of help to the poor in particular, the encouragement of population control and an emphasis on the environment is desirable. Such a shift of linkage and emphasis has, after all, been under way for some time, and has wide support in other countries and on both sides of the House.
Although I support the thrust of the policy, I must repeat our view that what is being done in Africa—particularly in sub-Saharan Africa—still falls far short of what we should be doing. Not only are the communities

83
concerned starting off in a pretty terrible position; they have now been even more gravely affected by the world recession and the Gulf war.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said about the reduction in the British aid contribution as a proportion of gross national product over the period—getting on for 13 years—since the Conservatives came to office. I hope that positive changes in the functioning and prospects of the United Nations—which we have discussed a good deal today in other connections—will allow a stemming of the flood of arms into the African continent which has caused so much carnage. I appreciate that that does not arise directly from the motion, but it is part of the background, and I hope that the Government will use all their influence to staunch that flood.
Like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, my party supports the work done by the African development fund, and feels ashamed to compare our contribution with that of other countries of comparable size and economic capacity. I shall not repeat the figures given by the hon. Lady, but it is in no way admirable that we should give one fifth of France's contribution, and one half of Italy's. The orders provide for further United Kingdom contributions towards two funds that enable much valuable work to be undertaken. We should, however, be doing far more.
7.39 pm
Mr. Derek Enright: I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the beginning of the debate. Unfortunately, as a new boy, I believed what my superiors told me—that the debate would not start until later. I was in the middle of my bacon and eggs when I saw on the Annunciator that the Minister was speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I left them!
I intend to consider this question from a slightly different angle. For five years I spoke for the British Labour group in the European Parliament on overseas development. For over two years I worked in west Africa, as the Commission's delegate in Guinea-Bissau. I agree entirely with all the ideas that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has just put forward, but I shall consider all those matters, too, from a slightly different angle.
There are some practicalities that need to be considered in terms of the cohesion of programmes. That is much more true of Africa than it is of the Caribbean. European Community aid, bilateral aid, United Nations aid and Arab aid, all in the form of projects and programmes, is being given without any attempt being made to ensure that all those projects and programmes complement one another. The European Community's programmes often contradict European development fund programmes in Africa, with the result that they are less effective than they might otherwise be. We need urgently to find a mechanism to unify the programmes and make them more positive.
In theory, the programmes are co-ordinated by the United Nations development programme, but in practice that does not happen. I should be grateful if the Minister could assure us that the Government are working towards creating an alliance in Africa rather than pursuing a policy of rivalry with other countries. That would lead to our programmes being much more cost effective.
84
In many cases we are destroying the countries that we attempt to assist when providing industrial aid. I think of Tanzania's fishing fleet. The European Community was responsible for financing that fleet of about 40 boats. Almost all them cannot be used, not because the people are terribly at fault but because the fleet was provided with 12 different types of engines and hundreds of different types of screws. Not even this country can boast the technology that would be required to repair and make good all that goes wrong. It is imposssible to gut one ship for the sake of another.
I think in particular of Guinea-Bissau's electrical generating plant. When I first went there it was almost completely out of order. We were lucky to have one hour of electricity a day, and that was mainly in the middle of the night. The problem was mainly due to the many kinds of generator. There was a splendid British generator, but there were also French, German, Russian and Japanese generators, which led to disaster.
Guinea-Bissau has not been independent of Portugal for very long. At the time of independence it had only four graduates and few people had been trained in technology. The people were mainly concerned with rural matters, but they had to cope with sophisticated technology and keep it going. They could not do it. The amount of hard currency that had to be spent on keeping it going could not be sustained. A good feature of the recent writing off of debt is that Guinea-Bissau gained considerable benefit from it.
Guinea-Bissau is moving towards a multi-party system. Assistance is being provided by the United States of America. It is providing money and specialist aid to help Guinea-Bissau to convert to a multi-party system. In the particular circumstances there, I am not altogether convinced that it is wise for Guinea-Bissau to move towards a multi-party system. Parties split along tribal lines; splits are not the result of genuine ideological differences. However, the president has determined that there shall be a multi-party system and he has thrown his full weight behind it. He has ensured that in this case party splits will not start off as tribe versus tribe. A great deal of assistance, from wherever it can be obtained, is required. It would not be expensive. Her Majesty's Government could provide very effective help. I ask the Minister to consider that with great care.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said about the difficulties that surround dependence upon a monoculture in the Caribbean. The West Indies is being hit badly by the enormous increase in the production of sugar beet in the United Kingdom. A realistic cane sugar regime is needed. Cane sugar is the life blood of employment and society in the Caribbean. It is a plant which grows well there and it can stand up to all the vagaries of the weather. I beseech the Government to consider that question when looking at trading regimes and the common agricultural policy regimes.
Not least—I am sure that this will be very close to the Minister's heart—I ask him to consider the rum regime. [Interruption.] Rum is included in the protocol to the Lomé convention, but it is very difficult to import rum into France. The French protect imports of their own white rum from their overseas territories. It is essential to look towards the next Lomé convention and the provision of a better protocol for rum. I am sure that the Minister agrees that rum is a splendid product. It provides employment for

85
a great many people. If they were able to increase their rum exports, they would also increase the amount of hard currency that they need.
7.47 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: One of the strengths of the House of Commons is its enormous wealth of personal experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) has personal experience and also a much rarer quality in the House of Commons—fresh personal experience. All too often our personal experience is far too dated to be useful. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth speaks with fresh personal experience, having held a position of responsibility within the Community. Some of us, for all sorts of reasons, are glad that he has become our colleague in the House of Commons—not least because of his recent personal experience in Africa.
When I was a member of the indirectly elected Parliament I had the good fortune to go to Lomé to attend one of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries functions. I was greatly moved by the proceedings and thought that it was one of the most worthwhile events that the Community had staged. At that time Claude Cheysson—a man of drive and imagination—was the Commissioner with responsibility for these matters. Whatever criticisms may have been made of his performance in other jobs, he was a great Commissioner who succeeded in achieving much.
I apologise to the House for speaking twice in a day, having spoken in the nuclear debate. I was chosen by Mr. Speaker to lead a parliamentary delegation to Zaire in November 1990. I should like to ask the Minister a few questions about that torn and striven country. Zaire has 47 per cent. of the remaining African rain forest. The Minister receives reports from our excellent ambassador, Roger Westbrook. A lot is said about the Foreign Office not doing this or not being interested in that, but Roger Westbrook should receive full credit for having the initiative to see people who were interested in rain forests. In the course of a busy schedule, he had breakfast at Ghillean Prance in Kew and was briefed on rain forest matters in Africa by the director of Kew and his wife, who is a distinguished botanist. I give good to any diplomat who can do that.
In the chaos that is now Zaire, because of the civil war, what sensible measures can we take to protect its flora and fauna and its vast timber resources? My personal reflection during a trip that was truncated by the requirement of the Whips to return early was that Zaire varied enormously from province to province and that some of its provincial governors were men of considerable quality who were trying to do something in places such as East Kasai. Since so much of the African rain forest is in Zaire, what constructive proposals can we make for francophone Africa?
What is the Government's policy on help for francophone Africa? It might be said that because of historical ties we owe our allegiance to Tanzania, Malawi, the Sudan, Nigeria, Ghana and other African countries with which we have particularly close links. That could be an easy way out of doing nothing about francophone Africa. I and my colleagues, the hon. Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings), formed the strong impression that
86
people in positions of importance in Kinshasa desperately wanted connections with European countries other than France and Belgium. They understandably wanted links with members of the Community who were not former colonial powers. If resources allow, there is a strong argument for our becoming more involved with francophone Africa and for not taking the line of leaving it to the French.
Last week I was invited to the inaugural meeting of the tropical forest resource group at Kew. I was extremely impressed by David Attenborough's presentation on the importance of water and his study of such sciences as limnology. What is the Government's policy on the acute water situation in much of Africa? When David Attenborough and others talk about the need for a world policy on water, everybody nods his head sagely and says, "Yes, we must have it"; but what is being done? That is a matter that concerns the Edinburgh Centre for Tropical Forests.
In addition, there is the acute problem of the loss of top soil and the use of fire wood as a main fuel. It may sound extraordinary to say it, but there is a strong argument for the Brazilian example of constructing nuclear power stations, which we hope will work one day, to save wood from the Mato Grosso and possibly from the rain forests.
In discussions on the rain forests, Jeff Burley, head of the Oxford forestry institute, pointed out that far too little had been said about saving the dry forest. Is there a policy on helping the dry forest in Africa? The figures given were 58 per cent. dry forest and 42 per cent. rain forest. The dry forest is absolutely enormous and is of considerable importance in stricken areas such as the Sudan, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth knows so well.
A paper was given by Dr. Dransfield on the economic possibilities for rattan. I have previously raised the question of help for rattan growing in Ghana and the Ivory Coast. According to the presentation that was made last week at Kew, there is an enormous potential market for rattan products, and rattan meets every criteria of being sustainable. Can we offer any specific encouragement for rattan? The Minister has expert advisers in the Box who will be able to answer such questions off the top of their heads, and I know that the Whip and his Parliamentary Private Secretary are very athletic in going to the Official Box.
My last question was raised at the Kew seminar by Dr. Colin Ogborne. It concerns optical character recognition and the information that can now be stored on disks to avoid repeating information that could be so valuable in the tropical forest. I know that that subject is dear to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and our mutual friend Professor Howell of the Overseas Development Institute. That is my last question to arise out of Kew.
I want to engage the Minister's attention on another subject about which I feel very strongly. This afternoon I asked the Prime Minister a simple, straight, one-sentence question and I was shocked by his reply. I believe that my shock was shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) because he commented on it. The question was whether the Prime Minister would rule out United Nations military action against Libya. His answer came as quick as a flash—a decisive "No, Sir".
This is not the place to repeat my Adjournment debate of the other night about Lockerbie, but I wish to make one

87
comment. Lockerbie was a tragedy of horrendous proportions. The police in my area had to help to clear it up and I went to see it. I do not in any way underestimate the tragedy, but the view of the Scottish police about Syria and Iran is wholly different from what the Foreign Secretary is saying.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it very difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is now saying to either of the orders before the House.
Mr. Dalyell: Yes, that is why I had to make that comment before I return completely to order and return to African development and the great man-made river project in Libya.
That project has been ridiculed as a Colonel Gaddafi white elephant but that is not the view of many ecologists who have been to see it. Nor is it the view of, for example, my friend Professor Barri Jones, who is professor of archaeology at Manchester and responsible for the Cyrenaica digs. He is a very intelligent man who understands how the ancients got their water when that part of north Africa was one of the most fertile parts of the world.
I believe that I have the Minister's sympathy to a certain extent because he, almost uniquely in the House, is an Arabic speaker. Both my parents were Arabic speakers but, I, alas, am not and I regret it very much. We are talking about an area of great civilisation. If you ever get the chance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not fail to go to the great Roman remains at Leptis Magnus because they are more spectacular than anything in ancient Rome. That place must have sustained an enormous, sophisticated civilisation; but do not let me digress.
The main point for us is that the man-made river project is the largest engineering project in the western world. Thirty-six United Kingdom firms are involved. The consulting engineers are Brown and Root. In the light of the answer that the Prime Minister gave this afternoon, it is high time that the Government talked seriously to, for example, Dick Morris. He is the chairman not only of Brown and Root but of Nirex. The Government should ask him, as a major business person in this country, what is his view of the Libyan Government. I suspect that it is favourable, as was that of expatriates who could quietly say that those people are not corrupt and that they are pretty efficient.
I do not hide the fact that in the early 1980s Colonel Gaddafi and those around him may have been responsible for some terrible things in the support of terrorism. However, there is much more to be brought into that equation—for example, the bombing of Benghazi and Tripoli. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, I believe in seeing for myself. She has moved the House by going to areas that interest her in particular in Iraq, and she and others can take it from me that I was greatly moved by going to see working-class areas in Tripoli and Benghazi which had been flattened by bombing that had caused terrible casualties. That had been done by bombers based in the United Kingdom and, whatever the rights and wrongs of La Belle discotheque which was purported to be the reason for the bombing, I
88
cannot believe that the working-class people in Benghazi and Tripoli had much responsibility for what happened in Berlin.
The Libyan situation should be considered carefully by the Foreign Office because the Libyans have held out an olive branch. My Labour colleagues and I went there in early November. It may be said that we were naive to go, but, if so, we were naive in the company of that cautious fox Mr. Giulio Andreotti, the Italian Prime Minister, and Mr. Dumas, the French Foreign Minister. They had both been and there are few more cautious than they.
We should reconsider the Libyan situation, remembering that there are 5,500 of our fellow countrymen there, many of whom are Scottish engineers from the west of Scotland. When I wrote an article defending my general views in the Sunday Post, I received a great deal of mail from relations who said that they were extremely concerned about what might happen. The British were well treated the last time, but if it were to happen again—and I return to my question this afternoon—and if military action were not ruled out—I am not so sure that, human beings being what they are, British workers who are earning the Minister's bread and butter, my bread and butter and that of all of us by working in the oil industry and related engineering projects, will be so well treated.
The Libyans are per head easily the richest in Africa because of their huge oil production. They have an enormous potential which they say they are prepared to deploy—and I am inclined to believe them—to help the less wealthy or, indeed, the poorest, countries in Africa—especially those in the Maghreb—to make progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth is doing me the courtesy of listening attentively. I suspect that he knows from his European experience that that is certainly considered to be a possibility by his former Italian colleagues. Incidentally, if anyone is talking about sanctions, I can tell him that that is pie in the sky. I do not believe for one moment that the Italian Government will impose sanctions on Libya in view of their interests in Libya and their dependence on Libyan oil. The planes will fly every day as they do from Fiumicino and if they are banned from flying from Fiumicino for a week, they will fly from Bari or Taranto or some obscure airfield. The Italians will not go along with sanctions against Libya—that is sheer make-believe.
Before anyone says that I am callous, I can say that I am extremely close to the Lockerbie relatives. Jim Swire and his wife Jane were my guests here—as they have been previously—the week before last and the week before that. Anybody who has been to Lockerbie and who has a close relationship with the Roman Catholic priest Father Patrick Keegans who lives in Sherwood crescent, which was destroyed, or with the Rev. Logan Kirk, who speaks for the Church of Scotland community in the area, cannot be callous about the matter.
It is high time that the Foreign Office looked again at the whole question of economic and political relations with Libya. The Foreign Office should look at the report of the Adjournment debate. Although I had the courtesy to give to the Foreign Office at 9.15 am that Monday, every word of what I planned to say and although the debate did not take place before 1 am on Tuesday, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), the Minister of State, did not make the least attempt to answer the precise questions of which—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I have been very tolerant with the hon. Gentleman, but he is now straying well away from the orders again.
Mr. Dalyell: You have been extremely tolerant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have made my point and I will leave it at that.
8.10 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I will be brief because the orders are not controversial and we do not oppose them. However, this is an occasion when it is possible to say to the Government that we have heard so much of this before. Some of us can remember back to the 1950s and to the time of the Colombo plan, when various grandiose schemes were suggested and when we were told that the problems of Africa and of third-world countries could be dealt with if only the plans were put into operation. It is now almost 40 years on, yet the world is still divided between the countries that have and the countries that have not.
It is appalling that the Government place such small importance on overseas development. That must be so because only 0·27 per cent. of gross domestic product is expended on overseas aid. The Government must tell us why that is the case. It is no good arguing that it is a matter of waiting for economic growth in the United Kingdom before we can help the rest of the world. The figure of 0·27 is the percentage of GDP at any particular time. In the past 13 years, we have been brought up on the fairy tale of Britain's economic miracle. We are repeatedly told by Ministers that economic growth has been greater and that economic performance has been better in this country than in Germany, in Italy, in France and in the countries of our other European Community partners.
We need to examine exactly what the Government mean by economic growth. They do not mean manufacturing investment. Many of the countries that have made their way and have taken their place in the second rather than in the third world are the countries that have found that investment from multinational corporations has enabled them to do so. I refer to countries such as South Korea and Taiwan which, not many years ago, were regarded very much as third-world countries. African countries, such as Mali, Chad and Guinea-Bissau, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) knows so well—and I am delighted to see him here—do not yet have the resources to enable them to step out of the third into the second world.
The Government are under the misapprehension that overseas development is not important electorally. They will be amazed when the next election comes. In previous election campaigns in which I have taken part, it is highly significant, especially when one addresses meetings promoted by the churches and by charitable organisations, that overseas aid is very much to the fore. Even in my poor constituency—poor not in the hearts of the people, but in the poverty that has been pressed on them by the Government's economic policies—people who are unemployed come to my surgery and write letters to me at the House expressing the view that Britain should do more about poverty in areas such as the Horn of Africa and Ethiopia. When the Ethiopian famine was shown on television, I was inundated by letters asking what the British Government were doing.
90
The Government may be able to say that they are giving assistance. However, the Minister's speech posed more questions than it answered. Will the Minister spell out to the House and to the nation what percentage of the African development fund is contributed by our European Community partners? The Minister boasted that our share in the African development fund—I do not know whether the replenishment element or the total amount—has increased from 3·55 per cent. to 4 per cent. What is the contribution of France, of Portugal and of Italy? Where do we stand in the league table of assistance to the African development fund? I should love to know the answer and I am sure that many people will ask that question in the next few months as we approach the general election.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I will give the answer.
Mr. Wareing: It is unusual for my hon. Friend to make a suggestion from a sedentary position because he is more often on his feet. I think that he will provide the answer. I want the Minister not only to provide the answer, but to give the justification for our share being so drastically small when we have had the marvellous economic miracle of the disastrous Thatcherite years. The Minister tells us that the United Kingdom provides 17 per cent. of the Caribbean Development fund. What share is being taken up by others? Britain especially has a moral responsibility to the Caribbean because most of the Caribbean was part of the former British empire and most of it remains within the Commonwealth. If it were the case that Germany, France, Italy or Portugal were contributing a similar share or a bigger share, that would be a damnable testimony to the inadequacy of the Government's economic development policy for the third world and for the Caribbean.
I also want to know the answer to the question posed by the Minister when he talked about the principles on which aid will be based. He talked about sound policy frameworks and about economic reforms. What does he mean? Does he mean getting on one's bended knee and bowing in the direction of the Thatcher Foundation, for example? Is the answer something far more meaningful than that?
Market economics have not solved the problems even of our economy and they certainly cannot solve the problems of the African economies. We cannot control environmental pollution in the United Kingdom simply by looking to the market, and we cannot save the rain forests of Africa or of Brazil by sheer market economics. Something more is required—the middle way which requires the planning of resources to ensure that the problems are tackled.
The Minister referred to "good government", but what does he mean by that? Is "good government" the one party state, such as Malawi? Hastings Banda has always been a favourite of Tory politicians. Is he "good government"? Is the Government of Kenya, with all its recent problems from which the British Government have veered away, good government? I suggest that before there can be good government there must be self-government. I believe that it was the Liberal statesman, Campbell-Bannerman, who said that self-government is better than good government. I have always believed that to be the case because I believe that, although it may not be perfect, democracy is the best form of government even though it sometimes throws up the type of Government that our people have had to endure for the past 13 years.

91
However, should we not argue that if there is to be good government and if people in countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria and Zaire are to have rights and democracy, the first thing to do is to put food into people's mouths and ensure that they have a roof over their head? It is no use talking like that to this Government because one does not need to go more than a couple of hundred yards from this place to find people in our own country who do not have a roof over their heads. It is only when people have food in their bellies, shelter over their heads and something reasonable with which to clothe their bodies that they can be preached at and called upon to look at forms of government that give them rights and ensure that dictators do not have full reign over third-world countries.
Good government is all very well and I love to think that, in time, plural democracy will come to all the countries in Africa, but first things first. The first thing is to put food into the bellies of starving African people and to ensure that they have a good environment in which to live. If we do that, it will not be for the benefit of the inhabitants of those countries alone, because if we improve the environment of continents such as Africa and areas such as the Caribbean, we are providing ourselves with a greater safeguard than that which can be achieved by the massive sale of arms to such countries, which the Government have condoned. We would provide ourselves with a safeguard for maintaining world peace and, in the long run, would provide markets and business for people in our own continent and our own country which would ensure their employment as well as a better and decent standard of living for the people of Africa.
8.22 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I had not planned to speak in this debate, Mr. Speaker, because of my illness and hospitalisation, of which you are aware. However, having heard the debate, I am minded to say a few words.
The House is indebted to my hon. Friends the Members for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth has given the House the benefit of his great expertise in such matters and has referred to an important consideration. I refer to the way in which we can unify the contributions of the major donors especially at the technological level. I have been struck by reports that I have received from various organisations in parts of Africa that, on occasions, aid has been allocated for projects that have previously been put in place by other donors and that when our tranche has been allocated we have not taken into account the previous failure of similar projects. That position seems to arise because of the lack of co-ordination between the major donors.
I am indebted also to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow for referring to the conference that he attended a week ago at Kew at which Sir David Attenborough spoke and at which the concept of a world policy on water was advocated. I found that particularly interesting because when my hon. Friend and I visited India some weeks ago we were struck by the fact that when seeking to secure development in those parts of India that are in need of development—almost the entire country—a major
92
target is the need to provide villages and communities with a water supply. Wherever we went, the lack of a water supply was clearly what determined the level and nature of economic activity in the area. As my hon. Friend said, we need a world policy on water. That matter will need to be addressed by the next Labour Government.
The danger in these debates is that, whenever Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box, they lead us and the country to believe that they are making resources available to the various and varied programmes that are submitted to them for support. The public could well believe that the Government are actually increasing aid, when the reverse is happening. Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow tabled a significant question that drew from Ministers information and evidence to the effect that the three principal United Nations agencies with which we are concerned have suffered cuts not of 38 per cent., as was suggested today in the Prime Minister's statement, but of an average of nearly 60 per cent. Those are substantial cuts in United Nations programmes to which the Government have admitted in an answer to my hon. Friend—
Mr. Lennox-Boyd indicated dissent.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister shakes his head, but before replying to the debate he would do well to secure a copy of the answer that was given to my hon. Friend last week.
Several references have been made to our contribution to the African development fund. It would be for the benefit of the House if I were to place our contribution in the context of those made by other countries since the fund was started in, I believe, 1972. During that period, France's contribution has been twice ours; Germany's contribution has been two and a half times ours; the United States' contribution has been three and half times ours; the Japanese contribution has been four times ours; and the contribution of Sweden—a very small country—has been substantially more than ours. Furthermore, Switzerland—that small country in the centre of Europe —has made a larger contribution and my much-loved Italy has contributed twice the amount of the United Kingdom. But we are talking about a part of the world with which Britain in particular has immense historic links. Indeed, although previous Labour Governments made Africa a priority when determining areas of need, this Government seem to see Africa differently.
I understand that the sixth replenishment will come into effect only when 40 per cent. of the contributions have been deposited. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether there will be any delay in the allocation. If I am short of breath, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will understand in the light of what I said earlier, so please forgive me. I hope that the Minister will explain whether any delay in the contributions of others could influence the use of the moneys that we are allocating to Africa.
In one regard, the Prime Minister's statement today was particularly significant and I do not want to criticise that part because it was a notable contribution to an important issue affecting third-world countries. The Prime Minister said:
"We asked the Secretary-General to make recommendations for a more effective role for the United Nations as peacekeeper and as peacemaker. Under article 99 of the charter, the Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.

93
We hope the new Secretary-General will use those powers. He will report to us within six months with his recommendations."
I am pleased that such matters of substance are discussed at the United Nations and that there will be a report on them. What worries me is that article 27 of the UN charter almost prohibits intervention in the internal affairs of nation states. There is a crying need for intervention of a particular type in various parts of the world—not the intervention to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow referred with some concern in the case of Libya, but intervention where it is impossible to deliver aid and meet the needs of suffering peoples.
In that respect I refer to what is happening in the Horn of Africa, not so much in Ethiopia as in the Sudan. According to Oxfam, the effects of conflict and drought on already weakened economies in the Horn have pushed the margins of effective groups beyond the bounds of near vulnerability to a state of critical impoverishment. Coupled with massive population movements and famine, the disruption to already inadequate social services and, in some cases, the loss of traditional coping machanisms have created unprecedented levels of hardship and household stress in the region. In many parts of the Horn family farms have been abandoned and assets destroyed or stolen. Children have been deserted and orphaned, and, in many cases, drawn into the fighting. Women have been exposed increasingly to violence and rape. Diseases, such as malaria, have swept through the region, adding to the already high death toll. Fighting between rival clans and factions within clans has escalated in Somalia, engulfing some cities and communities in violence and bloodshed. Conflict has increased in the Sudan, in parts of Ethiopia and Djibouti. Ethnic tensions are complicating attempts at reforming administrative and political processes. Those are the comments of Oxfam's field officers who are witnessing what is happening and reporting back to the developed world.
I do not know whether it is right to say this, but I feel strongly that the UN must find a way of intervening in these areas. We cannot allow hundreds of thousands of lives, indeed sometimes millions of lives, to be prejudiced and endangered because the western developed world, the Security Council or possibly distorted liberal opinion in the west is unwilling to realise that we have a duty to intervene and ensure that aid reaches those people who, otherwise, will lose their life.
In recent years, many of the problems in the Horn could have been dealt with if the western democracies and the Security Council had recognised their responsibility to take action—not to intervene militarily, as the Prime Minister may have implied in his statement, but to intervene with a spirit of compassion, understanding and concern to deal with the problems of these desperate people who live in desperate conditions.
Finally, I come to the Caribbean Development bank. It raises yet another issue which has caused me increasing concern over the past year—the monitoring of funds from our aid budget for developing countries. Perhaps it is my 11 years on the Public Accounts Committee that have made me a fierce defender of the taxpayers' interest, but they want to know that aid gets through to people, meets needs and secures the objective of policy to which all Governments subscribe—to ensure that we help people in need.
94
The aims and objectives of the bank were clearly set down by Mr. Ben Whitaker in a debate in January 1970 just before the fall of the Labour Government. At that time we were contributing 50 per cent. of the paid-up capital of the bank. That is far more as a proportion than the sum that we are paying today. It seems that others have taken over our role. Indeed, the replenishment in this order is only twice as much in cash terms, not real terms, as we were allocating at the time of the construction of the bank in 1970. I do not think that I have misread Mr. Whitaker's comments.
Be that as it may, we allocate moneys with a view to their being used as concessional funds for investment. Although the Minister says that we have representatives, what monitoring ensures that we absolutely meet the objectives set by Parliament? Is there a possibility that funds will make their way into projects that the British taxpayer may not feel deserve support under the heading of needy relief? Is it possible that without proper monitoring funds can be invested in areas that, in our view, may not be helpful in securing our objectives? We are here to ensure that moneys are made available for the development of these countries and that through that development we meet the needs of people who should be the real beneficiaries.
Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one example of that is what appears to have happened with the sale of vast areas of the Guyana rain forest and the resale of perhaps the most fragile area of the whole South American river system area?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend has just triggered my memory. He is absolutely right. I had forgotten that example. Indeed, it is only a few weeks since I tabled a question on that. At that time the Clerks in the Table Office referred me to answers that my hon. Friend had gleaned from Ministers. If I recall correctly, a banker or a British company—
Mr. Dalyell: It was Lord Beaverbrook who had been a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry and who is, I think, the treasurer of the Conservative party.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: —purchased at a low price a project that was supported in the 1970s with substantial sums of taxpayers' money.
I recall another example. A few weeks ago The Guardian revealed an investment in the Virgin Islands. Ministers may feel that what happened can be justified in that some may say that the investment was made to avoid social dislocation or trouble in that particular community. Nevertheless, some question whether that investment should have been made in so far as losses on a particular operation were being written off. These are important matters.
The only way to resolve these problems is for our discussion of projects to include not just comment on their technicality, but examples. Tonight the Minister has not given us lists of projects to discuss. In future Ministers may think it wise to make it clear on the explanatory memorandums provided with such orders where the money has been spent. Taxpayers want to know that, because they want to know that those in development funds and banks take into consideration value for money when investing these moneys. All I can say to Ministers is

95
that, in future, it would be good if some projects could be identified in whatever material is provided for hon. Members in advance of our debates.
8.39 pm
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like to reply to as many of the issues raised by hon. Members as possible. This has been a courteous and harmonious debate, but, none the less, I appreciate that it sparks an area of controversy in the House about the overall level of funding by the United Kingdom. I shall comment on that in due course, but first I should like to consider the detailed points raised by hon. Members.
As a result of collective brains—to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—I have a sheaf of notes on which I shall rely and call upon in my speech. My comments may therefore be somewhat incoherent and not as elegant as I would like, since I have not had time to put all those notes into order. However, I believe that my reply will be fairly comprehensive.
First, may I say how pleased I was to see the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) address the House? I hope that there will be occasions on one of the railway journeys that we often share northwards when I shall be able to talk to him further. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) by commenting on the hon. Gentleman's speech first; I shall return to her opening speech later.
The hon. Member for Workington referred to the form of influence that we have over the policies of the Caribbean Development bank and the African Development bank. It is right to consider the institutional set-up that enables us to monitor those two institutions. The African Development bank has 18 seats on its board—two thirds for regional members and one third for non-regional members, of which we are one. The board meets monthly. There are so many non-regional members that we share that one seat with three other countries—Germany, the Netherlands and Portugal. We try to reach a consensus on the way in which we vote. Inevitably, that practice dilutes to a considerable extent the degree of supervision—not influence—that any one country, including ourselves, can give. However, we have great influence because we are respected by our colleagues.
The United Kingdom, along with Canada, is a major shareholder in the Caribbean Development bank. We have a separate seat on the board of directors, and our executive member is the locally based official in the region who is responsible for our bilateral aid. We have a major influence on the board.
The hon. Member for Workington asked whether we can be sure that the British taxpayer would be happy with every investment that is made. I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman's interest in ensuring, on behalf of the taxpayer and the Treasury, that that money from the taxpayer is well spent, but, obviously, the short answer to his question is no: one cannot be certain that the taxpayer would be absolutely happy with every investment. There are occasions when, given the consensus of the four different countries under which we operate, we are sometimes not entirely happy and we may express our reservations.
That loss of sovereignty and control over aid disbursement is not serious, however, because we have
96
great influence. Such loss of sovereignty and control is inevitable if one gives sums of money to such an institution to disburse. If we did not want that loss sovereignty, we would not give a penny to the African development fund —we would give it all through our bilateral subscriptions and dues. We could do it that way, but we choose to do it through the African Development bank.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The question is whether they meet tests of development soundness—soft loan allocations.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is a test for soft loan standards, because a country's eligibility depends on its relative poverty, as defined by its gross national product per head and its creditworthiness. With the African Development bank, countries with a GNP of more than $900 per head are not entitled to receive concessional resources, and 90 per cent. of the fund's resources are earmarked for countries with a GNP per head of $510 or less. Those are the sort of criteria that are set. We monitor them, of course, and we are satisfied that those criteria are followed.
The nature of the projects is less important than a country's eligibility but, in general, we focus on activities concerning agriculture, social services and the environment. In Benin and Zambia, the structural adjustment programmes have been the method of support used.
The hon. Member for Workington asked a specific question about when the 40 per cent. trigger—the current allocation—for the African development fund will be reached. As at 22 January, 12 donors had deposited instruments of contribution totalling 1 billion fund units of account or 39·1 per cent. of capital. I need not name those donors. Kuwait, alongside the United Kingdom, is also actively considering its position now. I am confident that, within the next week or so, the 40 per cent. trigger limit will be reached. It is a race between Kuwait and the United Kingdom to reach the end of the course.
I do not want to spend too much time on the speech of the hon. Member of Workington, but he did mention the world policy on water and the Kew conference. I agree that the problem of water resources, especially those shared between countries, will become increasingly important in the future. Water supply and sanitation projects are also vital, and this is certainly an area in which the African development fund is assisting. In 1990, more than £10·5 million was spent on water and sanitation projects under the ODA's bilateral programmes in Africa.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that Canada and the United Kingdom were founder members of the Caribbean development fund. Since then, France, Germany and Italy have joined. The inevitable result is that not only the British share, but the Canadian share has, in relative terms —relative to the total raised, because the fund has got much bigger—declined.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley spoke about Africa, and my comments will refer to her speech, but I appreciate that those comments will also relate to the contributions from the hon. Members for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). In terms of humanitarian assistance, we have made a swift, generous and continuous response to the present food crisis in Africa. Since September 1990, we have spent about £135 million and £255 million since the beginning of 1989. The United Kingdom is among the

97
largest bilateral food aid donors to the Horn. We are deeply concerned at the desperate situation in Mogadishu. We have given nearly £2·3 million of emergency aid in recent weeks. but violence is badly disrupting our relief efforts. As the hon. Lady will know, Security Council resolution 733 calls for a ceasefire and for access to relief supplies.
I realise that my remarks are somewhat disjointed but I shall come later to some of the more substantial comments made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. She mentioned population activities and overseas aid. In 1990, almost £24 million were spent on activities directly related to population concerns—a 28 per cent increase in real terms since 1989. A further £67 million was spent on other health programmes, many of which contributed indirectly to reducing population growth.
Perhaps the gravamen of the hon. Lady's speech was our contribution to the African development fund No. 6. As I said in my opening speech, that represents a modest increase in real terms over the fifth replenishment. She said that the United Kingdom's role was far too small in that development fund, but she must appreciate that, if we are to make a fair analysis of the British aid programme, it must be stated that the African development fund is only one of many channels of bilateral aid.
The hon. Member for Workington implied that we have less control over aid disbursement in that fund than over bilateral aid. But many other avenues of aid, including the World bank and the European development fund, provide aid to Africa. It cannot be disputed that Africa is high on the United Kingdom's list of priorities for aid. Indeed, almost half our bilateral aid goes to Africa. Our contribution to the special programme for Africa makes us the fourth largest bilateral donor to that programme of action.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley also referred to the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and I am fully aware of the issue. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, in a letter that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley will have received, explained the Government's position. It must be remembered that we were unhappy about the first phase of the special programme for Africa under IFAD. We made it clear that we were contributing to that first phase rather reluctantly. Indeed, our £7 million pledge at that time was expressed as a one-off exercise, so there is no question of our behaving inconsistently with policy established over a number of years.
The IFAD's future activities in Africa should be financed in the same way as its work elsewhere, and the most important priority is not the special programme for Africa but to work for a successful outcome of the fourth replenishment, which we are about to undertake this year, and generous provision of IFAD's resources. Discussions are due to start in Qatar in April.
Mrs. Clwyd: I did not mention IFAD, but I shall return to it later. I mentioned the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the United Nations children's fund. Those three funds have experienced considerable cuts in the past 12 years under the Government, and they are particularly important to Africa and the Caribbean.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was about to come to that. I am sorry if I attributed those remarks to the hon. Lady rather than to the hon. Member for Hemsworth.
Mr. Enright: Those were not my remarks.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In any event, those points were raised.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley also mentioned our aid to eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. She knows that that aid is separate from and in addition to our aid to developing countries. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed that during the meeting with Commonwealth heads of Government in Harare last autumn. Africa has been and remains an enormously high priority for the British aid programme.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned the reduction in our voluntary contributions to the United Nations agencies from 1979 to 1990. The hon. Member for Workington said that I should check the figures. I know the figures perfectly well, and they are not those that he gave. He may have given the nominal figure, but the 37 per cent. reduction is in real terms, and that is the basis on which I have been working.
Our multilateral aid commitments have been rising steadily over the years, and the demands on them are growing month by month—especially our commitment to the European Community aid programmes, which are an area of maximum growth. I am sure that no Labour Members, who have such a deep and abiding support for the ideals and principles of the European Community, would wish to see a reduction in that commitment. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley should speak to her Front-Bench colleagues, because their rhetoric is very much in sympathy with that view. [Interruption.] I shall not stray too far into the European Community debate tonight.
The consequence has been that, from 1979, to use the same time scale as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley in framing her question to my right hon. Friend, the expenditure has risen from £118 million to £333 million in 1990, an increase in cash terms—to use the figures of the hon. Member for Workington—of 182 per cent., or well over 25 per cent. in real terms.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister confirm that, according to the Minister for Overseas Development and OECD figures, we spent the lowest proportion of gross domestic product last year in the history of the United Kingdom? How can the Minister plead his case when, in answer to my question, Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and admit that fact?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall come to that, and I shall stick to my word, but I cannot concede that point.
The consequence of that growth in European Community multilateral aid is that we have had little option but to restrain our contribution to those voluntary United Nations programmes.
The hon. Lady asked three specific questions at the end of her speech. She asked about the Caribbean Development bank's support for intra-regional trade, economic diversification and food security. The Caribbean Development bank aims to support all three policies throughout the region. It works closely with other regional institutions of importance of which the hon. Lady will be aware, such as CARICOM—the Caribbean Community

99
and Common Market—and the Organisation of East Caribbean States in developing programmes in those regions.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) spoke of the United Nations target for developed countries to contribute 0·7 per cent in aid, and of the United Kingdom's contribution to the African development fund. I think that I have addressed the issue of the development fund, and I shall deal with the United Nations target later.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth is an acknowledged expert on the subject, but I cannot accept his assertion that there is no co-ordination among donor nations. Under Lomé 4, the European development fund has been authorised to lend money for structural adjustment programmes and it is co-ordinating its activities with the World bank. It is not part of the World bank special programme of assistance, but it co-ordinates structural adjustment efforts with that institution.
Another example of donor co-ordination is the World bank's special programme of assistance for Africa—an excellent illustration of the mechanism for co-ordinating donor assistance to Africa. Our pledge of £300 million to SPA 2 is evidence of the high regard in which we hold that institution's achievements. It is now examining its public expenditure priorities, which should further enhance the effectiveness with which aid is used in Africa.
Mr. Enright: I was not talking about the World bank, but as the Minister has raised that issue, may I say that co-ordination with the World bank on the ground, as tested, is not good. I should be appalled were the World bank to become the driving force of co-ordination for the European development fund, as the aims of those two organisations are not allied. I do not wish to make allegations against Her Majesty's Government, the Netherlands Government or anywhere else, but it truly worries me that bilateral projects are often put in place which do not always prove helpful or complementary, and consideration is not always given to previous failures. I know that the will and desire exist for co-ordination, but often it is not forthcoming as it is not given sufficient attention, and rivalries and jealousies remain.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that the experts could fairly debate that point, but tonight is not the appropriate occasion to do so. The hon. Gentleman advanced the case for multilateral aid programmes as opposed to bilateral ones. I can see the force of that argument on the face of it.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned rum. The European Community is concerned to ensure that rum should be treated in the same way as other agricultural products. We want to ensure fair competition and prevent artificial barriers. Therefore, we are resisting the French position.
With regard to sugar, we wish to ensure that small producers without much scope to diversify are not excluded from trading with the European Community, and are not unfairly treated. I have personal knowledge of that subject because, as Minister, I have responsibility for our relations with the Caribbean region. I agree with much of what was said on that issue.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about bananas?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That subject was not raised.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to Zaire. United Kingdom bilateral aid is naturally focused on the Commonwealth in Africa, but Zaire is a major recipient of the African Development bank finance and fund resources. We hope that the African development fund will undertake work in the forestry sector in Zaire. We agree that tropical rain forest resources are of vital importance in Zaire.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow also mentioned the issue of dry versus wet forests. We most certainly agree that dry forests deserve as much attention as tropical and moist forests.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to rattan and to water in Africa. My collective brain has its limitations, and it cannot answer this question off the top of its collective head. Once again, the hon. Gentleman has shown by his skill and knowledge a way of challenging the expertise of the experts, who will have to take further instruction on the matter. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is answered by letter.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow kindly referred me to Leptis Magna and the successful irrigation system of the Roman world. If I may digress for a moment, I refer him in turn to the successful water system invented by the Greeks at Pergamon. That system did not even need the Roman aqueduct; it managed the flow of water on Archimedean principles, which was even more remarkable. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's friend in Manchester university will enlighten him further about that.
In 1990, we spent more than £10·5 million bilaterally on water sanitation projects in Africa—
Mr. Dalyell: On the question of Libya—I realise, an unpopular cause and a delicate issue—may I ask the Foreign Office to reflect again on what I have said, which is rather different from the subject of the Adjournment debate? I say this in the presence of the Leader of the House: if, heaven help us, there are to be sanctions or if military action is to take place, there should at least be some statement to the House of Commons and a three-hour debate before we go further down that perilous road.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman will understand that, in all matters of such sensitivity, it is deeply important that a weak signal is never given by any Member of this House. He will agree that it will be only wise of me not to attempt to comment on or in any way to qualify the words that the Prime Minister used this afternoon—and I have no intention of doing so.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) asked me to list the contributions of our European Community partners. That is all published information. I can give it again tonight if the hon. Gentleman wants the figures, but I suspect that the fact he wants to establish, which I do not dispute, is that Britain comes fourth on the list of contributors behind France, with 9·43 per cent., Italy with 9·43 per cent., and Germany with 9 per cent. Britain gives 4 per cent. I will not list the countries that come below us.
Why is the United Kingdom so low down the list? I explained during my comments on the speech by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley that we attach high priority to Africa, but that there are other channels in the aid system. Fifty per cent. of our aid budget goes to the African

101
continent. Our aid to Kenya has been well used in helping to improve living standards and prospects for the poorest. Kenya's economic performance has been better than many other sub-Saharan country. We welcome the positive moves of recent weeks on economic and political reform, but further effort is needed on key economic issues. The coming elections must be free and fair. We shall continue to stress the need for transparency and a level playing field. The Kenyans are absolutely clear about our views on that.
I hope that I have done justice to at least some part of all hon. Members' contributions. I now want to deal with the central point raised this evening. It has been raised often before with me and with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and I am sure that it will be raised again. I shall answer it as best I can, although I am afraid that I may burden Opposition Members with an answer that they have heard before. It is important, however, that the facts should be put in some perspective.
We accept in principle the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent., but we are not prepared to set a timetable, because a real-terms growth in aid quality is much more important. When the hon. Lady says that our official aid-to-GNP ratio was 0·2 per cent. in the calendar year of 1990, that does not reflect—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend did not say that.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thought she did.
For those who do say that, it does not reflect the underlying growth in the aid programme. This year—1991–92—our aid programme is £1,789 million, which is 10 per cent. more in cash terms and 3 per cent. more in real terms than in 1991–92. Over the past five years, our average aid—to—GNP ratio has been 0·3 per cent. We cannot make forecasts, but in 1991–92 our aid is expected to be about 0·3 per cent. of GNP.
Is the hon. Lady saying that, if a Labour Government were elected, they would immediately put right that ratio? Is she making a promise to the British people that this improvement will be financed by an increase in taxation, or that, just as the Conservative Government have always aspired to improve that target, so will a Labour Government, and the British people will have to wait a long time for such an improvement to materialise? The Government have tried strenuously to maintain effective and sensible aid policies, with a view to maintaining that commitment and reaching that target when the country can afford it.
9.11 pm
Mrs. Clwyd rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has already spoken. She needs the leave of the House to speak again.
Mrs. Clwyd: With the leave of the House, I wish to answer the question that the Minister asked me. The Labour party's policy is clear. I would be happy to send him a copy of our policy document if he would like to have more detail. It is much more substantial than the policies produced by the Government in their papers on overseas development.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady does not have the leave of the House to speak a second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: When I asked whether the hon. Lady had the leave of the House to speak again, there was no objection.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I said no.
Mrs. Clwyd: I am sorry that the hon. Lady was not here for the debate. She has come into the Chamber in the past five minutes.
The answer to the Minister's question is clear in Labour party policy documents. Within the lifetime of a future Labour Government—that is, within the next five years —we shall aim to meet the 0·7 per cent. United Nations target for developed countries. The Government are not prepared to set out any timetable for reaching that limit. Their aid policies will be judged by that failure to make any such promise. In 1979, the Labour Government achieved an aid budget of 0·51 per cent. of GNP. Since then, the Government have carved that back, and the developing world has lost £10 billion in aid. Those are the facts.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.

Overseas Development and Co-operation

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION
  Resolved,
  That the draft African Development Fund (Sixth Replenishment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

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

  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION
  That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  UNFAIR DISMISSAL
  That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  TRANSPORT
  That the draft International Transport Conventions Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Question agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1991, dated 17th December 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]

SATELLITE BROADCATING STANDARDS
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7573/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 6th November and 11 th December 1991 and 10157/91, relating to standards for satellite broadcasting of television signals, and 8122/91, relating to audio-visual production in the context of the strategy for high definition television; and endorses the Government's approach which is to aim for the correct balance between promoting new broadcasting technologies, protecting the rights of satellite broadcasters and serving the best interests of consumers.—[Mr. David Davis.]

SOCIAL SECURITY (MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS) BILL
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. David Davis.]
Ordered,
That, if the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as any proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 4th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), Mr. Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Heseltine relating to Local Government Finance not later than Ten o'clock; and those Questions may be decided after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. David Davis.]
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 4th February, the Motions in the name of Mr Francis Maude relating to Supplementary Estimates 1991–92 and Estimates 1992–93 (Vote on Account) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, whichever is the later, at which time Mr. Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of them.—[Mr. David Davis.]
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 5th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Hunt relating to Local Government Finance (Wales) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or the end of a period of one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, whichever is the later, at which time Mr. Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of them; and those Questions may be decided after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. David Davis.]

TRAFFIC CALMING BILL [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Traffic Calming Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Police National Computer
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
9.15 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome very much the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the question of the working of the police national computer mark 2 and the need for effective safeguards, and I am delighted that this debate is starting at a relatively civilised hour.
The police national computer mark 2 came on stream last autumn, and I understand that its direct access capacity is 190 million bytes, with a further 80,000 million bytes available as back-up on disk. Already, about 60 million records are included on it. I welcome very much developments such as this one. This national computer will enable the police force to prevent crime and to be more effective in catching criminals.
I regret that during my research for this debate I found that, in the field of computers, one of the least well-equipped police forces is that in my own area, Greater Manchester. I understand that the Greater Manchester force still does not have the necessary computer capacity to take full advantage of the police national computer mark 2. Cynics in Manchester claim that the last chief constable there had a direct link to God and, therefore, did not see the advantages of computers. Whatever the explanation, it is very sad that the Manchester force does not have the necessary computer capacity. I hope that achieving that capacity will be one of the priorities of the new police committee.
As I have said, I welcome computers. However, like all modern inventions, for all their advantages they must be effectively controlled. That is the point of this debate. The need for control of computers was well anticipated by the Lindop committee in the 1970s. A whole chapter of that committee's report is devoted to the question of the requirements concerning data collection by the police force and the security services and the necessary controls. I am worried about one of the Lindop committee's central recommendations—that, with the recording of any information on computers, fact should be separated from supposition or intelligent guesswork. The Home Office and its Ministers accepted that recommendation in respect of both the mark 1 and the mark 2 computers. I gather, however, that about 1982 the Home Office changed its mind. However, it made no public statement concerning its decision that factual information and suspicions could be mixed in one computer. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us why that change took place.
The Lindop report made it fairly clear that safeguards with regard to access and illegal use are needed. I hope that the Minister will confirm who is entitled to have access to the police national computer. Obviously the police have that right, although I understand that there is some doubt in respect of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That may be for technical reasons, or a matter of policy.
There is the question also of the extent to which Customs and Excise and the immigration authorities have access. Also, given the meetings of the Trevi group of Ministers and the development of Europol, perhaps the Minister can say how soon it will be possible for other EC police forces to gain access to Britain's police national computer and what restrictions will apply.

105
One wonders whether the Department of Social Security fraud branch is able to request information, and what checks there are on its legitimate use. I understand that local authorities have pressed hard for access to the criminal records section, in particular in vetting potential employees—particularly those who would be working in sensitive areas, such as the social services. I am informed that local authorities currently have to make their requests through the police.
In the past, there have been a number of stories about illegal use of police computer information. I am sure that the Greater Manchester force takes that aspect very seriously; all inquiries by police officers are logged; and a senior officer checks about 3 per cent. of all entries each month to ensure that they were made for legitimate purposes.
However, one still hears all sorts of rumours to the effect that it is possible for others to obtain information, yet one or two of my constituents found it difficult to obtain information about the identity of a car owner involved in an accident. I should like the Minister to state clearly what checks are made to ensure that police computer information is not available to debt collectors, bailiffs, and other such persons.
When 60 million items are included on a computer, and however carefully information may be segregated—I understand that the system used is known as NASCH, meaning name, age, sex, colour, and height—one is worried that it could be easy to confuse one John Smith with another John Smith. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that there is no risk that information that should have been entered in respect of one individual is recorded in the name of another.
In order to reassure the House and the public, perhaps the Minister can explain what is the procedure when a police officer uses the powers given in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to stop someone in the street or someone driving a car. In the case of a driver, the officer will ask for his or her name, address, driving licence, and insurance documents. Either the investigating officer, using his own personal radio, or the officer accompanying him is then usually able to check those details almost immediately on the police national computer.
Can the Minister say whether other information about the individual is also presented? It is obviously important to know whether the car has been stolen or whether the driver has a criminal record. It would also be logical to know whether there are any outstanding warrants for the individual's arrest.
I understand that any such information is presented by the control computer, which can then convey it to the police officer concerned. One or two police forces are experimenting with notebook computers, and perhaps it is intended that they will receive information from the control computer. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point.
What concerns me is the extent to which any warning signals included on the computer record are made available to the control officer and conveyed to the officer on the beat. An answer that the Under-Secretary gave me on 15 October 1990 suggested that a fair number of warning signals would be available.
I asked the Home Secretary to list the kinds of information currently held on the police national computer under the data class of warning signals. The Minister—this Minister—replied:
106
"Warning signals are intended to alert officers to potential difficulties or risks in dealing with the individual. They may be used only in cases where there is supporting evidence of the need for them to be included in the record. Their inclusion and removal is at the discretion of the force which enters the record on the police national computer.
The information held under the data class of warning signals is intended to indicate individuals who may possess firearms, may possess weapons, may resort to violent behaviour, may attempt to escape, may suffer from mental disorder, may possess explosives, may make false allegations against the police, may be a hazard to others as a carrier of contagious diseases (e.g., hepatitis)"—
I suppose that HIV and AIDS are included in that category—
"may suffer from a medical condition and/or require medication, e.g., heart condition, claustrophobia, epilepsy, alcoholism, may attempt suicide, may be in unlawful possession of controlled drugs, may impersonate male or female."—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 721.]
Some of those warning signals relate back to criminal convictions. I consider it legitimate to require that officers have such information when dealing with individuals on the pavement or in cars. Some of the information, however, will be merely conjecture, based on guesswork by police officers—albeit, on occasion, quite good guesswork. I wonder how much of that information is passed on to individual police officers. Surely, if someone has been convicted of possessing weapons or explosives, it is vital for the information to be passed on as quickly as possible, so that the officer concerned can take it into account.
I am not sure about the question of persons suffering from mental disorder. The trouble is that, as soon as anyone is given a piece of information, he will tend to treat the person involved in a slightly different way as a result. Occasionally I attend functions with my wife. If I am introduced as "Gill's husband", I am treated in a certain way; if I am introduced as a Member of Parliament, I am generally treated in a very different way.
On social occasions, of course, that does not matter. However, if a police officer is suddenly told by control that the member of the public with whom he is dealing may be suffering from a mental disorder, he may start to deal with that individual differently, and in a way that may not be particularly helpful. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us at whose discretion all the information is passed on— mainly with a view to protecting the officer concerned, if any risk is posed to him, but also with a view to protecting the individual from being treated in a different way by that officer.
Let me also ask the Minister to deal with the whole question of the inclusion of suspicions. I pointed out at the beginning that the Lindop committee had said that suspicions should be dealt with differently. Two studies have been made of police records relating to suspicions, one in the Lothian and Borders region in 1982 and the other in the Thames Valley in 1984. The Minister may tell me that there is a much more up-to-date set of statistics relating to police suspicions. I understand, however, that in 1982, in the Lothian and Borders region, there was an entry on the computer for one in six of the population suggesting some kind of suspicion. In 1984, the statistic for the Thames Valley was one in 10.
That is a large number of people in those two areas to have been entered on the computer. Had that led to a dramatic detection of crime, it would have been good, but I understand that the surveys then carried out suggest that in only 0·03 per cent. of detected crime did the suspicions on the police national computer lead to convictions. I hope

107
that the Minister will be able to tell us that more recent studies show that the number of suspicions, as a percentage of the population, has been dramatically reduced and that the detection rate has been much better.
One understands why information should be put on the computer in the first place. The question that one has to ask, however, is how quickly that information is used. When children are molested, for example, people come forward with information. The police draw up a list of five or six people who, it is alleged, were seen in the vicinity and upon whom suspicion falls. It is perfectly legitimate for the police to have that information. In the past, a notice was usually put up in the local police station. When somebody had been convicted of the offence, or no other offences had been committed for some time, the names were removed from the police station notice board—the police needed the space there—and put in a file or destroyed. The temptation now, however, is to leave the information on the police national computer. Although the information was absolutely accurate in the case of one person who was apprehended, in the case of the other individuals it was completely mistaken.
Can the Minister tell us how information is taken off the police national computer? DNA information was collected for one purpose many years previously in the case of Ray Williams. It then turned up in another court case much later. How many entries on the police national computer are deleted each week? Is the Minister confident that when information is no longer relevant, because somebody has been convicted of the offence, the information relating to other people is removed as soon as possible?
Furthermore, if information is to be sent abroad, will other police forces be told that we, unlike some of them, do not separate suspicion from factual information on our computer? Most people here would be very worried if information about them turned up in Greece, or in other European Community countries, based upon suspicion. The safeguards here may be very good, but they may not be so well understood by a police officer in another country who read about that suspicion.
I understand that the only guidelines for the police national computer were produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers in 1987. The guidelines contain a foreword by the Data Protection Registrar who had a few reservations about the guidelines. He said that they sounded all right, but that he would like to know what was happening in practice. Those guidelines were produced for the police national computer mark I. It is now almost five years since they were published. It is certainly five years since they were drawn up. What discussions has ACPO had with the registrar about the guidelines? Has he looked at the way that they are used by individual police forces? How many people have asked to see the data relating to them? Is the Minister satisfied that the 1987 guidelines are still sufficiently detailed and effective, or does he think that they ought now to be updated?
I am interested in whether the police national computer is linked with poll tax registers, electoral rolls and telephone numbers. Every telephone directory is now available on disk. I assume that that is readily available to the police—it certainly should be, because sometimes they
108
have the nasty task of tracing accident victims and informing the next of kin. It is therefore important for them to be able to verify addresses quickly.
Concern has been expressed about people's HIV status appearing on returns. I hope that the Minister will give us some more idea of the circumstances in which people's HIV status will be entered on the computer.
The police national computer has a list of prostitutes, but I understand that it applies only to London. Are lists being kept by other big cities? Will the Minister confirm that the list contains male and female prostitutes, and what conditions apply to removing names from that list? I assume that people are put on the list if they have been connected with an offence relating to prostitution or have been cautioned. It is reasonable and sensible that, if the police are trying to implement a rational policy whereby, first, someone is cautioned and then prosecuted, that information should be available.
I make no complaint about such information being kept, but I am worried about it appearing on the police national computer when the original request had nothing to do with prostitution. Suppose someone's name is entered on the computer as having been convicted of prostitution in London and they report an assault in York or perhaps somewhere totally different. It would be perfectly reasonable for the police to check their address and details such as car ownership on the computer. Does the computer then disclose their conviction for prostitution? If that information became available to the police officer investigating the assault, would it affect the way in which he pursued the investigation? Will the Minister assure us that information on someone's behaviour as a prostitute would be accessed only if they were being charged for similar offences?
The Government should have made a statement on the way in which the police national computer operates; it should not have been necessary for me or the National Council for Civil Liberties to prise information from them. The police and the Government can be proud of the police national computer because it fights crime, but it is important that they offer assurance to the general public that it cannot be misused and does result in people being dealt with differently.
I apoligise for putting a long list of questions to the Minister, but I gave him advance notice and I hope that he will answer most of them.
9.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I am glad that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) selected this subject for tonight's debate. Numerous questions have been asked in the House about the police national computer, but to my knowledge this is the first opportunity we have had in recent times to discuss wider issues. As the hon. Gentleman said, he let me know some of his particular areas of interest in advance. I am grateful for that because it enables me to provide him with a fuller response on those points than I might otherwise have been able to do. However, he has added some detailed questions. I shall read his speech and where I am unable to reply as fully as I might, I shall write to him.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I shall make a few general observations to set this important subject in context.

109
The police national computer has been in operation since 1974. It has become an established part of police operations. Many police officers today, even in the higher ranks, cannot remember carrying out their police duties without the assistance of the computer, and it is now as much a part of police back-up as the police car and police radio. That is what it is, a tool to help police officers carry out their difficult task of investigating and detecting crime and bringing offenders to justice.
The police national computer is one of the most comprehensive record systems in the world and it gives police officers across the country rapid access to vital information round the clock, every day of the year. In seconds police officers can obtain details of a stolen car or a wanted person, and establish whether an offender has previous convictions for serious crimes. The police service takes this service for granted, and that is how it should be.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State formally unveiled the new police national computer on 17 November last year. The new system continues the services provided by its predecessor, but it takes advantage of the latest developments in technology to provide a high quality service in the most cost-effective way. The transition to the new system went very smoothly, and those involved in the Home Office and in the police forces deserve congratulations on this significant achievement. But replacing the old by the new is not the end of the matter. The police are increasingly looking to technology —and to information technology in particular—to help them combat increasing crime. We are, therefore, proposing to provide a number of new information services which the police believe will make a significant contribution to their operational effectiveness. These will necessarily have to be spread over the next five or six years as, and when, resources become available.
Plans are being prepared for a new communications network which would enable rapid and cost-effective exchanges of information between the police national computer and forces, and between police forces themselves. This could be extended later to other agencies in the criminal justice system, but it has not yet been so extended.
The Government have declared their intention to computerise the national collection of criminal records currently held at the national identification bureau. Some concern has been expressed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and others at the incompleteness and inaccuracy of the records because of the difficulties of updating the present manual system. A computerised national criminal record system on the police national computer will enable police forces to enter information directly on to the national collection. This should ensure that it is accurate and up-to-date, but the benefit would not simply be in having tidy records.
I have no doubt that, by providing instant access to comprehensive records of offenders, the national criminal records system will become an indispensable aid to the better functioning of the whole of the criminal justice system. It will be of significant benefit to the police in investigating and detecting crime. Comprehensive and accurate information on antecedent offences will assist in the prosecution of cases and in sentencing, and it will help the prison service to determine the appropriate prison regime. This is a major project which will be introduced in phases over a number of years.
110
It should be clear from what I have said so far that the police national computer is exactly that—for use by the police in the United Kingdom. The use of the computer is subject to guidelines agreed and approved by the police service. How it is used, and by whom, is monitored by the police national computer organisation, and auditors in forces and in the police national computer organisation ensure that the security and operational procedures in forces are complied with.
Apart from the police forces—and here I move on to one of the hon. Gentleman's questions—only the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have direct access to the PNC, but they can see only some of the information and only to read it. They are not able to enter or to change data. The information held on the PNC can be disclosed via the police to a wide range of bodies. They are listed in the data protection registration for PNC and continental police forces cannot themselves retrieve information from the PNC.
The chief police officers are responsible for ensuring that PNC terminals—
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What will happen under the Trevi proposals? Is it intended that there should never be an interchange of information directly by computer but only by request between all European Community police forces?
Mr. Lloyd: The nature of closer interchange is already being discussed. The hon. Gentleman is right on that. There has been no agreement on the subject and, at present, no police force on the continent can take information from the PNC and no such police force has access to it. If a continental police force requests particular help from the police forces here, the police in their own judgment may release what information they think it desirable to release in the common fight against crime.
The chief police officers are responsible for ensuring that the terminals are sited in secure locations away from public view and operated only by properly trained and authorised personnel. Security is maintained by terminal operators using unique identification and password codes to gain access to the system. The communications network is designed to prevent unauthorised access to the system from external sources. A full list of the security measures that forces should take in relation to the computer system is set out in the code of practice of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Information on PNC is not generally restricted to officers of a certain rank. The level of access for operational purposes is determined by role rather than by rank.
I turn now to the information that is held on the national computer about which the hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. On a number of occasions, I have been glad to set out for the hon. Member in response to his questions in the House detailed information about the contents of the computer records and how many are held on the system at any one time. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman quoted one reply this evening. This information is recorded in the Official Report and it would not be especially useful to dwell on it here.
I should like to emphasise that the police national computer is subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. The various applications on the system are registered in accordance with the law, and state

111
the purpose for which the data is held and to whom it may be disclosed. The safeguards provided by the Act should not be dismissed lightly.
In addition, the police service itself has issued a code of practice setting out how the principles underlying the Data Protection Act should be applied to the PNC and to other police computer systems. The code has been agreed with the Data Protection Registrar and a copy is in the Library.
There are clear guidelines in the code on the manner in which information should be added to computer systems, how long it should be kept on the system and the security measures that should be taken to prevent unauthorised access. It sets out in some detail the means of complying with each of the eight principles that underpin the Data Protection Act.
The ACPO code of practice for computer systems contains a foreword by the Data Protection Registrar welcoming the code. The code is kept under review, which is one of the points to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the code is kept under review, is there any intention to issue an updated version with any alterations to the 1987 edition which is the one that was supplied to me when I asked for a copy?
Mr. Lloyd: I believe that it will be updated as the new computer takes on additional information, but when and at exactly what point is a matter on which I shall have to get back to the hon. Gentleman because I do not know ACPO's plans. The system belongs to the police, not to the Home Office.
The hon. Gentleman raised several other points about the information on the PNC. He asked, for example, whether one inquiry provided all the information on PNC about an individual. The answer is that information on criminal records is kept separately on vehicles and their registered keepers. Information on both can be obtained only by means of separate transactions. It is for the user to decide whether inquiries should be made of the "persons" and "vehicles" files in the course of a single inquiry. Therefore, such information is available to the officer, but he must seek the information from one file, the other or both.
As for deleting information from the PNC, this is a matter for the police. I am able to say that the national identification bureau at New Scotland Yard has removed some 60,000 criminal record entries from PNC in the past three months as part of a weeding exercise. This exercise is continuing. The code of practice which I referred to earlier recommends specified periods for the retention of data.
Generally, PNC records of convictions are weeded out after about 20 years. No special exercise is undertaken to take from the record any non-factual information, but forces should ensure that it is kept up-to-date when submitting information about new convictions.
The Lindop report, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, recognised that some police computer systems may need to keep "intelligence" as well as factual information. The ACPO code of practice makes it quite clear that officers originating information on a computer should clearly distinguish opinions from matters of fact—and they do, so the status of the information is apparent when it is accessed.
112
The PNC records may also contain markers about the health of the subject, which may be helpful to police officers. There are some 5·5 million records on the "persons" file, but it is not known how many have such "markers" because they system cannot be searched for these, but only by a person's name.
As the hon. Gentleman dwelt on it for some time, I know that he is concerned that some of that personal information may be available to a police officer and may modify his actions. In fact, the information is there so that the experienced police officer may make a judgment on how he might deal more appropriately with a particular person. As that can often have implications for the officer's safety, it would be quite wrong not to have such information available.
The PNC does not have links to any local electoral or poll tax registers. A number of police forces have adapted terminals to make automatic inquiries on the Phonebase. This is a computer service provided by British Telecom for the ordinary directory inquiries information. The inquiry transactions do not pass through the police national computer.
As for passing factual and intelligence information to other parties, it is for chief officers to decide whether and how much information from the PNC should be disclosed to others and what qualifications to attach to the disclosure.
It has been the practice for some time to disclose information on convictions for the protection of vulnerable groups, such as children; to ensure probity in the administration of justice; and for reasons of national security. An efficiency scrutiny of the national collection of criminal records last year pointed to weaknesses in the present arrangements for disclosing information, and there is pressure from a number of directions to widen the scope of disclosure. The Government are currently considering the matter and have undertaken to put forward proposals later this year for new disclosure arrangements.
Under the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act, it is open of course to anyone to ask for any information on the PNC which relates to them. Last year, some 18,000 people exercised that right. Under the terms of the Data Protection Act, the police are not obliged to disclose information which might be prejudicial to the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. That seems to me to be eminently sensible.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What about HIV status or mental health? Would that information be disclosed if inquiries were made? The information is more for individuals' protection than for the protection of police officers. Would that simply be at the discretion of individual police forces?
Mr. Lloyd: That information would have to be released under the terms of the Act and I have just read out what those terms are. If in a particular case the information was there but could not be properly withheld on any one of those bases, it would have to be revealed. When I write to the hon. Gentleman, as clearly I will have to on a number of points, I should like to confirm that my interpretation is correct.
I have not yet dealt with the hon. Gentleman's question about the index of prostitutes held by the Metropolitan

113
police. It is not on the PNC; it is a card index system kept by the Metropolitan police to comply with the provision of the Street Offences Act 1959, which requires that a record be kept of common prostitutes. Therefore, it concerns women only.
The PNC has played an important part in police operations for many years. The new system has proved its worth. I have no doubt that it will continue to play a vital role in assisting the police in the fight against crime in the
114
years to come. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing me with the opportunity for saying so. I have answered many of his questions, but I am aware that I have not fully addressed several and that I have given some answers that I wish to confirm. I will do so in a letter that I shall write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Enterprise Zone, Whitehaven
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has yet received the consultants' report into the effects of an enterprise zone in Whitehaven;

  (2) when he intends to publish the findings of the report into the effects of an enterprise zone for Whitehaven; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  We expect to receive the final draft of the consultants' report on enterprise zone status for Barrow and Whitehaven shortly. It is not the Department's practice to publish these reports. There is a statutory consultation procedure before any zones can be designated.

  Part-ownership Schemes
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total cost to date of setting up, publicising and administering the flexi-ownership or rents into mortgage schemes piloted in(a) Basildon and (b) Milton Keynes; and how many tenants have so far acquired part-ownership of their homes under this scheme.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on 9 December 1991,Official Report, column 314. Since then, three more sales have been completed in Basildon where the pilot scheme is still in operation, bringing the total sales to 98.

  Personal Allowances and Housing Premiums
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how(a) personal allowances and (b) housing premiums are established within applicable amounts calculated against net weekly income, for the purposes of renovation grant applications; and what account of regional cost variations is made in this process.

  Mr. Yeo
  The personal allowances and premiums used to calculate the applicable amount in the test of resources for house renovation grants are based on those used for housing benefit. They cover the essential weekly living expenses of the individual grant applicant and the applicant's family and are uprated annually in line with changes to housing benefit. The universal grant premium of £22 per week awarded to all grant applicants is intended to cover other household outgoings, including housing costs. It is also uprated annually in line with inflation. No account is taken of regional cost variations.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how(a) housing premiums and (b) personal allowances take account of individual circumstances; and what influence mortgage rates or rent variations have upon assessments.
  2
  Mr. Yeo
  The test of resources for house renovation grants largely follows housing benefit rules in taking account of the individual circumstances of grant applicants. Each applicant and relevant person associated with an application is awarded personal allowances to reflect their particular needs. A variety of premiums may also be awarded in respect of special needs such as lone parenthood, old age or disability. These are added together to provide an overall assessment of individual needs. The £22 grant premium which all grant applicants receive to cover other household expenses, including housing costs, is then added to the total. Changes in interest rates are reflected in the calculation of the national loan a grant applicant is deemed able to afford. No account is taken of rent variations.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the English housing condition survey to be published.

  Mr. Yeo
  The results will be published in 1993.

  Housing Renovation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he encourages local authorities to identify housing in severe need of renovation; what resources are targeted towards such housing; and what was the total renovation grant awarded in the last year in which figures are available for households without elderly and disabled persons.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities are required to consider housing conditions in their area at least once a year to identify unfit properties and the best way to deal with them. Each authority receives an allowance for specified capital grant, as part of its annual housing investment programme allocation, for expenditure on private sector renewal including house renovation grants and slum clearance. Information on approved renovation grant expenditure on households without elderly and disabled persons is not available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in descending order the 1992–93 standard spending assessments per head for designated poll tax contributions in each district council area in England and also show in each case figures per head per poll tax payer for(a) enhanced population, (b) density, (c) sparsity and (d) all-ages social index, in each case multiplied by the appropriate scaling factor.

  Mr. Portillo
  A table showing the requested information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to bring forward legislation to implement his draft circular on local authorities' assets in companies.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government propose to implement part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 —local authorities' interests in companies—in due course when the drafting of the necessary secondary legislation has been completed.

  Nitrogen Dioxide
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on United Kingdom compliance with the EC directive on nitrogen dioxide.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom has complied in full with the EC directive on nitrogen dioxide. Except for a purely technical breach at the west London monitoring site in London in 1989, of which the Commission was informed as required by the directive, no breach of the directive's air quality limit values has occurred.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the criteria used in choosing site locations for nitrogen dioxide monitoring stations.

  Mr. Baldry
  For the purposes of monitoring compliance with EC directive 85/203/EEC, sites have been chosen in accordance with the criteria set out in annex III of the directive. In summary, sites must include examples of areas predominately affected by motor pollution and of areas where discharges from fixed sources also make a significant contribution to pollution. They should be chosen as far as possible from sites where the risk of public exposure is greatest.

  Company

  Location

  Offence

  Pollution caused

  George M. Watson(construction)Ltd.

  Denholme, Bradford

  Operation of mineral crushing and screening plant without registration

  No Pollution

  Cotswold Stone Quarries

  Swellwold Quarry, Stow on the Wold

  Operation of Mineral works without registration

  No Pollution

  North West Aggregates Ltd.

  Huyton, Merseyside

  Operation of road stone coating plant without registration

  No Pollution

  Hickson and Welch

  Castleford, Yorkshire

  Operation of a chemical process without registration

  No Pollution

  Atomic Energy Authority

  Harwell, Oxon

  Breach of conditions of authorisation in relation to discharge of radioactive tritium gas

  No material pollution: no hazard to environment or health

  British Nuclear Fuels plc

  Springfields, Lancs

  Breach of conditions of authorisation in relation to disposal of low level solid radioactive waste

  No material pollution: no hazard to environment or health

  Air Quality
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his action plan for dealing with breaches of World Health Organisation and EC air quality standards on reduction of pollutants.

  Mr. Baldry
  The World Health Organisation does not set air quality standards, but rather guidelines intended to provide background information and guidance to Governments. The environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" and the anniversary report published last September contain the Government's action plan for reducing air pollution, including measures to ensure that the few remaining areas where a risk of breaching the limit values for smoke and sulphur dioxide in EC directive 80/779/EEC remains will comply fully when their derogations from the directive expire in April 1993.

  Urban Air Pollution
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has received from Environmental Resources Ltd. in respect of extending the urban air pollution monitoring network.

  Mr. Baldry
  Advice from Environmental Resources Ltd. is contained in its report to the Department of the Environment—"Extended Urban Monitoring—a Feasibility Study 1991"—a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. The first phase of an extension of the network, on the lines recommended, came into operation on 23 January this year.

  Pollution (Prosecutions)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 478, if he will name the companies successfully prosecuted by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution since 30 November 1990, the locations of the incidents and the type of pollution caused.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is as follows:

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which 20 local authorities have the highest level of rent arrears.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which 20 local authorities have the highest rent arrears as a percentage of the total rent roll.

  Sir George Young
  I have today arranged for information on rent arrears in all English local authorities, as at 1 April 1991, to be placed in the library.

  On this date total rent arrears owing to housing authorities in England amounted to some £430 million, representing 8·5 per cent. of the total rent collectable in 1990–91. This is an increase of £70 million—18 per cent. —compared with 1 April 1990. The 20 authorities with the poorest performance, in terms of arrears as a percentage of their rent roll, account for 50 per cent. of the total. Of

  5
  these, 10 account for £156 million—37 per cent.—of the national total and all have arrears of over 20 per cent. of the rent collectable, the highest—Southwark—having estimated rent arrears of 38·5 per cent. London accounts for £200 million—46 per cent. of the total—and has eight of the 10 and 12 of the 20 poorest performing authorities.

  These figures show that the position in far too many authorities has worsened since 1989–90. Authorities with similar holdings of stock and rent levels, and subject to similar economic pressures, turn in widely different levels of performance. The explanation for this lies in the quality of their management. The annual reports which most authorities have now supplied to their tenants, and to my Department, show considerable variation in management standards. Efficiency at collecting rent is the most fundamental of these standards. Authorities cannot hope to deliver effective services to their tenants if they do not collect the rent which pays for those services.

  It is particularly disappointing that there was no overall change in the position in London at March last year, though some authorities have taken vigorous action to improve their performance.

  All councils have a duty to look after the interests of all their tenants. Better performance in collecting rents will increase resources available for housing and reduce pressure for rent increases.

  Area Protection Grant
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any local authorities to add to the list, given in his answer of 23 January,Official Report, column 276, of those which will lose area protection grant in 1992–93.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: I regret that the table given in my answer of 23 January was incomplete. The correct information is shown in the following table.

  Reduction in area protection grant between 1991–92 and 1992–93

  Local authority

  (£ million)

  (£ adult)

  Greenwich

  -4·1

  -25

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  -3·0

  -25

  Lambeth

  -0·4

  -2

  Lewisham

  -4·2

  -25

  Southwark

  -3·7

  -25

  Tower Hamlets

  -3·3

  -25

  Wandsworth

  -5·6

  -25

  Barking and Dagenham

  -2·8

  -25

  Hillingdon

  -3·0

  -17

  Rochdale

  -3·8

  -25

  Tameside

  -4·0

  -25

  Wigan

  -5·7

  -25

  Barnsley

  -4·3

  -25

  Doncaster

  -5·6

  -25

  Rotherham

  -4·9

  -25

  Sheffield

  -10·1

  -25

  Gateshead

  -4·2

  -25

  North Tyneside

  -2·4

  -16

  South Tyneside

  -3·0

  -25

  Sunderland

  -5·5

  -25

  Bradford

  -8·1

  -25

  Calderdale

  -3·7

  -25

  Kirkless

  -7·3

  -25

  Wakefield

  -5·9

  -25

  Hartlepool

  -1·7

  -25

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  -0·8

  -7

  Middlesbrough

  -1·5

  -15

  Allerdale

  -1·8

  -25

  6

  Local authority

  (£ million)

  (£ adult)

  Barrow-in-Furness

  -1·5

  -25

  Carlisle

  -1·5

  -19

  Copeland

  -1·4

  -25

  Eden

  -0·9

  -25

  Amber Valley

  -2·2

  -25

  Bolsover

  -1·4

  -25

  Chesterfield

  -1·9

  -25

  Erewash

  -2·1

  -25

  High Peak

  -1·6

  -25

  North East Derbyshire

  -1·9

  -25

  Torridge

  -1·0

  -25

  Chester-le-Street

  -0·7

  -18

  Derwentside

  -1·6

  -25

  Durham

  -0·5

  -7

  Easington

  -1·9

  -25

  Sedgefield

  -1·7

  -25

  Teesdale

  -0·5

  -25

  Wear Valley

  -1·3

  -25

  Boothferry

  -1·2

  -25

  Cleethorpes

  - 1·1

  -21

  East Yorkshire

  -1·6

  -25

  Great Grimsby

  -1·4

  -21

  Holderness

  -0·3

  -8

  Kingston upon Hull

  -5·1

  -25

  Scunthorpe

  -1·2

  -25

  Blackburn

  -2·5

  -25

  Blackpool

  -1·1

  -10

  Burnley

  -1·7

  -25

  Hyndburn

  -1·5

  -25

  Pendle

  -1·7

  -25

  Rossendale

  -1·2

  -25

  Alnwick

  -0·5

  -23

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  -0·5

  -25

  Blyth Valley

  -1·5

  -25

  Wansbeck

  -1·2

  -25

  Craven

  -1·0

  -25

  Ryedale

  -0·3

  -5

  Scarborough

  -2·1

  -25

  Selby

  -0·4

  -7

  York

  -2·0

  -25

  Ashfield

  -2·1

  -25

  Mansfield

  -1·7

  -23

  Stoke-on-Trent

  -1·5

  -8

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many victims received compensation of between £750 and £1,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage this was of the total number of victims who received compensation.

  Mr. John Patten
  Details of awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board within various bands are given in the board's published annual reports. Copies are held in the Library.

  The precise number of awards between £750 and £1,000 is not available, but the estimated figure for 1990–91 is 5,760, which represents 16·4 per cent. of all awards made.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what checks are made to ensure that all vehicles on the road have valid vehicle excise duty licences;

  (2) what procedures are followed if a vehicle is found on the road without a valid current vehicle excise duty licence.
  7
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Police officers and traffic wardens support regular enforcement campaigns run by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Police officers and traffic wardens also routinely report the details of parked vehicles displaying either invalid vehicle excise duty—VED—licences or none at all to the DVLA which checks whether VED offences have been committed and takes any enforcement action required. Where other motoring offences have also been detected all offences are generally processed by the police.

  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what penalties are applicable to a person convicted of owning or keeping a motor vehicle on the road without a valid motor vehicle excise duty licence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A person convicted under section 8 of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 of the offence of using or keeping on a public road a motor vehicle without a valid excise duty licence is liable to a maximum penalty of a fine of up to £400 or five times the annual duty chargeable for the vehicle, whichever is greater. In addition the payment of any back duty which is owing is recoverable by court order at the same time. The maximum fine for the offence is to be increased to £1,000 later this year.

  Prisons
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has the power to terminate contracts with privately run prisons in the event of either a breach of contract or change of Government policy.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Yes.

  Wolds Prison
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Wolds prison will be covered by crown immunity.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedure will be followed immediately after the admission of an inmate to Wolds prison.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The requirements for the reception and induction procedures at Wolds are set out in section C and D of the operational specification, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House on 2 May 1991.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether extra costs in the event of prisoner disorder at Wolds prison involving the use of the emergency services or crown employees will be met by the contractors or from public funds.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Any such costs would be met from public funds unless the disorder were attributable to the contractor's failure to carry out his duties under the contract properly.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances he will direct prison service employees into Wolds prison.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Prison service staff may be required to go into Wolds prison as part of their normal duties in a variety of circumstances, ranging from the in-house 8
  presence of the controller to attendance in the event of a Crown servant being appointed as governor under section 88 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the director of Wolds prison has the power to refuse entry to any prisoner who has been duly remanded to it by the courts.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The contract with Group 4 Remand Services Limited is for the management of a 320-place remand prison for category B prisoners. Subject to those limits on the number and category of prisoners to be held there, it will not be open to the director of the prison to refuse entry to any prisoner who has been duly remanded in custody by the courts.

  Club Membership
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will propose amendments to the relevant legislation so as to exclude from the remit of the Commission for Racial Equality matters associated with club membership.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have no plans to amend the legislation in this way.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review that part of the British Nationality Act 1981 which removed the automatic right to British citizenship to any person born in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Charities
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those charities which are(a) exempt charities and (b) excepted charities.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: Exempt charities are those listed in the second schedule of the Charities Act 1960, as amended. They are:
  The Universities of Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, Reading, Nottingham, Southampton, Hull, Exeter and Leicester;
  The Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London and Durham, the colleges and halls in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham and the Colleges of Winchester and Eton;
  The University of Newcastle Upon Tyne;
  The Universities of Keele, Sussex, Wales, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Lancaster, Warwick, York, Bradford, Surrey, Aston and Salford, Loughborough University of Technology, the City University, Brunel University, the Open University, Bath University of Technology and the University Colleges of Wales, Aberystwyth, North Wales, South Wales Monmouthshire and Swansea and St. David's College, Lampeter;
  The University of London including Bedford College for Women, Birkbeck College, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London School of Economics and Political Science, Queen Elizabeth College, Queen Mary College, Royal Holloway College, Royal Veterinary College, School or Oriental and African Studies, School of Pharmacy University of London, Westfield College London, College of St. Gregory and St. Martin at Wye, Chelsea College of Science and Technology, University College London and the Institute of Education;

  9
  Charing Cross Hospital Medical School, Guy's Hospital Medical School, King's College Medical School, London Hospital Medical College, Middlesex Hospital Medical School, Royal Dental Hospital of London School of Dental Surgery, Royal Free Hospital Medical School, Medical College of St Bartholomew's Hospital in the City of London, St George's Hospital Medical School, St Mary's Hospital Medical School, St Thomas's Hospital Medical School, United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas's Hospitals, United Medical Schools Guy's and St Thomas's Hospitals, University College Medical School and Westminister Medical School;
  British Postgraduate Federation, Postgraduate Medical School of London, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the Institutes of Cancer Research: Royal Cancer Hospital, Cardiology., Child Health, Dental Surgery, Dermatology, Diseases of the Chest Laryngology and Ontology, Neurology (Queen Square), Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ophthalmology, Orthopaedics, Psychiatry, Urology;
  Welsh National School of Medicine and University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology;
  The Boards of Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Science Museum, the Armouries and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew;
  The British Museum which includes the British Museum of Natural History;
  The Imperial War Museum and the National Maritime Museum;
  The representative body of the Welsh Church; property within the Church Lands Investment Measure 1958;
  The Church Commissioners and any institution which is administered by them;
  The board and Governors of the Museum of London;
  The British Library; and
  Grant-maintained schools and any institution administered by or on behalf of such schools. Higher Education Corporations and Institutions administered by or on behalf of them, for example, polytechnics and colleges of higher education, but only if so designated by the Secretary of State.
  Charities excepted by order or regulations under section 4(4)(b) of the Charities Act 1960 are:
  All voluntary schools, being charites and having no permanent endowment other than the premises of, or connected with, the school;
  Charities comprising funds, not being permanent endowments, belonging to units, or to trustees for units, of the Boy Scouts Association or the Girl Guides Association;
  Any property, other than land, held and applicable for the general purposes of bodies established wholly or mainly for religious purposes, whether or not of the Christian religion, provided that the annual income from such property is not more than £100;
  Any charity for the advancement of religion where the application of its income in a particular manner is conditional upon a grave, tomb or personal monument being kept in good order provided that the annual income of the charity is not more than £50;
  A charity wholly or mainly concerned with the advancement of religion, being a charity—in respect of which accounts are sent annually to the Methodist Conference or other Committee or department appointed or established by the Methodist Conference or for which the Baptist and Congregational Trust Corporations is trustee or custodian trustee;
  Any charity wholly or mainly concerned with the advancement of religion in respect of property for the time being held by one of 51 Church of England Trust Corporations either as a duly constituted trustee or a custodian trustee or by virtue of the property having been vested in the body by or in pursuance of any Church of England Measure;
  Any charity wholly or mainly concerned with the promotion of the efficiency of any of the armed forces of the Crown, not being: a charity having any land in
  10
  England and Wales for any estate or any interest greater than a tenancy from year to year; a charity whose objects extend to the relief or assistance of any person not being a serving member of those forces; or a charity for the exhibition or preservation of articles of historical interest;
  every university which is not an exempt charity;
  Certain charities of which the Moravian Union Incorporated is a trustee;
  Certain charities of which the New Church is a trustee;
  Certain charities of which St. David's Diocesan Board of Finance is a trustee;
  Certain charities of which Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocesan Trustees Incorporated is a trustee;
  Certain charities of which the St. Asaph Diocesan Board of Finance is a trustee;
  Certain charities of which the Trustees of the Menevia Diocesan Trust are the trustees;
  Certain charities of which Swansea and Brecon Diocesan Trust (Incorporated) is a trustee;
  Certain charities of which Clifton Catholic Diocesan Trustees Registered is the trustee;
  Certain charities of which the Trustees of Middlesbrough Diocesan Trust are the trustees;
  Certain charities of which Nottingham Roman Catholic Diocesan Trustees Registered is a trustee;
  Certain charities of which Plymouth Roman Catholic Trustees Registered is a trustee;
  Certain charities of which United Synagogue Trustees Ltd. is a trustee;
  Benevolent funds in connection with specified branches of United Commercial Travellers Association of Great Britain and Ireland Incorporated; and
  Registered places of worship.

  Section 4(4)(c) of the 1960 Act excepts charities which have neither any permanent endowment, nor any income from property amounting to more than £15 a year, nor the use and occupation of any land.

  There is no central record of charities excepted under section s.4(4)(c) of the 1960 Act, and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Maxwell Companies
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will ask the Serious Fraud Office to extend its current investigations of Mirror Group Newspapers to include the piracy of computer software at Mirror Group Newspaper's headquarters.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The role of the SFO is to investigate and prosecute serious and complex fraud. Its current investigation into the affairs of Mirror Group Newspapers does not include any allegation of piracy of computer software and no material has been placed before the SFO which would justify extending its scope in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend.

PRIME MINISTER

  Blindness
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he proposes to undertake as a result of the findings of the Royal National Institute of the Blind survey into provisions for the blind and partially sighted.

  The Prime Minister
  I welcome the survey as a useful supplement to the information contained in earlier surveys
  11
  of disability. Ministerial colleagues in the Departments of Health, of Social Security and of Employment have met or will shortly be meeting representatives of the Royal National Institute for the Blind to discuss the implications of the survey for their programmes. The survey is also being carefully considered in other departments with an interest.

  Lamplugh School
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Lamplugh school, Frizington, Cumbria; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Three representations were received during 1990.

  Ehenside School
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Ehenside school, Cleator moor; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, none.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Falkland Islands (Ultraviolet Light)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies Her Majesty's Government have carried out or commissioned regarding the possible effects of exposure to ultraviolet light on the wildlife and ecosystems in the Falklands and the waters surrounding them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Falkland Islands Government have carried out, or commissioned, such studies.

  Iraq (Nuclear Facilities)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 385, if he will identify any of those Iraqi nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards which were targeted and damaged by Allied bombing in Operation Granby/Desert Storm.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  All the nuclear facilities declared to the IAEA for inspection purposes under Iraq's safeguards agreement with the agency were located at Tuwaitha, Baghdad. Tuwaitha has been visited on a number of occasions by the inspection teams, whose reports, which include details of bomb damage to the facilities concerned, are available in the House of Commons Library.

  European Year of Elderly People
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department is making for the European year of elderly people and solidarity between the generations in 1993.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has the lead responsibility in this area, and I refer my hon. Friend to his reply. In drawing up plans for 12
  the European year, the Department of Health is consulting a wide range of national voluntary and professional bodies, statutory authorities and other relevant Government Departments.

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek a meeting with Dr. Anre Zagorsky of the Non-Proliferation Association of Moscow to discuss the physical and organisational security for nuclear weapons and warheads withdrawn from deployment in the commonwealth of independent states.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have no plans to do so. However, the United Kingdom technical mission which the Prime Minister announced after his meeting with President Yeltsin will be discussing these matters with the responsible authorities.

  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the strength of sensitive technologies and material export controls in(a) Russia and (b) the other republics of the former Soviet Union, since the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The ability of Russia and the other republics of the former Soviet Union to maintain effective controls on the export of sensitive technologies and materials is a matter of continuing concern. We have raised this subject in our contacts with some of the states in question, and are in touch with our friends and allies to determine how best we can offer advice and assistance.

  Iraq (United Nations Inspection)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the findings of the ninth special inspection team visit by International Atomic Energy Agency experts under the United Nations special commission to Iraq arrangements.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The final report of the ninth inspection visit by International Atomic Energy Agency experts to Iraq under the terms of Security Council resolution 687 has not yet been published. Once received it will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Somalia
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress achieved by the administration in the northern part of Somalia, known as the Republic of Somaliland, towards regional stability; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to provide development aid as well as humanitarian aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Northern Somalia has been more stable than the south since the fall of Siad Barre, although there are reports of some violent incidents in recent weeks. Our development aid programme to Somalia was closed in 1991. We have no present plans to reinstate it. We continue to provide aid in the north for projects which address both immediate humanitarian and rehabilitation needs.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Labour Costs
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the prices of output is represented by the cost of labour.

  Mr. Mellor
  Labour costs in the forms of wages and salaries, income in kind and employers' contributions to social security and other social benefit arrangements averaged some 65 per cent. of the value at current factor cost of gross domestic product during the 10 years up to 1990. During the first three quarters of 1991 the figure was around 67 per cent.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the highest rate of VAT; what goods or services carried this rate; and between what dates it was in force.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The highest rate of VAT applied to goods and services was 25 per cent. It was introduced on 18 November 1974 when it applied only to petrol. On 1 May 1975 its scope was extended to cover domestic electrical appliances, radios, televisions, hi-fi equipment, pleasure boats and aircraft, towing caravans, photographic equipment, furs, jewellery and services associated with these goods. The higher rate was reduced to 12½ per cent. on 12 April 1976 and abolished on 18 June 1979.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the revenue cost in 1992–93 and 1993–94 of raising the registration threshold for VAT to(a) £50,000 and (b) £52,000.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: The revenue cost of raising the VAT threshold to either £50,000 or £52,000 is estimated to be of the order of £150 million in a full year.

  Royal Mint Advisory Committee
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who are the members of the Royal Mint Advisory Committee; when they were appointed; and what is their function.

  Mr. Maples
  The members of the Royal Mint Advisory Committee on the design of coins, medals, seals and decorations, and their dates of appointment are:

  Date

  HRH The Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh (President)

  1952

  Mr. A. D. Garrett (Deputy Master of the Mint)(Chairman)

  1989

  The Most Honourable the Marchioness of Anglesey

  1991

  Professor E. Arthur Bell

  1992

  Mr. N. D. Cadbury

  1985

  Sir Hugh Casson

  1971

  Dr. C. E. Challis

  1991

  Sir Colin Cole

  1985

  14

  Date

  Mr. Vincent Duggleby

  1985

  Sir John Hale

  1979

  Mr. Michael A. Harvey

  1991

  Mr. Bryan Kneale

  1992

  Mr. John Porteous

  1968

  Miss Marina Warner

  1985

  The function of the Committee is to advise the Master of the Mint—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—on the selection of new designs, for coins, medals, seals and decorations.

  Revenue Total
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cumulative amount of revenue received by the Exchequer since 1979, in 1991–92 prices, from(a) North sea oil, (b) privatisation and (c) council house sales.

  Mr. Maples
  The information on North sea revenues was given in reply to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on 18 December 1991,Official Report, column 165, and the figures for privatisation proceeds can be found in table 1A.1 of the 1991 "Autumn Statement." Central Government have received no revenue from the sale of local authority housing.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many self-employed people paid income tax in 1990–91 and 1991–92; and how many he estimates will pay income tax in 1992–93.

  Mr. Maude
  The number of taxpaying individuals whose main source of income is from self employment is estimated at about 2·8 million for each of these years assuming statutory indexation of allowances in 1992–93.

  Nuclear Power Industry
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 388, he will outline the reasons underlying the decision to treat differently the financing arrangements of British Nuclear Fuels and Nuclear Electric.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: Nuclear Electric is classified to the public sector. Its requirement for external finance thus counts toward the public sector borrowing requirement. British Nuclear Fuels is classified to the company sector. Its requirement for finance will only count to the public sector borrowing requirement to the extent that it is met by lending or other forms of financial support from the public sector.

  Cars (Employers' Payments)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what information he has on the total paid by employers to employees for car use both in the public and private sectors and the part thereof which is liable for tax;
  15
  (2) what information he has on the funds made available by employers to employees for the purchase of cars in any recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: Precise estimates are not available. Very approximate estimates based on survey information are that some £1 billion was paid in 1989–90 towards purchase, hire or running costs of cars used by about 2 million employees for business mileage. The taxable components of these payments cannot be separated from other taxable expense payments but are believed to be no more than £200 million.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from representatives of small businesses concerning the recent codes of practice issues by the four clearing banks.

  Mr. Maples
  None, although a number have commented publicly.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to assist Zimbabwe in response to the prolonged drought in parts of the country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have offered to help Zimbabwe draw up a national water sector plan and to help Bulawayo, one of the areas hit hardest by the present drought, to manage its water supplies to maximum effect. We also have commitments of some £3 million in support, both directly and through non-governmental organisations, of work which addresses needs in drought-prone areas of the country. Projects include research into dryland cropping and small-scale irrigation techniques and funding of village-level water supply and improvement schemes. Other proposals are being considered.

  Kenya
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current aid programme to Kenya.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1990, the last year for which figures are available, our gross bilateral aid programme, including Commonwealth Development Corporation disbursements of £2·2 million to Kenya, was £44 million.

  Africa (Education Aid)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid in the field of education he will provide in 1992 for Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone and The Gambia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  During 1992 we will continue our substantial educational and training programmes for these four countries, concentrating on in-service training for teachers, adult literacy, technical training and curriculum development. We are also maintaining our United Kingdom training programme for all four countries.

  Know-how Fund
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds have been allocated to the know-how fund for eastern European countries; and if he will give details of the relevant countries and activities.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The know-how fund currently covers Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania —as well as the countries of the former Soviet Union. The total allocation up to the end of this financial year is some £48 million, for activities designed to promote the transition to a market economy and a plural democracy. Details of individual projects were placed in the Libraries of the House on 13 January 1992.

  Russian Bankers and Financiers
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money has been allocated to the know-how fund for training of Russian bankers and financiers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The know-how fund has already committed £158,000 to support training for bankers and financiers in Moscow and St Petersburg. Further projects are in preparation.

  In addition, up to 1,000 Russians are to be given training in the banking and finance sector in Britain under an initiative which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced would be worth £8 million.

WALES

  Part-ownership Schemes
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total cost to date of setting up, publicising and administering the flexi-ownership or rents into mortgage schemes in Wales; and how many tenants have so far acquired part-ownership of their homes under this scheme.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Development Board for Rural Wales—(DBRW)—has dealt with 299 inquiries. To date, there have been 52 completed sales. About £10,000 was incurred by the Department and the DBRW in setting up the scheme and £14,000 on publicity. The DBRW has spent some £40,000 on administration costs.

  Inmos Ltd
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the sums of public money given in grants or loans to Inmos Ltd or SGS Thomson during the past five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has made regional development grant payments in respect of the Newport plants of Inmos Ltd, as follows:

  £

  25 March 1987

  48,761

  1 June 1988

  78,469

  15 June 1988

  142,097

  19 May 1988

  24,007

  25 November 1988

  54,792

  9 January 1989

  27,174

  27 January 1989

  65,147

  17

  £

  16 February 1989

  32,354

  17 February 1989

  29,759

  10 May 1989

  38,314

  6 July 1989

  44,108

  17 October 1990

  447,838

  In addition, while there were no offers of regional selective assistance during this period, an instalment of £874,000 was paid on 21 December 1987 under the terms of an offer made in 1984.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the cost of ballots of parents held under section 61 of the Education Act 1988; for which schools he has required a fresh ballot to be held as a result of his guidance not being followed; and in each case what was the reason and who paid the cost of each ballot.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The total cost of ballots of parents held under the Education Reform Act is £8,720·47. No fresh ballots have been necessary.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what applications have been received from grant-maintained schools for special purpose grant-restructuring; and in each case(a) how many posts have been affected and (b) what grant has been paid.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Grant-maintained schools have been invited to apply for special purpose grant for restructuring. No claims have been received to date.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies have been distributed and, in each case, at what cost of all the editions of the booklets(a) "School Governors, How to Become a Grant-maintained School," (b) "Grant-maintained Schools, Questions Parents Ask" and (c) "Grant-maintained Schools, What it Means for Staff."

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  (a) 7,000 costing £4,770£35;

  (b) 250 produced at minimal cost by the Department; and

  (c) copies of the staff booklet will be distributed shortly.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for each of the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91, what have been the individual levels of(a) relief from liability for rates, (b) special purpose grant (VAT) and (c) annual maintenance grant for each grant-maintained school.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There were no grant-maintained schools in Wales for the years in question.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what applications have been received from grant-maintained schools for capital grant and what has been the level of grant approved in each case; and what has been the average capital allocation per pupil in the grant-maintained sector and the average capital expenditure per pupil in the local education authority-maintained sector.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Grant-maintained schools in Wales have been invited to apply for capital grant. No applications have been received to date. In 1989–90, the latest date for which the information is available, the average capital expenditure per pupil in the local education authority maintained sector was £87.
  18
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been(a) the maximum possible and (b) the actual level of transitional grant in respect of each grant-maintained school; and for what purposes the approved expenditure was incurred.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The maximum amount available under the transitional grant arrangements is £60,000. Cwmcarn grant-maintained school and Bishop Vaughan Catholic comprehensive school are eligible to claim up to £39,900 and £57,300 respectively.

  The grant is available to cover costs incurred by prospective governing bodies in preparing for grant-maintained status, such as advertising, office equipment, computers and administration.

  Alcohol Officers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many county development officer posts have been(a) approved and (b) appointed in Wales, to date; and if he will list the counties or district health authority areas where a county development officer for alcohol services has been appointed and the date of first appointment in each case.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The provision of county development officer posts has been approved in every county in Wales. To date the only counties to make an appointment are Clwyd and Gwynedd, who made a joint appointment on 2 September 1991.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he decided to create or support the creation of county development officers for the co-ordination of alcohol services in Welsh counties.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The decision to create county development officer posts was taken following the submission for bids for financial support in 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been(a) allocated and (b) granted by his Department to each county in Wales to fund county development officers for alcohol services in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, respectively.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Funding for county development officers was first provided in 1991–92 financial year. No fixed amount has been allocated to each county as they are pursuing differing arrangements, to meet specific local needs. A total of £28,813 has been allocated for the joint Clwyd/Gwynedd development officer appointment. Provisional allocation of £21,421, £24,700 and £11,452 have been made for development officers in Dyfed, Gwent and South Glamorgan respectively. Details of the other appointments have yet to be finalised. The funding is recurring for future years.

  Agriculture Grants
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sums were paid out by each of his divisional offices for each(a) agricultural subsidy and (b) grant scheme to farmers in (i) 1990 and (ii) 1991; and how many agreements were entered into for each grant scheme.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:
  19

  Financial Year 1989–90

  Financial Year 1990–91

  Caernarfon Divisional Office

  Carmarthen Divisional Office

  Llandrindod Divisional Office

  Caernarfon Divisional Office

  Carmarthen Divisional Office

  Llandrindod Divisional Office

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  9,741,413

  5,681,752

  15,635,915

  10,049,045

  6,062,728

  16,070,947

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  9,567,200

  5,466,245

  12,688,167

  16,443,162

  10,052,007

  21,251,066

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  1,972,637

  1,267,745

  4,459,017

  2,707,881

  2,263,051

  4,811,092

  Farm Capital Grants

  2,510,000

  3,427,000

  3,487,000

  2,671,000

  3,782,000

  4,329,000

  Farm Woodland Scheme

  3,890

  nil

  3,336

  10,582

  4,997

  7,006

  Milk (Community Outgoers Scheme)

  23,262

  41,298

  2,220

  23,262

  41,298

  2,220

  Farm Diversification Grant Scheme

  51,671

  138,508

  122,837

  75,736

  133,074

  194,986

  Farm Diversification Marketing and Feasibility Grant Scheme

  nil

  1,100

  1,340

  2,129

  3,298

  5,081

  Set-Aside Scheme

  11,251

  67,613

  49,699

  25,461

  103,437

  102,579

  The Cambrian Mountains environmentally sensitive area straddles the Carmarthen and Llandrindod divisional office boundaries. The Lleyn ESA falls entirely within the Caernarfon divisional office area.

  The information is as follows:

  Agreement Were entered into as follows:

  Financial Year 1989–90

  Financial Year 1990–91

  Caernarfon Divisional Office

  Carmarthen Divisional Office

  Llandrindod Divisional Office

  Caernarfon Divisional Office

  Carmarthen Divisional Office

  Llandrindod Divisional Office

  Farm Capital Grant Plans

  74

  88

  276

  110

  97

  240

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme

  154

  32

  72

  39

  25

  45

  Farm Diversification Grant Scheme Plans including Marketing and Feasibility Plans

  23

  55

  40

  23

  72

  39

  Set-Aside Scheme

  3

  7

  4

  1

  10

  4

  Art and Music
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has considered the representations on the proposals for art and music in the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend issued for consultation last August proposals for music and art in the national curriculum. The consultation period ended on 1 November last year. He has considered very carefully the representations which he has received and, in particular, the views of the Curriculum Council for Wales which has a statutory duty to advise him on matters relating to the national curriculum in Wales.

  In the light of the council's advice and the representations he has received, he has published today for consultation draft orders with associated documents setting out attainment targets and programme of study for art and music in the nation curriculum for pupils aged five to 14, as he is required to do by section 21(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The period for consultation on the draft orders will end on 9 March. My right hon. Friend intends to make the final orders in April 1992 in good time for schools to begin teaching national curriculum art and music to pupils aged
  20

  Financial year 1989–90

  Financial year 1990–91

  Carmarthen/Llandrindod Divisional Offices

  477,827

  597,605

  Caernarfon Divisional Office

  227,661

  284,102

  five, seven and 11 from the following autumn. The draft orders apply to Wales. My right hon. Friend has already published draft orders for England on 27 January.

  Infant Deaths
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, columns 51-52, what pilot studies his Department is doing to test the feasibility of the proposals for the confidential inquiries into stillbirths and deaths in infancy set out in the report published on 2 July 1991; and whether the results of the pilot studies will be ready in time to be taken into account in finalising plans for the inquiries themselves.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 20 December 1991]: The working group on confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy, set up by the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health, gave advice about how the inquiry should proceed. That advice was based on experience gained from locally based enquiries and did not recommend pilot studies.

THE ARTS

  London Theatres
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next expects to pay an official visit to a London theatre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  As Arts Minister, I am in the thoroughly enviable business of being able to combine business and pleasure, and regularly visit London theatres. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have every intention of continuing to enjoy this pleasurable state of affairs. In the last two weeks I have visited the King's Head theatre and the Almeida theatre in Islington.

  Northern Theatres
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Arts which theatres he has visited in the north of England in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Renton
  I visited the northern region twice last year, when I saw some of the excellent arts organisations that are based in the northern region, including the Cleveland Arts Project, the Beamish Open Air museum and the Lang art gallery. I should be pleased to visit theatres when I am next in the region.

  Art Treasure Thefts
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on actions by national museums and galleries in relation to stolen art treasures.

  Mr. Renton
  Our museums and galleries comply with a voluntary code of practice under which they agree not to acquire an object unless satisfied that it has not been acquired in, or exported from, its country of origin, or any intermediate country in which it may have been legally owned, in violation of that country's laws. This includes objects originating in the United Kingdom. I am not aware of any instances where this code of practice has been broken. However, we are currently considering, with our European Community partners, a draft directive from the Commission on the restitution of illegally exported cultural objects.

  Artistic Heritage
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had over measures to protect the United Kingdom's artistic heritage from export; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Following the reviewing committee's recent report to me, I have held discussions with the reviewing committee and with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves), with the chairman of the National Art Collections Fund and with representatives of the Historic Houses Association. I have asked for representations on this important question to reach me by the end of March.

  Museum Charges
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the Government's policy on charges for museums.

  Mr. Renton
  Unlike the stated intentions of the Opposition I leave it to the national museums for which I22
  am responsible to decide whether to charge for entry. Charging has added useful revenue to museum budgets which has enabled widely successful exhibitions to be mounted.

  British Library
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will meet the chairman of the British library to discuss funding.

  Mr. Renton
  I regularly meet the chairman of the British library. Our discussions include the library's resources and other matters of interest to the board.

  Works of Art (Export Licences)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts, pursuant to his answer, on the subject of export licences for works of art, of 21 January,Official Report, columns 119-22, whether a drawing by Poussin was jointly acquired by the Ashmolean and Fitzwilliam museums as stated in the answer, or solely by the Ashmolean museum as stated in his Department's typescript communication to the hon. Member for Warley, East; and why the customary specification of the acquiring institution was omitted in the case of the refusal of an export licence in respect of a drawing of a wooded river landscape with fishermen in a boat by Pietro Berrettini da Cortona.

  Mr. Renton
  I can confirm that the drawing by Poussin, "A wooded landscape with low hills: a view of the Tiber", was acquired solely by the Ashmolean museum. An offer to purchase the drawing by Pietro Berrettini da Cortona, "A wooded river landscape with fishermen in a boat", was made by the British museum, at the recommended price, and was refused by the owner. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry took into account the existence of this valid offer to purchase, in refusing an export licence. The drawing continues to be held by the owner in the United Kingdom.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Investigations
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade
  and Industry what is the current basis on which his Department calculate the fees to be paid to inspectors carrying out companies investigations; and what the total sums expended on such fees were in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  In cases where non-departmental inspectors are appointed, fees, both for inspectors and for the grades of support staff assisting them, are calculated on the basis of pre-agreed hourly charge-out rates.

  The total amount expended annually on such fees, including vouched disbursements, is shown in the companies annual report, copies of which are in the Library. For ease of reference, the table sets out the figures for each year since 1985:

  Year

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1985

  0·77

  1986

  1·29

  1986–87

  1·53

  1987–88

  2·50

  1988–89

  2·90

  23

  Year

  Expenditure(£ million)

  1989–90

  6·10

  1990–91

  11·10

  Note: Until 1986, the companies annual report was prepared on a calendar year basis. Thereafter, it was produced on a financial year basis. There is, therefore, an overlap in the figures provided for 1986 and for 1986–87 in the table.

  Life Offices (Investors' Funds)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who bears the responsibility for investors' funds placed with intermediaries for investment in life offices; what agency regulates these transactions; and what representations he has received on this point.

  Mr. Redwood
  The holding of client money by investment businesses under the Financial Services Act is the subject of regulations which are a matter for the Securities and Investments Board.

  Breathing Apparatus
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what date he expects(a) to announce the setting up of approved inspection bodies to certify United Kingdom manufactured breathing apparatus to comply with the EC directive under article 100A and (b) to publish draft regulations for consultation.

  Mr. Leigh
  There is nothing that I can usefully add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 24 January 1992,Official Report, column 400.

  Romania
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance is currently made available by his Department specifically to assist British companies to obtain and fulfil contracts to supply goods and services to Romania.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 30 January 1992]: A range of services is available under the enterprise initiative including support for outward missions and participation in overseas trade fairs, general information on the markets and answers to specific questions about market opportunities. The services are available through the Romanian section of my Department or our network of regional offices.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department cover is not available for medium-term business—that is, on credit terms of two years or more—for Romania, but the position is currently under review.

  Short-term cover is available from the private sector.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement of the reasons why Export Credits Guarantee Department cover is not available for British exports to Romania.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 30 January 1992] The availability of ECGD medium-term export credit cover is dependent on assessment of a country's capacity to repay its debts. Romania's International Monetary Fund programme identifies a significant financing gap in the country's balance of payments. The EC has agreed to fund
  24
  50 per cent. of this gap but, thus far, the aggregate amount pledged by other donor countries has fallen well short of the remaining 50 per cent.

  There have also been a number of very significant changes in the economic and political situation in Romania during the last year. These have also had to be taken into account in deciding whether to resume cover.

  Now that the position is becoming clearer and more international support for Romania's balance of payments is becoming available the provision of ECGD cover is under active review.

  Mr. Nicholson Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the size of contracts available to British exporters wishing to supply goods and services to Romania.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 30 January 1992]:] Information on which to base a comprehensive assessment is not available.

  Patents Office
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to issue new guidelines to the Patents Office to assist in the screening of applications to foreign patent offices for information prejudicial to the safety of the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 January 1992]: I have no plans to issue new guidelines to the Patents Office. There are long-established procedures for screening applications which may have a bearing on the defence of the realm and the comptroller of the office is also required under the Patents Act 1977 to have regard to issues of public safety.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Scottish Graduates
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will carry out a survey into the proportion of graduates of Scottish universities recruited into the higher grades of the civil service.

  Mr. Renton
  No. All recruitment to the civil service is on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.

  Unions (Ministerial Meetings)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what meetings he has had so far this year with union representatives from London branches of the civil service unions.

  Mr. Renton
  I meet representatives from civil service trade unions from time to time to discuss a variety of issues.

  Senior Civil Servants
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will consider the establishment of a system for civil servants to appear before appropriate Committees of the House of Commons, prior to their confirmation in a senior civil service post.

  Mr. Renton
  No. The present arrangements for appointment on merit are efficient, impartial, well tried
  25
  and have commanded the support of all parties over many years. I see no reason to change to a system of Committee hearings which has not been conspicuously successful elsewhere.

  Civil Service Morale
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what new initiatives he has to improve morale in the civil service.

  Mr. Renton
  Our aim is to have an efficient, effective and well-motivated civil service. Managers in Departments and agencies continually work to achieve this.

  Education and Library Boards

  Board

  1986–87 Per cent.

  1987–88 Per cent.

  1988–89 Per cent

  1989–90 Per cent.

  1990–91 Per cent.

  Belfast

  9·67

  10·83

  10·83

  11·03

  10·70

  North-Eastern

  8·50

  8·77

  9·43

  9·59

  9·77

  South-Eastern

  10·45

  10·64

  10·92

  11·17

  11·29

  Southern

  8·31

  8·95

  9·98

  10·26

  10·50

  Western

  8·69

  9·00

  9·76

  9·97

  10·37

  Health and Social Services Boards

  Board

  1986–87 Per cent.

  1987–88 Per cent.

  1988–89 Per cent.

  1989–90 Per cent.

  1990–91 Per cent.

  Northern

  5·85

  5·54

  5·56

  5·88

  6·06

  Southern

  5·08

  4·88

  4·49

  5·14

  5·83

  Eastern

  4·51

  4·63

  4·70

  4·95

  5·28

  Western

  4·63

  4·77

  4·92

  5·35

  6·01

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Board

  1986–87 Per cent.

  1987–88 Per cent.

  1988–89 Per cent.

  1989–90 Per cent.

  1990–91 Per cent.

  Housing Executive

  7·7

  8·2

  8·5

  9·7

  10·7

  1 Estimated.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table indicating the total number of deaths due to terrorism that have occurred between 1968 and the present day in Northern Ireland; and if he will give the figures available to him for those killed outside Northern Ireland as a result of the Province's security situation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available on deaths resulting from the security situation in Northern Ireland is set out in the table:

  Deaths resulting from security situation in Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland

  Great Britain

  Republic of Ireland1

  Mainland Europe2

  1968

  0

  0

  0

  —

  1969

  13

  0

  0

  —

  1970

  25

  0

  3

  —

  1971

  174

  0

  3

  —

  1972

  467

  7

  4

  —

  1973

  250

  2

  6

  —

  1974

  216

  45

  37

  —

  1975

  247

  10

  7

  —

  1976

  297

  2

  4

  —

  1977

  112

  0

  4

  —

  1978

  81

  0

  1

  —

  1979

  113

  1

  6

  2

  1980

  76

  0

  4

  2

  1981

  101

  3

  1

  0

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Management Costs
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage has been attributed to management costs of the funds spent in each of the last five years by(a)each of the education and library boards, (b) each of the health and social services boards and (c) the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows:

  Northern Ireland

  Great Britain

  Republic of Ireland1

  Mainland Europe2

  1982

  97

  11

  2

  0

  1983

  77

  6

  4

  0

  1984

  64

  5

  1

  0

  1985

  54

  0

  4

  0

  1986

  61

  0

  0

  0

  1987

  93

  0

  6

  0

  1988

  93

  1

  1

  7

  1989

  62

  11

  1

  4

  1990

  76

  3

  0

  3

  1991

  94

  3

  1

  0

  31992

  13

  0

  0

  0

  2,956

  110

  100

  18

  1 Some eight persons killed or believed to have been killed close to the border in the Republic of Ireland are excluded from these figures, and have been included in Northern Ireland statistics.

  2 Information not available prior to 1979.

  3 As at 22 January.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table indicating the number of injuries due to terrorism that have occurred between 1968 and the present day in Northern Ireland; and if he will give the figures available to him for those injured outside Northern Ireland as a result of the Province's security situation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The table provides the information available about the numbers of injuries caused to persons
  27
  in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and the rest of Europe, excluding the Republic of Ireland, which are believed to be associated with the security situation in Northern Ireland. Such information is not available in respect of the Republic of Ireland.

  Injuries resulting from the security situation in Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland

  Great Britain

  Mainland Europe1

  1968

  379

  0

  —

  1969

  765

  0

  —

  1970

  811

  0

  —

  1971

  2,592

  0

  —

  1972

  4,876

  15

  —

  1973

  2,651

  357

  —

  1974

  2,398

  452

  —

  1975

  2,474

  232

  —

  1976

  2,729

  104

  —

  1977

  1,387

  1

  —

  1978

  985

  11

  —

  1979

  875

  4

  0

  1980

  801

  5

  2

  1981

  1,350

  42

  0

  1982

  525

  59

  0

  1983

  510

  96

  0

  1984

  866

  30

  0

  1985

  916

  0

  0

  1986

  1,450

  0

  0

  1987

  1,130

  0

  31

  1988

  1,047

  8

  16

  1989

  959

  24

  8

  1990

  906

  56

  0

  1991

  962

  40

  0

  19922

  —

  0

  0

  33,382+

  1,536

  57

  1 Not available prior to 1979.

  2 Information not yet available.

  Redundancies, South Down
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many redundancies in factories in Ballynahinch and Killyleagh have been reported in the last year; and what plans he has to introduce enterprise zones into the constituency of South Down.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of Economic Development receives notification of redundancies involving 10 or more employees at any specific establishment. Since 1 January 1991, a total of 226 redundancies have been reported at factories located in Ballynahinch and Killyleagh.

  In association with the International Fund for Ireland the Government are embarking on a number of initiatives aimed at enhancing social and economic conditions in South Down. Enterprise zones which are targeted on areas of large scale industrial dereliction do not form part of this regeneration strategy.

  Environmental Pollution
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met(a) senior industrialists, (b) the Director of the Confederation of British Industry, and (c) leaders of the trade union movement to discuss measures to reduce environmental pollution in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet a wide range of people connected with industry in Northern Ireland and environmental issues are 28
  often discussed. There have not, however, been any meetings specifically to examine measures to reduce pollution.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the number of(a) Protestants and (b) Roman Catholics in the Fair Employment Commission staff, at the latest available date, for staff in (i) executive posts, (ii) operations posts and (iii) support posts.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested, as at 1 January 1992, is as follows:

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Operational staff

  23

  19

  Support staff

  8

  10

  Further disaggregation of the data could infringe the confidentiality provisions of fair employment legislation by disclosing the religious belief of indentifiable individuals.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current length of time taken to process attendance allowance application forms; and what action will be taken to reduce the time.

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

  Supplementary Benefit Appeals
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional arrangements will be made urgently to resolve the number of outstanding appeals in respect of supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Hanley
  Within the last few months there have been around 22,000 appeals against the award of supplementary benefit, all of them made outside the normal time limit for appeal. The president of the Independent Appeal Tribunal Service is responsible for hearing appeals and he has made arrangements to have them passed to the chairmen for independent ajudication at additional sessions.

  Nursery Care
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide an estimate of the money spent by education and library boards in Northern Ireland in 1990-91 and 1991-92 on providing education and nursery care for three and four-year-olds.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows:

  1990–91 (outturn)

  1991–921 (estimate)

  £000s

  £000s

  Nursery Schools

  2,922

  6,901

  29
  1 1991–92 figures include estimated expenditure on teachers' salaries; in 1990–91 these costs were met by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland.

  Expenditure on nursery classes in primary schools is included in primary schools expenditure and is not available separately.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners were serving(a) discrectionary life sentences and (b) mandatory life sentences as of 31 December, specifying the numbers of prisoners in each category who had served more than 10 years by that date and the length of time in excess of 10 years served by any such prisoners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on 29 January,Official Report, columns 607-8.

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Number of applications disallowed because applicants had not been employed for more than two years

  4

  —

  3

  3

  1

  Expressed as a percentage of applications received

  13

  —

  11

  19

  7

  Expressed as a percentage of total applications disallowed

  50

  —

  38

  60

  50

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will announce any further progress under the "next steps" initiative in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am pleased to announce that, following a thorough feasibility study, the Government have decided that an executive agency should be set up within the Department of Finance and Personnel to carry out the work of the Valuation and Lands Office.

  The detailed planning for agency status is already under way and the target launch date is 1 April 1993.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the disabled work force hold professional or managerial positions compared with the percentage for non-disabled workers.

  Mr. Jackson
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average unit price in real terms of a place on youth training in 1983 and what it is now.

  Mr. Jackson
  The average unit price of a youth training scheme place in 1983 was £88 per trainee per week at current price levels. The average unit price of a youth training place is £51 per trainee week in 1991–92. The reduction in the unit price reflects the increased level of

  Civil Unrest (Compensation)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people claiming compensation under the scheme of compensation for loss of employment through civil unrest were refused compensation in each year since 1970 because they had not been employed for more than two years; and what percentage they represent of(a) the number claiming compensation and (b) the number of those workers whose claims were disallowed.

  Mr. Needham
  It is only possible to provide the information requested from 1987 as relevant records prior to that year have not been retained. The available information is given in the table.

  financial contributions from employers and also the Government's determination to obtain best value for taxpayers' money.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people became unemployed during 1991 in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jackson
  In the 12 months ending December 1991, 4,423,260 people became claimant unemployed, compared to 3,721,914 who left unemployment, leading to a net rise of 701,346 over the year, on the unadjusted basis.

  The flow figures will include some people who had more than one spell of unemployment during the year.

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training will be given to disablement resettlement officers to enable them to advise individual claimants about their entitlement to disability working allowance and its impact on their finances.

  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.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the policy of Employment Service agencies in respect of acting in competition with the private recruitment sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government have long been a strong supporter of the private recruitment sector. This sector has
  31
  a distinctive and important role to play, and there should not be any unfair competition from the public employment service.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the main aims and objectives of the Employment Service.

  Mr. Jackson
  The aims and objectives of the Employment Service are set out in the Employment Service agency framework document, a copy of which can be found in the Library.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department has taken to ensure that jobcentres build up sufficient caseloads of clients' skills to facilitate the matching of the unemployed to appropriate vacancies; what priority is accorded to matching in his Department's activities in helping unemployed people; 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.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State For
  Employment if it is the intention of the Government to level out prices in order to bring about a fixed unit price for training and enterprise councils nationwide; and what consideration he has given to the variation across the United Kingdom in terms of(a) the level of employed status, (b) the number of clients with special needs, (c) the difference in the rate of unemployment and (d) the differences in the availability of work employment placements.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government have no intention of bringing about a fixed unit price for training and enterprise councils nationwide. Unit prices for training and enterprise councils take account of local variations in their labour markets, including the factors listed by the hon. Member.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what basis he decided to encourage an increase in the number of national vocational qualifications to meet the CBI targets and other quality measures without making a corresponding increase in the funding of TECS.

  Mr. Jackson
  Our priority is to encourage the development of the highly skilled and flexible work force the economy needs. On the Government's behalf, we have therefore welcomed the CBI's targets, since they are based on nationally recognised qualifications and have been set by employers, who have the main responsibility for taking action to achieve them. We have also invited TECs to take the lead in their local communities in promoting action by employers and others to work towards the targets. TECs will be given the funding to do the tasks the Government have asked them to do.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to fund the training of new 32
  people entering the employment register within the lower total budget available to training and enterprise councils for 1992–93.

  Mr. Jackson
  Planned spending on YT and ET in 1992–93 will increase. In addition, resources for a range of measures delivered by the Employment Service for unemployed people have also been increased. Detailed figures will be published shortly in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1991–1992 to 1992–1994" for the Employment Department group.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to increse the money within TECs' training budgets.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department is currently negotiating business plans for 1992-93 with all TECs. The Government plan to spend £2.8 billion on training, enterprise and vocational education programmes this year, which is more than was spent last year.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the budget for all the TECs in the United Kingdom for the years(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93.

  Mr. Jackson
  The table shows the TEC operational budgets for 1991–92. Information for Scottish local enterprise companies is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to provide. Budgets are for the period of TEC operation only and vary in the periods
  they cover because of the differing operational dates of TECs.

  The TEC budgets for 1992–93 are still subject to negotiation.

  TEC

  Allocation £ million

  South East

  Essex (23 July 1990)

  29·162

  Hampshire (17 September 1990)

  31·963

  Heart of England (17 September 1990)

  10·733

  Hertfordshire (30 April 1990)

  19·527

  Isle of Wight (15 October 1990)

  4·123

  Kent (12 November 1990)

  32·172

  Milton Keynes and North Bucks (17 September 1990)

  6·488

  Surrey (1 April 1991)

  14·070

  Sussex (1 April 1991)

  25·984

  Thames Valley Enterprise (30 April 1990)

  19·784

  London

  AZTEC (12 November 1990)

  10·742

  CENTEC (16 September 1991)

  11·951

  CILNTEC (14 October 1991)

  8·124

  LETEC (1 April 1991)

  27·618

  North London (16 September 1991)

  9·690

  North West London (16 September 1991)

  5·625

  SOLOTEC (1 April 1991)

  18·555

  South Thames (27 May 1991)

  20·510

  West London (16 September 1991)

  8·945

  South West

  Avon (1 April 1991)

  29·263

  Devon and Cornwall (30 April 1990)

  52·475

  Dorset (30 April 1990)

  15·488

  Gloucester (7 January 1991)

  13.010

  Somerset (23 July 1990)

  13·259

  Wiltshire (1 April 1991)

  12·766

  West Midlands

  Birmingham (12 November 1990)

  46·456

  Central England (1 April 1991)

  10·975

  Coventry (17 September 1990)

  25·768

  33

  TEC

  Allocation £ million

  Dudley (1 April 1991)

  11·203

  Hereford and Worcester (1 April 1991)

  10·141

  Sandwell (1 April 1991)

  11·427

  Shropshire (1 April 1991)

  13·460

  Staffordshire (15 October 1990)

  34·627

  Walsall (15 October 1990)

  23·544

  Wolverhampton (1 April 1991)

  11·564

  East Midlands and Anglia

  Leicester (1 April 1991)

  26·339

  Northamptonshire (1 April 1991)

  12·852

  Lincolnshire (1 April 1991)

  8·174

  Greater Nottingham (1 April 1991)

  21·420

  North Nottingham (25 June 1960)

  16·965

  South Derbyshire (7 January 1991)

  17·607

  North Derbyshire (1 April 1991)

  11·544

  Norfolk and Waveney (12 November 1990)

  22·888

  Suffolk (12 November 1990)

  14·243

  Bedfordshire (1 April 1991)

  12·137

  Greater Peterborough (4 February 1991)

  8·174

  CAMBSTEC (4 February 1991)

  6·362

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Leeds (15 October 1990)

  22·497

  North Yorkshire (25 June 1990)

  17·006

  Bradford (7 January 1991)

  18·696

  Calderdale/Kirklees (3 April 1990)

  20·592

  Wakefield (7 January 1991)

  12·231

  Barnsley and Doncaster (7 January 1991)

  25·705

  Sheffield (1 October 1990)

  24·206

  Rotherham (30 July 1990)

  12·127

  Humberside (2 April 1991)

  37·537

  North West

  Bolton and Bury (15 October 1990)

  12·9

  CEWTEC (1 April 1991)

  21·0

  Cumbria (30 April 1990)

  17·3

  ELTEC (29 May 1990)

  17·3

  LAWTEC (1 April 1991)

  26·3

  Manchester (12 November 1990)

  38·5

  METROTEC (23 July 1990)

  10·5

  Oldham (30 April 1990)

  8·6

  QUALITEC (1 April 1991)

  9·3

  Rochdale (30 April 1990)

  6·5

  S and E Cheshire (9 April 1990)

  10·9

  Stockport and High Peak (20 August 1990)

  9·7

  Merseyside (24 June 1991)

  41·6

  NORMID (24 June 1991)

  11·9

  Northern

  Teeside (30 April 1990)

  34·565

  Tyneside (30 April 1990)

  45·908

  Wearside (30 April 1990)

  21·484

  Durham (1 October 1990)

  34·380

  Northumberland (17 September 1990)

  15·639

  Wales

  Gwent (4 February 1991)

  18·4

  North East Wales (17 September 1990)

  13·6

  North West Wales (4 February 1991)

  13·6

  Mid Glamorgan (23 July 1990)

  21·1

  Powys (2 April 1991)

  4·8

  South Glamorgan (4 February 1991)

  14·1

  West Wales (23 July 1990)

  31·5

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department uses business plans prepared by local TECs.

  Mr. Jackson
  The business plan sets out the TEC's planned activity for the year ahead. It forms the basis of any negotiations with the TEC on matters such as levels of resources. The approved business plan represents what the TEC agrees to deliver under its contract with us.
  34
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will remove restrictions imposed within the operating agreement for local training and enterprise councils which meet the needs of their own areas.

  Mr. Jackson
  We are satisfied that the operating agreement with training and enterprise councils gives them the flexibility to arrange provision to meet the specific needs of their local areas.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration he has given to transferring the remit of training and enterprise councils back to his Department.

  Mr. Jackson
  We are very satisfied with the way TECs are discharging their training and enterprise remit, and have no plans to transfer their responsibilities back to the Department.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what priority he gives to the business plan of local training and enterprise councils as compared with other main programmes for the unemployed.

  Mr. Jackson
  The activities set out in the training and enterprise councils' business plans are an important part of the wide range of help given to unemployed people through the Department.

  Training
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the average unit cost for(a) youth training and (b) employment training and the expected monetary contribution towards this from employers both for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1991–92, the average cost per filled place per annum is £2,700 for YT and £6,100 for ET, including allowances. We are not able to make the 1992–93 figures public until negotiations between the Employment Department, and TECs for 1992–93 contracts are complete, as to do so would prejudice the Department's negotiating position.

  Employer contributions are estimated to be £627 per filled place per annum on YT and £420 per filled place per annum on ET in 1991–92. We expect an increase in employer contributions in 1992–93.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for what reasons it was decided not to pay trainee allowance out of employment training but to include an allowance of £35 per week in the youth training unit price.

  Mr. Jackson
  Youth training must receive training allowances of at least £29·50 per week and £35 per week for 16 and 17-year-old trainees respectively. These allowances are paid directly to trainees by training providers from the funding available from training and enterprise councils.

  Employment training trainees receive their previous benefit entitlement plus a £10 premium. Due to the direct link with benefit, employment training trainees are paid their training allowance by the Employment Service through the benefit payment computer system. It is therefore not necessary to include allowances in the employment training funding given to training and enterprise councils and providers.
  35
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy in this year's round of negotiation on reducing the youth training price to a figure below that of employment training.

  Mr. Jackson
  The prices paid to training and enterprise councils for youth training and employment training are set independently of each other and reflect among other things the differing nature of the programmes.

  Local Initiative Fund
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for what reasons the local initiative was reduced from £1·15 per capita to £0·45.

  Mr. Jackson
  The per capita allowance is just one element of money made available to training and enterprise councils through the local initiative fund. The total amount available for training and enterprise councils to spend through the fund in 1992–93 will be higher than their expected expenditure in 1991–92.

TRANSPORT

  Cradlewell Bypass
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the reasons for the postponement of the Cradlewell bypass project by his transport policies and plans Department in its settlement with the city of Newcastle upon Tyne; when the new date for a commencement of his project is planned; and whether the public safety implications of a consequential further postponement of the renovation of the listed Armstrong bridge across Jesmond dene have been taken into account.

  Mr. Chope
  The start date for Cradlewell bypass is a matter for the Newcastle city council.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicle owners in 1991 renewed road tax on those vehicles after a period during which the vehicle was alleged to have been off the road.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Most breaks in licensing occur because the vehicle is in the hands of a dealer for sale.

  Railway Services (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held during the past 12 months with his EC counterparts with a view to upgrading railway services through Wales, as part of his transport infrastructure links between Ireland and the rest of Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I last discussed these issues with the Irish Minister of Transport and Tourism, Mr. Lyons, on 6 July 1991. At last December's EC Council of Ministers, the Commission tabled a paper on European transport infrastructure networks, which will be the subject of future discussions between member states.

  Electrically Powered Passenger Road Vehicles
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what monitoring he undertakes of advances in the development of electrically powered passenger road vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department's Transport and Road Research Laboratory is currently reviewing national and international research and experience in the use of alternative fuels and engines for road vehicles. This review will encompass electric vehicles and battery technology.

  In addition to the TRRL review, my Department continues to keep abreast of electric vehicle developments worldwide, and I welcome the continuing efforts by manufacturers to develop advanced batteries and more competitive electric vehicles.

  Disabled People (Parking)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will initiate discussions with representatives of the London boroughs association and other relevant bodies to examine the provision of increased parking spaces for registered disabled persons in the outer London boroughs.

  Mr. Chope
  No. But I shall ensure that a reference to this is included in the forthcoming parking guidance being issued under the Road Traffic Act 1991. This guidance will be subject to consultation with London local authorities.

  Offshore Standby Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many emergency or standby vessels working in the offshore oil and gas industries have failed their inspections in each of the past five years; how many of those deemed unsatisfactory were removed from this work in each of the past five years; what other sanctions were imposed upon the owners of such vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Annual surveys of standby vessels are carried out by the Department's marine surveyors to establish that the vessel satisfies the Merchant Shipping Regulations and the specific standards required by the standby vessel code. All defects and items of noncompliance are brought to the attention of the shipowners together with details of what repairs/modifications are required before a certificate of survey can be issued. Owners may withdraw vessels if the cost of repairs or modifications renders the further use of the vessel uneconomic.

  Details of the number of vessels withdrawn by their owners in each of the past five years are not available to the Department.

  Other sanctions which have been applied to standby vessels include withdrawal of certificates pending repair, and delay to vessels until repairs are completed and approved by the surveyor.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the frequency and duration of inspections of standby vessels operating in the offshore oil and gas industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Standby safety vessels operating in the offshore oil and gas industries are subject to annual
  37
  surveys under Merchant Shipping Regulations and for reissue of the certificate of compliance with the "Code for the Assessment of the Suitability of Standby Vessels Attending Offshore Installations". This is the non-statutory document which sets out guidance on the standards to be achieved and equipment to be carried on such vessels.

  The duration of such surveys depends upon the condition of the vessel when presented for survey and the extent and type of any defects discovered during the survey.

  Such vessels may also be subjected to random inspections during the currency of their certificates.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) types, (b) ages and (c) names of emergency or standby vessels currently working in the offshore oil and gas industries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is as follows:

  Name

  Year of build

  Type of vessel

  Aberdonian

  1977

  Standby/Rescue4

  Alexandra Tide

  1974

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Anegada

  1962

  Standby/Rescue1

  Atlantic Defender

  1979

  Supply Ship

  Barnsley

  1960

  Standby/Rescue1

  Barra Supplier

  1984

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Black Isle

  1973

  Standby/Rescue3

  Black Watch

  1981

  Research Vessel

  Blue Flame 1

  1976

  Pipe Laying Vessel

  Breydon Eider

  1961

  Standby/Rescue1

  Britannia Challenger

  1964

  Ex Hospital Ship

  Britannia Champion

  1980

  Standby/Rescue1

  Britannia Chieftain

  1973

  Standby/Rescue2

  Britannia Cobra

  1978

  Standby/Rescue1

  Britannia Crusader

  1976

  Supply Ship

  Britannia Endeavour

  1975

  Supply Ship

  Britannia Fury

  1972

  Standby/Rescue1

  Britannia Gazelle

  1978

  Standby/Rescue1

  Britannia Harvester

  1972

  Standby/Rescue1

  Britannia Knight

  1976

  Standby/Rescue1

  Britannia Monarch

  1973

  Standby/Rescue1

  Britannia Stallion

  1978

  Standby/Rescue1

  Britannia Venturer

  1965

  Research Vessel

  Britannia Vixen

  1978

  Standby/Rescue1

  Britannia Warrior

  1973

  Standby/Rescue1

  British Claymore

  1982

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Cam Cheetah

  1959

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Civet

  1960

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Cougar

  1958

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Defender

  1983

  Standby/Rescue2

  Cam Guardian

  1970

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Jaguar

  1957

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Lynx

  1960

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Observer

  1953

  Standby/Rescue3

  Cam Panther

  1958

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Protector

  1983

  Standby/Rescue

  Cam Puma

  1966

  Standby/Rescue

  Cam Ranger

  1983

  Standby/Rescue

  Cam Retriever

  1972

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Scout

  1956

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Searcher

  1971

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Seeker

  1967

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Sentinel

  1982

  Standby/Rescue

  Cam Sprite

  1971

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Valiant

  1939

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Vanguard

  1955

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Venturer

  1973

  Standby/Rescue

  Cam Viceroy

  1958

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Victor

  1969

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Viking

  1972

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Viscount

  1971

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Voyager

  1957

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Vulcan

  1958

  Standby/Rescue1

  Cam Zebra

  1960

  Standby/Rescue1

  38

  Name

  Year of build

  Type of vessel

  Colne Kestrel

  1966

  Standby/Rescue1

  Colne Phantom

  1965

  Standby/Rescue1

  Dawn Blazer

  1965

  Survey

  Dawn Gem

  1958

  Standby/Rescue1

  Dawn Monarch

  1961

  Standby/Rescue1

  Dawn Saviour

  1960

  Standby/Rescue1

  Dawn Shore

  1967

  Standby/Rescue1

  Dawn Sky

  1967

  Survey

  Dawn Warbler

  1966

  Survey

  DEA Supporter

  1970

  Supply Ship

  Euan

  1936

  Standby/Rescue1

  Exuma

  1961

  Standby/Rescue1

  Far Centurion

  1983

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Far Earl

  1986

  Platform supply

  Far Searcher

  1975

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Far Seeker

  1986

  Tug/Supply Ship

  Far Sovereign

  1982

  Platform Supply

  Far Stream

  1982

  Tug/Supply Ship

  Grampian City

  1976

  Standby/Rescue1

  Grampian Concord

  1961

  Standby/Rescue1

  Grampian Dee

  1975

  Standby/Rescue2

  Grampian Eagle

  1975

  Standby/Rescue2

  Grampian Endeavour

  1966

  Standby/Rescue1

  Grampian Explorer

  1965

  Standby/Rescue1

  Grampian Falcon

  1982

  Supply Ship

  Grampian Forest

  1962

  Standby/Rescue1

  Grampian Freedom

  1966

  Standby/Rescue1

  Grampian Harrier

  1967

  Standby/Rescue3

  Grampian Highlander

  1976

  Standby/Rescue1

  Grampian King

  1959

  Standby/Rescue1

  Grampian Monarch

  1968

  Standby/Rescue1

  Grampian Osprey

  1937

  Standby/Rescue1

  Grampian Otter

  1983

  Supply Ship

  Grampian Petrel

  1959

  Standby/Rescue1

  Grampian Pioneer

  1981

  Standby/Rescue

  Grampian Pride

  1981

  Standby/Rescue

  Grampian Protector

  1983

  Standby/Rescue

  Grampian Quest

  1959

  Standby/Rescue1

  Grampian Rose

  1949

  Standby/Rescue1

  Grampian Shield

  1974

  Standby/Rescue2

  Grampian Sprite

  1982

  Supply Ship

  Grampian Sword

  1976

  Standby/Rescue3

  Grampian Viking

  1961

  Standby/Rescue1

  Grampian Warrior

  1977

  Standby/Rescue1

  Hatherleigh

  1961

  Standby/Rescue1

  Kronbas

  1975

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Maersk Mariner

  1986

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Maersk Ranger

  1980

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Maersk Rover

  1982

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Maersk Runner

  1980

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Mary Craig

  1959

  Standby/Rescue2

  Normand Skipper

  1975

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Nova

  1969

  Standby/Rescue1

  Oakleigh

  1961

  Standby/Rescue1

  Putford Achates

  1976

  Standby/Rescue1

  Putford Achilles

  1973

  Supply Ship

  Putford Ajax

  1976

  Supply Ship

  Putford Apollo

  1975

  Standby/Rescue1

  Putford Falcon

  1957

  Standby/Rescue1

  Putford Harrier

  1960

  Standby/Rescue1

  Putford Merlin

  1962

  Standby/Rescue1

  Putford Osprey

  1960

  Standby/Rescue1

  Putford Petrel

  1961

  Standby/Rescue1

  Putford Skua

  1967

  Diving Support

  Putford Snipe

  1969

  Tug/Supply Ship

  Putford Teal

  1969

  Standby/Rescue1

  Putford Tern

  1967

  Standby/Rescue1

  Safe Carrier

  1968

  Supply Ship

  Safe Transporter

  1971

  Supply Ship

  Safe Truck

  1976

  Standby/Rescue2

  Scott Protector

  1984

  Standby/Rescue2

  Sea Sapphire

  1973

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Seaboard Capella

  1968

  Standby/Rescue4

  Seaboard Castor

  1941

  Standby/Rescue1

  Seaboard Illustrious

  1966

  Diving Support

  Seaboard Implacable

  1964

  Standby/Rescue1

  Seaboard Integrity

  1969

  Standby/Rescue1

  39

  Name

  Year of build

  Type of vessel

  Seaboard Intrepid

  1968

  Standby/Rescue1

  Seaboard Invincible

  1970

  Diving/Support

  Seaboard Sapphire

  1980

  Standby/Rescue2

  Seaboard Sceptre

  1981

  Standby/Rescue2

  Seaboard Sentry

  1978

  Standby/Rescue2

  Seaboard Snipe

  1972

  Supply Ship

  Seaboard Sovereign

  1982

  Standby/Rescue2

  Seaboard Support

  1978

  Standby/Rescue2

  Seaboard Supreme

  1981

  Standby/Rescue2

  Seaboard Swallow

  1972

  Standby/Rescue2

  Seaboard Swan

  1971

  Supply Ship

  Seaboard Swift

  1972

  Standby/Rescue1

  Shetland Service

  1973

  Anchor/Tug Service

  St. Anne

  1962

  Standby/Rescue1

  St. Elizabeth

  1962

  Standby/Rescue1

  St. Louis

  1962

  Standby/Rescue1

  St. Luke

  1961

  Standby/Rescue1

  St. Patrick

  1975

  Standby/Rescue1

  St. Phillip

  1975

  Standby/Rescue1

  Stirling Snipe

  1982

  Supply

  Stirling Teal

  1982

  Supply

  Suffolk Conquest

  1974

  Standby/Rescue1

  Tempest

  1977

  Anchor/Handling Tug

  Togo

  1965

  Standby/Rescue1

  Toisa Conqueror

  1976

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Toisa Lynx

  1983

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Toisa Panther

  1984

  Platform Supply

  Toisa Petrel

  1983

  Tug/Supply Ship

  Toisa Puffin

  1980

  Supply Ship

  Toisa Teal

  1981

  Standby/Rescue2

  Toisa Tiger

  1983

  Anchor/Tug Supply

  Toisa Widgeon

  1981

  Standby/Rescue3

  Umberleigh

  1960

  Standby/Rescue1

  Veesea Emerald

  1980

  Supply Ship

  Veesea Hurricane

  1975

  Tug/Supply Ship

  Veesea Sapphire

  1977

  Supply Ship

  Veesea Storm

  1975

  Supply Ship

  Veesea Tempest

  1974

  Tug/Supply Ship

  Veesea Topaz

  1978

  Supply Ship

  Winkleigh

  1961

  Standby/Rescue1

  Woodleigh

  1960

  Standby/Rescue1

  1 Ex Fishing Vessel.

  2 Ex Supply Vessel.

  3 Ex Cargo Vessel.

  4 Ex Tug.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new vessels have been introduced into the United Kingdom emergency or standby vessels operating in the offshore oil and gas industries in each of the past three years; how many of these vessels are(a) converted vessels or (b) custom-built emergency or standby vessels; and how many of the custom-built vessels were built in United Kindom yards.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of vessels certificated for the first time for use in the United Kingdom standby industry in the past three years were eight vessels in 1989, 24 in 1990 and 30 in 1991.

  Of these vessels the vast majority, some 61 vessels, were converted for the purpose. Only one was purpose built as a standby vessel and this may not have been directly for the United Kingdom industry but may have previously served as a standby vessel in Norway or elsewhere. No custom-built vessels were constructed in united Kingdom shipyards.

  Yachts
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consult the hon. Member for South Hams before he decides on(a) a timescale for the implementation of further revisions of the Merchant Shipping (Pleasure Yacht) Regulations 1991 and (b) a code of practice for charter yachts.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Yes.

  Air Routes
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it a condition of granting regulatory approval of the purchase by W. S. Air Inc. of the Philadelphia/London and Baltimore/London routes from Trans World Airlines Inc. that all employees allocated to these routes will be offered transfer terms.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The designation of one airline on a route in substitution for another is a matter for the Government of the country concerned, in this case, the United States. Employment arrangements are matters for the companies concerned and their employees, subject to any relevant rules regarding employment protection and transfer which apply under United Kingdom law. They are not matters on which I intervene.

  M6
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of plans to widen the M6; when he expects the public consultation process to begin; and when he expects to be able to make a decision.

  Mr. Chope
  Preparation work is proceeding satisfactorily; public consultation on proposals for the length between junctions 11 and 20 is planned for later this year.

  Red Route Network
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he used in deciding which roads to include in his draft red route network.

  Mr. Chope
  The main basis for the proposed red route network is the present primary route network with the addition of certain other strategically important roads and a limited network of roads in central London identified as being most important for the movement of traffic within the area.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision he makes for the reporting of smoky emissions from on-road buses and for allowing such vehicles to be called in for immediate testing.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Complaints to the Department's traffic area offices about smoky buses are followed up, if sufficient details of the vehicle and the incident are provided, by a letter to the operator. This asks him to have the vehicle checked and to report to the Department on the action taken. If there are persistent complaints about a particular operator or vehicle, the vehicle inspectorate will arrange to visit his premises. This could result in a vehicle being prohibited from use until a defect was rectified.
  41
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what current procedures exist for the testing of exhaust emissions of bus fleets.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Bus operators are responsible for ensuring that their vehicles comply with the emissions provisions in the Construction and Use Regulations. The density of diesel smoke from buses is checked visually by the vehicle inspectorate at annual roadworthiness tests and also at spot checks at the roadside and at operators' premises.

  Policy Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the establishment of his transport policy unit in each of the last three years; what are its responsibilities; and if he will list the deregulation initiatives taken.

  Mr. Freeman
  The staff complement for the transport policy unit was 71½ posts in 1989, 9½ in 1990 and 14 in 1991.

  The unit's responsibilities are the co-ordination of cross-modal transport policy issues, especially concerning the environment and safety. Since 1991 it has also had responsibility for deregulation in transport; for liaison with parliamentary Select Committees and for coordination of the Department's interests in the legislative programme.

  The Government's deregulation initiative was started in 1985, and the areas targeted for review in each Government Department including DTp were set out in the White Paper "Lifting the Burden," Cmnd 9571. Progress with that programme, and subsequent additions to the programme, were set out in "Building Businesses … not Barriers", Cmnd 9794, published May 1986, and "Releasing Enterprise", Cmnd 512, published November 1988. The programme for 1991 was announced to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Corporate Affairs on 18 December 1990, Official Report, columns 99-100.

  The aim of the deregulation initiative is to remove the unnecessary regulation and licensing of business. The Government have, however, no hesitation in retaining or making new regulations where these are needed particularly for safety reasons. For example we are seeking agreement in the EC for improvements in regulatory standards for the safe construction of vehicles. The Department's aim is to review all existing regulations, to ensure that these are not out of date, or overlapping, or so obscure as to be ineffective—and where they are, to abolish them; and, if new regulations are necessary, to make them as unburdensome as possible.

  London Underground (Danger Lights)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning London Underground and the railways inspectorate's report on procedures at danger lights.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that this matter will be addressed in a report to be published within the next few weeks by the Health and Safety Executive on the railway inspectorate's inquiries into two separate accidents involving London Underground trains.

  British Rail
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning British Rail's proposed reduction of services on the west coast main line; and what plans he has to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss these reductions.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has received a number of representations. The level of service on any particular line is a matter for British Rail.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Statements of Attainment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which level 6 statements of attainment in GCSE English reading and writing he proposes to forgo to reduce the coursework weighting.

  Mr. Eggar
  The limits on coursework in GCSE English which my right hon. and learned Friend announced in November allow for up to 20 per cent. of the total marks to be based on coursework in reading and writing combined. Within that it should be possible for the examining groups to devise ways of testing skills, knowledge and understanding across the full range of statements of attainment. It is not necessary that each and every statement of attainment be the subject of examination.

  European Year of Elderly People
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans his Department is making for the European year of elderly people and solidarity between the generations in 1993.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has lead responsibility in this area, in conjunction with the Department of Social Security, and I refer my hon. Friend to his reply today. In drawing up plans for the European year, the Department of Health is consulting a wide range of national voluntary and professional bodies, statutory authorities and other relevant Government Departments.

  School Pupils
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in rank order the English local education authorities showing(a) expenditure per secondary school pupil and (b) the proportion of pupils achieving five GCSEs at grade A to C for the most recent year available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows school-based spending per secondary pupil in financial year 1989–90 and the average percentage of school leavers obtaining five or more grades A, B or C at GCSE in
  1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Net institutional expenditure per secondary pupil 1989–90 (£)

  Percentage of leavers with five or more GCSE/0/CSE Grades A-C

  Rank (Passes)

  Inner London

  2.745

  17·4

  92

  Waltham Forest

  2,490

  17·7

  91

  Ealing

  2,345

  21·5

  82

  43

  Net institutional expenditure per secondary pupil 1989–90 £

  Percentage of leavers with five or more GCSE/0/CSE Grades A-C

  Rank (passes)

  Newham

  2,310

  14·3

  94

  Brent

  2,225

  23·3

  75

  Barking

  2,200

  13·6

  95

  Coventry

  2,180

  21·3

  83

  Salford

  2,140

  24·9

  68

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2,120

  34·2

  14

  Sandwell

  2,115

  17·4

  92

  Liverpool

  2,110

  20·7

  85

  Knowsley

  2,105

  11·6

  96

  Rochdale

  2,050

  24·5

  70

  Hillingdon

  2,010

  27·3

  54

  South Tyneside

  2,010

  26·8

  59

  Wigan

  2,000

  34·6

  12

  Walsall

  1,995

  25·5

  65

  Havering

  1,990

  28·6

  46

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,980

  22·3

  80

  Harrow

  1,975

  44·1

  1

  Wirral

  1,975

  32·5

  22

  Derbyshire

  1,975

  26·9

  57

  Wolverhampton

  1,975

  21·2

  84

  St. Helens

  1,970

  22·9

  77

  Bromley

  1,955

  31·7

  27

  Dudley

  1,955

  28·9

  43

  Nottinghamshire

  1,955

  24·7

  69

  Barnet

  1,945

  39·0

  5

  Croydon

  1,935

  22·9

  77

  Merton

  1,925

  28·7

  45

  Trafford

  1,920

  32·8

  20

  Sheffield

  1,920

  25·9

  64

  Cleveland

  1,915

  27·3

  54

  Hertfordshire

  1,900

  36·1

  10

  Leicestershire

  1,900

  28·4

  48

  Gateshead

  1,865

  20·7

  85

  Stockport

  1,860

  34·9

  11

  Bury

  1,860

  23·1

  76

  Shopshire

  1,855

  32·4

  23

  Redbridge

  1,855

  25·3

  66

  Buckinghamshire

  1,850

  41·2

  2

  Cumbria

  1,845

  29·6

  39

  Sunderland

  1,845

  24·1

  72

  Sutton

  1,840

  37·0

  8

  Bolton

  1,840

  31·9

  26

  Solihull

  1,835

  33·4

  16

  Tameside

  1,835

  29·1

  42

  Birmingham

  1,835

  22·7

  79

  Bexley

  1,820

  30·2

  34

  Lancashire

  1,820

  29·4

  41

  Suffolk

  1,820

  26·6

  60

  Enfield

  1,815

  31·4

  29

  Bedfordshire

  1,815

  27·3

  54

  Oxfordshire

  1,810

  29·8

  37

  Rotherham

  1,810

  28·6

  46

  Kirklees

  1,810

  28·2

  49

  Norfolk

  1,810

  27·8

  51

  Doncaster

  1,805

  23·6

  73

  Essex

  1,800

  30·9

  31

  Avon

  1,800

  30·2

  34

  Barnsley

  1,795

  26·9

  57

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,790

  38·0

  6

  Hampshire

  1,790

  32·8

  20

  Staffordshire

  1,790

  26·6

  60

  Warwickshire

  1,770

  30·9

  31

  East Sussex

  1,765

  36·5

  9

  Oldham

  1,765

  21·7

  81

  North Yorkshire

  1,760

  37·6

  7

  Humberside

  1,760

  23·4

  74

  West Sussex

  1,745

  39·6

  4

  Somerset

  1,745

  31·4

  29

  Gloucestershire

  1,735

  34·3

  13

  Berkshire

  1,735

  32·4

  23

  Durham

  1,735

  26·3

  63

  Cheshire

  1,725

  33·3

  18

  44

  Net institutional expenditure per secondary pupil 1989–90 (£)

  Percentage of leavers with five or more GCSE/0/CSE Grades A-C

  Rank (passes)

  Sefton

  1,715

  33·3

  18

  Leeds

  1,715

  24·3

  71

  Devon

  1,710

  29·5

  40

  Cornwall including Scilly

  1,700

  33·8

  15

  Wiltshire

  1,700

  30·1

  36

  Northamptonshire

  1,685

  27·8

  51

  Lincolnshire

  1,680

  26·6

  60

  Surrey

  1,675

  40·7

  3

  Calderdale

  1,665

  27·8

  51

  Northumberland

  1,645

  33·4

  16

  Cambridge

  1,640

  29·8

  37

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,635

  32·1

  25

  Dorset

  1,635

  31·5

  28

  Bradford

  1,635

  17·8

  90

  Isle of Wight

  1,575

  28·1

  50

  Kent

  1,570

  28·9

  43

  North Tyneside

  n/a

  30·3

  33

  Hounslow

  n/a

  25·2

  67

  Wakefield

  n/a

  20·3

  87

  Manchester

  n/a

  20·2

  88

  Haringey

  n/a

  19·8

  89

  Note: "Per pupil expenditure figures are derived from LEAs' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment and their pupil numbers to the Department of Education and Science. Figures are for 1989–90, the latest year for which actual spending information is available; 'n/a' indicates that a return was not received from the authority. Net institutional expenditure covers spending on salaries and wages, recurrent premises costs, books and equipment, and certain other supplies and services. It excludes spending on LEA administration, home to school transport, school meals and financing costs of capital expenditure."

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in rank order, by local education authority, the proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds staying on at school or going into full-time education.

  Mr. Eggar
  Data for 1989–90 were published last year and are available in the Library. Participation rates for 1990–91 will appear in a statistical bulletin in May. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds in Derbyshire(a) stayed on at school, (b) went into other full-time education or (c) received some form of part-time education in 1979, 1986 and the most recent year available.

  Mr. Eggar
  Participation rates for 16 and 17-year-olds in Derbyshire who stayed on at school or in other full-time and part-time education in 1979, 1986 and 1989 are as follows:

  Percentage of population

  1979–80

  1986–87

  1989–90

  Age 16

  School

  18

  18

  21

  Full-time further education

  17

  26

  29

  Part-time further education

  17

  17

  16

  Age 17

  School

  13

  13

  16

  Full-time further education

  9

  17

  20

  Part-time further education

  20

  14

  15

  Truancy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how may categories of absence are set out in the regulations on reporting on truancy; and what pilot survey was carried out of the costs and benefits of requiring these categories.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Education (Pupils' Attendance Records) Regulations 1991 improve the data on truancy by requiring schools to categorise pupils' absence in one of two ways: authorised or unauthorised. The additional costs of doing this are limited, since schools should already have been enquiring into reasons for absence. The draft regulations and explanatory circular were sent in advance as consultation documents to local education authorities and other bodies concerned.

  Council for National Academic Awards
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what external legal advice his Department has received on the contractual status between the Council for National Academic Awards and students currently registered with that body who will not complete their courses or programmes of research until after September 1992.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is not the usual practice of the Department to disclose whether it has received legal advice. My right hon. and learned Friend accepts that it will be essential for alternative arrangements to be made for students presently registered with the Council for National Academic Awards, but who will not complete their courses until after September 1992. As indicated in 46
  his answer on 16 December, Official Report, columns 31-33, he is satisfied that the necessary arrangements are capable of being made within the planned timetable.

  Validation Fees
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the maximum validation fee which may be charged under the present regulations for both polytechnics and universities; and what is the maximum fee proposed under arrangements for the future.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The maximum recommended fee for university validation of college courses in the academic year 1991–92 is £340. The Department will be consulting the Committee of Vic-Chancellors and Principals shortly about the fee for 1992–93 in respect of existing validation services. We believe that the current level may not allow for economies of scale as numbers of students have increased in recent years. In the case of new or existing degree awarding institutions offering validation services to other colleges for courses currently validated by the Council for National Academic Awards, the Department has requested estimates of the costs involved and the fee to be charged by the end of May. An analysis of the full costs associated with CNAA validation suggests that institutions offering validation on the same basis might be expected to offer a service at a fee ranging from under £150 to over £250, depending on the number of institutions, courses and students involved. The education departments will notify in June a maximum fee for validation services for 1992–93 in respect of students starring relevant courses in that academic year.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what have been the individual levels of(a) relief from liability for rates, (b) special

  Rate relief, special purpose grant (VAT) and annual maintenance grant Grant-maintained schools 1989–90

  School

  Rate relief1

  Special purpose grant (V)

  Annual maintenance grant

  £

  £

  £

  Audenshaw

  10,963

  7,062

  720,999

  Bacup and Rawtenstall

  8,182

  11,777

  798,379

  Bankfield High

  3,520

  2,823

  253,728

  Baverstock

  20,799

  4,257

  1,002,248

  Castle Hill Middle

  7,705

  1,246

  358,030

  Colyton

  4,183

  6,271

  418,166

  Heckmondwike

  7,413

  8,481

  635,755

  Hendon

  9,603

  15,764

  1,014,663

  King's Grantham

  0

  18,136

  725,427

  London Oratory

  0

  49,700

  1,987,982

  Old Swinford

  0

  14,965

  598,609

  Queen Elizabeth Boys

  10,115

  16,747

  1,074,470

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar

  0

  8,977

  359,080

  Queensbury

  36,314

  0

  830,089

  St. Francis Xavier

  0

  12,676

  507,040

  St. James CE

  0

  16,157

  646,289

  Skegness Grammar

  6,441

  9,062

  620,110

  Small Heath

  22,527

  3,213

  1,029,582

  Wilmington Girls

  8,495

  3,459

  478,148

  Wilson's

  0

  20,540

  821,616

  1 The amount of additional rate relief schools received as a result of acquiring charitable status. Former voluntary schools already had charitable status and received no new relief by virtue of becoming grant-maintained.

  Rate relief, SPG(V), and annual maintenance grant Grant maintained schools 1990–91

  School

  Rate relief1

  SPG(V)

  AMG

  £

  £

  £

  Adams' Grammar

  0

  13,784

  551,367

  Audenshaw

  31,669

  2,795

  1,378,570

  Bacup and Rawtenstall

  36,192

  56

  1,449,913

  Bankfield

  28,606

  0

  914,221

  Baverstock

  63,642

  0

  1,918,281

  Beechen Cliff

  28,595

  8,580

  1,486,988

  Bishopshalt

  17,829

  10,597

  1,137,055

  Bournemouth

  43,477

  0

  1,053,358

  Bridgewater Hall

  81,460

  0

  1,669,961

  Brindley Hall

  48,705

  0

  995,410

  Bullers Wood

  7,728

  4,604

  493,289

  Cardinal Vaughan

  0

  45,977

  1,839,088

  Carre's

  0

  11,589

  463,553

  Castle Hall

  23,601

  0

  665,222

  Claremont

  53,453

  938

  2,175,612

  Colyton

  18,892

  4,519

  936,438

  Ecclesbourne

  21,078

  13,356

  1,377,834

  Francis Bacon

  11,840

  0

  274,399

  Guildford

  29,655

  0

  875,906

  Handsworth

  0

  9,254

  370,145

  Hardley

  11,001

  0

  332,160

  Heckmondwike

  21,869

  9,191

  1,242,397

  Hendon

  31,948

  14,420

  1,854,762

  King's Grantham

  0

  33,938

  1,357,509

  Lancaster Royal Grammar

  0

  42,295

  1,691,815

  London Nautical

  43,500

  0

  1,376,869

  London Oratory

  0

  88,298

  3,531,926

  Longfield

  14,359

  0

  443,043

  Marling

  10,791

  9,886

  827,089

  Netherthorpe

  0

  33,910

  1,356,419

  48
  purpose grant—VAT—and—annual maintenance grant for each grant-maintained school for each of the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  : The information requested is set out in the tables.

  School

  Rate relief1

  SPG(V)

  AMG

  £

  £

  £

  Old Swinford

  0

  27,777

  1,111,088

  Pate's Grammar

  0

  27,810

  1,112,387

  Queen Elizabeth Boys

  27,316

  24,654

  2,078,790

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar

  0

  16,298

  651,917

  Rickmansworth

  40,587

  0

  1,076,521

  Skegness

  16,843

  10,233

  1,083,026

  Small Heath

  115,336

  0

  1,834,857

  Southfield

  45,936

  0

  1,197,409

  Southlands, Berks

  43,399

  0

  1,212,203

  St. Francis Xavier

  0

  52,095

  2,083,788

  St. George's

  7,998

  1,442

  377,592

  St. James CE

  0

  30,903

  1,236,106

  Stroud

  9,187

  10,584

  790,824

  Watford Boys

  0

  29,937

  1,197,489

  Wilmington Girls

  27,631

  0

  877,138

  Wilson's

  0

  40,275

  1,611,010

  Wolverhampton

  9,197

  7,861

  682,316

  Wymondham

  9,701

  1,510

  448,439

  1 The amount of additional rate relief schools received as a result of acquiring charitable status. Former voluntary schools already had charitable status and received no new relief by virtue of becoming grant-maintained.

  Mr. Fatchett
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what applications have been received from grant-maintained schools for special purpose grant-restructuring; and in each case (a) how many posts have been affected and (b) what grant has been paid.

  Mr. Eggar
  : The information requested is as follows:
  49

  Application received from

  Grant (£) per school1

  Premature Retirement

  Name of school

  Number of posts2

  Lump Sum

  Annual Compensation

  Redundancy/Voluntary severence

  Adams' Grammar School

  3

  12,992

  4,331

  —

  Aylesford School

  1

  6,534

  2,178

  —

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  4

  15,600

  5,200

  —

  Bankfield School

  1

  —

  —

  20,586

  Baverstock School

  2

  8,631

  2,877

  —

  Beechen Cliff School

  3

  16,310

  5,436

  —

  1 Special Purpose Grant (Restructuring) approved to date for payment to support relevant costs.

  2 Number of posts in respect of which of which Special Purpose Grant (Restructuring) has been approved to date.

  Costs (£) per school

  Name of school

  Number of posts

  Premature Retirement

  Lump Sum

  Annual compensation

  Redundancy/Voluntary severance

  Bingley Grammar School

  3

  11,974

  3,931

  —

  Bournemouth School

  1

  4,123

  1,374

  —

  Bourne Abbey School

  2

  4,506

  1,502

  —

  Bridgewater Hall School

  1

  6,077

  2,026

  —

  Bullers Wood Girls Schools

  2

  9,736

  3,245

  —

  Caistor Grammar School

  4

  19,497

  6,499

  —

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  2

  14,509

  4,170

  —

  Carres Grammar School

  2

  10,219

  3,406

  —

  Claremont High School

  3

  14,523

  4,841

  14,513

  Colyton School

  2

  13,601

  4,534

  —

  Crossley Heath School

  3

  16,015

  5,338

  —

  Dartford Boys School

  2

  12,187

  4,062

  —

  Ecclesbourne School

  4

  18,964

  6,321

  —

  Francis Bacon School

  3

  9,357

  3,119

  —

  Great Barr School

  6

  27,837

  9,277

  —

  Handsworth Grammar School

  1

  6,836

  2,279

  —

  Hardley School

  2

  11,134

  3,711

  —

  Haydon School

  1

  5,970

  1,990

  —

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  6

  13,403

  4,467

  —

  Hendon School

  2

  14,109

  4,703

  —

  King Edward VI School

  4

  18,158

  6,053

  —

  King John School

  2

  11,578

  3,859

  —

  Kingsley Park School

  2

  12,168

  4,056

  —

  Kingswood School

  3

  14,304

  4,768

  —

  Kirkby Kendal School

  2

  6,512

  2,171

  —

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  4

  13,772

  4,591

  —

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  5

  19,391

  6,475

  —

  Maplesden Noakes School

  1

  —

  —

  21,863

  Marling School

  1

  3,257

  1,086

  —

  Moseley Park GM School

  1

  5,933

  1,978

  11,852

  Netherthorpe School

  2

  10,602

  3,534

  9,732

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  4

  9,134

  3,044

  —

  Northampton School for Boys

  1

  4,508

  1,503

  9,478

  Oldfield School

  1

  465

  155

  11,234

  Pates Grammar School

  2

  12,515

  4,172

  —

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  5

  19,720

  6,572

  —

  Queen Elizabeth School for Boys

  1

  5,459

  1,820

  —

  Queensbury School

  3

  8,155

  2,718

  —

  Queensmead School

  4

  17,410

  5,803

  —

  Ribston Hall High School

  4

  11,934

  3,978

  9,594

  St. Augustine's Roman Catholic Comprehensive School

  1

  7,231

  2,410

  —

  St. Bartholomews School

  3

  14,604

  4,870

  —

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  2

  10,200

  3,400

  —

  St. Georges School (Kent)

  3

  16,210

  5,403

  —

  St. Georges School (Lincolnshire)

  4

  18,093

  6,031

  —

  Southfields School for Girls

  1

  8,462

  2,821

  —

  Southlands School

  2

  —

  —

  10,420

  Skegness Grammar School

  4

  16,110

  5,371

  —

  Stroud High School

  2

  11,718

  3,906

  —

  St. James' Church of England School (Bolton)

  2

  12,345

  4,114

  —

  The North Halifax High School

  3

  11,753

  3,918

  —

  Watford Grammar School

  1

  3,750

  1,250

  —

  Westcliff High School for Boys

  4

  14,425

  4,809

  —

  Wilmington Boys School

  3

  14,805

  4,935

  —

  50 51

  Costs (£) per school

  Name of school

  Number of posts

  Premature Retirement

  Lump Sum

  Annual compensation

  Redundancy/Voluntary severance

  Wilmington Girls School

  1

  —

  —

  722

  Wilsons School

  4

  10,236

  5,996

  10,455

  Wolverhampton Girls School

  3

  17,180

  5,727

  —

  Wymondham College

  6

  23,168

  7,723

  —

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Woodroffe School1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arnewood School1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Applications have been received from these three schools and are still under consideration.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which grant-maintained schools have made an application for a change of character; and, in each case,(a) what was the proposed change and (b) whether the proposed change has been approved.

  School

  Date of publication

  Nature of proposed change

  Outcome

  Skegness Grammar School

  1 November 1989

  Addition of boarding provision

  Approved 31 October 1990

  Chalvedon School

  5 June 1991

  Change in age range from 11-16 to 11-18

  Approved 27 August 1991

  Castle Hall School

  8 November 1991

  Change in age range from 9-13 to 11-18; introduction of selective admissions arrangements; significant enlargement

  Under consideration

  The Cornwallis School

  15 November 1991

  Chanage in age range from 11-17 to 11-18

  Under consideration

  St. John the Baptist School

  21 November 1991

  Change in age range from 12-18 to 11-18

  Under consideration

  Hardley School

  2 January 1992

  Change in age range from 12-16 to 11-16

  Under consideration

  The King's School, Grantham

  10 January 1992

  Significant enlargement

  Under consideration

  Highams Park School

  14 January 1992

  Change in age range from 11-16 to 11-18

  Under consideration

  Avon Valley School

  17 January 1992

  Change in age range from 12-16 to 11-16; introduction of 50 selective places

  Under consideration

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the proposed arrangements for the calculation of annual maintenance grant for grant-maintained schools for 1992–93; if he will make copies of the responses available; and whether the proposals are to be amended in the light of the responses received.

  Mr. Eggar
  We received some 60 responses to the consultation paper issued on 17 October last year, the majority from local education authorities and grant-maintained schools. We have not published the responses to previous consultations on annual maintenance grant and do not intend to do so this year. In reaching final decisions my right hon. and learned Friend considered carefully the responses submitted. As he announced in his

  HMI visits to GM schools made between September 1989 and December 1991

  Visit

  No. of visits

  No. of HMI involved

  Total HMI days

  Cost £

  Audenshaw H

  4

  4

  4·0

  1,090

  Bacup and Rawtenstall

  2

  4

  4·0

  960

  Baverstoc

  3

  9

  27·0

  6,480

  Heckmondwike Grammar

  4

  6

  9·5

  2,280

  London Oratory

  5

  5

  5·0

  1,330

  Old Swinford Hospital

  3

  4

  4·0

  960

  52
  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 22 January Official Report, colums 245-46, my right hon. and learned Friend has decided, subject to one technical change, to confirm the proposals set out in the consultation paper.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which grant-maintained schools have been visited by Her Majesty's inspectors; in each case(a) by how many inspectors, (b) for how long and (c) at what cost; and whether it is proposed to publish any report arising from these visits.

  Mr. Eggar
  At the end of December 1991, there were 102 schools operating under GM status and HMI had visited 66 of them. The table gives details of the visits made to each school.
  53

  Visit

  No. of visits

  No. of HMI involved

  Total HMI days

  Cost £

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar

  3

  4

  4·0

  960

  Queensbury

  3

  8

  21·0

  5,040

  Skegness Grammar

  2

  3

  4·0

  960

  Small Heath

  4

  7

  7·0

  1,810

  St. James CE

  6

  6

  6·0

  1,440

  Wilmington Girls' Grammar

  4

  6

  24·0

  8,360

  King's Grantham

  3

  5

  5·0

  1,200

  Wilson's Sutton

  2

  2

  2·5

  600

  Castle Hall

  4

  4

  5·0

  1,330

  Hendon

  4

  7

  7·0

  2,070

  Queen Elizabeth's Barnet

  3

  6

  7·0

  1,940

  Audenshaw

  3

  3

  1·0

  720

  Colyton Grammar

  7

  9

  21·0

  7,380

  Bankfield High

  2

  7

  22·0

  5,280

  St. Francis Xavier

  3

  4

  4·0

  1,090

  Cardinal Vaughan

  2

  5

  5·0

  1,200

  Claremont High

  2

  2

  3·0

  720

  Lancaster Royal Grammar

  2

  2

  2·0

  610

  London Nautical

  3

  6·0

  1,440

  Netherthorpe

  1

  2

  1·0

  240

  Ribston Hall High

  1

  1

  1·0

  240

  Southfield Girls

  2

  3

  3·0

  720

  Southlands

  2

  2

  2·0

  610

  Beecham Cliff

  2

  2

  2·0

  610

  Long Field High

  2

  2

  3·0

  720

  Adams' Grammar

  3

  4

  4·0

  1,350

  Bishopshalt

  2

  2

  2·5

  795

  Bournemouth Grammar

  3

  4

  4·0

  1,090

  Brindgewater Hall

  1

  1

  1·0

  240

  Bridley Hall

  1

  1

  1·0

  240

  Carre's Grammar

  1

  3

  3·0

  720

  Ecclesborne

  1

  2

  2·0

  480

  Guildford

  2

  2

  2·0

  610

  Marling

  1

  1

  1·0

  240

  Pate's Grammar

  1

  2

  2·0

  480

  Rickmansworth

  2

  5

  17·0

  6,030

  Strand High

  2

  2

  3·0

  980

  Wolverhampton Girls High

  2

  3

  3·0

  850

  Bullers Wood Girls

  1

  1

  1·0

  240

  Francis Bacon

  2

  3

  3·0

  850

  Handsworth Grammar

  1

  1

  1·0

  240

  Hardley

  1

  1

  1·0

  370

  St. George's (Lincs)

  2

  2

  2·0

  740

  Wymondham College

  1

  1

  1·0

  370

  Chalvedon

  1

  1

  2·0

  740

  Crossley Heath

  2

  2

  2·0

  740

  Great Barr

  2

  2

  2·0

  740

  Kingsley Park Middle

  1

  1

  1·0

  370

  Lancaster Girls Grammar

  1

  1

  1·0

  370

  North Halifax High

  1

  1

  2·0

  740

  Reading

  1

  1

  1·0

  370

  Stratford

  1

  2

  2·0

  740

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar

  1

  1

  1·0

  370

  The Cornwallis

  1

  1

  1·0

  370

  The Maplesden Noakes

  2

  2

  2·5

  925

  Caistor Grammar

  1

  1

  1·0

  370

  Dartford Grammar

  1

  1

  1·0

  370

  Graveny

  1

  1

  1·0

  370

  Moseley Park

  1

  1

  1·0

  370

  Queensmead

  1

  1

  1·0

  370

  St. Augustine's RC

  1

  1

  2·0

  740

  In all cases the inspector's findings were reported orally to the head, the chairman of governors where he or she was able to attend. None of these inspections was planned to lead to a published report. My right hon. and learned Friend will therefore not be publishing the findings of these individual school inspections.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many copies have been distributed and, in each case, at what cost of all the 54
  editions of the booklets (a) "School Governors, How to Become a Grant-Maintained School", (b) "Grant-Maintained Schools—Questions Parents Ask", (c) "Grant-Maintained Schools—What it Means for Staff" and (d) "Grant-Maintained Schools—Experiences During the First Year".

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is given in the table.
  55

  Publication

  Total cost

  Number of copies distributed

  (all editions)1 £'000

  (all editions)

  '000s

  School Governors: How to Become a Grant-Maintained School

  55·4

  217·5

  Grant-Maintained Schools: Questions Parents Ask

  70·9

  677·1

  Grant-Maintained Schools: What it Means for Staff

  26·3

  180·0

  Grant-Maintained Schools: Experiences During the First Year

  8·8

  31·6

  1 The costs recorded in the table include the costs of initial printing, revisions and reprints and postage cost of block distribution where recorded separately. Postage costs of ad hoc distributions are not available.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for each of the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93(a) what applications have been received from grant-maintained schools for capital grant and what has been the level of grant approved in each case and (b) what has been the average capital allocation per pupil in the grant-maintained sector and the average capital expenditure per pupil in the local education authority-maintained sector.

  Mr. Eggar
  The tables for each of the years requested list the applications received for named projects and the allocations made. The table for 1992–93 does not include bids recently received from newly approved schools which will be considered in due course. In addition to the named project allocations, each grant-maintained school is eligible to claim a formula allocation of capital grant calculated by reference to pupil numbers. The formula for each of the years is as follows.

  1990–91—£13,000 per school plus £6 per pupil

  1991–92—£19,000 per school plus £9 per pupil

  1992–93—£10,000 per school plus £20 per pupil.

  The average capital expenditure per pupil at grant-maintained schools in 1990–91 was £181. Numbers of pupils in grant-maintained schools rise during the year as more schools become incorporated. In 1991–92 the average capital expenditure per pupil at the beginning of the year was £231. By the end of the year the average per pupil expenditure is likely to be around £100. Figures for 1992–93 will depend upon the total number of pupils in the sector.

  The average capital expenditure per pupil at LEA-maintained schools is as follows:

  £

  1990–91

  103

  1991–92

  109

  1992–93

  110

  Notes: The figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 for the LEA schools are forecast outturn. The 1992–93 figure is an estimate based on pupil number projections and expenditure levels assumed in the 1991 Autumn Statement.

  Grant-maintained schools capital bids 1990–91: Complete list of bids

  £ thousands

  School and Project

  Total cost

  Allocation

  Audenshaw High School

  New building

  3,400

  545

  Exterior repairs

  130

  30

  Interior repairs

  190

  —

  Site and ground works

  80

  —

  Bacup and Rawienstall Grammar School

  Ncw classrooms

  420

  400

  Sixth form rooms

  400

  —

  56

  School and Project

  Total cost

  Allocation

  Re-roofing

  120

  1138

  Upgrade washroom

  50

  —

  Window replacement

  237

  —

  All weather sports pitch

  100

  —

  Science laboratory refurbishment

  270

  85

  Classroom refurbishment

  245

  —

  Bankfield High School

  Resite and improve technology, art and modern language accommodation

  480

  480

  Upgrade laboratories

  275

  —

  New car park

  20

  —

  New roof/pointing

  244

  —

  New stage lighting

  15

  —

  Sports hall

  650

  —

  Baverstock School

  Extractor fan for CDT

  10

  10

  Asbestos removal

  15

  15

  Deoration

  100

  —

  Beechen Cliff School

  Kitchen repair

  150

  1180

  Classroom repairs

  100

  —

  Caretaker's and medical inspection rooms

  37

  —

  New building

  600

  210

  Science extension

  255

  —

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  Library and sixth form extension

  400

  —

  Roof replacement

  190

  1219

  Technology rationalisation

  381

  —

  Administration extension

  120

  —

  Castle Hall

  Fire protection

  26

  —

  Roofing

  60

  —

  Repairs

  72

  11

  Modification of school buildings

  1,000

  —

  New boilers

  40

  —

  Claremont High

  Urgent external repairs

  398

  248

  Renovate laboratories

  80

  80

  Internal repairs

  223

  —

  Ground repairs

  184

  —

  Improve toilets/windows

  148

  —

  Colyton Grammar School

  New Technology block and sixth form block

  1,242

  811

  Drama and music

  877

  —

  Administration and medical inspection

  70

  —

  Energy conservation

  258

  —

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  57

  School and Project

  Total cost

  Allocation

  Dry and wet rot

  20

  Gym windows

  7

  Fire escapes

  7

  Electrical and heating repairs

  100

  198

  Re-roofing

  61

  External repairs

  29

  Asbestos removal

  33

  Replace temporary accommodation

  1,833

  —

  Hendon School

  Improve washroom facilities

  30

  135

  Improve laboratories

  86

  199

  Renew windows

  100

  46

  New building/alteration

  763

  —

  The King's School, Grantham

  New classrooms

  98

  1128

  Upgrade classrooms

  38

  —

  The Royal Grammar School, Lancaster

  Rewiring

  75

  187

  Conversion to technical drawing room into IT room

  21

  124

  Build washrooms

  44

  44

  Build new classrooms

  650

  —

  Sixth form study area

  177

  —

  New science laboratories

  323

  —

  Repair/redecoration

  22

  —

  New access to playing field

  202

  —

  London Nautical School

  New classroom block

  680

  —

  Re-roofing

  90

  Curtain walling

  20

  100

  Design, technology adaptions

  65

  —

  Site and grounds works

  25

  —

  London Oratory School

  Renovate laboratories

  151

  151

  Internal repairs and decoration

  535

  —

  Refurnishing

  65

  —

  Staff room extension

  68

  —

  Additional teaching space

  342

  —

  Netherthorpe School

  Staff room

  65

  65

  Old Swinford Hospital

  Staircase repairs

  20

  20

  Repair fencing

  7

  7

  Science preparation room

  8

  8

  New laboratories

  518

  —

  Reorganise offices

  7

  —

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  Replace buildings

  1,850

  100

  Queen Elizabeth School for Boys

  Replace boilers

  110

  —

  Window replacement

  80

  —

  Health and safety

  21

  —

  Repairs

  280

  90

  Mechanical and electrical services

  64

  —

  New teaching block

  552

  —

  Queensbury School

  Repairs

  110

  27

  Fence replacement

  20

  —

  Boiler replacement

  12

  —

  Science rationalisation

  260

  —

  Fire safety

  10

  10

  Craft, design and technology

  20

  20

  Ribston Hall High School

  New CDT block

  295

  280

  Remodel homecraft

  30

  —

  Science suite

  360

  —

  Access for disabled

  90

  —

  58

  School and Project

  Total cost

  Allocation

  Administration

  130

  —

  Parking

  55

  Insulation

  120

  —

  Energy conservation

  100

  —

  Security system

  35

  —

  Fire officer requirements

  45

  —

  Furniture and equipment

  120

  —

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  Extension and remodelling to single site

  5,455

  —

  Roof repairs

  150

  32

  St. James's School

  Rebuild "B" block

  650

  350

  Re-roof "A" block

  90

  —

  Replace "A" block curtain walling

  20

  —

  Site/ground works

  25

  —

  Skegness Grammar School

  Additional furniture for current project

  22

  125

  Remodel classrooms

  34

  139

  Convert art to geography room

  24

  128

  Enlarge gym

  40

  —

  New greenhouse

  13

  —

  New administration accommodation

  103

  —

  Refurbish kitchen

  18

  —

  Ground repairs

  13

  —

  Englarge sixth form block

  70

  —

  Build swimming pool

  500

  —

  Small Heath

  Roof repair

  50

  50

  Wiring

  25

  —

  Replace windows

  30

  —

  Amalgamate on single site

  1,000

  —

  Southfield School for Girls

  Technology block

  428

  —

  Southlands School

  Conversion to design and technology

  40

  40

  New sports complex

  515

  —

  The Grammar School for Girls, Wilmington

  Roof replacement

  23

  23

  Repairs to old block

  21

  21

  Repair tennis courts

  37

  —

  Enlarge premises

  350

  —

  Refenestration

  100

  —

  Repair caretaker's house

  40

  —

  Wilson's School

  Build technology workshop and convert old space to science laboratory

  347

  200

  1 Allocations increased to allow for costs omitted from bid eg VAT.

  GM Schools Capital Bids 1991–92: Complete List of Bids

  School and Project

  Total Cost1 £000's

  Allocation £000's

  Adams Grammar School

  Technical block

  1,269

  —

  Repro/Recept/Stationery

  38

  —

  Energy Efficiency

  21

  —

  Health and Safety

  21

  21

  Toilets

  18

  —

  Audenshaw High School

  Sports Hall

  765

  —

  Library

  525

  —

  Conversion

  225

  225

  Staff and Administration

  200

  —

  External repairs

  60

  —

  Internal repairs

  85

  —

  Site and gound works

  80

  —

  59

  School and Project

  Total Cost1 £000's

  Allocation £000's

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  Staff and Library

  140

  —

  Room conversion

  42

  —

  Washrooms

  70

  —

  Emergency lighting

  15

  —

  Bankfield High School

  Science Labs

  327

  —

  Re-roofing

  51

  —

  Re-fenestration

  460

  —

  Baverstock School

  Teaching facilities

  1,534

  —

  Sports facilities

  1,290

  —

  Dining Hall

  1,607

  —

  Library

  231

  —

  Lab refurbishment

  397

  —

  Beechen Cliff School

  Further work on 1990–91 project

  824

  320

  Performing Arts and Gym

  580

  —

  Extension

  410

  —

  Repairs

  113

  —

  Bishopshalt School

  Humanities Class Block

  1,060

  —

  Sports Education Centre

  887

  —

  Science Block

  206

  206

  Music Block

  162

  —

  Bournemouth School

  Art science tech

  1,987

  —

  Repairs

  605

  300

  M. I. Room and Sick Bay

  53

  —

  Music Department

  275

  —

  Bridgewater School

  Redevelopment of Science/Technology

  284

  —

  Boiler replacement

  65

  65

  Brindley Hall School

  Redevelopment of Science/Technology

  223

  —

  Bullers Wood School

  Science Accommodation

  228

  228

  Modern Language

  480

  —

  Technical Accommodation

  629

  —

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  Library

  280

  —

  CDT

  286

  —

  Carre's Grammar School

  Technology and Laboratories

  630

  630

  Sports Hall

  640

  —

  Castle Hall Middle School

  Administration

  420

  —

  Roof Renewal

  65

  65

  Frame Repairs

  40

  40

  Ground works

  13

  —

  Fire Recommendations

  29

  —

  Chalvedon School

  Cladding Block W

  350

  150

  Security fencing

  53

  —

  Cladding Block E

  336

  —

  Cladding Upper School

  450

  —

  Science/technical extension

  180

  —

  Claremont High School

  Health and Safety

  20

  20

  Science Block

  1,449

  —

  Art Block

  81

  —

  Building strategy

  100

  —

  Main Block (roof)

  33

  —

  60

  School and Project

  Total Cost1 £000's

  Allocation £000's

  Main Block (windows [f])

  60

  —

  Main Block (GEN)

  24

  —

  Main Block (Windows [r])

  63

  —

  Laboratory

  50

  —

  New Technical rooms

  100

  100

  East Wing

  720

  —

  Modern Language

  20

  —

  Hall

  360

  —

  Horsa Block

  27

  —

  Kitchen

  50

  —

  External surfaces

  142

  —

  Gym

  355

  —

  Playground fencing

  22

  —

  Main Block toilets

  52

  —

  Toilet conversion

  30

  —

  Classrooms

  27

  —

  Boundary fencing

  37

  —

  Car workshop

  16

  —

  Colyton Grammar School

  New Technical Centre

  98

  —

  Library

  224

  —

  Expressive Arts

  450

  —

  Administration

  30

  —

  Energy conservation

  105

  —

  Crossley Heath School

  Re-roofing, dry rot

  286

  —

  Science Accommodation

  267

  —

  Technology

  485

  —

  Re-organised accommodation

  1,543

  —

  Window Repairs

  22

  —

  Pointing of Stonework

  23

  —

  Boys Gym Floor

  12

  —

  Heating Improvements

  26

  —

  Re-decoration

  109

  —

  Hard Play Areas

  69

  —

  Security Locks

  13

  —

  Forestry Grounds

  11

  —

  Ecclesbourne School

  New buildings

  3,981

  —

  Repairs

  1,800

  400

  Alterations

  75

  —

  Francis Bacon School

  Science Laboratories

  437

  —

  Modern Language

  105

  105

  External surfaces

  124

  —

  Guildford County School

  Library and Bus Studies

  770

  —

  New Class Block

  555

  —

  Music Block

  100

  —

  Repairs

  86

  —

  Extension/Adaptations

  150

  —

  Handsworth Grammar School

  Science Laboratories

  953

  953

  Re-furbish free rooms

  96

  —

  Hardley School

  Re-roofing

  30

  30

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  Technology refurbishment

  252

  252

  Windows (Art Room)

  10

  —

  External repairs

  26

  —

  Repairs (Old Block)

  246

  —

  Hendon School

  Science and Maths extension

  852

  —

  Biology Laboratory

  92

  92

  Windows (main)

  108

  108

  Windows (Gym)

  45

  —

  Kings School Grantham

  61

  School and Project

  Total Cost1 £000's

  Allocation £000's

  Teaching block (Phase II)

  463

  —

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  Toilets

  89

  —

  CDT extension

  383

  379

  Science Laboratory

  75

  —

  6th Form

  174

  —

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  Computer studies

  498

  —

  London Nautical School

  Fire Alarms and Re-wiring

  112

  50

  New Technology and Scientific complex

  234

  —

  Windows

  46

  —

  Toilets

  39

  —

  Kitchen servery

  52

  —

  London Oratory School

  Design and Technology

  216

  216

  Passenger lifts

  62

  —

  Health and Safety

  46

  —

  Additional teaching

  404

  —

  Long Field High School

  Roof repairs

  486

  236

  Craft and Science improvement

  10

  —

  Maplesdon Noakes School

  Re-roof and remodel laboratories

  250

  —

  Information Technology

  55

  —

  Extension and Adaption Technology Block

  605

  —

  Marling School

  Classroom block

  877

  —

  Neverthorpe School

  Building plan

  1,455

  —

  North Halifax High School

  Health and Safety

  148

  100

  Library and resource centre

  148

  —

  Music Text and Technology

  128

  —

  Changing rooms repairs

  28

  —

  Staff accommodation

  70

  —

  Concrete cladding repairs

  153

  —

  Health and Safety

  51

  —

  Art and English

  80

  —

  IT facilities

  55

  —

  All weather pitch

  82

  —

  Drama facilities

  25

  —

  Heating

  30

  —

  Boiler conversion

  66

  —

  Classroom furniture

  10

  —

  External repairs

  6

  —

  Electrical repairs

  24

  —

  Science laboratories

  319

  —

  Old Swinford Hospital School

  Extension

  500

  500

  Pates Grammar

  New building

  7,620

  1,500

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  Design and Technology

  503

  503

  Queen Elizabeth School for Boys

  Science Laboratories

  890

  —

  Library

  505

  —

  CDT

  512

  —

  Gymnasium

  730

  —

  Queensbury School

  Science block

  460

  —

  62

  School and Project

  Total Cost1 £000's

  Allocation £000's

  Ribston Hall School

  CDT block

  296

  —

  Gym

  451

  —

  Expressive arts

  150

  —

  Sixth form accommodation

  180

  —

  Heating system

  72

  —

  Scola cladding

  121

  —

  Parking and road widening

  68

  —

  Security system

  30

  —

  External decoration

  32

  —

  Disabled provision

  102

  —

  Roof

  28

  —

  Rickmansworth School

  Art and Technical block

  1,545

  —

  Technical block work

  415

  —

  Library

  225

  —

  Repairs

  9

  —

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  Move to single site

  3,210

  200

  St. George's School

  Science/Replace temporary classrooms

  732

  —

  Science/Replace temporary classrooms

  489

  —

  Technical/art suite

  515

  —

  Staff and humanities

  400

  —

  St James Church of England School

  Craft block

  140

  —

  Re-roofing

  70

  —

  Skegness Grammar School

  Various (including Administration)

  897

  —

  Kitchen and Canteen

  63

  63

  New Technical block

  612

  —

  Classrooms

  204

  —

  External works

  33

  —

  Sixth form accommodation

  180

  —

  Swimming pool

  630

  —

  Small Heath School

  Move to 1 site

  1,500

  —

  Maths suite

  25

  25

  Science accommodation

  100

  —

  Windows

  80

  80

  Roofing

  13

  —

  Playground

  21

  —

  Dining annex

  32

  —

  Southfield School for Girls

  Technology block

  650

  650

  Southlands Comprehensive

  Re-roofing (Art block)

  57

  57

  Playground and Netball

  15

  —

  Re-roofing (Corridor)

  12

  12

  Re-roofing (Senior school)

  44

  44

  Sports hall

  515

  —

  Stratford School

  First Science Laboratory

  51

  51

  Boilers

  34

  —

  Spandrel repairs

  34

  34

  Roof

  252

  —

  Second Science Laboratory

  51

  —

  Windows

  34

  34

  Structural repairs

  46

  —

  Stroud High School

  Classroom block

  877

  —

  Watford Grammar School for Boys

  Change of use and re-build

  714

  —

  Repairs

  80

  80

  63

  School and Project

  Total Cost1 £000's

  Allocation £000's

  Wilmington Grammar School for Girls

  Dry rot

  151

  —

  Windows

  58

  —

  Extension

  350

  —

  Conversion to CDT

  45

  45

  Caretaker's cottage

  47

  —

  Wilson's School

  Computing

  29

  —

  Extension

  840

  —

  Art room

  135

  —

  Wolverhampton Girls High School

  Extension and alterations

  870

  —

  Wymondham College

  Technology block

  940

  —

  Extension to Science block

  237

  —

  1 Total bid figures include amounts requested for the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93 only

  GM schools capital bids 1992–93: Complete list of bids (first tranche)

  School and project

  Total cost £000's

  Allocation £000's

  Adams Grammar School

  CDT building

  498

  —

  Arnewood School

  Technology, IT and classrooms

  898

  —

  Technology, IT and classrooms

  1,181

  —

  Audenshaw High School

  Fume and Dust extraction. Asbestos removal

  50

  —

  New sports hall and conversions

  600

  —

  Library and bus studies and converions

  400

  —

  Avon Valley School

  Sports hall roof repair

  17

  17

  Sports hall floor

  40

  —

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  Convert solid fuel boilers to gas

  90

  —

  Science lab/multi media room

  115

  —

  Refurbish boys washroom

  51

  —

  Bankfield High School

  Refenestration

  498

  —

  Re-roofing

  53

  —

  Science laboratories

  220

  —

  Baverstock School

  Teaching block

  1,152

  470

  Reroofing of existing building

  284

  —

  Beaconsfield High School

  New technology block and refurbishment

  1,044

  750

  Practical block refurbishment

  40

  —

  Staff room/library refurbishment

  20

  —

  Beechen Cliff School

  Drainage and structure monitoring

  151

  —

  Sanitary, drainage and asbestos removal

  166

  160

  Additional floor (business/computers)

  1,009

  —

  Bingley Grammar School

  Science wing extension

  400

  250

  Bishopshalt School

  Sports education centre

  864

  —

  Music block extension

  159

  —

  64

  School and project

  Total cost £000's

  Allocation £000's

  Bourne Abbey Primary School

  Two classrooms and medical facilities

  160

  160

  Science and technology

  288

  —

  Car park/playground

  45

  —

  Bournemouth School

  Rationalise science and technology

  546

  546

  Rationalise technology and part of science

  776

  —

  Bridgewater Hall School

  Science/technology

  260

  —

  Brindley Hall School

  Brindley Hall School phase III

  1,828

  —

  Music practice rooms

  20

  —

  Bullers Wood School for Girls

  New technology block

  375

  375

  Craft, textiles, electronics, etc.

  260

  —

  Burgate School

  Extension and science and technology room

  489

  —

  Extension to main school

  369

  —

  Caistor Grammar School

  Technology, science and IT building

  501

  287

  Accommodation for music

  119

  —

  Hard surface play area

  43

  —

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  Technology unit

  573

  —

  Carres Grammar School

  Main hall roof

  57

  —

  Sports Hall

  540

  —

  Castle Hall School

  Fire regulation work

  120

  —

  New science and CDT centre

  1,141

  —

  Structural and annex repairs

  65

  —

  Chalvedon School

  Re-cladding middle school block

  565

  250

  Science/technology extension

  340

  —

  Three storey English/drama block

  250

  —

  Claremont High School

  Replace sub-standard accommodation

  1,725

  —

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  Three new science laboratories

  490

  —

  Essential structural repairs

  145

  145

  Replace temporary mobile classrooms

  435

  —

  Collingwood School

  Fabric—capital repairs

  290

  50

  S Block refurbishment

  182

  —

  Technology block refurbishment

  300

  —

  Colyton Grammar School

  Convert and refurbish school hall

  148

  —

  Coopers School

  Technology, business, science and art

  1,745

  —

  Four laboratories in existing block

  472

  —

  Two new laboratories in existing block

  162

  —

  The Cornwallis School

  Science and technology

  313

  —

  Crossley Heath School

  Fire precaution work

  210

  210

  Alterations to form technology suite

  594

  —

  Refurbish science accommodation

  250

  —

  65

  School and project

  Total cost £000's

  Allocation £000's

  Dartford Grammar School for Boys

  New science and technology block

  425

  260

  Technology, science, washrooms and repairs

  265

  —

  Sports hall and changing accomodation

  445

  —

  Ecclesbourne School

  New building: Block H

  1,590

  780

  Francis Bacon School

  Renew boilers and associated work

  85

  —

  Implement fire brigade report

  99

  —

  Remodel to National Curriculum science

  165

  —

  Graveney School

  Washroom refurbishment in gym area

  368

  100

  Repair/refurbishment of technology block

  869

  —

  Refurbish lower school science

  268

  —

  Great Barr School

  Library and six technology spaces

  1,283

  700

  Guildford County School

  Library and business studies

  770

  —

  New classroom block

  370

  370

  Handsworth Grammar School

  Dining hall and kitchen

  575

  —

  Refurbishment of science laboratory

  90

  —

  Specialist technology rooms

  212

  —

  Hardley School

  Heating system improvements

  265

  130

  Re-roofing works

  85

  —

  Haydon School

  IT/maths block and adaption to technology

  480

  —

  IT/maths block and adaption to science

  400

  —

  Convert hall to 6th form accommodation

  240

  —

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  Extend to modern language area

  244

  —

  Repairs—old block

  343

  200

  Hendon School

  Separate pedestrian and motor traffic

  70

  —

  New science and maths building

  865

  —

  Refurbish home economics department

  130

  —

  Highams Park School

  Replace and enlarge maths building

  550

  —

  Re-roof technology workshops

  29

  29

  Add paved recreation area

  59

  —

  Homewood School

  New design and technology suite and adaptions

  1,373

  —

  Replace boilers in science block

  42

  —

  Stage one of new science block

  1,387

  —

  King Edward VI School

  IT/Maths block. Conversion to library

  425

  —

  Drama/performing arts space

  345

  —

  Improvements to PE/games facilities

  260

  —

  The King's School, Grantham

  Science and technology extension

  305

  —

  Vicarage block phase 2

  491

  —

  Castlegate Block extension

  190

  —

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  66

  School and project

  Total cost £000's

  Allocation £000's

  Asbestos, fire escapes and technology

  370

  50

  Kitchen/dining and asbestos removal

  236

  —

  Kingswood School

  Food technology, graphics and tech rooms

  330

  330

  New drama/dance block

  250

  —

  Adaptions to create two science laboratories

  120

  —

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  Single site—phase one of two

  1,800

  —

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  Upgrading cloakrooms

  108

  50

  Phase two extension of 6th form block

  489

  —

  Phase three extension music centre

  354

  —

  The Royal Grammar School, Lancaster

  New Information technology centre

  124

  124

  Correct defects in heating system

  58

  —

  Replacement of heating boilers

  25

  —

  London Nautical School

  Upgrade 35 year old science laboratory

  172

  150

  Boiler replace and central heating radiators

  390

  —

  Replace existing fire doors

  30

  —

  London Oratory School

  Re-equip/local kitchen/dining facilities

  243

  —

  Long Field High School

  Re-roofing phase two

  200

  100

  Science laboratory and preparatory room

  122

  —

  Langley Park Boys School

  Library and design and technology facilities

  577

  —

  Manor High School

  Upgrade site to H and S requirements

  181

  60

  Refurbish science and technology

  152

  —

  External refurbishment

  122

  —

  The Maplesden Noakes School

  Conversions of science and technology

  210

  —

  Decentralise boilers. Heaters

  200

  —

  Marling School

  New science and IT facilities

  499

  —

  Moseley Park School

  New technology suite

  1,552

  —

  Moulton Primary School

  Implement development plan

  1,024

  —

  Curriculum development, phases one to three

  662

  —

  Netherthorpe School

  Technology, science and art

  497

  —

  Sixth form accommodation

  492

  —

  Modern languages

  345

  —

  Newton Bluecoat C of E Primary School

  Class, changing, medical and adaptation

  150

  —

  Classroom and staff changing room

  105

  —

  Class, changing, medical, adaptation etc.

  180

  —

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  Extend and remodel design and technology

  700

  700

  67

  School and project

  Total cost £000's

  Allocation £000's

  North Halifax High School

  Conversion and refit of science laboratory

  91

  —

  Work required by fire officer

  85

  —

  Science laboratory, windows and roof

  50

  —

  Northwood School

  New technology block and conversions

  435

  400

  New technology block and conversions

  420

  —

  Oldfield School

  Extend/convert science, technology and maths

  1,190

  —

  Urgent fabric and structure work

  261

  50

  Parmiters School

  Information technology building

  588

  —

  Hard standing

  129

  —

  Pate's Grammar School

  Redevelopment phase two

  1,997

  1,997

  Redevelopment phase three

  1,125

  —

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  Replace fire hazard wood laboratories

  445

  —

  Queen Elizabeth School for Boys

  Replace windows in main block

  300

  50

  New technology block

  485

  —

  Queensbury School

  Fire safety provisions

  61

  40

  Refurbish and reorganise science

  192

  —

  Queensmead School

  Roofing gymnasium block

  52

  52

  Remodel to create science laboratories

  57

  —

  Raines Foundation School

  New extension to upper school

  1,277

  —

  Staff room extension, lower school

  53

  —

  Reading School

  Science and technology facilities

  975

  630

  Ribston Hall School

  Boilers and controls for heating

  70

  68

  Replace glazed aluminium cladding

  123

  —

  Rickmansworth School

  Remodel and repair craft block

  369

  250

  Major repairs to drama block roof

  16

  —

  St. Augustine Roman Catholic School

  New science and technology block

  465

  —

  IT, science, technology and library

  600

  —

  New classroom block

  520

  —

  St. Bartholemew's School

  Fume and chemical cupboards, stairs

  156

  155

  Remodelling art and design

  426

  —

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  Sixth form centre

  2,670

  —

  Two storey classroom block

  1,312

  —

  Laboratories, staff room, classroom, music

  1,074

  —

  St. George's Church of England School

  Extend maths/science block

  455

  —

  Extend and alter D and T block

  500

  —

  St. George's School, Sleaford

  Science block, including cloakroom

  440

  —

  Technology block

  210

  1500

  SLD unit/staff accommodation

  55

  —

  68

  School and project

  Total cost £000's

  Allocation £000's

  St. Helen's Primary School

  Replace huts and washrooms

  285

  —

  St. James's C of E School

  Re-roofing of block A

  125

  —

  Science and technology refurbishment

  180

  —

  Hard play, paths, pitch repair

  80

  —

  St. John the Baptist School

  Science/HE, CDT, changing rooms

  1,319

  —

  Science. Classroom and staff accommodation

  565

  —

  Maintenance. Replace huts. Car Park

  520

  —

  Sexey's School

  Technology centre and boiler house

  1,340

  —

  Skegness Grammar School

  Replace temporary classrooms

  800

  —

  Boarding facilities

  400

  —

  Improve sports facilities

  340

  —

  Small Heath School

  Kitchen/dining at lower school

  338

  —

  Ventilation of science laboratories

  34

  —

  Replace boiler at lower school

  55

  —

  Southfield School for Girls

  Flat roof repairs

  75

  —

  Southlands Comprehensive School, Kent

  Replace substandard maths accommodation

  658

  —

  Additional science lab accommodation

  350

  —

  Regroup technology accommodation

  658

  —

  Southlands School, Reading

  Refurbish three science laboratories

  71

  —

  Replace felt flat roofing

  66

  —

  Refurbish two science laboratories

  47

  —

  Stratford School

  Roofing replacement

  369

  —

  Science laboratory refurbishment

  115

  —

  Replace boilers

  34

  —

  Stroud High School

  Science block

  786

  780

  Thamesview School

  Health and Safety

  149

  100

  Curriculum development: remodelling

  359

  —

  Vyners

  Science and technology

  1,262

  638

  Watford Grammar School for Boys

  Conversion to design and technology centre

  183

  180

  Renewal of gutters

  172

  —

  Watford Girls Grammar School

  Design and technology and music

  676

  400

  Design and technology and music

  715

  —

  Flammable store

  18

  —

  Westcliff High School for Boys

  New technology block

  280

  280

  Extension to science block

  170

  —

  New dining and small halls

  352

  —

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys

  Refurbish technology and one science laboratory

  150

  —

  Refurbishment of toilet block

  115

  —

  Boiler house renewal

  146

  145

  69

  School and project

  Total cost £000's

  Allocation £000's

  The Grammar School for Girls Wilmington

  Provision of new science laboratory

  171

  170

  Adaption existing art room

  16

  —

  Wilson's School

  New art and food technology and modifications

  235

  —

  Wold Newton Primary School

  New classroom

  69

  —

  Physical Education hall

  157

  —

  Science and Technology Centre

  75

  —

  Wolverhampton Girls High School

  Extensions and alterations

  850

  450

  Woodroffe School

  Science and technology

  1,457

  —

  Library resource area

  76

  —

  Wymondham College

  Replacement accommodation

  2,150

  —

  Nissen hut refurbishment

  805

  —

  Short term upgrade

  135

  —

  1 Provision allocation.

  Date of publication of proposals

  Decision date/ date of approval letter

  Date of proposed implementation

  Date of implementation where different from Column 3

  Name

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  Column 4

  Baverstock Grant-Maintained School

  13 February 1989

  12 May 1989

  1 September 1989

  —

  The Kings School, Grantham

  28 February 1989

  17 May 1989

  1 September 1989

  —

  Old Swinford Hospital

  28 February 1989

  2 June 1989

  1 September 1989

  —

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  17 March 1989

  10 June 1989

  1 September 1989

  —

  Southfield School

  23 February 1989

  9 November 1989

  1 September 1989

  1 April 1990

  Watford Grammar School

  20 October 1989

  12 February 1990

  1 April 1990

  1 September 1990

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys

  8 March 1990

  8 January 1991

  1 September 1990

  1 April 1991

  North Halifax High School

  26 January 1990

  21 May 1990

  1 August 1990

  1 April 1991

  Wymondham College

  22 June 1990

  14 November 1990

  1 January 1991

  —

  London Oratory School

  7 February 1989

  20 April 1989

  1 September 1989

  —

  Queen Elizabeth's Grant-Maintained School for Boys

  10 February 1989

  5 May 1989

  5 September 1989

  —

  Colyton Grammar School

  23 February 1989

  5 May 1989

  6 September 1989

  —

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  28 February 1989

  19 May 1989

  1 September 1989

  —

  Castle Hall Grant-Maintained School

  10 March 1989

  10 June 1989

  5 September 1989

  —

  Small Heath School

  1 March 1989

  12 June 1989

  1 September 1989

  —

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  14 June 1989

  25 August 1989

  1 January 1990

  —

  Carre's Grammar School

  8 March 1990

  21 May 1990

  1 September 1990

  —

  Bournemouth School

  8 March 1990

  21 May 1990

  1 September 1990

  —

  Ecclesbourne School

  6 April 1990

  21 May 1990

  1 September 1990

  —

  Cornwallis School

  17 July 1990

  21 January 1991

  1 January 1991

  1 April 1991

  Reading School

  6 September 1990

  13 March 1991

  1 April 1991

  —

  Hardley School

  18 July 1990

  17 October 1990

  1 January 1991

  —

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  19 October 1990

  25 January 1991

  1 April 1991

  —

  Avon Valley School

  16 November 1990

  26 March 1991

  1 April 1991

  1 September 1991

  Oldfield School

  14 December 1990

  28 March 1991

  1 April 1991

  1 September 1991

  St. George's Church of England School

  6 February 1991

  4 June 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Great Barr School

  11 December 1990

  28 February 1991

  1 April 1991

  —

  Parmiters School

  15 February 1991

  2 September 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Hayes Manor School

  12 July 1991

  18 November 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Dartford Grammar School

  5 February 1991

  1 July 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  1 February 1991

  22 April 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Watford Grammar School for Girls

  7 February 1991

  18 July 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Copland Community School

  14 March 1991

  25 November 1991

  1 September 1991

  1 April 1992

  Newton Bluecoat Church of England Grant-Maintained Primary School

  1 March 1991

  4 July 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Wold Newton Primary School

  4 March 1991

  16 July 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Vyners School

  6 February 1991

  5 June 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Bourne Primary School

  4 February 1991

  11 June 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Highams Park School

  12 March 1991

  10 June 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Southlands Comprehensive School

  19 February 1991

  1 July 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  St. Helen's Primary School 11 March 1991

  11 March 1991

  12 June 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Langley Park Boys School

  29 March 1991

  10 July 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  70
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which primary schools that have submitted proposals for grant-maintained status offer nursery provision

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:

  LEA

  School

  Decision

  Bedfordshire

  Thomas Whitehead CE School

  Approved

  Ealing

  Wood End First School

  Undecided

  Hertfordshire

  Parkside First School

  Undecided

  Solihull

  Hatchford Junior and Infants School

  Undecided

  Lewisham

  Thurnham Junior and Infant School

  Undecided

  Bolton

  Crompton Fold County Primary School

  Undecided

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which grant-maintained schools have published their proposals later than the guidance given in parpgraph 30 of "School Governors—How to Become a Grant-Maintained School" for the proposed date of implementation; and, in each case, what was the date of(a) publication of the proposals, (b) his decision and (c) actual date of implementation.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:
  71

  Date of publication of proposals

  Decision date/date of approval letter

  Date of proposed implementation

  Date of implementation where different from Column 3

  Name

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  Column 4

  Coopers School

  28 February 1991

  10 July 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Collingwood School

  22 March 1991

  25 June 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Raines Foundation School

  27 March 1991

  11 June 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Graveney School

  26 March 1991

  28 June 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Moulton Primary School

  11 March 1991

  12 June 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Arnewood School

  29 March 1991

  15 July 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Budmouth School

  14 June 1991

  30 October 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Burntwood School

  5 July 1991

  3 December 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

  14 June 1991

  30 October 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Northwood School

  19 April 1991

  16 September 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  St. John the Baptist School

  15 April 1991

  25 June 1991

  1 September 1991

  —

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  5 June 1991

  4 November 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Desborough Comprehensive School

  21 June 1991

  3 September 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Oldborough Manor High

  21 June 1991

  29 November 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Yarborough High School

  12 June 1991

  25 September 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Loddon Middle School

  17 June 1991

  3 October 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Glyn School

  10 June 1991

  1 November 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Snodland Church of England Primary School

  4 June 1991

  20 November 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  King John School

  11 June 1991

  15 October 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Simon Langton Boys' Grammar School

  3 June 1991

  20 November 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Brookmead School

  11 July 1991

  14 November 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Gordon's School

  10 June 1991

  3 September 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Cranbrook School

  16 August 1991

  17 December 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Hartshill School

  21 June 1991

  24 September 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Gresham Village School

  26 June 1991

  16 October 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  King John School, Benfleet

  19 July 1991

  5 November 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Heacham Middle School

  6 June 1991

  19 August 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Denefield School

  15 July 1991

  1 November 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Langley Grammar School, Slough

  12 July 1991

  4 November 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Parkstone Grammar School, Poole

  10 July 1991

  2 December 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  La Retraite School

  26 June 1991

  11 October 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Ringwood Comprehensive School

  25 June 1991

  30 October 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  John Fisher School

  31 July 1991

  14 November 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Gartree School

  27 June 1991

  1 November 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  4 September 1991

  22 January 1992

  1 April 1992

  —

  Castle Hills School, Gainsborough

  16 September 1991

  27 January 1992

  1 April 1992

  —

  Myton School

  13 September 1991

  3 December 1991

  1 April 1992

  —

  Hayton Church of England Primary School

  20 September 1991

  10 January 1992

  1 April 1992

  —

  Northampton School for Boys

  25 July 1991

  11 November 1991

  1 January 1992

  —

  Thomas Whitehead Church of England School

  24 September 1991

  19 December 1991

  1 April 1992

  —

  West Hatch High School

  30 October 1991

  28 January 1992

  1 April 1992

  —

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the cost of ballots of parents held under section 61 of the Education Act 1988; for which schools he has required a fresh ballot to be held as a result of his guidance not being followed; and, in each case, what was the reason and who paid the cost of each ballot.

  Mr. Eggar
  The total cost of ballots up to 31 December 1991 is £349,421·48. A fresh ballot has had to be held at two schools. In the case of both Edenbridge middle school in Kent LEA and Deighton high school in Kirklees LEA, there were significant errors in the compilation of the electoral roll.

  In both cases the costs of the ballots were met by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been(a) the maximum possible and (b) the actual level of transitional grant in respect of each grant-maintained school; and for what purposes the approved expenditure was incurred.

  Mr. Eggar
  Transitional grant is paid for extra management and other expenditure incurred in the course of changing over to grant-maintained status. The maximum transitional grant allocation and the amount 72
  actually claimed and paid to date in the case of each grant-maintained school or school approved for grant-maintained status are as follows:

  School

  Maximum allocation available £

  Amount of grant claimed and paid £

  Adams' Grammar School

  21,675·00

  21,675·00

  Arnewood School

  60,000·00

  48,499·00

  Ash Green School

  44,160·00

  43,660·00

  Audenshaw School

  25,875·00

  25,875·00

  Avon Valley School

  40,770·00

  40,770·00

  Aylesford School

  58,560·00

  58,400·00

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  26,115·00

  26,115·00

  Bankfield High School

  21,510·00

  21,510·00

  Baverstock School

  29,700·00

  29,700·00

  Beaconsfield High School

  54,750·00

  54,750·00

  Beechen Cliff School

  27,990·00

  27,990·00

  Bingley Grammar School

  58,020·00

  58,020·00

  Bishopshalt School

  28,775·00

  28,775·00

  Bourne Primary School

  45,510·00

  45,510·00

  Bournemouth School

  28,035·00

  28,035·00

  Brookmead School

  37,140·00

  37,000·00

  Budmouth School

  57,750·00

  31,600·00

  Bullers Wood School

  58,260·00

  58,260·00

  Burgate School

  43,650·00

  43,650·00

  Burntwood School

  60,000·00

  49,500·00

  Caistor Grammar School

  42,300·00

  40,932·00

  73

  School

  Maximum allocation available £

  Amount of grant claimed and paid £

  Cardinal Vaughan School

  23,880·00

  23,880·00

  Carre's Grammar School

  20,700·00

  20,700·00

  Castle Hall School

  21,075·00

  21,000·00

  Chalvedon School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Christ Church School

  36,210·00

  2—

  Christ's Hospital School

  60,000·00

  53,209·00

  Claremont High School

  28,515·00

  28,515·00

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  52,980·00

  52,980·00

  Collingwood School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Colyton Grammar School

  21,495·00

  21,495·00

  Coopers School

  60,000·00

  43,722·00

  Copland Community School

  55,020·00

  55,000·00

  Cornwallis School

  54,360·00

  33,220·00

  Cranbrook School

  50,880·00

  2—

  Crofton Junior School

  49,560·00

  1—

  Crossgates Primary School

  37,080·00

  32,962·00

  Crossley Heath School

  50,700·00

  50,700·00

  Denefield School

  56,520·00

  2—

  Dartford Grammar School

  54,480·00

  54,462·50

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  51,840·00

  51,840·00

  Desborgh School

  60,000·00

  51,850·00

  Ecclesbourne School

  30,000·00

  30,000·00

  Elmwood School

  44,430·00

  2—

  Francis Bacon School

  43,980·00

  43,980·00

  Fulston Manor High School

  52,620·00

  2—

  Gartree School

  41,220·00

  41,219·00

  Gamlingay Village College

  35,040·00

  2—

  Glyn High School

  54,420·00

  54,417·00

  Gordons School

  38,400·00

  38,400·00

  Graveney School

  60,000·00

  55,000·00

  Great Barr School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Gresham Primary School

  22,490·00

  20,190·00

  Guildford School

  25,995·00

  25,995·00

  Handsworth School

  53,310·00

  53,310·00

  Hardley School

  51,060·00

  51,060·00

  Hartshill School

  49,410·00

  49,410·00

  Haydon School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Hayes School, Bromley

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Hayes Manor School

  49,800·00

  2—

  Heacham Middle School

  36,090·00

  34,500·00

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  23,475·00

  23,475·00

  Hendon School

  27,540·00

  27,540·00

  Highams Park School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Homewood School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  John Fisher School

  53,370·00

  43,370·00

  Kelsey Park School

  51,660·00

  45,750·00

  King Edward VI School

  46,380·00

  46,380·00

  King John School, Northants

  38,220·00

  38,220·00

  King John School, Essex

  60,000·00

  41,623·00

  Kings School

  26,150·00

  26,150·00

  Kingsley Park School

  39,750·00

  39,750·00

  Kingswood School

  57,870·00

  57,870·00

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  57,600·00

  57,600·00

  La Retraite High School

  47,820·00

  47,499·44

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  27,675·00

  27,675·00

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  49,260·00

  49,260·00

  Langley Grammar School

  48,060·00

  44,373·00

  Langley Park School

  60,000·00

  2—

  Loddon Middle School

  37,890·00

  35,100·00

  London Nautical School

  20,895·00

  20,895·00

  Long Field High School

  20,880·00

  20,880·00

  London Oratory School

  30,000·00

  30,000·00

  Magdalen Primary School

  37,020·00

  33,570·00

  Manor High School

  48,780·00

  30,732·60

  Maplesden Noakes School

  49,710·00

  49,710·00

  Marling School

  25,890·00

  25,890·00

  Mellow Lane School

  60,000·00

  2—

  Moseley Park School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Moulton Primary School

  41,640·00

  41,640·00

  Myton School

  60,000·00

  50,715·00

  North Halifax High School

  50,040·00

  50,040·00

  Netherthorpe School

  23,205·00

  23,205·00

  Newlands Spring Primary School

  39,870·00

  35,350·00

  Newton Bluecoat School

  38,340·00

  38,340·00

  74

  School

  Maximum allocation available £

  Amount of grant claimed and paid £

  Nonsuch High School

  56,820·00

  56,813·75

  Northampton Boys School

  52,020·00

  21,160·00

  Northwood School

  59,490·00

  52,500·00

  Oldborough Manor School

  51,450·00

  2—

  Old Swinford Hospital School

  23,160·00

  23,160·00

  Oldfield School

  48,450·00

  48,450·00

  Parkstone School

  48,630·00

  48,630·00

  Parmiters' School

  58,620·00

  1—

  Pate's Grammar School

  30,000·00

  30,000·00

  Philip Morant School

  60,000·00

  53,783·00

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Lincolnshire

  19,935·00

  19,935·00

  Queen Elizabeth Boy's School, Barnet

  30,000·00

  30,000·00

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Cumbria

  45,120·00

  2,500·00

  Queenshury School

  24,555·00

  24,555·00

  Queensmead School

  55,500·00

  55,500·00

  Raine's Foundation School

  56,010·00

  50,863·13

  Ravens Wood School for Boys School

  55,710·00

  47,716·00

  Reading School

  49,770·00

  19,000·00

  Redgate Middle School

  24,920·00

  24,920·00

  Ribston Hall School

  22,290·00

  22,275·00

  Rickmansworth School

  28,965·00

  28,965·00

  Riddlesdown High School

  57,630·00

  46,100·00

  Ringwood School

  52,110·00

  12,650·00

  Salterlee Primary School

  22,190·00

  14,750·00

  Senacre Technology School

  57,630·00

  57,630·00

  Sexey's School

  41,610·00

  41,610·00

  St. Francis Xavier's School

  30,000·00

  30,000·00

  Simon Langton School

  48,840·00

  48,840·00

  Skegness Grammar School

  23,520·00

  23,520·00

  Small Heath School

  26,535·00

  26,535·00

  Snodland Primary School

  40,680·00

  26,015·00

  Southfield School

  24,225·00

  24,225·00

  Southlands Comprehensive School, Kent

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Southlands School, Berkshire

  23,115·00

  23,115·00

  St. George's School, Lincolnshire

  56,100·00

  56,099·75

  St. Mary's School

  25,850·00

  23,550·21

  St. Bartholomew's School

  60,000·00

  27,435·00

  St. John The Baptist School

  49,800·00

  44,938·29

  St. Helens Primary School

  37,620·00

  37,528·33

  St. George's School, Kent

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  St. James' School

  24,930·00

  24,930·00

  St. Augustine's School

  45,120·00

  45,119·25

  Stantonbury Campus

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  Stratford School

  52,950·00

  52,950·00

  Stroud High School

  25,515·00

  25,515·00

  Thamesview School

  60,000·00

  60,000·00

  The Crypt School

  40,740·00

  40,740·00

  The Plume School

  60,000·00

  59,850·00

  Thomas Whitehead School

  36,690·00

  31,244·00

  Uxbridge High School

  51,120·00

  41,597·75

  Vyners School

  57,540·00

  50,900·00

  Watford Girls Grammar School

  58,470·00

  58,470·00

  Watford Grammar School

  30,000·00

  30,000·00

  Westcliff High School

  55,050·00

  55,050·00

  Wilmington Girls Grammar School

  21,765·00

  21,760·00

  Wilmington Boys School

  40,560·00

  40,560·00

  Wilson's School

  25,875·00

  25,875·00

  Wold Newton School

  22,880·00

  22,800·00

  Wolverhampton School

  23,445·00

  23,445·00

  Woodroffe School

  55,170·00

  55,170·00

  Wrotham School

  41,730·00

  41,730·00

  Wymondham College

  53,970·00

  53,970·00

  Yarborough High School

  60,000·00

  39,470·00

  1 Claim under consideration.

  2 No claim received to date.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide an estimate of the money spent by local education authorities in England and Wales in 1990–91 and 1991–92 on providing education and nursery care for three and four year-olds.

  Mr. Eggar
  Responsibility for education and day care in Wales rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and for day care in England with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. My Department's estimates of recurrent expenditure by local education authorities in England on education for the under fives are £685 million in 1990–91 and £776 million in 1991–92.

  Schools Branch 4
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the functional responsibilities of and number of staff employed in schools branch 4, division B, at his Department; and what was the cost of this branch in 1990–91, the estimated cost for 1991–92 and the budgeted cost for 1992–93.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are currently 53 staff working in this division which is responsible for policy on grant maintained schools, including transitional arrangements and recurrent and capital funding. The running costs of this division in 1990–91 were approximately £372,000. Estimated outturn in 1991–92 is some £700,000. Budgets for 1992–93 have not yet been set.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of teachers, and at which grades, earn more than £20,280 a year.

  Mr. Fallon
  Approximately 124,000 teachers, representing one third of the teaching force in primary and secondary schools in England and Wales, are currently paid more than £20,280 per annum. Of these, some 28,000 are head teachers, 31,000 are deputy head teachers and 65,000 are classroom teachers who are paid on the standard scale and hold an incentive allowance.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number of school sixth forms with(a) fewer than 50 students and (b) between 50 and 100 students and (c) more than 100 students.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows the number of maintained schools and CTCs with sixth forms in England in January 1991 in each of the categories requested.

  Number of Students

  Number of Schools

  49 and fewer

  246

  50—100

  482

  101 and more

  1,274

  Further Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish details of the formula to be used to determine the level of resources to be 76
  redistributed from local education authorities to the Further Education Funding Council under the provisions of the Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords].

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are considering the level of resources to be transferred from revenue support grant to reflect the shift in responsibilities from local education authorities to the Further Education Funding Council from 1 April 1993. We shall be consulting the local authority associations on proposals for the annual local authority finance settlement for 1993–94 in due course.

  Voluntary Aided Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list any additional financial support for local education authorities to fund in 1992–93 minor works projects of more than £120,000 for voluntary aided schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The total amount of resources allocated in 1992–93 for minor works within the new range—£5,000 to £250,000—is £21 million. This compares with an allocation in 1991–92 of £6·7 million for minor works and £1·5 in respect of named major projects costing between £120,000 and £250,000.

  Funds for minor works improvement projects are allocated to each local education authority and it is for them to determine which projects should be authorised. The Department has not prescribed the level of funds to be assigned to minor works projects costing more than £120,000.

SCOTLAND

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds were available in each health board area(a) in total and (b) for the care of the elderly, on 1 January; and what are the projected equivalent figures for April 1992.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest available information is shown in the table. Projected figures are not centrally available.

  NHS hospitals—in Scotland; average available staffed beds1; all specialties and care of the elderly; by health board; quarter ending 30 September 1991

  All specialties2

  Geriatric3

  Scotland

  48,692

  17,814

  Argyll and Clyde

  3,945

  1,492

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2,875

  1,148

  Borders

  894

  396

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,357

  550

  Fife

  2,912

  1,147

  Forth Valley

  2,766

  1,039

  Grampian

  5,070

  2,038

  Greater Glasgow

  10,399

  3,580

  Highland

  1,899

  456

  Lanarkshire

  4,580

  1,607

  Lothian

  7,008

  2,569

  Orkney

  159

  80

  Shetland

  146

  86

  Tayside

  4,465

  1,511

  Western Isles

  217

  115

  77
  1Includes borrowed, lent and temporary beds.

  2At any time, a varying proportion of acute beds is taken up by elderly patients.

  3Geriatric assessment, geriatric long stay and phychogeriatrics.

  Children (Special Needs)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children have had their record of special needs reviewed(a) in total and (b) under the statutory procedures, by the Greater Glasgow health board in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is the responsibility of education authorities to keep under consideration the record of needs of all children and young persons in their area and to review their decision to open these records and the information entered on them whenever they consider it expedient to do so, or at the request of a parent of young person. Greater Glasgow health board has no statutory obligations in this connection.

  A record of the number of reviews of records of needs undertaken by education authorities is not held centrally.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by name and by prison those young people since 1972 who have been detained without limit of time.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: The total number currently detained is 40, of whom nine are in young offenders institutions and 31 in prisons.

  If the hon. Member requires the names and establishments of those currently detained, I shall be happy to write to him.

  Under-fives
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the figures for 1991 for the percentage of under-fives in(a) nursery schools, (b) nursery classes, (c) infant classes and (d) in total, by local education authority in Scotland, in rank order.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: Provisional information from the 1991 school census on the number and percentage of pupils in nursery schools and departments in Scotland is as follows. The school census does not collect a separate breakdown of pupils into nursery schools, nursery classes and infant classes.

  Pupils in Education Authority Nursery Schools/Departments at September 1991 by Education Authority Area as a percentage of the estimated three and four-year-old age group

  Number of pupils

  Percentage of three and four year olds

  Fife

  4,650

  50·4

  Lothian

  8,800

  47·8

  Central

  2,762

  41·9

  Shetland

  241

  36·1

  Tayside

  3,422

  35·2

  Strathclyde

  19,221

  31·4

  Grampian

  3,985

  20·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  835

  23·6

  Borders

  489

  20·3

  Orkney

  92

  18·4

  Highland

  849

  15·8

  Western Isles

  0

  0·0

  Scotland

  45,346

  34·5

  Pressure Stock Licences
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of pressure stock licences attaching to fishing vessels in each port of registration(a) at the outset of the scheme and (b) at the most recent date for which information is available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 January 1992]: The issue raised has been delegated to the chief executive of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the current review of United Kingdom nuclear weapons safety includes an assessment of potential hazards during transportation and handling.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 19 November 1991,Official Report, column 153.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where his Department plans to dispose of decommissioned nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Various options for the disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines remain under consideration.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to improve the procedures and practice of his Department in respect to the placing of contracts with small community-based suppliers, such as the Cardiff Institute for the Blind, and in respect to contracting procedures generally.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Ministry of Defence operates the provisions of the Government preference scheme in respect of priority suppliers, including the Cardiff Institute for the Blind. In essence this is designed to give such suppliers the opportunity to supply the widest possible range of the Ministry's requirements, but consistent with the need to consider value for the taxpayer's money.

  We are constantly seeking to improve our procedures and practices, with the aim of improving value for money. The priority scheme apart, we do not in our contract procedures discriminate between suppliers of different size in our allocation of contracts. However, the practices employed have regard for the financial value of the contract concerned. Thus in general simplified procedures are employed for contracts of smaller value, and it is such contracts which are usually of most interest to small suppliers.

  The MoD encourages new suppliers to make their capabilities known, and to this end have set up a new suppliers' service, with a small firms group within it, to help such concerns.

  Military Sales
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang),Official Report, 6 December, column 272, if he will set out so much of the information requested on United Kingdom military sales that could be assembled without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) of 30 January,Official Report, column 655. I would be happy to write to the hon. Member also.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Mackerel
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will allocate an extra sectoral mackerel quota to the Falmouth mackerel handliners.

  Mr. Curry
  No. Allocations for 1992 will be based on track records as agreed by the industry. However, in view of the increase in the western mackerel total allowable catch for 1992, the allocation for the handliners this year should be about 1,900 tonnes, which is a 39 per cent. increase over the initial 1991 allocation of 1,365 tonnes.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that(a) all trawlers within the south-west mackerel box are inspected to ensure that they are not taking more than their allocated mackerel by-catch and (b) that any fishing boat within the south-west mackerel box is entitled to operate there.

  Mr. Curry
  During the mackerel fishery season normal levels of fishery inspection in the south-west mackerel box are stepped up with an additional fishery surveillance vessel being employed. Prosecutions are taken in the event of contraventions being found.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the south-west mackerel conservation box in protecting the dedicated mackerel fishery.

  Mr. Curry
  Research carried out last year by the Department indicated that there were a high percentage of juvenile mackerel present in the box. Both the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the European Community Commission's scientific and technical committee on fisheries recommended that the box should remain in place to protect this important element of the western mackerel stock. I welcome the European Community decision to make the box a permanent arrangement.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps within the EC to ban industrial fishing within the south-west mackerel box.

  Mr. Curry
  There is at present no scientific evidence to suggest that the current level of permitted fishing in the south-west mackerel box causes damage to the mackerel stock. The situation is kept under constant review.

  Spanish Fishing Boats
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about Spanish fishing boats registering in Gibraltar as United Kingdom fishing vessels.

  Mr. Curry
  It is not possible for fishing boat owners —whatever their nationality—to register their boats in Gibraltar as United Kingdom fishing vessels.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a copy of the provisional classification of the water quality of shellfish harvesting areas.

  Mr. Curry
  EC directive 91/492/EEC sets out health conditions for the production and sale of live bivalve molluscs. With certain possible exemptions, those conditions are to be implemented by 1 January 1993.

  It is first necessary to classify production areas according to the treatment required before the molluscs may be marketed. With the co-operation of local authorities and other interested bodies, we are collecting the necessary data in England and Wales and will publish the results when work is complete.

  Pollution, Fal Estuary
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether current steps taken to control pollution are adequate for long-term protection of the local shellfish industry in the Fal estuary, Cornwall;

  (2) what action he is taking to monitor pollution levels of shellfish in the Fal estuary, Cornwall.

  Mr. Curry
  Short-term measures to minimise the problems caused by the sudden discharge from the Wheal Jane mine on 13 January are in place. The National Rivers Authority is working with mine owners to find an effective long-term solution. This will be welcome to the local shellfish industry.

  When the potential problems with the Wheal Jane mine became apparent last year, we established a monitoring programme involving testing samples of shellfish from the Fal Estuary for levels of metal contaminants. Results from samples tested since the discharge on 13 January show that, with the exception of a possible slight increase in zinc levels, the incident has not resulted in an increase in metal contaminants in shellfish. The levels continue to be below those that would give cause for concern on public health grounds. Our monitoring programme will continue.

  Advisory Committees
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the advisory committees, coming under his Ministry, and concerned with public health whose members are requested to sign a declaration concerning the Official Secrets Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  None of the members of these independent MAFF advisory committees is required to sign any declaration under the Official Secrets Act 1989. The relevant committees are the Food Advisory
  81
  Committee, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the Veterinary Medicines Committee and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes.

  Grant Schemes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sums were paid out by each of his divisional offices for each(a) agricultural subsidy scheme

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  Farm and conservation grant scheme1

  Farm diversification grant scheme

  Farm woodland scheme

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances2

  Sheep annual premium scheme3

  Suckler cow premium scheme3

  Set aside

  Divisional office

  Total payments £'000s

  Agreements entered into

  Total payments £'000s

  Total payments £'000s

  Applications approved

  Total payments £'000s

  Applications approved

  Total payments £'000s

  Number of claims paid

  Total payments £'000s

  Number of claims paid

  Total payments £'000s

  Number of claims paid

  Total payments4 £'000s

  Number of applications5

  South Western region

  Exeter

  —

  —

  3,512

  219

  27

  84

  12

  3,465

  1,498

  5,923

  4,099

  1,360

  1,060

  517

  29

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  1,774

  201

  23

  125

  41

  —

  —

  2,368

  1,887

  803

  598

  2,161

  73

  Taunton

  1,170

  778

  2,975

  132

  19

  48

  12

  1,313

  343

  2,726

  2,118

  754

  628

  615

  24

  Truro

  490

  186

  1,322

  166

  21

  13

  2

  1,083

  772

  2,352

  1,741

  1,072

  929

  255

  19

  Eastern region

  Chelmsford

  —

  —

  635

  63

  13

  54

  12

  —

  —

  358

  339

  224

  200

  1,668

  70

  Huntingdon

  —

  —

  445

  27

  7

  107

  24

  —

  —

  1,633

  1,096

  323

  308

  2,153

  72

  Lincoln

  —

  —

  530

  51

  6

  57

  38

  —

  —

  780

  645

  478

  325

  804

  14

  Norwich

  4,444

  1,293

  778

  101

  13

  205

  56

  —

  —

  715

  714

  569

  440

  1,697

  68

  Northern region

  Beverley

  247

  22

  1,067

  49

  14

  46

  23

  1,226

  953

  1,532

  1,422

  527

  546

  707

  17

  Carlisle

  89

  31

  2,592

  70

  7

  16

  1

  8,927

  2,758

  8,077

  3,799

  1,450

  954

  122

  4

  Newcastle

  525

  120

  802

  76

  26

  29

  4

  8,503

  1,798

  6,666

  2,734

  2,982

  2,266

  720

  18

  Northallerton

  728

  155

  1,666

  102

  21

  35

  15

  5,706

  2,113

  6,266

  3,837

  1,410

  1,015

  591

  11

  South Eastern region

  Guildford

  31

  23

  903

  27

  9

  59

  13

  —

  —

  1,445

  1,198

  646

  493

  1,608

  36

  Maidstone

  937

  199

  706

  147

  18

  25

  4

  —

  —

  2,719

  1,812

  389

  388

  1,852

  42

  Oxford

  —

  —

  715

  53

  6

  135

  35

  —

  —

  1,738

  1,191

  554

  450

  2,961

  72

  Midlands, and Western region

  Crewe

  832

  228

  4,856

  100

  23

  36

  13

  2,398

  1,517

  4,715

  3,750

  1,060

  950

  466

  30

  Nottingham

  688

  55

  1,342

  77

  12

  40

  19

  1,449

  948

  3,092

  2,399

  841

  811

  820

  26

  Preston

  —

  —

  2,797

  77

  4

  —

  1

  2,263

  1,373

  2,757

  2,021

  509

  487

  137

  4

  Worcester

  —

  —

  1,048

  93

  22

  93

  31

  834

  413

  5,269

  3,929

  782

  820

  920

  44

  1 Number of improvement plans approved under EC part of scheme is not available by Divisional Office. Overall total for the year was 336. Figures for total payments relate to both EC and national parts of the scheme. Figures for the new farm and conservation grant scheme 1991 are not yet available.

  2Figures for payments and number of claims cover the period 1 January to 30 November 1991. December figures are not yet available.

  3 Figures relate to scheme year 1991 only.

  4 Five-year set-aside scheme payments made in calendar year 1991 (including payments made in that year for 1989–90 and 1990–91 scheme years).

  5 Based on applications to join the five-year set-aside scheme from 1 October 1991.

  Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total number of individual animals by species excluding cattle in which spongiform encephalopathies have been confirmed in each of(a) 1988, (b) 1989, (c) 1990 and (d) 1991; and if he will indicate for each species the numbers believed to have contracted the disease by (i) vertical transmission, (ii) contaminated feeding stuff, (iii) transmission unknown or (iv) any other method.

  Mr. Maclean
  Naturally occurring spongiform encephalopathies in species other than cattle are not notifiable diseases. Nevertheless we are aware of the following cases in Great Britain confirmed by laboratory analysis:
  82
  and (b) grant scheme available to farmers in 1991; and how many agreements were entered into for each grant scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested in respect of the principal grant and subsidy schemes available to farmers in 1991 is as follows:

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Cat

  —

  —

  12

  11

  Arabian Oryx

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Greater Kudu

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Eland

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Sheep

  215

  246

  348

  1894

  Goats

  not known

  5

  15

  9

  1 Since 1991 reporting of cases of scrapie in sheep has been encouraged, to obtain material for spongiform encephalopathy research.

  Epidemiological investigations were not carried out in the cases of scrapie, but it is considered to be transmissible both maternally and horizontally. Insufficient epidemiological data is available to draw firm conclusions on the other cases.
  83
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the locations of the refrigerated containers dedicated for the use of BSE carcases and controlled and monitored by his Ministry in the south-west of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  In addition to those at the two dedicated storage centres in Devon, there is a refrigeration container at an incineration plant in Gloucestershire and another in Avon which is used only in emergencies such as a breakdown at an incineration plant.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals have been agreed by the Council of Ministers to ensure that live animals or animal products originating from outside the country have been handled or processed in accordance with the Community's own regulations on welfare and hygiene; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Directive 91/628 on the protection of live animals during transport will provide that imports of animals from third countries shall be authorised only if the exporter and/or importer gives a written undertaking to comply with the requirements of the directive and has made arrangements to comply with them.

  The directives on the welfare of pigs—91/630—and calves—91/629—will require animals imported from third countries to have been reared under at least equivalent conditions to those laid down in the directives.

  Directive 90/675 will require member states to operate specific border checks to ensure that animal products imported from third countries comply with Community rules and national rules.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the policy on the maximum journey time which should be permitted for each species of food animal while being exported for slaughter.

  Mr. Maclean
  Directive 91/628 EEC on the protection of animals during transport provides for the Commission to propose maximum journey times for certain types of animal. This is to ensure that they do not travel for long periods without proper care including food and water. The hon. Member will be aware that our national arrangements provide for a maximum 12 to 15 hour interval between feeding and watering livestock during transport. In the Government's view this rule should be adopted throughout the Community.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposal to improve the standard of legislation, observance and enforcement of animal welfare between member states.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government will continue to press for the high British standards of animal welfare to apply throughout the European Community. We have given full support to Commission proposals for establishing a Community inspectorate to ensure proper application of the legislation in all member states.

  Feeding Stuffs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to improve surveillance of the animal feeding stuffs industry in the 84
  light of the proposed amendment to directive 74/63/EEC; and what is his estimate of the financial impact of this change on his Department and the industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  An independent expert group, appointed by the Government, is currently reviewing the regulatory framework covering the animal feedingstuffs industry, with particular reference to food safety aspects. The proposed amendment to directive 74/63/EEC is not expected to have a financial impact on the Department or directly on animal feedingstuffs manufacturers, who should receive additional safeguards regarding their raw materials.

  Eggs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions, and in respect of how many eggs, action has been taken by his Department to refuse consignments of foreign produced eggs on the grounds of(a) salmonella infection and (b) either quality or health grounds.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not collected centrally.

ENERGY

  Uranium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans)Official Report, 23 January, columns 284-85, where the outstanding three kilogrammes of enriched uranium, not accounted for by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's investigation, is thought to be; and if he will set out the areas where managerial improvements at Dounreay are recommended.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The conclusions and recommendations of the report are confidential to my Department and Euratom. However, the Atomic Energy Authority has accepted all the recommendations made in the investigation report and has taken action to implement them. Furthermore, I have asked my officials to monitor implementation of the report's recommendations by the Atomic Energy Authority.

HEALTH

  Hormone Therapy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost per week of a course of growth hormone therapy.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The average cost per week of a course of growth hormone therapy varies because dosage is related to the patient's weight. The estimated cost per week in September 1991 of treating a child weighing 40kg was between £183 and £192 per week, depending on the brand of hormone used.

  European Year of Elderly People
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department is making for the European year of elderly people and solidarity between the generations in 1993.
  85
  Mr. Dorrell
  We are well advanced with our plans for the European year, in co-operation with the Department of Social Security. Following consultation with a wide range of national voluntary and professional bodies, statutory authorities and other relevant Government Departments, we have set up a group to advise on the conduct, promotion and evaluation of the programme in the United Kingdom. The group involves representatives of a wide range of organisations reflecting the interests of older people, including the National Pensioners Convention, and will take direct account wherever possible of the views and preferences of older people themselves. The programme in the United Kingdom will focus on four major themes:Combating "agism" and promoting positive images of ageing;
  Volunteering;
  Health promotion and active leisure, including remaining mentally active;
  Social integration, including problems of isolation and loneliness, information needs, and housing issues.

  Four task groups are being set up to examine each of these themes. Their remit will outline the aims and activities to be achieved over the 12 months, with particular reference wherever appropriate to intergenerational and multicultural aspects.

  Age Concern England—the National Council on Ageing will be responsible for the overall co-ordination of the official programme and the dissemination of news and information. The Department is providing funds for the costs of a secretariat for this purpose and has already committed £25,000 in the current year.

  Magnetic Resonance Imagers
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), 3 December 1991,Official Report, column 128, if he will set out the terms of his letter in the Official Report.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The text of my letter is as follows:"During Health Questions on 3 December I said I would write with details of the number of magnetic resonance imagers available in England and Wales.
  At present there are 45 magnetic resonance scanners in use in England and Wales, 13 of these are in the private sector but all can be used for NHS patients if the health authority and the 'owner' agree. That, of course, was never feasible under the old funding system of the NHS.
  There was a grand total of two machines in England and Wales in 1979; both in experimental stage and not available for routine NHS use. I think you have helped me to draw attention to yet another area of rapid growth in the NHS under this Government!"

  Homoeopathic Hospitals
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time at national health service homoeopathic hospitals for(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Waiting time information on individual hospitals is not collected centrally.

  Trent Regional Health Authority (Contracts)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants employed by Trent regional health authority are(a) on full-time contracts and (b) on maximum part-time contracts; and what plans he has to end part-time contracts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are currently 753 full-time and 411 part-time consultants—medical and dental —employed by Trent regional health authority. There are no plans to end part-time contracts.

  Regional Alcohol Co-ordinators
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he decided to create or support the creation of the post of regional alcohol co-ordinator for each regional health authority in England;

  (2) how much money has been (a) allocated and (b) spent by his Department to fund the appointment of regional alcohol co-ordinators in each regional health authority in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, respectively;

  (3) to date, how many regional alcohol co-ordinator posts have been (a) approved and (b) appointed for regional health authority areas in England; and if he will list the regional health authorities where a regional alcohol co-ordinator has been appointed and the date of first appointment in each case.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government's intention to fund a regional alcohol misuse co-ordinator post in each regional health authority in England was announced in the interdepartmental circular HN(89)4, a copy of which is available in the Library, on "Alcohol Misuse" issued in February 1989. Co-ordinators were appointed in all 14 regions between October 1989 and February 1990. The amount of money allocated to each regional health authority in 1990–91 was £16,000. Two regions, Northern and North West Thames, received half their 1990–91 allocation because during that year alcohol misuse was only a part of their co-ordinators' responsibilities. All the money allocated was spent. From 1991–92 onwards funding for regional alcohol misuse co-ordinator posts has been built into health authorities' baselines and is not therefore identified separately. It does, however, attract annual uplifting for inflation.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by regional health authority area, the places approved by him under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967, indicating which of these places has been approved(a) to provide early medical abortion using Mifegyne and (b) to carry out terminations after the 20th week of pregnancy.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The table provides the information requested. Clinics approved to provide early medical abortion are marked (A) and those approved to carry out late termination up to 24 weeks are marked (B).

  PLACES APPROVED UNDER SECTION 1(3) OF THE ABORTION ACT 1967—BY REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Region and Approved Places

  Northern

  Cleveland and Nuffield Hospital, Junction Road, Norton, Stockton-on-Tees TS20 1QB.
  87
  Newcastle Nuffield, Clayton Road, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NU2 1JP

  Yorkshire

  BUPA Belvedere Hospital, Belvedere Road, Scarborough YO11 2UT

  BUPA Hospital Hull and East Riding, Lowfield Road, Anlaby, Hull HU10 7AZ

  Duchy House Nuffield, Queen's Road, Harrogate, Yorkshire HG2 OHF

  Fallodon Private Surgical Hospital, 4 Allerton Park, Leeds LS7 4ND

  Fulford Grange Hospital, Micklefield Lane, Rawdon, Leeds LS19 6BA

  Hull Nuffield Hospital, Westbourne Avenue, Hull, Humberside HU5 3HP

  Yorkshire Clinic, Bradford Road, Bingley, West Yorkshire BD16 1TW

  Trent

  AMI Park Hospital, Sherwood Lodge Drive, Arnold, Nottingham NG5 8RX

  Bromhead Hospital, Nettleham Road, Lincoln LN2 1QU

  BUPA Hospital, Leicester, Gartree Road, Oadby, Leicester LE2 2FF

  Danum Lodge Nursing Home, 123 Thorne Road, Doncaster DN2 5BQ (A)

  Doncaster Independent Hospital, 51 Bawtry Road, Bessacarr, Doncaster DN4 7AA

  Leicester Nuffield Clinic, Scraptoft Lane, Leicester LE5 1HY

  Parkfield Private Hospital, Parkfield Road, Rotherham, South Yorkshire S65 2AJ

  Tapton Cliffe Clinic, 276 Fulwood Road, Sheffield S10 3BN

  East Anglia

  BUPA Hospital Norwich, Old Watton Road, Colney, Norwich NR4 7TD

  Christchurch Park Hospital, 57 Fonnereau Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 3JN

  Evelyn Hospital, Trumpington Road, Cambridge CB2 2AF

  Fitzwilliam Hospital, Milton Way, South Bretton, Peterborough PE3 8YQ

  Sandringham Private Hospital, Gayton Road, Kings Lynn, Norfolk PE30 4HU

  North West Thames

  BUPA Hospital Bushey, Heathbourne Road, Bushey, Watford, Hertfordshire WD2 7RD

  Chatsworth Clinic, 76-78 Park Road, New Barnet, Hertfordshire EN4 9QT

  Clementine Churchill Hospital, Sudbury Hill, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3RX

  Garden Hospital, 46-50 Sunny Gardens Road, Hendon, London NW4 7RX

  Park View Clinic, 87 Mattock Lane, Ealing, London W5 5BJ (A) (B)

  Royal Masonic Hospital, Ravenscourt Park, London W6
  88
  OTN

  North East Thames

  AMI Portland Hospital, 209 Great Portland Street, London WIN 6AH

  BPAS St. Anns, St. Anns Hospital, St. Anns Road, London N15 3TH (A)

  Fairfield Nursing Home, 88 Russell Road. Buckhurst Hill, Essex IG9 5BQ

  Humana Hospital Wellington, Wellington Place, London NW8

  Marie Stopes Nursing Home, 10 Manstone Road, London NW2 3XG (A)

  South East Thames

  AMI Blackheath Hospital, 40-42 Lee Terrace, London SE3 9UD

  AMI Chaucer Hospital, Nackington Road, Canterbury, Kent CT4 7AR

  Avenue Clinic, 14 New Church Road, Hove, Sussex BN3 4FE

  BUPA Alexandra Hospital, Impton Lane, Waldersladc, Kent ME5 9PG

  Leigham Private Clinic, 76 Leigham Court Road, London SW16 2QA (B)

  Raleigh Nursing Home, 1A Raleigh Gardens, Brixton Hill, London, SW2 6AB (A) (B)

  Wistons Nursing Home, 138 Dyke Road, Brighton, East Sussex BN1 SPA (A) (B)

  South West Thames

  BUPA Hospital Clare Park, Crondall Lane, Crondall, Farnham, Surrey GU10 5DT

  New Victoria Hospital, 184 Coombe Lane West, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT2 7EG

  Rosslyn Nursing Home, 15-17 Rosslyn Road, East Twickenham, Middlesex TW1 2AR (A) (B)

  Woking Nuffield Hospital, Shores Road, Woking, Surrey GU21 4BY

  Wessex

  Bath Clinic, Claverton Down Road, Coombe Down, Bath BA2 7BE

  BUPA Chalybeate Hospital, Chalybeate Close, Tremona Road, Southampton, Hants SO9 4AX

  BUPA Hospital Portsmouth, Bartons Road, Havant, Hants P09 5NP

  Dean Park Nursing Home, 23-25 Ophir Road, Bournemouth, Dorset BH8 8LS (A)

  Hampshire Clinic, Basing Road, Basingstoke, Hants RG24 OAL

  New Hall Hospital, Bodenham, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP5 4EY

  Sarum Road Private Hospital, Sarum Road, Winchester, Hants 5022 5HA

  Winterbourne Hospital, Herrington Road, Dorchester, Dorset DTI 2DR

  Oxford

  The Acland Nuffield Hospital, Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6PD
  89
  Foscote Private Hospital, Foscote Rise, Banbury, OX16 9XP

  South Western

  BUPA Hospital Bristol, Redland Hill, Durdham Downs, Bristol, BS6 7JJ

  Chesterfield Nuffield Hospital, Clifton Hill, Bristol, BS8 I BP

  Duchy Hospital, Penventinnie Lane, Treliske, Truro, TR1 3UP

  Exeter Nuffield Hospital, Wonford Road, Exeter EX2 4UG

  Plymouth Nuffield Hospital, Derriford Road, Derriford, Plymouth PLO 8BG

  Somerset Nuffield Hospital, Staplegrave Elm, Taunton, Somerset TA2 6AN

  West Midlands

  Blackdown Nursing Home, Old Milverton Lane, Blackdown, Leamington Spa CV32 6R.W (A)

  BUPA South Bank Hospital, 139 Bath Road, Worcester WR5 3AG

  Calthorpe Nursing Home, 4 Arthur Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2UL (A)

  Droitwich Private Hospital, St. Andrews Road, Droitwich, Worcestershire WR9 8EA

  Robert Nursing Home, 162 Station Road, Kings Norton, Birmingham B30 1DB (A) (B)

  Salop Nuffield Hospital, Longden Road, Shrewsbury SY3 9DP

  Wye Valley Nuffield Hospital, Venns Lane, Hereford HR I 1DF

  Mersey

  BUPA Murrayfield Hospital, Holmwood Drive, Thingwall, Wirral, Merseyside L61 LAU

  BUPA North Cheshire Hospital, Fir Tree Close, Stretton, Warrington, Cheshire WA4 4LU

  Merseyside Nursing Home, 32 Parkfield Road, Liverpool L17 8UJ (A)

  North Western

  AMI Alexandra Hospital, Mill Lane, Cheadle, Cheshire SK8 2PX

  Gisburn Park Private Hospital, Gisburn, Clitheroe, Lancashire BB7 4HX

  Highfield Private Hospital, Manchester Road, Rochdale OL 11 4LX

  South Manchester Private Clinic, 136 Chester Road, Hazel Grove, Stockport SK7 6HE (A)

  (A)—Approved to provide early medical abortion.

  (B)—Approved to carry out late terminations up to 24 weeks.

  Cervical Screening
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the total amount of expenditure on his Department's cervical screening programme for the most recent available year and outline the various elements, such as general practitioner remuneration, concerned.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  General practitioners receive payments for achieving specific targets for cervical cancer screening; the total expenditure on these in 1990–91 was 90
  £40 million. No central estimate is made of the cost of the other main elements of the cervical screening programme: the laboratory examination of smears, or the administration of the arrangements for inviting women for screening.

  Hospital Car Service
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the health service of the hospital car service in each of the last three years; and what is the estimated cost of running an alternative transport service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The total cost to the NHS of the hospital car service in each of the last three years is given in the table.

  No cost estimate is possible for an alternative service for which no plans exist.

  Expenditure on Hospital Car Service

  £,000

  1988–89

  9,659

  1989–90

  10,279

  1990–91

  11,332

  Health Promotion Clinics
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total level of payments to general practitioners for running health promotion clinics since the introduction of the new contract.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The total amount paid to general practitioners for running health promotion clinics between 1 April 1990 and 30 September 1991 was £63 million.

  Psychiatric Prisons
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many long-stay prisoners in psychiatric prisons were discharged into the care of either(a) the NHS, (b) the local authority or (c) voluntary or private care in each year since 1980; and how many of these prisoners were subsequently re-admitted.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 20 January 1992]: The information which is available relating to patients discharged from special hospitals is set out in the table. Full details of the type of care to which special hospital patients are discharged are not routinely collected by the Special Hospitals Service Authority and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Transferred to NHS hospitals

  1Discharged

  2Re-admissions to special hospitals

  1980

  146

  80

  38

  1981

  219

  81

  43

  1982

  133

  89

  35

  1983

  144

  71

  35

  1984

  112

  97

  36

  1985

  104

  96

  33

  1986

  80

  47

  51

  1987

  95

  47

  23

  1988

  101

  50

  20

  1989

  125

  43

  21

  1990

  85

  54

  22

  1 Including repatriations. Figures relating to years 1980–85 include remittances to prison.
  91
  2 Re-admissions from all sources (community, NHS hospital, court, prison).

  Re-admissions do not necessarily relate to the same year as transfer or discharge.

  Falkland Islands (Ultraviolet Light)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department has made available, or plans to make available, to residents of the Falkland Islands and visitors to them, regarding the possible health effects of exposure to ultraviolet light.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Falkland Islands Government are responsible for health matters in the Falkland Islands. They have not sought such advice from Her Majesty's Government.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the current value of the basic state pension for(a) single pensioners and (b) married couple pensioners in 1980; and what is the comparable figure for 1992, uprated for each year in line with the increase in average earnings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This April the basic retirement pension will be uprated to £54·15 for a single person and £86·70 for a married couple. Uprating by average earnings since 1980 would imply weekly rates of £68·65 and £109·60 respectively from April which would cost a man on average earnings and his employer £9·40 per week between them in extra national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current level of the married couple's retirement pension and the corresponding figure for 1979, updated by reference to annual increases in prices and average male adult earnings, whichever was the greater.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The current weekly level of basic retirement pension for a married couple is £83·25. The calculation for which the hon. Member asks would give a figure of £105·40, and would entail an increase of £8·70 per week in the national insurance contributions payable by a man on average earnings and his employer.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of raising the basic state pension in 1992–93 to(a) £60 per week for single people, £96 per week for married couples and (b) £59·15 per week for single people, £94·70 per week for married couples, on the basis that the increased pensions were paid to all regardless of contributory record.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The extra cost to the national insurance fund of providing a flat rate basic retirement pension to all Great Britain residents of state pension age or over to replace all other flat rate contributory benefits in 1992–93 would be(a) £4·3
  billion and (b) £3·9 billion. There would be some off-setting savings on expenditure on income-related benefits.

  The combined weekly cost in extra national insurance contributions of these changes to a man on average earnings and his employer would be (a) £6 and (b) £5·50.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the rules governing invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Subject to parliamentary approval, from April we intend to increase the earnings disregard for invalid care allowance from £30 to £40 a week. This will enable more carers to enjoy the advantages of a link with the world of work.

  Attendance and Mobility Allowances
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what improvements have been made to attendance allowance and mobility allowance in the last two years.

  Mr. Scott
  We have made a number of significant improvements: in 1990 we extended attendance allowance to the under-twos and gave automatic and immediate entitlement to the higher rate for people who are terminally ill. These measures have brought help to over 80,000 people to date at an annual cost of over £40 million. We also ensured entitlement to mobility allowance for people who are both deaf and blind and for people without both legs. From April 1992 disability living allowance will bring further important improvements to the help currently available.

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made to attendance allowance and mobility allowance in the last two years.

  Mr. Scott
  We have made a number of significant improvements: for attendance allowance, in 1990 we extended entitlement to the under twos and, for people who are terminally ill, we made entitlement to the higher rate automatic and abolished the six-month qualifying period. In the same year we made regulations to ensure entitlement to mobility allowance for people who are both deaf and blind, and in 1991 we made entitlement automatic for people without both legs. From April 1992, disability living allowance will replace and extend the help currently available through attendance allowance for people disabled before age 65 and mobility allowance. Attendance allowance will remain for people whose disabilities start after that age.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on targeting help towards particularly needy pensioner groups.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In April 1992 the benefit payable to low income pensioners will be uprated by 7 per cent.—nearly 3 per cent. more than the retail prices index. In addition to this, pensioners aged 80 and over, and younger disabled pensioners in receipt of income related benefits, will receive further increases worth £60 million in a full year.

  This brings the total extra help to pensioners in receipt of income related benefits to some £335 million a year above normal upratings over the last two and a half years.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many increases in child benefit have been announced(a) in the past 18 months and (b) in the preceding three years.

  Mr. Jack
  In the past 18 months we have announced three increases in child benefit. In the preceding three years, help was channeled into benefits designed to assist low-income families with the result that overall resources available to families with children are now greater than if child benefit had simply been uprated throughout the period.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of raising each of the two rates of child benefit by £1 per week in 1992–93.

  Mr. Jack
  On the basis of the latest available information, it is estimated that the gross cost would be around £640 million, and the net cost about £450 million.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of families receiving family credit; and how many families were receiving family income supplement in 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  In October 1991, a total of 348,000 families were receiving family credit compared with 78,000 receiving family income supplement in April 1979.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to revise the arrangements governing the payment of income support to those in private nursing homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to revise the way income support is paid before the full implementation of community care in April 1993.

  Income Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the level of income support for families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We receive many representations, including a number about the benefit arrangements for people who live in board and lodging accommodation. We keep these arrangements under review and have taken steps to make them more efficient and fair.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to publicise the new disability benefits that come into effect later in the current year.

  Mr. Scott
  We are planning a carefully targeted and comprehensive publicity campaign for the two new benefits—disability living allowance and disability working allowance—with the help of disabled people and their 94
  organisations. The plans include a major national television campaign starting in early February, supported by more detailed advertisements in the national press. In addition we are writing more than 1 million letters to all existing beneficiaries of attendance allowance and mobility allowance to let them know about the existing benefit changes and how to claim extra help, if appropriate. We have commissioned a series of 12 programmes about the new benefits entitled "The Way Ahead", on the BBC select out-of-hours service. The programmes, which started on 21 January, are aimed primarily at advisers and carers of disabled people. We are also writing to health professionals such as doctors and nurses to let them know about the changes.

  Pensioners (Income)
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners are in the top half of the income distribution; and what were the comparable figures for 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I am pleased to tell the House that 28 per cent. of pensioners were in the top half of the total income distribution compared with only 24 per cent. in 1979.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the weekly burden of national insurance contributions on someone on one and a half times male average earnings.

  Mr. Jack
  Currently someone earning £490 a week pays £31·46 in national insurance contributions. If there were no upper earnings limit, a married man earning this amount would lose a further £9 off typical take-home pay of £360 a week.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra help, over and above normal upratings, has been made available to help low-income families since 1987.

  Mr. Jack
  The restructuring of the income-related benefits in 1988 enabled extra help to be directed at low income families and from April this will be worth more than £600 million a year in real terms.

  State Earnings-related Pensions
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of SERPS.

  Mr. Jack
  The state earnings-related pension scheme —SERPS—is operating satisfactorily and more than 3 million pensioners are in receipt of an additional pension from SERPS. The scheme is now on a sound financial footing and future generations should be able to meet the state's pension commitments in the next century.

  Hours of Work
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of(a) income support and (b) housing benefit during 1991 had their benefit reduced

  95
  by the presence of non-dependants; and how many of these were (i) working more than 24 hours a week, (ii) working between 16 and 24 hours a week and (iii) working less than 16 hours.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Data drawn from the 1990 housing benefit management information statistics and the 1990 annual statistical inquiry indicate that the number of beneficiaries whose benefit is calculated to take account of the presence of non-dependants and the associated number of non-dependants on 31 May 1990 were as follows:

  Income Support

  Housing Benefit

  Number of claimants

  30,000

  350,000

  Number of non-dependants

  38,000

  510,000

  Information on hours worked by non-dependants is not available from these sources. However, modelling using data drawn from the 1986–88 family expenditure surveys uprated to 1991–92 prices and benefit levels suggest that the proportions of non-dependants working for the hours stated would be:

  Non-dependants who give rise to a non-dependant deduction: estimated percentage working stated hours per week

  Claimants benefit

  Hours worked

  Income support

  Housing benefit

  Less than 16

  32

  38

  16-23

  1

  6

  24 or more

  67

  56

  Housing benefit—Great Britain

  (i)Local authority tenants

  (ii) and (iii)Private and housing association tenants

  Premium

  (a) Pensioner

  (b) Family

  (c) Other

  (a) Pensioner

  (b) Family

  (c) Other

  (x) Maxmimum benefit

  723,00

  530,000

  416,000

  235,000

  132,000

  273,000

  (y) Maximum with non-dependant deduction

  101,000

  32,000

  71,000

  12,000

  4,000

  9,000

  (z) Other lesser amount

  812,000

  78,000

  165,000

  186,000

  21,000

  196,000

  Notes:

  (1) Fifty-seven per cent. of local authority tenants receive housing benefit, of which 32 per cent. are pensioners, 13 per cent. are families and 13 per cent. other.

  (2) Forty-seven per cent. of private and housing association tenants receive housing benefit, of which 19 per cent. are pensioners, 7 per cent. families and 21 per cent. other.

  (3) Estimates of regional figures are unreliable.

  (4) May 1991 information is not yet available.

  Source: Housing Benefit Management Information System.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will change the rules on housing benefit so that a local authority that successfully uncovers a fraud does not lose subsidy.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A local authority which successfully detects fraud and recovers wrongly paid benefit need not lose financially. It receives partial subsidy on the overpayment and retains all the money it recovers. If an authority received the same full rate of subsidy for fraudulent housing benefit awards as for legitimate ones, there would be little if any financial incentive to put resources into verifying new claims. Under the present rules, however, authorities have an incentive to scrutinize

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amendments he is considering to the disability working allowance scheme before it is introduced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) earlier today.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the new disability working allowance comes into operation.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealdon (Sir G. Johnson Smith) earlier today.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) pensioner households, (b) families with children and (c) other households who are tenants of (i) local authorities and new towns, (ii) housing associations and (iii) other landlords, are estimated to be receiving (x) maximum housing benefit with no deductions for dependants, (y) maximum housing benefit but with deductions for non-dependants and (z) a lesser amount of housing benefit, towards their rent payments at May 1990 and May 1991, in Great Britain as a whole, and in each region for which figures are available; and what proportion of the total number of tenants in each category they represent.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available estimates for May 1990 are as follows:

  claims carefully because they will receive less subsidy if fraud is subsequently detected. In addition, as the partial subsidy made on a fraudulent payment is retained, authorities have a financial incentive to put resources into recovery.

  Concession Cards
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce an over-60s concession card in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The United Kingdom, together with all other member states, is currently considering the implementation of a Communitywide over-60s card in accordance
  97
  with the EC recommendation of May 1989 While the United Kingdom has declared itself in favour of the proposal, if it can be made to work effectively throughout the Community, some countries still have reservations about the scheme. The Department is continuing discussions with officials of the Commission and other member states in an effort to resolve outstanding problems.

  I recently wrote to Members of the European Parliament about this matter and I will send the hon. Member a copy of the letter.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will issue instructions concerning cold weather payments to ensure all Bradford postcode areas are covered by the same weather centre; if he will ensure that all those eligible to the payment in Bradford are paid for the period 7 December to 13 December and for any period since, when only some people living in Bradford postcode areas have received payment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The cold weather payments scheme is based on a system which ensures that the weather in all parts of the country is monitored by an appropriate weather station. Payments cannot be made for an area covered by a weather station that did not register temperatures cold enough to trigger a payment under the regulations, but all payments due under the social fund cold weather regulations have been, or will be made shortly.

  Social Fund Inspectors
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many social fund inspectors were employed on 31 December;

  (2) how many applications for review by a social fund inspector were outstanding for more than one month on 31 December.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the Social Fund Commissioner that on 31 December 1991, there were 64 social fund inspectors—SFIs—employed and 3,463 review applications outstanding for more than one month. A further eight SFIs started work on 6 January 1992. They are currently undergoing training.

  Financial and Management Information System
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, column 286, what developments have taken place in his use of FAMIS during his tenure as Secretary of State; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Development of the early phases of the financial and management information system, commenced in October 1990 and they are on target for implementation to begin in April 1992. Meanwhile, the Department has developed interim resource management facilities to improve budget and work control and has introduced a devolved personnel management system.

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

The Kurdish People
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to respond to the examination of the Kurdish situation conducted by Mr Jeffrey Archer.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we shall continue to monitor the situation in the region and remain in touch with Kurdish political leaders. We shall be ready to respond as necessary. We are determined to keep up the pressure on Iraq to fulfil all its obligations under Security Council resolutions.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful for that encouraging reply from the Minister. Will he further agree that Mr. Jeffrey Archer did a remarkable job in encouraging the Kurdish people and in his subsequent broadcasts in this country he has helped to open the eyes of our people? But one matter causes perturbation. Is it possible that in four or five weeks' time the British and Americans could leave the area? That would cause grave anxiety to the Kurdish people and others.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the tribute that the noble Lord has paid to Mr. Jeffrey Archer for the work he has done. The report that he brought back after his recent visit showed how grateful the Kurds are to the British Government for the help we have given them. Regarding the coalition
2
forces at the moment based in Southern Turkey, I can tell the House that they will remain there at least until the end of June.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the blockade that the Iraqi regime is conducting against the Kurds is against the United Nations resolution to which the noble Earl referred? Will he say what action is to be taken in connection with the Prime Minister's suggestion that there should be an aid donors conference? Is such a conference to be convened and, if so, when?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are discussing with our allies and UN agencies how to ensure that adequate supplies continue to reach the population of Northern Iraq for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn: that is, the blockade being put on them.
Regarding the conference, yes, my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, wishes to hold a conference to reinforce the commitment we have to that part of the world.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl say what will be done to put this man in Baghdad in his place? His behaviour is precisely as though he had won the Gulf War. What action is being taken to relieve the Kurds from an illegal blockade?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, considerable action is being taken at the United Nations. Perhaps it would be best if I quoted what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in New York on 31st January:
"The Security Council cannot ignore that breach of Resolution 688. We cannot lay down the shield we have provided to protect Iraq's vulnerable communities".
We shall continue with it.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, we appreciate everything that is being done by this and other governments to help the Kurds. However, is not the real trouble Saddam Hussein? How long will that wretched man stay in power?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we would shed no tears if he went today.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the terrible thing that scares everyone in that part of the world is one man, probably one of the most appalling Fascists of all time—Saddam Hussein. However, there is one point in Mr. Jeffrey Archer's report which he stressed and I ask the Government to consider it: for the Kurds to be able to eat next year they must plant the seeds for their food this year. Could this be considered or referred to the United Nations with the confidence that we shall not allow Saddam Hussein to harm the Kurds so that they will be able to grow the food they require in due course?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is exactly the kind of assistance we wish to give. Obviously, the Kurds would like to live a quiet, peaceful life in their own part of the world. We wish to encourage them to do that.

Eyesight Testing: Drivers over 70
2.42 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering the introduction of compulsory eyesight testing for drivers over the age of 70.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we believe that the present arrangements for the renewal of licences after the age of 70 make adequate provision for the possible deterioration of eyesight among older drivers.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that one of the difficulties is that people can be unaware that their eyesight is deteriorating? This was recently confirmed in the court case where a driver killed a woman, having knocked another woman down five months previously. Later he was judged by the police surgeon to have had deteriorating eyesight for 10 years. Yet one woman just escaped death and the other was killed and dragged along by the car. Does the Minister agree that compulsory testing at the age of 70 would involve no extra administrative work because all records for drivers are checked at that age? Nevertheless an earlier test may be necessary.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I quite agree that the incident to which my noble friend referred was an appalling incident. I should point out that the offender was aged 56. There is nothing to suggest that abuse of the law is widespread. It is an offence to drive without being able to pass the simple number plate test. The police can stop drivers they believe to have defective eyesight. At the age of 70 drivers have to apply for a new licence and they must fill in a form which contains specific reference to the quality of a driver's eyesight. They must be able to respond in the affirmative to questions on that subject.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, how does the vehicle accident rate of drivers over 70 compare with that of drivers aged under 25, for example?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is significant that drivers with the best eyesight, in other words young drivers, have the worst accident record.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I must first declare a personal interest in this Question. Is the Minister aware that Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 added three new provisions to the 1988 Act? When that was done, was any consideration given to the point the noble Baroness has just made and was any review undertaken before the alterations were made?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, changes may have been made to the legislation but the principle remains the same. It is an offence to drive a car unless one can pass the eyesight test, whether one is under or over 70. If one cannot pass the test, one should not drive.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, in view of the fact that eyesight deteriorates with age, does my noble friend think it reasonable that once someone obtains a driving licence he does not have to undergo another eye examination for the rest of his days?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, drivers have to pass a simple test which consists of being able to read a number plate at a certain distance. That is a cheap and effective test and does not involve someone having to visit an optician and pay the fees incurred in such a visit. There is no reason to believe that most people are dishonest when they fill in their application forms for a new licence at the age of 70. I believe they must state that they can pass the eyesight test. If they cannot pass that test, they must take the required measures to enable them to pass it.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, the Minister has told us the police are empowered to request an eyesight test. Will the Minister encourage magistrates and those prosecuting offenders in court for dangerous driving or driving offences of any kind to ask for an eyesight test to be carried out if they feel the defendant has bad eyesight?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, at the moment there are around 300 prosecutions a year for eyesight offences. However, I shall certainly bear in mind my noble friend's remarks.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in view of the fact that one is not necessarily aware that one's eyesight is deteriorating, and that the number plate test is undertaken only when a driving licence is first applied for, if the Government are unwilling to do anything in this matter will my noble friend consider recommending to insurance companies that they should demand that some kind of an eyesight test is carried out? After all, we all renew our insurance annually.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope I may correct my noble friend. The number plate test is not a test that one needs to pass only when one applies for

5
a driving licence. Drivers are expected to be able to fulfil that eyesight standard at all times. The College of Ophthalmologists and the Association of Optometrists consider the test to be adequate for road safety purposes.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as one who has passed the eyesight test within the past 10 days, I hope I may ask my noble friend whether he agrees that defective eyesight does not account for the vast majority of accidents. Does my noble friend accept that other forms of bad driving account for a greater proportion of accidents?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend's remarks. There is no evidence to suggest that poor eyesight is a significant cause of road accidents. As I have said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, those who notionally have the best eyesight have the worst accident record.

Lavatory Cisterns: Flushing Capacity
2.48 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much they estimate it will cost to give effect within the United Kingdom to the European Community regulation due to come into force in 1993 that lavatories should have a maximum flushing capacity of 1·6 gallons; and what proportion of the cost incurred they propose to pay or re-imburse from public funds.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not aware of any European Community legislation of the kind the noble Lord describes. However, water by-laws in England, Scotland and Wales and regulations in Northern Ireland already include a requirement for single flush WC cisterns installed in domestic properties to deliver not more than 7.5 litres, which is approximately 1.6 gallons. On 1st January 1993 this requirement will be extended to any WC cistern installed in any property, with only limited exceptions. However, any existing WC cisterns lawfully installed before the by-laws or regulations came into force can continue in use.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am not at all surprised that Her Majesty's Government lack the information that is already available to The Times, with whom I have checked this matter? An article on this subject appeared in The Times on 9th December last. Does he agree that the date of 1st January 1993 has a certain familiarity in relation to the EC itself, in view of the coming into operation of the single market? Will the noble Earl please instruct the representatives of his ministry or of COREPER to make themselves aware of the existence of certain EC regulations which, as the noble Earl knows, come into operation automatically as part of English law automatically under the European Communities Act 1972?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I am aware of the newspaper article to which he referred. It is erroneous in so far as it refers to a current EC regulation. There is no current EC regulation; nor is such a regulation immediately in prospect. Any future EC standard governing the capacity of a cistern will almost certainly need to be linked to a corresponding standard for the design of the WC pan. The Government will do all they can to ensure that standards set do not conflict with present UK practice as defined under the by-laws.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, for those who have not yet touched base on this particular matter, following his interesting original Answer, will my noble friend tell the House what is or will be the legal status of dual flush lavatories?
Earl Howe: My Lords, at present a cistern giving a single flush of 7.5 litres or a dual flush not exceeding 9.5 litres can be installed in a domestic property. In a non-domestic property a cistern giving a single flush of 7.5 litres or 9.5 litres or a dual flush exceeding 9.5 litres can be installed. From 1st January 1993 only cisterns giving a flush of 7.5 litres may be installed, except that where cisterns giving a larger or dual flush are replaced the replacement cistern may be of similar capacity to the original.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, when will this nonsense stop? So far as I am concerned the regulations would not touch the sides. Are the Government aware that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has frequently stated that we should all put a brick into our cisterns in order to save water? Will the Government throw their full resources behind His Royal Highness in the future should some crackpot take him to the European Court?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we must all be in sympathy with the spirit of His Royal Highness's stated opinion. However, to put a brick in the cistern is not always the most efficient way of saving water as it might very well result in having to flush the cistern twice.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether there is a standard test for the efficiency of a loo flush beyond the normal one which we practice each morning?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the British Standard test for the flushability of WC pans incorporates three elements. The first is the paper ball test under which 12 sheets of soft paper of a type and size specified are loosely screwed up and placed into the pan. They must be cleared four out of five times. The second is the sawdust test whereby a damp WC pan is coated with sawdust. After flushing, the area still covered with sawdust must be no more than 5,000 square millimetres. Thirdly, there is a resin ball test in which a ball of specified relative density must be cleared four times out of five. All three tests must be passed.
Lord Annan: My Lords, this is a gross smear upon M. Delors and the European Community. In questions of bureaucracy the European Community has nothing on this country.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his opinion. I would simply point out that the draft treaty signed at Maastricht inserts an article on subsidiarity into the Treaty of Rome for the first time. The text is designed to prevent unnecessary new Community activity on policies best left to member states. It is up to us how we give effect to our own regulations.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, would the Minister like to institute a search in the Palace of Westminster? Is he aware that the ladies' lavatories, which he has probably not visited, would not conform to the test?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot personally deal with the problem to which the noble Baroness referred, but I shall bring her remarks to the attention of the appropriate person.
Lord Monson: My Lords, to follow up the noble Earl's reply to my noble friend Lord Annan, does he not agree that the mere prospect of European Community regulations in this matter, even if they are not yet in force, demonstrates that the promises made at Maastricht to the effect that henceforth subsidiarity will apply and there will be an end to petty interference in the internal affairs of member states was a fraudulent promise?
Earl Howe: My Lords, "fraudulent" is a very strong word. The important aspect of the Maastricht treaty is that for the first time an article on subsidiarity has been inserted. That is a very serious matter for all member states.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of us are now totally confused about the issue, particularly since it appears that in relation to cistern capacity it is in order for the Duke of Edinburgh to drop a brick? Can he confirm that the flush capacity of 1.6 gallons has been arrived at as a result of proper scientific research? If that is not the right quantity and does not do the job properly, will people not be inclined to flush the toilet twice and thereby waste water instead of conserving it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's last point. The efficacy of a flush is governed by two principal factors: the volume of water in the cistern and the design of the WC pan. I am pleased to say that in the matter of the syphonic apparatus Britain leads the world.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in appreciation of the Government's acceptance of full responsibility for this grave national matter may we have the noble Earl's assurance that in pursuit of these sanitary experiences Her Majesty's Government will not go further round the bend?
Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords.

Basic Income Scheme: Feasibility
2.57 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made on the examination of the economic and administrative feasibility of a basic income scheme that was recommended in 1982 by a sub-committee of the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government have considered a number of such proposals and concluded that to pay a substantial benefit to everyone irrespective of their financial circumstances would involve an unacceptable increase in public expenditure and in the level and burden of taxation on earnings.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that other people have considered the matter and that, for example, the Basic Income Research Group has concluded that:
"Basic Income would enhance individual freedom, and would help to prevent poverty, end the poverty and unemployment traps, reduce unemployment and create a less divided society".
Such a scheme could be introduced by degrees, avoiding excessive expenditure at the beginning. That being so, will the Government consider the matter again?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, to a great extent the points raised by the noble Lord were addressed by the Government's 1986 Green Paper on the reform of personal taxation and in the reforms which have taken place subsequently. The worst aspect of the poverty trap was removed by the 1988 social security reforms in conjunction with subsequent reforms in the tax and national insurance systems. In 1985 70,000 people faced deductions of more than £1 for each extra £1 earned. Projections for 1991–92 show that nobody is now in that position. The unemployment trap was also minimised by the 1988 reforms. In 1985 about 60,000 people were better off on benefits than in work. Projections for 1991–92 show only about 5,000 people now in that position.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us when the examination took place of a basic income scheme? Where can we find the results?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, the Government's responses to the recommendations are to be found in the 1986 Green Paper on the reform of personal taxation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is not the problem with the basic income scheme that the level is so low that it does not reduce poverty or so high that it is simply too expensive to finance out of taxation? I believe that that is what the noble Lord said.
Does the noble Lord agree that the present benefit system is so complex that virtually no one understands it? The great advantage of a basic income scheme is that it simplifies matters. If the Government survive, will they consider simplifying social security so that at

9
least some of the people involved understand the system? Alternatively, would they support a new government's thinking along those lines?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. The Government have done much to simplify the whole taxation and social security system since 1979. The two examples that I have already outlined on the poverty trap and the unemployment trap are good. When the Government are re-elected at the next election we shall no doubt continue to pursue our aim of simplification and enhancement.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that these proposals, originally put forward by the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams —a good friend, much missed by many in your Lordships' House—had the merit of attempting to help those in greatest need? It must be right to move towards the taxation of all social security benefit payments so that the tax on benefit to those who are better off can be used to give greater benefits to those in greater need.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend is right. However, to go down the road proposed in the Question—to give everyone a basic income high enough to eliminate the need for income support—would be very expensive. In order to finance such a scheme marginal income tax rates would have to be much higher than they are now and that would be bad for work incentives.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is a real problem for very poor people? As from December 1991 about 50,000 people on social benefits will be paying a marginal rate of tax of 90 per cent. Does he agree that that is entirely wrong? Will the Government re-examine the position, with a view to helping that class of people who are at the bottom of the income scale?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that the social security system should be aimed at helping exactly the people to whom the noble Lord refers. In an earlier answer I stated that with regard to the poverty trap in 1985 70,000 people faced deductions of more than £1 for each extra pound they earned. Projections for the current year show that no one is now in that position.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that although the basic income guarantee scheme may be expensive, the problem of low take-up which currently exists would be much helped if everyone was entitled to an income without having to prove their status?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the criticisms of the scheme that I have put forward, I have answered that question.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a
10
Statement that is to be made in another place on the special meeting of the UN Security Council, incorporating President Yeltsin's visit.

Business of the House: Debates, 12th February
3.4 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Chalfont and the Lady Saltoun of Abernethy set down for 12th February shall each be limited to 2½ hours.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty having been informed of the purport of the Further and Higher Education Bill has consented to place her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 3 [Part-time education, and full-time education for those over 18]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("adequate") and insert ("sufficient").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 10 and 17.
On 14th January 1 moved amendments to seek to discover any differences in the use of the word "sufficient" which appears twice in Clause 2, and "adequate" which appears in Clauses 3, 4 and 11. The word "inadequate" appears in Clause 6. At col. 162 the Minister said that Clause 2 carries over the duty imposed on local education authorities under Section 8 of the 1944 Act,
"to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools … for providing secondary education".
The 1944 Act was passed in the middle of a war in which many schools had been destroyed, when compulsory education ceased at the age of 14, when most children did not receive secondary education but completed their education in schools for 5 to 14 year-olds, and when it was hoped that the school leaving age would be raised to 15 as soon as possible after the war.
At that time it must have been considered to be a very high priority to provide sufficient secondary schools after the war. In any case, comparatively few attended courses, either full-time or part-time, in what we now think of as further education. However, local authorities took seriously their new duty to provide further education. I doubt whether they considered that their duty to provide further education was less strong than their duty to provide secondary schools.
Indeed, many provided further education colleges some time before they completed the provision of secondary schools for all pupils. Building resources were limited. Administrators may have given higher priority to capital programmes for schools than for further education.
It was possibly those decisions that led those in the Ministry of Education to the view that the term "sufficient" in Section 8 of the 1944 Act imposed what the Minister on 14th January called a stronger power than the term "adequate" in Section 41 of that Act.
The year 1944 was a long time ago. Conditions have changed greatly since then. In particular in some areas of the country local authorities provide all their post-compulsory age education in tertiary colleges. In those places there are no institutions operating under schools regulations. Moreover, further education, both full-time and part-time, has expanded greatly.
I had thought that there was no real difference of strength between the duties being imposed. Whatever was said or thought 48 years ago in 1944, I find it difficult to believe that when we now seek by legislation to impose duties, we do so implying that there are various strengths of duty which future Secretaries of State, funding councils, local education authorities or further and higher education institutions are able reasonably to judge now, or perhaps 48 years in the future. In particular, it would be wrong to suggest to new funding councils set up to finance what is called in the Bill the new further education sector that there are differences of strength in the duties that they are given based on what some regard as an accepted interpretation about the provision of schools in 1944.
The Minister stated that "sufficient" is thought to be stronger than "adequate", and that to use the latter rather than the former would be to level down. There should be no misunderstanding about possible levels of duty or commitment to part-time education or to those perhaps with learning difficulties. My amendments therefore seek to avoid that possibility by using the word "sufficient" or "insufficient" rather than "adequate" or "inadequate" where they occur in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is a matter which we have discussed at previous stages of the Bill. I have made the point that we are not in the business of changing the strength of duties. The legislation seeks to set out where, in future, those duties should lie. The use of the word "sufficient" in Clause 2 carries over to the funding councils the duty imposed on local education authorities under Section 8 of the Education Act 1944, as the noble Baroness recognised. The use of the word "adequate" in Clauses 3, 6 and 11 reflects the wording of the duty imposed on LEAs under Section 41 of the Education Act 1944.
In Clause 4 the drafting does not reflect an existing provision. The requirement there is to use independent-sector placements for students with learning difficulties when provision in the funding council sector would not be adequate for the individual student who is so disabled. It is important to note that
12
in Clause 4 the concept of adequacy is tied to the needs of the individual student. I believe that that accurately expresses the criterion to be applied.
I do not want to make too much of the difference between those two terms. Any dictionary will tell us that "sufficient" means, among other things, "adequate", and "adequate" means, among other things, "sufficient". As I explained to the noble Baroness on Report in response to her probing the use of the word "sufficient" in Clause 2, it has been generally accepted for the purposes of the duty on local education authorities under Section 8 of the 1944 Act that the term imposed a somewhat stronger duty than the term "adequate" in Section 41, to which the noble Baroness referred. In tabling the amendments, she is seeking therefore to "level up" the duty in respect of part-timers and those aged 19 or more. The Government's view is that the existing duties taken from the 1944 Act are correct, and we do not want to alter the wording in the way suggested.
One of the reasons I say that is that of course Clause 2 contains the principle of meeting the reasonable needs of all persons to whom the duty extends. Clauses 3 and 11 do not go quite so far, but, in my opinion, we should not get too concerned about this matter. There is still a firm duty in Clauses 3 and 11 to secure an adequate service, and adequate means fit for the purpose or, as I have said, sufficient. I hope that that meets the noble Baroness halfway.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, the courts are bound to construe "adequate" as "reasonably sufficient". There is no mileage in this matter. It is a question of words which, in the long run, will come to the same thing.
Baroness David: My Lords, I was encouraged to table the amendments because the Minister said that "sufficient" bears a stronger meaner than "adequate". When I spoke previously I quoted the Oxford Dictionary definitions which were similar, as the Minister said. I must accept what the Minister has said. I shall read what he said, because I am not wholly convinced by what he said about the duty being strong enough in respect of the other clauses. I can do no more now. I am pleased that I raised this matter. It has been an interesting discussion, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Persons with learning difficulties]:
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may if it appears to him to be expedient in implementation of the provisions of this section—

(a) issue Codes of Guidance for clarification of the nature and extent of any duty arising under such provisions,

(b) by order issue Codes of Practice as to the procedure by which any such duty shall be discharged.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment affords a mere permissive exercise of discretionary

13
power to the Secretary of State. It was not until Report stage that the Government accepted the substance of amendments designed to introduce an express statutory duty to secure provision to meet the requirement of persons with learning difficulties, and then introduced their own amendments to such effect, which were acknowledged with gratitude on all sides of your Lordships' House.
It was a formidable advance, but it left in its wake one matter for clarification with which my noble friend Lord Cavendish dealt, and to some degree left open. I return to it merely to gain your Lordships' opinion as to what, if anything, should be done about it. It then became obvious, as your Lordships will appreciate, that without some procedure for assessment it would not be possible to discharge that new duty, and that other procedures relevant to the discharge of the duty under Clause 4(2) and (4) were appropriate. That was recognised by my noble friends the Ministers for, on the first day of Report when outlining the Government's conclusions on the arguments adduced in Committee in favour of establishing that express statutory duty, my noble friend Lord Cavendish referred to the Government's intention in that regard and to how that duty would be implemented. He said that it was the intention of the Government to issue guidance on certain matters, but that they would need notice of the question of my noble friend Lord Renton as to the form in which such guidance was to be given.
The point is made, first, that the amendment could not have been tabled at an earlier stage of the Bill. I say that to avoid having to apologise too profusely for raising it so late. It could not have been raised earlier. Secondly, procedures in the implementation of Clause 4 have been considered only on Report, inevitably. Thirdly, it is not known whether it is the Government's intention to issue guidance with or without legal efficacy. That is the point.
According to my noble friend Lord Cavendish, the purpose of issuing such guidance to the LEAs is to ensure that there is no doubt as to the extent of existing duties. He referred, for example, to making it a condition of grant that each funding council should obtain specialist advice when it was not available internally—a matter discussed on the Floor of your Lordships' House at some stage; secondly, to procedures of assessment being given proper attention without introducing undue inflexibility—another matter discussed in your Lordships' House; thirdly, to the interpretation of "disproportionate expenditure"—another matter discussed in your Lordships' House; and to transport for students with disabilities, which was discussed, and placement, which I believe was not discussed.
The amendment is essential for clarification. It is permissive, as your Lordships see. It is not mandatory. It enables the Secretary of State, if so advised, to issue codes of guidance under paragraph (a) or codes of practice under paragraph (b). It matters not what they are called. What matters, as your Lordships well know, is the legal status of the codes. Usually one refers to a code of guidance as being a code of guidance with no legal efficacy. A code of practice
14
sometimes has legal efficacy. However, if the Secretary of State wishes, for example, in the sphere of assessment to issue a code of practice which had a form of legal efficacy, without the trigger clause, as it has been called in other debates, provided by paragraph (b), he cannot do it.
The amendment is purely enabling. It does not require the Secretary of State to act. It accords broadly with the Bill's structure, because your Lordships will see in Clause 3(6) the power to amend a schedule by order, a matter which was discussed. If the Secretary of State wants to exercise that form of power in relation to children with learning difficulties he could do so, for example, as regards assessment, and with regard to some of the other matters, such as placement, he could issue codes of guidance under paragraph (a). It is entirely a matter for him.
I cannot assist your Lordships further save to say that the question of assessment is crucial. There is an extremely intricate and complex statutory regime for assessment under the 1981 Act. At the age of 16 a person can suddenly change from the regime under the 1981 Act to the new regime provided by this Act.
It is important because we do not suggest, and have never suggested, that assessment should be on the same legalistic and tightly controlled lines of the 1981 Act applicable in this sector; but there should be some form of assessment. Without assessment the duties cannot be fulfilled. Therefore, your Lordships may think it sensible to have an enabling clause so that that can be done.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Belstead for his courtesy and consideration in entertaining discussions with me on this matter. I believe I am at liberty to say that there are objections to the amendment but I hope that he will allow me to say that I have never quite understood what they are. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has put his finger on the nub of the problem as regards deciding what kind of help should be given to children with special needs. This amendment would help in that regard by making provision for the issue of guidelines within which the authorities can work. Moreover, not only can the Secretary of State make but he can also change such guidelines. As more studies are done on existing disabilities and, indeed, those yet to be discovered, the Secretary of State will be able to change the legislation to ensure that the right help is given to students with disabilities.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I add my thanks to those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to the noble Lords, Lord Belstead and Lord Cavendish of Furness. The amendments which they made to Clause 4 have gone all the way towards meeting us. The reason I support this amendment—it is permissive and enables the Secretary of State, if he so wishes, to issue codes of guidance or practice—is to raise two points which still remain unclear. If they could be cleared by means of an answer this afternoon, so much the better. If that

15
is not possible, the codes of guidance or practice will make an admirable vehicle for clearing up any doubts which may reside in the minds of some of us.
For example, are we right in understanding that the provision for students aged under 25, which have been extended from the school provisions, are to be free as are the school provisions? That is not clear on the face of the Bill and perhaps that could be clarified.
Secondly, it is not absolutely clear that Clause 4 extends support to those particular categories of disabled person; for example, support provided by interpreters, readers or specialist equipment necessary for blind or deaf people. We should gratefully receive any clarification on that.
I have given notice of my questions to the Minister. It seems to me that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which provides for codes of practice or guidance is a very good peg on which to hang those two questions. I should be grateful for an answer either now or perhaps in writing later.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my noble friend explained why this amendment has been brought forward rather late. I accept his explanation and believe that there is no need for an apology.
This amendment would empower the Secretary of State to issue codes of guidance to ensure that the requirements of the Bill in relation to students with learning difficulties were properly understood and to issue codes of practice, in the form of statutory instruments, specifying how those requirements must be met. I understand the anxiety which has led my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway to bring forward the amendment, but the Government do not believe that it is necessary or helpful.
As your Lordships will know, we have taken heed of the anxieties expressed in previous debates about the arrangements in the new sector for students with learning difficulties. Those have been generously acknowledged. We brought forward amendments to introduce a new duty in Clause 4 as regards the use of placements in independent specialist colleges and in Schedule 8 to clarify LEAs' responsibilities on transport in relation to those students. In addition, we have undertaken to require the funding councils, as a condition of grant, to ensure that they have the benefit of specialist advice on the education of students with learning difficulties.
We have undertaken also that the Secretary of State will issue guidance to the further education funding councils on their responsibilities in the new further education structure. This guidance will cover in particular the crucial question of assessment, and the application of the phrase "disproportionate expenditure", to which my noble friend drew our attention. I believe that those additional measures in relation to students with learning difficulties have been welcomed by your Lordships.
This amendment now seeks to take us further in the guidance area. First, it creates a specific power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance. However, the Secretary of State needs no specific power to do so. That part of the amendment is redundant.
16
The amendment also introduces the further concept of codes of practice that would specify how the Bill's requirements are to be discharged. These would take the form of orders subject to the negative resolution procedure. It is important to be clear about the parliamentary process involved. Clause 87 requires orders made under the Bill to be made by statutory instrument, except in relation to provisions which are excepted from this requirement. My noble friend has not included anything to make the proposed new subsection an excepted provision, so any statutory instrument made under his provision would require Parliament's approval by, as I mentioned, the negative resolution procedure.
The amendment would thus add to the Secretary of State's armoury. In addition to issuing guidance or codes of practice in the normal way he would be empowered, in relation to further education students with learning difficulties, to issue codes of practice which would have the force of statutory instrument. I am sure that that addition to the Secretary of State's armoury is intended to be helpful. However, the effect would not be helpful in practice. First, the availability of two kinds of document would create confusion. It would risk devaluing guidance or codes of practice not issued under this proposed power because they would be seen not to have the same statutory backing.
Furthermore, the procedure proposed would apply only to students with learning difficulties. Would that not devalue any guidance which the Secretary of State may issue on other topics? I fear that the two-tier structure proposed by my noble friend would introduce at least as many problems as it would solve. The amendment gives statutory force to codes of practice issued by the Secretary of State detailing the procedures to be followed in making provision for students with learning difficulties. I must say that I cannot follow my noble friend. As I understand it, his contention is that the duty towards students with disabilities is too vague to be enforceable. Requirements in the form of statutory instruments would give the courts more to bite on. My noble friend, in his professional practice, has involvement in cases of this kind and we must respect his experience. However, with the greatest respect, I do not agree with him on the nature of the duty in the Bill, nor, therefore, on the need to reinforce it as he proposes.
The noble Lord's anxiety, as I understand it, stems from the duty in Clause 4 being merely to "have regard" to the needs of students with learning difficulties. That anxiety is misplaced. It overlooks the fact that the primary duty towards students with learning difficulties is not the "have regard" provision of Clause 4, but the duty to secure educational provision contained in Clauses 2 and 3.
As your Lordships know, the duty to secure educational provision is in Clauses 2 and 3, subsection (1) in each case. That duty applies to all students, whether or not they have disabilities. The duty is perfectly clear and is enforceable, if necessary, through the courts. What Clause 4 then provides is additional duties towards students with learning difficulties. Clause 4 requires the funding councils, in discharging the primary duty to secure educational

17
provision in Clauses 2 and 3, specifically to have regard to the needs of students with learning difficulties, and to use placements in the independent specialist colleges where appropriate. For students with learning difficulties Clause 4 thus provides a reinforcement of the primary duty to secure educational provision in Clauses 2 and 3. Clause 4 does not need to contain a duty stronger than "have regard", because the duty to secure educational provision is elsewhere.
This is an important amendment, and I have spoken at some length. In essence, the Government's position is simple. The amendment would be harmful, as the two-tier structure of guidance that it would introduce would cast doubt on the worth of guidance not issued by statutory instrument and thus cause confusion. Most important, the amendment is unnecessary. It is intended to remedy a perceived inadequacy of the duty in Clause 4. That is unnecessary because the duty to secure educational provision for students with learning difficulties is unambiguously set out in Clauses 2 and 3.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, kindly gave me notice of the questions he intended to raise. The first concerns fees for adult students with learning difficulties. Nothing in the Bill changes the present arrangement. In making provision the colleges in the new FE sector and the LEAs will, as now, have discretion as to the fees they charge. They will also be able to waive or reduce any fees in specific cases. The LEAs will retain the power to provide discretionary awards which may cover fees or maintenance. Those options continue.
The second question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, concerned the availability of specialist equipment and human support for students with learning difficulties. Under present arrangements LEAs ensure that facilities such as sign language, interpreters or braille embossers are available. Under the new structure LEAs will retain the ability to provide the support while making educational provision. The further education funding councils also will be able to provide the same support in this sphere of responsibility.
I hope that I have answered the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and that I have been able to persuade my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my noble friend has not persuaded me to withdraw the amendment by anything that he said. But your Lordships will be relieved that I do not propose to press the matter to a Division. I shall speak briefly.
There are essentially three objections made by my noble friend Lord Cavendish. First, he says that the amendment is harmful; then he said that it is not necessary and, finally, that it is not helpful. That it is harmful is pure nonsense. The Department of Employment, as all your Lordships are aware, runs a two-tier code of practice, part under (A) and part under (B). I used it as a precedent for the drafting of my amendment, so that response is so much nonsense.
18
Secondly, my noble friend said that the amendment is not necessary and not helpful. For the sake of saving a little time, I shall roll both those into one. If the Secretary of State does not think that they are helpful or necessary he will not use them. What then would be the object of passing the amendment? I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Administration of funds by councils]:
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("subject to that").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 40, which relates to the higher education funding councils. It employs precisely the wording moved at Report stage but not, at that late hour, pressed to a Division. It may look like a drafting amendment, containing merely three words. However, in moving the amendment, I should like the House to convey the message, which is an important one, "Do not deter benefactors". That is what the amendment is concerned with.
I am sure that it is not appropriate to repeat at length the points I made in my speech at Report stage. However, the issue is quite simple: that money deriving from benefactors, from private sources, in the hands of universities and departments should not be required to be used to repay funding councils, for whatever reason, when the funding councils are not satisfied with the way their own money has been spent. If one looks carefully at the Bill that is entirely what is in question.
It is clearly desirable that there should be a separation between, on the one hand, the money deriving from the Government paid to the funding councils, together, of course, with the councils' repayment obligations if terms and conditions are not fulfilled, and, on the other hand, the funds derived from private sources, particularly benefactors. The meaning of the amendment is not in doubt. What was disputed by my noble friend the Minister in earlier discussion is its utility. The real point is that it is wrong to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. I can think of no more effective way of deterring a benefactor than giving the benefactor the impression that his or her money may be used to repay the Government when the Government are dissatisfied in regard to terms and conditions.
One noble and learned Lord for whom I have great respect observed to me that, if a department has a general purpose fund derived from private sources, it may be not unreasonable to expect it to use that funding when the department has been found by the funding council or the Government to be in default as regards terms and conditions laid down by the funding council. On reflection, the noble and learned Lord is quite correct; it is probable that a department will wish to do so if it has spare money lying around. But it should not be required to do so in the mandatory way which would result from leaving the words "subject to that" in the Bill.
Perhaps the most telling argument is that the phrase, "subject to that" was not contained in the 1988 Act although the rest of the wording is much the same. It has been inserted into the 1988 Act with no good purpose from the point of view of those seeking to raise money for universities. It would be splendid if it could now be deleted from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the noble Lord in this benefactory goose argument, upon which I have addressed the House before.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I too wish to support the amendment. It seems to me that the arguments given by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, are compelling. Where the council makes the conditions and is both the judge of necessity and the receiver of the repayment, the absence of the words "subject to that" introduces a necessary arm's length between the council and the institution's resources.
It may be that donors could get round the difficulty by setting up trusts for specific purposes. However, in institutions in higher education—and I am sure it applies elsewhere—the freedom and flexibility of income from general endowment is of enormous importance.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Renfrew moved a similar amendment on Report to what was then Clause 61, I responded by pointing out that the words "subject to that" served a useful if very limited purpose. That purpose is to guard against a situation in which an institution which has failed to comply with conditions attached to grant and has exhausted the funds provided by the council, argues that repayment or payment of interest would be improper because it would mean resorting to funds derived from sources other than the council, which in turn would mean that the council's conditions would relate to such funds.
That said, I recognise that these circumstances are very unlikely to arise. I also acknowledge that the words do not appear in corresponding provisions in the Education Reform Act 1988. As a matter of fact, they do not appear in the corresponding Scottish Act which is going through Parliament at the present time. Apparently that has not caused difficulties for either the Universities Funding Council or the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council or, as I have said, in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill.
I accept the importance of the principle that the funding councils should not be able to interfere with the use made by institutions of private income. That was eloquently and vividly referred to by my noble friend in moving the amendment. I recognise that the words "subject to that" could be seen as a violation of that principle. I therefore have pleasure in accepting this amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, that is a most helpful response from my noble friend. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and to my noble friend for supporting me on this matter. I believe that the Government are sending a helpful signal to benefactors that they may be assured when
20
they give their money to a university or a department that it will not be improperly tampered with. I am most grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

President Yeltsin's UK Visit and UN Special Meeting
3.41 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about President Yeltsin's visit to London on 30th January and about the special meeting of the UN Security Council in New York on 31st January. I was accompanied to New York by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
"Both meetings came at an important time in Russia's relationship with the rest of the world and at a critical time for world peace and stability. Russia has, in President Yeltsin's own words, thrown off the shackles of communism. She remains a nuclear superpower. As such, and as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, she has world responsibilities. It is essential for our own peace and security that Russia continues to play the positive role on which President Gorbachev embarked and which President Yeltsin is set to continue and to develop. I believe we should offer them our support in this.
"I called the meeting in New York during our chairmanship of the Security Council so that the council could meet at the highest level to reaffirm and develop its commitment to peacekeeping and peacemaking. The timing was particularly apt following the appointment of a new Secretary-General and with Russia taking the seat in the Security Council formerly held by the Soviet Union. The meeting was successful.
"I would like to highlight the key points. This was the first time in the 47 years of its history that the UN had met at the top level. For the first time ever the Heads of State and Government of the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain sat together round the same table and pledged themselves, with the other members of the council, to collective security, to international law and to our commitments under the United Nations Charter.
"A statement was agreed by all the members of the Security Council. Copies are in the Library of the House. In it we reaffirmed that all disputes between states should be resolved peacefully in accordance with the provisions of the charter. We committed ourselves to the fight against terrorism. We asked the Secretary-General to make recommendations for a more effective role for the United Nations as peacekeeper and peacemaker. Under Article 99 of the charter, the Secretary-General may

21
bring to the notice of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. We hope the new Secretary-General will use those powers. He will report to us within six months with his recommendations. We committed ourselves to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation and to conclude a chemical weapons convention this year. The council endorsed the idea put forward by the British Government and recently endorsed by the General Assembly of a UN register of conventional arms transfers.
"During his visit to London President Yeltsin noted that Britain had been: the first country to denounce the August coup; the first to recognise Russia; the first to propose Russian membership of the IMF; the first to propose an April deadline for that membership; and the first to support a stabilisation fund for the rouble.
"It is essential that Russia joins the IMF at the earliest opportunity and I believe a stablisation fund may need to follow if Russia is to have a prospect of establishing a successful market economy. There is of course a financial cost in all this. But the cost of failure and a return to dictatorship and the cold war would be infinitely higher. It is in our national interest and in the interests of the West as a whole to help Russia and we shall continue to take a lead in doing so. I undertook to make it one of the priorities of our presidency of the EC later this year to carry through an improved trade and co-operation agreement with Russia.
"In our discussion of arms control issues, President Yeltsin committed Russia to further significant reductions in the Russian strategic and international arsenal. I told him that we had already committed ourselves to a cut of a half in our sub-strategic nuclear weapons and to smaller conventional forces. I told him also that Britain's only strategic weapon would be the minimum deterrent constituted by Trident. President Yeltsin accepted that Trident was indeed a minimum deterrent and that the focus of arms control negotiations should be on the arsenal of the two superpowers.
"We agreed to co-operate in handling surplus Soviet weapons and safeguarding nuclear materials. I offered to send a technical mission to Moscow to assess the immediate needs at first hand. I have also offered to send a small number of officials from our Ministry of Defence to the Russian Ministry of Defence to advise on the restructuring and control and financing of armed forces in a democratic society. We discussed the problem of the possible leakage of expertise from Russia in the field of weapons of mass destruction. President Yeltsin has made proposals for handling this problem and we have offered to help as part of an international effort.
"The President and I agreed to establish a secure telephone link between our two offices. This is not
22
meant as a crisis hot-line. It will enable us to conduct the significant amount of business we have to undertake.
"We signed a joint declaration (the text of which is in the Library of the House) on relations between our two countries. It will form the basis of a treaty which the President and I hope to sign during the official visit to Britain which he will make later this year. It will be the first such treaty since 1766.
"This is a time of great hope in international affairs but also of uncertainty and potential instability. The two meetings on which I have reported to the House have shown our determination to work for a safer world and a new partnership with Russia in the cause of peace".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. We support the general objectives mentioned in the last paragraph of the Statement and agreed on by the Heads of State in the meeting of the Security Council in New York. The Statement covers an area which we shall be debating in full on Wednesday. I shall therefore be brief.
First, can the noble Lord say whether there is likely to be any change in the permanent membership of the Security Council in the immediate future? Germany and Japan are strong candidates. Can he also say what is Her Majesty's Government's reaction to that? It is understood that in New York Japan pressed hard for a seat on the Security Council. It has a case because Japan contributes more to the United Nations budget than Britain and France together.
The implications of Japan being given a permanent seat are considerable. Perhaps the noble Lord would be kind enough to give the Government's view on that. Secondly, if there is any truth in the reports which appeared in the newspapers on Saturday and over the weekend, can he say whether there was disagreement between President Bush and Mr. John Major on the scale and nature of aid to Russia and the other republics and, if so, what was decided?
Thirdly, the Statement refers to Article 99 of the charter. Can the noble Lord say whether the Government supported the suggestion that more use could be made of Article 43 of the charter, which would result in more effective and timely intervention by a United Nations force to prevent developments which later on might lead to war?
Finally, the issues of a stabilisation fund and of nuclear arms and materials are of the very first importance. We shall go into those problems in detail on Wednesday and shall deal with them fully at that time.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, like the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I too shall be brief in my response to the Statement made by the Leader of the House, for which I am grateful. We shall be debating these matters at greater length later this week and therefore I do not propose to dwell on them now.

23
I have already raised the question of membership of the Security Council and I shall be interested to know what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has to say about that. I should like to associate those on our Benches with the Prime Minister in his proposal for a UN register on the transfer of conventional arms; also for proposing Russian membership of the IMF; and for supporting a stabilisation fund for the rouble. However, we should like to know what progress the Prime Minister made in achieving those ends. It is one thing to propose; it is another thing to achieve. We should like to know what support he received from other members of the Security Council and what likelihood there is that the deadline of April, which he put forward, will be accepted.
Much of the rest of his Statement seemed to be a series of aspirations rather than achievements. I wholly agree that we hope that the Secretary-General will find ways of giving the United Nations a more effective role. One way in which that could be achieved would be that if those who owe money to the United Nations paid it. Did the Prime Minister persuade the United States and other countries to pay their subscriptions? How can the Secretary-General find a more effective role for the United Nations and how can he engage in preventive diplomacy and further peace-keeping operations if the United Nations is permanently short of money? Had the Prime Minister achieved that at his summit meeting, that would be an achievement worth all these pious hopes and self-congratulation, which I am afraid it is not unduly simple of me to think is an election ploy.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, and Lord Bonham-Carter, asked about the future of the Security Council. Reform of the council would entail reform of the charter. It would be an extraordinarily difficult, lengthy and possibly divisive process, probably a diversion from much of the work which all of us want to see the United Nations carry out. Almost certainly any proposal that Japan and Germany should become members of the Security Council would lead to demands from other countries that they also should be granted permanent membership. One has to bear in mind that the larger the Security Council, the more unwieldy it would become and the less likely that it would be able to take part in all the new initiatives in which we would wish it to take part.
So far as concerns the scale of aid to Russia, we have already made clear our willingness to make a very significant contribution and would wish to see others do likewise. The aid which is already pledged is by no means insignificant.
Article 43 of the UN charter provides for the conclusion of agreements between the Security Council and member states on the provision of armed forces for enforcement action under Chapter 7 of the charter. Such agreements have never been implemented. We do not think it realistic to expect those agreements to be implemented now, or for the council's military staff committee to take strategic direction of armed forces enforcing the council's authority. Experience in the Gulf surely shows that it
24
is more efficient and effective if responsibility is left with national or coalition command and control arrangements. That in no way detracts from the UN authority for the operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked about the stabilisation fund. That is one of a number of suggestions and initiatives put forward by the British Government and reinforces our commitment to do all we possibly can to help Russia and to ensure its stability.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to the UN register of arms transfers which was agreed to by the UN Assembly in December. That was following up a British initiative—a suggestion made by the Prime Minister, and we have every reason to be pleased about that.
The noble Lord said that there were many aspirations but not many achievements. That is an unfortunate description of what happened. The very fact that this meeting took place at all is a splendid illustration of the great and important changes which have recently come about in the world. It would have been quite unthinkable 20 or 30 years ago for all the heads of government of the various members of the UN Security Council to sit down together. That is what they are now doing. They are sitting down together with Russia, legally the continuing state of the former Soviet Union; they have given a remit to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to come back in six months' time with suggestions as to ways in which the UN can play an even more significant role in world affairs. Obviously that is not a matter for self-congratulation, and I do not think that the Prime Minister was indulging in that for one moment. But it is certainly significant that for the first time the heads of government should be sitting down together and asking themselves and the Secretary-General what can be done now to give a new impulse to the work of the United Nations. The fact that that is happening is something for which we all ought to be very thankful.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend expand a little on what was said about the disposal of nuclear equipment and arms by the Soviet Union? What assurances have been given that that very important and dangerous material would not be transferred to Middle Eastern and other difficult countries? Has an undertaking been given as to its disposal? Perhaps I may add how proud many of us feel about the way our Prime Minister conducted these proceedings.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his final remarks. There can be no doubt that this was a most worthwhile initiative. President Yeltsin, I understand, made absolutely plain to the Prime Minister his determination to do all he can to see that there is safe disposal of the nuclear weapons which are now to be taken out of commission. He is going to do all he can to ensure that those former Soviet scientists who had worked on weaponry have something profitable to do instead. The Prime Minister offered President Yeltsin help in

25
the safe disposal of those nuclear weapons. In furtherance of that, a mission is likely to travel to Moscow in the middle of this month to see what assistance can he given. Discussion took place as to how we can help Russia to use the talents of its nuclear scientists for peaceful purposes.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, in his meetings with the Prime Minister and with the President of the United States, did not Mr. Yeltsin raise the possibility of developing a joint strategic defence initiative shield against nuclear attack? What replies did he receive? Referring to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was the Prime Minister satisfied that on nuclear weapons proliferation Mr. Yeltsin was confident that all nuclear weaponry in the Commonwealth of Independent States was now under central control? Finally, apart from vague proposals in the pipeline it appears that no financial assistance was given at all. As no aid was offered at this meeting or at the meeting with President Bush, what did Mr. Yeltsin take back to Russia?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we reaffirmed our commitment to aid for Russia. There is the medical aid that we have pledged. There is the aid in the form of feedstocks that we have pledged to the city of St. Petersburg. We made it plain that we would support entirely the EC initiative to give aid to Russia. We have already pledged ourselves to the know-how fund. In those circumstances, I think that President Yeltsin must have gone away well satisfied that we were going to play our part in providing necessary aid for Russia, and well satisfied when we also said that we supported up to the hilt Russian membership of the IMF. We reaffirmed our willingness to encourage international support for further financial assistance and, if necessary, for a stabilisation fund.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it must be right to congratulate the Prime Minister on what he has done. The most important thing we can possibly do is to ensure that the rouble is a proper currency. I remind my noble friend that the Russian Revolution in this century and the French Revolution in the 18th century were caused by the collapse of monetary policy. Under the Tsar there was food in St. Petersburg in 1917 but there was no useful money to pay for it. Unless the Russians get their money right there will be no market economy and nothing but chaos and misery. Has the American presidency, which appears to be shillyshallying on the stabilisation fund, taken this vitally important point on board?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I agree with everything that my noble friend said. As we recognise these imperatives we stressed our willingness to encourage international support for further financial assistance and, if necessary, for a stabilisation fund. One of our priorities when we have the presidency of the EC in the second half of this year will be to propose an improved trade and co-operation agreement with Russia.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, according to the Statement the Prime Minister informed Mr. Yeltsin
26
that we had halved our sub-strategic nuclear fire-power. Does that calculation include the big new sub-strategic system to which the Government have surprisingly committed themselves?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I think that that is so but I shall write to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has apparently studiously ignored the crucial question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. It is all very well to utter pious hopes that the Secretary-General will make a stronger United Nations presence felt in the world, but what about the money? What the noble Lord has not answered is whether the Prime Minister, as chairman of the Security Council on this occasion, has done anything to bring pressure to bear on those who are in debt to the United Nations, in particular the United States, in order to make it possible for the new Secretary-General to carry out his duties.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we need no reminding of the financial difficulties facing the United Nations at the present time. Our own record of prompt and full payment of our dues is second to none. I can only tell the noble Lord that we shall continue to urge other member states to do likewise.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the list of very desirable projects which my noble friend put forward included animal feedstocks. Does he agree that one of the greatest shortcomings and tragedies for the Soviet people over the decades has been the almost complete failure of their agriculture, which has been largely due to the pernicious system of collectives? Within perestroika they have made little progress in that respect —much less progress than the Chinese have made in reorganising their agriculture. Does my noble friend not agree that one of the greatest contributions—in a way an altruistic contribution—the European Community and Britain could make is to help the Russians and the Soviet people to produce enough food, to distribute it properly and thereby create for themselves a higher standard of living?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. I am sure that we can do a great deal in the way of advice to help Russia in that regard. We can also help practically. My noble friend mentioned at the beginning of his remarks what we are already doing in regard to feed grain.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
4.8 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 6 [Administration of funds: supplementary]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("a majority") and insert ("at least one quarter").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 and 41 to 44. In responding to amendments to Clauses 6 and 64 moved on Report by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, I suggested

27
that the best way forward would be for the Department of Education and Science, in consultation with the right reverend Prelate's advisers, to seek amendments which would ensure that the definition of institutions of a denominational character given in Clauses 6 and 64 should be properly comprehensive. This is an important matter because we are referring back to the previous subsection (3), where a funding council is under a duty to have regard to the desirability of maintaining an appropriate balance in the support that it gives as between denominational institutions of further and higher education and other institutions of further and higher education.
The amendments before the House are the result of the process of consultation between the right reverend Prelate and the Government. By establishing a more flexible definition—which is contained within them—the amendments will cover all the institutions with significant religious connections which will be part of the new further and higher education sectors. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me for not going into detail. I should like to commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the courteous way in which he has dealt with our anxieties. I am advised by my lawyers that the amendments are entirely satisfactory. Therefore, I am happy to support the government amendments.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I have one simple question for the Minister. As regards religious institutions, are we to assume that that refers to the Christian religious institutions or to some of the others which are now active in the country?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will be kind enough to repeat the last part of her intervention.
Baroness Phillips: Yes, my Lords; I shall put it more simply. When we refer to religious institutions, are we talking about the Church of England, the Catholics, and so on, or are we talking about Islam?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we are talking about any denominational institutions.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, did the Minister say, "any denominational institutions?"
Lord Belstead: My Lords, yes, indeed. We are making the tests easier to pass so that any denominational institution shall be looked at in a fair and balanced way by the funding councils when they decide on the allocation of funds between denominational institutions and non-denominational institutions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9:
Page 5, line 43, leave out second ("or").
Page 5, line 44, leave out ("all or most") and insert ("any").
Page 5, line 48, at end insert ("or
28
( ) any of the property held for the purposes of the institution is held upon trust for or in connection with—

(i) the provision of education, or

(ii) the conduct of an educational institution, in accordance with the tenets of a religion or religious denomination.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 32, at end insert:
("(7) In any instances where the adequacy of the provision for that population in that year is disputed, the matter shall be referred to the relevant council or, in England, the Regional Advisory Committee, for consideration.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is also tabled in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere. It proposes an appeals mechanism for external bids for FEFC funding via a sponsoring body. There is very great concern among present providers of adult education about their perception of the new situation as one in which the FE colleges will be the arbiters of "adequacy" of provision of Schedule 2 courses in an area. They are unlikely to be reassured by the Minister's assertion that colleges must take an objective rather than a college view of such matters.
The question of adequacy will be difficult, for example, when a group of students emerges from a community activity, like a pre-school playgroup, and wishes to follow together a certificated course. Members of such a group may not consider an existing college course as being adequate to their needs; the college may assert that a course specially for them would be duplication. The group will certainly not think it fair that the college alone should decide, and surely an appeal to the Secretary of State in such a case would be using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut.
I did not fully understand the Minister's response to a similar amendment that I moved on Report. In that case I asked that, where there were disputes, the matter should be referred to the relevant council or regional committee for resolution. The Minister said:
"First, we would be almost certainly bringing into play a body that would have no accountability to the funding councils for the implementation of the duty to provide further education for those who need it and indeed for the resources required for the purpose".—[Official Report, 14/1/92; col. 232.]
However, the funding councils and the regional committees are already there; we are not bringing a new body into play. In fact, a little further in the same speech, the Minister said:
"We should not forget that the regional committees will give advice to the council for England on any issue of local concern. The councils, and in England the regional committees, will of course be aware of any dispute. It will be open to the participants to bring it to their notice. The advice of the committee would be important for the council in making its decisions on funding".
Therefore, the Government have suggested that local authority and voluntary body providers that are not satisfied with a decision of FE governing bodies will be free to draw it to the attention of the regional advisory committees. All the amendment seeks to achieve is the opportunity for committees to consider those cases—and, it is to be hoped, rare cases—where local co-operation and agreement is not achievable. It

29
does not seek to create a new body; it seeks merely to clarify a mechanism that the new arrangements make possible.
I should like to try to make the Minister understand that there really is great anxiety in the adult education institutions that they will be powerless if they feel they have been treated unjustly. He must realise that the situation that is being created is entirely new. Acceptance of the amendment will do much to reassure them. Surely the Minister would like to give that reassurance. I hope that he will not say that the provision is already in the Bill. The providers of adult education are not satisfied or happy with what is being proposed. I hope that the Minister can accept the strong feeling which exists and that he will give way on the matter. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Combermere: My Lords, I fully support the amendment. Although, when the issue was raised on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the Secretary of State could be appealed to if all else fails, that would surely be a procedure that would be used as a last resort. It would be too cumbersome; it could apply only in possible, blatant examples of unfairness and, above all, it would lead to damaging delay. In my experience, delay and uncertainty in the context of planning a programme of adult studies can lead to wasted resources and to possible course failures.
In the absence of direct bidding, the amendment is essential. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, there is great concern among major providers of adult education over the role of the FE colleges as arbiters of adequacy in connection with provision of Schedule 2 courses in any given area. Why should one college make a judgment on the performance of another college? In my view, the Government have not satisfactorily answered that point. The amendment does not seek to create a new bureaucratic body, as has been suggested; it merely asks that an appeal should he made direct to the funding council or the regional advisory council. In other words, it seeks to clarify a mechanism that the new arrangements make possible. In the earlier debate on Report the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, at col. 232, that the appeals mechanism "looks like natural justice". This is natural justice.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I agree with the amendment and with anything that can be done to help the adult education centres which feel very tender at this time. My amendment on Report was turned down; but, that is in the past. I believe that with arbitration or something of that nature we can help the situation. However, we may return to the matter on a further amendment at this stage. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be sympathetic towards the amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to provide for disputes over what would be an adequate level of Schedule 2 education in an area to be referred for consideration to the funding councils or, in England, to the regional advisory
30
committee. I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere and also by my noble friend Lord Teviot. However, I genuinely believe that I can meet them. I shall now try to do so.
The determination of what is an adequate level of provision locally lies, in the first instance, with the further education colleges. Despite the noble Viscount's criticism as to why one college should appear to be sitting in judgment on another, as FE colleges are the bodies through which the funding councils will carry out their duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for Schedule 2 education at national level, it is right that an adequate level of provision locally should, in the first instance, be determined by a further education college.
In securing the necessary standard of provision for an area, we certainly expect a college to take full account of local circumstances, engaging in a dialogue with local adult colleges and, as necessary, with a local education authority. But the initial responsibility for making a decision ought to rest with the college through which the applicant has gone in order to obtain funding for its Schedule 2 courses.
Under the terms of the Bill the duty to secure adequate provision is not something that is open to the further education college that is being used as the conduit to decide at a whim. It is not open to negotiation. It is a responsibility whose proper discharge is enforceable under the law. The mechanism that I have just described is embodied in Clause 6. In addition, in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill there is a duty to see that facilities are provided at such places, are of such character and are so equipped as to meet reasonable needs. Therefore, the duty to provide further education—and what we are talking about here are Schedule 2 courses—is clearly spelt out in the Bill.
The Government would expect the further education college concerned with a particular application to act in good faith in considering whether facilities are available at such a place, are of such a character and are so equipped as to meet the reasonable needs of the people locally in that area. But if by any chance a college misdirects itself it is then already the duty of the funding councils to ensure adequate provision across the whole country. The council for England would be able to draw on advice from regional committees. The councils and the regional committees will need a good grasp of the situation in each locality so that they can judge the bids coming forward from each college. They will therefore be able to see where provision is not adequate and will, if necessary, intervene with an FE college which has wrongly failed to put forward a sound bid from an institution outside the sector.
My noble friend Lord Teviot asked whether there could be some form of arbitration. Indeed, there is. The matter is bound to go to the funding council, advised by the regional committee. The councils will have plenty of power to influence the further education colleges, which are dependent on them for funding. But there is yet another safeguard, which the amendment would, by implication, seem to wish to cut

31
out, in that the Secretary of State may review decisions both of further education colleges and of the funding councils themselves on grounds either of unreasonableness or failure to perform a duty—the familiar Sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944.
There is therefore a long-established route for complaint by an institution outside the sector if it is not satisfied with the way in which its conduit further education college has acted. I am certain that the further education colleges and the funding councils are not going to wish to be called to account by the Secretary of State. But they can be and they will be if the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for so doing.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness felt that when we discussed this before my answer did not meet her concerns. But the way that the Bill deals with applications for funding of courses by funding councils if the institution concerned is not already within the new further education sector protects the interests of applicants. I hope that my noble friend Lord Teviot, after I have spoken, will feel that there is not only an arbitration but a two-stage arbitration—first of all there are the funding councils, and then with the Secretary of State—and that what we have in the Bill is not only sensible but also fair.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving quite a long reply. We know that there are these so-called safeguards within the Bill. It is just that they are not trusted by a great many people in the adult education world. They will be able to read what the Minister has said. I doubt that they will be satisfied, but time will prove whether the noble Lord is right. We have made the case. I shall not press it now, but we shall see what happens. If things do not go well we shall be back with complaints and questions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Grants to councils]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("each institution, or each") and insert ("every institution, or every").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12, and would like also to speak to Amendment No. 13. Within this group I think there are also amendments in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me, solely on the question of grouping, to intervene here? If your Lordships look at page 9 of the Marshalled List you will see a number of amendments, certainly Amendments Nos. 47 to 50, which are alternative ways of tinkering with the drafting. In fact they are not suitable for discussion on Third Reading. They are Committee points. But it is not the fault of the critics of this Bill that they now come up on Third Reading.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord forgive me? I was just about to move the first amendment in this group. I shall be brief, and then may I give way to the noble and learned Lord?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, what I was going to suggest is that it would be extremely inconvenient to discuss the later amendments at this stage, because if Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are carried those amendments will fall. They cannot be moved. Moreover, they are alternative drafting amendments, and it is most undesirable—and I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with it—to deal with drafting points at this stage. I intervene only to suggest to the noble Lord the Minister that it would be more convenient if he would postpone his observations on the later amendments until we come to Clause 66.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may move Amendment No. 12 and speak to Amendment No. 13, because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has exercised the right that we all have to degroup. I realise that we have to have the Question put, but, first of all, I believe that I must move Amendment No. 12.
In moving Amendment No. 12 I simply make the point that we are, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, rightly said, talking about drafting matters. The reason why we are talking about a drafting matter that I think applies to Clause 66, way on in the Bill, is that that is the equivalent clause in the higher education bit of the Bill, Part II, to Clause 7 in Part I of the Bill, which we have now come to. That is why there was the grouping. But I understand the wish of the noble and learned Lord not to talk about Clause 66 so far as his amendments are concerned. Therefore, I shall move Amendment No. 12 to Clause 7 at the moment and also speak to Amendment No. 13.
In that context I simply say that your Lordships have spent some considerable time on this Bill considering the way in which it provides for the clear intention that the Secretary of State should not have a power to make institution-specific conditions. As your Lordships know, it has been my contention that read as a whole Clause 7 in Part I of the Bill, and indeed Clause 66 in Part II, have made it clear that the Secretary of State cannot make institution-specific conditions.
However, I must pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for not only protesting as the Bill has proceeded—and indeed other noble Lords have protested—that whatever the Government may intend it is not entirely clear that Clauses 7 and 66 achieve this objective of non-institution-specific conditions, but with characteristic tenacity, for following up his words by putting down amendments to the Bill at this stage to Clause 66.
The noble and learned Lord will forgive me for referring to his amendments by saying that I shall admit openly to the House that when I saw his amendments to Clause 66 on the Marshalled list, supported, may I say, by my noble friend Lord Peyton and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I felt that we had reached a moment in the Bill when it would be a tragedy if we disagreed about drafting matters provided that we were agreed, which I thought we were, about what we were trying to achieve in Clause 7 and in Clause 66. Therefore I put down Amendment No. 12 to Clause 7 in Part I of the Bill and the

33
It may be helpful if I read out in full the wording of Clauses 7(2) (a) and 66(2) (a), (because the drafting is the same) with the inclusion of my amendments. If the Government's amendments were to be accepted, they would provide that the terms and conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to either of the funding councils,
"may in particular impose requirements in respect of every institution, or every institution falling within a class or description specified in the terms and conditions, being requirements to be complied with in the case of any institution to which the requirements apply, before financial support of any amount or description so specified is provided by the council in respect of activities carried on by the institution".
I believe that the provision makes clear what has always been the intention, that the power attaches general conditions which might have different impacts on institutions according to whether they meet the requirements specified. But it cannot involve making conditions, institution by institution. I believe I am right in saying that that is not only my objective but that of the noble and learned Lord.
Perhaps I may end by making one point on the amendment, with the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord. I have given the palm to him in admitting quite openly that it was his pressure that brought me to the Dispatch Box to move the amendments today. However, whereas the Government's amendments achieve the objective of ensuring that there cannot be institution-specific conditions made by the Secretary of State under Clauses 7 or 66, I do not believe that the amendments to Clause 66 proposed by the noble and learned Lord achieve that objective. It astonishes me to hear myself saying so because the noble and learned Lord could forget more about drafting than I shall ever learn. However, when we reach his amendments I do not believe that they will achieve the objective.
Returning to my own amendments, I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I ask for a little clarification since I am now lost? First, did I understand the noble Lord to say at the end that the word "every" has a different meaning from "all"? That is the only difference. Will he be arguing that later in the afternoon? My second question is more technical. If we agree to his amendment on Clause 7 that "every" should replace "each", does that leave it logically and semantically possible to insert the word "all" later, or will the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, be pre-empted? In both these cases, I speak genuinely in search of knowledge.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I do not seek specifically to answer questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, although I may touch on them. I wish to say how welcome is the amendment. As my noble friend indicated, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was one of those who emphasised the inadequacy of the original wording of Clauses 7 and 66. In deference to him, I shall focus on Clause 7, as he rightly argued we should. We were concerned about the weakness of the word "each" which in the original wording could have been
34
interpreted to mean "any". In other words, it would have been possible on that interpretation to pick off institutions one by one. By changing "each" to "every", that is no longer possible. I am not sure that "all" would do as well in other ways; clearly "every" means "all" and I have taken advice on the matter.
What is neat about the amendment is that we were earlier told by my noble friend that it would not be possible to insert "every" because that would make it difficult to carry through and apply the provisions. If an individual institution failed to comply with the general condition, it would be difficult to arrange compliance with the legislation. That point led to the ruling in the case of the Association of College and Polytechnic Teachers which has brought about the change in wording. Otherwise, the wording in the Education Reform Act 1988 would have been sufficient.
It is my understanding that the wording before us returns to the wording of the 1988 Act, but with the addition of the phrase,
"being requirements to be complied with in the case of any institution to which the requirements apply",
the difficulty is removed of applying the general condition to the individual institution which may fall out of line.
I wish to add one word of qualification, although it is not sufficient to make me feel that the amendment should not be supported. The wording of the Bill, as amended, will be:
"every institution, or every institution falling within a class or description specified in the terms and conditions".
I try not to have a suspicious mind, but those with suspicious minds fear that it might be possible to pick off an individual university by the ingenious definition of putting it within a class or description.
The words "or description" do not help in any way with the altogether beneficent purposes which my noble friend has put forward. But the words "or description" may be used in such a way as to form a net of sufficiently narrow mesh to fish out the individual institution. So my personal preference would have been for the words "or description" to have been omitted from the Bill by amendment.
In general, I feel that the Minister has gone a long way to meet the points, including those made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I shall say much the same when we reach Clause 66 and will hold my words now in the light of the intervention on Clause 7, but I feel that the amendment substantially meets the case.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble friend was good enough to refer to me in his speech and I hope that I may be forgiven for making a short rejoinder. We are all greatly indebted to the Minister for the tremendous efforts he has made to get the Bill back on an even keel, if that is possible.
I have made the point before, and I hope I may be forgiven for reiterating, that modern legislation comes to us in such volume that quality is injured by quantity. Again and again, there are consequences unforeseen even by those who drafted the Bill. In this case it is a challenge to and an infringement of academic freedom. Too often, the meaning in Bills

35
which come before your Lordships is, at best, opaque. As I see it, if the Government had set out either to assume that the necessary protection against financial mismanagement was available to them already or to provide expressly and implicitly in the Bill for that protection, then there would not have been much argument. But in the event, having espoused the cause of academic freedom, the Government proceeded to set out different circumstances in which that freedom might have to be set aside. From that position—thanks largely to my noble friend—the Government have substantially retreated.
I wish at least to give a qualified welcome to the amendments which my noble friend has moved, and others to which he has referred, as being a welcome substitute to the somewhat anodyne statements of good intentions by the Government which are never acceptable for the good reason that they do not bind successors. I conclude as I started by saying how much I personally feel indebted to my noble friend for the tremendous efforts he has made.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my only intervention at this point can be to thank the noble Lord the Paymaster General for the way he dealt with the amendment in the light of my request. I am grateful to him.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I wish to reply to this exchange on what is a crucial drafting issue. As we all know, it is more than a drafting issue but nonetheless it is a drafting issue. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for saying he feels this amendment is a welcome substitute for exchanges which have occurred across the Floor of the House but which are not substitutes for what is on the face of the Bill. My noble friend has added his name to the amendments to Clause 66 standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. Therefore I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for his remarks, and also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for his final remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked me a direct question. He asked me whether "every" equals "each" or "all". My understanding of the dictionary definition is that it does. The obvious subsequent question which the noble Lord was kind enough not to ask concerns why I do not wait until we reach Clause 66 and accept the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble and learned Lord has not tabled amendments to Clause 7. My answer to the question is that when we reach the amendments to Clause 66 I shall deploy arguments to show that, whereas the Government and the noble and learned Lord have a shared objective to make clear beyond doubt that while requirements contained in conditions of grant may affect higher education institutions or further education institutions differently, nevertheless conditions of grant cannot be applied institution by institution. That principle cannot be repeated enough times. Nonetheless, as regards the amendments standing in the names of the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend Lord Peyton, I must repeat with
36
the greatest respect that I do not feel they achieve that objective. For the reason given by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, I believe the amendments I am discussing now achieve that objective. I shall not weary your Lordships by going over that ground again.
That leaves one final and important point which the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, asked me about. The noble Lord asked about the words "a class or description". My noble friend is, not for the first time, on to a good point in this Bill. It is undoubtedly true that a class consisting of a single institution could exist. However I do not think one can consider the concept of a class or a description of an institution separately from that of the requirements which the Secretary of State may impose.
I have no doubt that if the Secretary of State were to impose requirements in respect of a class of one, he would need to show that the class was a genuine class for the purposes of those requirements and not one simply devised to target a particular institution which in reality was no different from a number of others. It would not be sufficient, for example, to identify as a class any university situated in the county of Cambridgeshire if that university was indistinguishable from others in so far as the subject-matter of the requirement was concerned. In those circumstances the Secretary of State would be stepping outside his powers by imposing terms and conditions relating to the provision of financial support for a particular institution.
The whole point of Amendment No. 12 and its associated amendments is to place beyond peradventure the fact that the Secretary of State will not, under the terms of Clause 66, have institution specific condition-making powers.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 40, after ("conditions") insert ("being requirements to be complied with in the case of any institution to which the requirements apply").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Assessment of quality of education provided by institutions]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 7, line 46, after ("sector") insert:
("( ) keep under review the quality of education provided, the education standards achieved, and where necessary cause inspection to be made with a view to maintaining and improving effectiveness of provision,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 14, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 15. On Report the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I moved Amendments Nos. 57A and 58 which sought to deal with quality, which is the subject of Clause 9. In responding to us both the Minister concentrated on the matter of reporting and did not address the quality aspect of the amendments.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, caught the connection between quality, funding and impartial reports on provision which was one of the things we wanted to highlight. However, he did not focus on the

37
processes of inspection, quality control and quality assurance. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, evaded the issue neatly by picking on the word "reporting" and on the provision of information, and by treating the two amendments as faces of the same coin.
From the discussion on Report, it seems that the Government want to leave the matter of quality assessment in both further and higher education to the funding councils, and they want to put as little direction as possible upon those bodies. The major problem is that information about both provision and quality may only be given when the Secretary of State requires it or as the councils think fit. We would like particular types of information to be made available, and some or all of them to be made public.
We are not convinced that the right questions will be asked by the quality assessment committees unless they comprise people experienced in inspection and assessment. The Government's former Amendment No. 62 moved on Report—that is now embodied in Clause 9(3)—does not go far enough. We doubt whether institutions, teachers or the consumers of education will be helped unless comparative surveys are undertaken and best practice is identified and disseminated.
In this amendment we seek to reflect the Government's own ideas expressed on Report in what was Amendment No. 122. That provision is now incorporated in Clause 53. In that new clause local education authorities are obliged to keep under review the quality of education provided, and the chief inspector has a general duty to keep the Secretary of State informed about quality and standards across the LEA sector. If it is the duty of the councils to give the Secretary of State information and advice, should it not be the function, under Clause 9, of the quality assessment committee to, in the words of Amendment No. 14:
"keep under review the quality of education provided, the educational standards achieved, and where necessary cause inspection to be made with a view to maintaining and improving effectiveness of provision"?
I should point out that the words "keeping and causing" should have been included in the amendment.
We would expect the Government to adopt a consistent and coherent approach to quality assessment across the public education service. There is, however, a fundamental difference between the way in which it is proposed that quality should be assessed in schools under the Education (Schools) Bill, and in further education institutions. On the one hand it is proposed that the reformed, independent HMI will give information and advice to the Secretary of State on such matters as he specifies. On the other hand, the proposals in this Bill confirm the Government's intention to distance the Secretary of State from matters of quality control by placing responsibility for quality assessment and assurance in the remote hands of the funding councils.
As my noble friend Lady Blackstone said on Report, the councils are charged with the duty of securing the assessment of quality, establishing a committee to do just that and with giving advice. However, quality itself is not defined. "Quality" is a
38
word not previously used in education legislation. The councils are not required either to see that any particular level of quality is achieved, merely that quality should be assessed. We are trying in this amendment to spell out the processes more clearly. We would still like members of the quality assessment committee to have experience of inspection. Amendment No. 15 seeks to achieve that.
I thank the noble Lord for his letter of 26th January on the subject of my earlier amendment, Amendment No. 64, dealing with that point. I hope that the use of the word "or" in Amendment No. 15 will remove the objection he raised in respect of the earlier amendment, in which I asked for the majority of members to have experience of inspection. That proposal is now qualified.
I was rather surprised by the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 16, under which Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales is to be able, if asked, to assess the quality of education provided within the FE sector. That is more or less what I seek with Amendment No. 14. I hope that the Minister now understands more clearly what we are trying to achieve and that the words used in Clause 53 could apply to Clause 9. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not believe that there is very much between the case which the noble Baroness put forward so eloquently and the position in the Bill, although I shall not try to gloss over the issue and say that there is no difference. Regarding the common ground, in carrying out their duty to secure assessment of quality of provision, the funding councils will be expected to keep the quality of provision and educational standards under review. I accept that the noble Baroness would like to see that provision on the face of the Bill. How the funding councils choose to do that, whether through general inspections of institutions or, as is more usual in further education, through subject surveys across the whole sector, will be for the councils to decide. Certainly the Secretary of State would expect follow-up action to be taken in the light of assessments of quality, and the nature of the councils' funding responsibilities means that they will automatically be in the business of follow-up reports.
I should like to draw the attention of the noble Baroness to Clause 8, which lays a duty on the funding councils to provide the Secretary of State with such information on provision as he may from time to time require. It will thus be open, statutorily, to the Secretary of State to call for information about quality and standards. Further, individual colleges will be required under Clause 48 to publish information about the educational provision made or proposed to be made for their students. Once again it will be open to the Secretary of State to specify that such information should include information based on assessment of quality.
The difference between the two sides of the House on this issue is that we do not believe that it is necessary to impose yet another statutory duty on the funding councils in this respect because of the cross-fertilisation between the existing statutory provisions.

39
The noble Baroness also spoke to Amendment No. 15, which has the effect of requiring a majority of the members of the quality assessment committee to have experience of and to have shown capacity in the provision of further education or inspection and quality assurance of such provision. There is nothing in the clause to prevent the funding councils from doing exactly what the noble Baroness wishes. The clause requires simply that the majority of members should be persons who have experience of or have shown capacity in the provision of further education, including those currently engaged in further education. In practice most people engaged in inspection or quality assurance are bound to have had experience of the provision of further education.
However, there are many areas of further education in which the quality assessment committees will need expertise. That is another reason why the Government do not want to be drawn down the path of including additional statutory provision in the Bill as the noble Baroness wishes. We prefer to retain flexibility. That is a word beloved by governments but I believe that it is used in a good cause in this case.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am disappointed, as I always seem to be when my amendments are not received more warmly. Again, I shall have to hope that the situation works out in practice, as the noble Lord suggested.
I should like to ask the noble Lord why Amendment No. 16 provides for a different situation in Wales from the situation which will exist in England. However, I suppose I shall have to wait for clarification until the Minister moves that amendment. I hope that he will explain why there is to be that difference between the two funding councils. Does he not trust the Welsh council to be as effective as the English council?
Although I am not entirely satisfied with the Minister's response, I shall have to pretend to be so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 8, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales shall, if asked to do so by the Further Education Funding Council for Wales, assess the quality of education provided in any institutions within the further education sector or any other institutions for which the council give, or are considering giving, financial support under this Part of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Education (Schools) Bill, which is now before Parliament, will establish an independent office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales to oversee arrangements for a new system of regular school inspections and to provide the Secretary of State for Wales with advice on the quality of education provided by schools in Wales. However, those powers would not extend to the new further education sector, where quality assessment would be the responsibility of the further education funding council.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked, perfectly reasonably, why we are doing that in Wales but not in England. The answer is the size of the further education sector in Wales and the much smaller scale of the funding council's operations in Wales compared with those in England. It is important that the administrative arrangements should be as flexible and cost-effective as possible. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales therefore wishes to give the funding council for Wales the option of obtaining quality assessment information from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales as a possible way of minimising operating costs. It will be entirely for the funding council for Wales to decide whether or not to obtain assessments from Her Majesty's chief inspector or to establish its own assessment machinery.
That is simply a logistical point and an option which the Secretary of State for Wales wishes to see on the face of the Bill so that the funding council for Wales can avail itself of the option if it wishes. It will be for the funding council to decide. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister has given some response but it seems rather stupid to have two funding councils.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 11 [Functions of local education authorities in respect of further education]:
[Amendments No. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 9, line 14, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 20. Amendment No. 19 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 20. The two amendments have the effect of adding a new paragraph (c) to Clause 11(3).
I move the amendments with a sense of disappointment. I had hoped that after the discussion of the matter at Report stage and the Minister's promise that he would look at the matter again there might have been a more positive initiative from the Government. That is not the case; the Government have not put down an amendment. Nor has the noble Lord written to me on the matter as he promised. I have had two conversations with him during the past week. On both occasions he indicated that he had written to me but I have not received such a letter. Nor, I understand, have the other three sponsors of the amendment.
My disappointment is shared by the National Youth Agency and many associated youth organisations. After reading Hansard covering the Report stage they too had the impression that there was willingness on the part of the Government to include in the Bill a statutory reference to the youth service. Their disappointment is heightened by a telephone survey of local authority youth services which they conducted in an attempt to gain an impression of how the service is faring in the current round of budget allocations. The survey confirms their fears about the

41
future of the youth service. They contacted 115 authorities of which 98 responded; that is 85 per cent. Of those responding, 49 per cent. anticipate a standstill budget; 43 per cent. anticipate cuts; and 8 per cent. anticipate growth. Where the implications of the cuts are known, authorities are considering a variety of measures. Those include the ending of the complete service, closure of centres, cutting voluntary sector grants, redundancies and reductions in staffing—in one case 40 per cent. of part-timers will be made redundant—or the freezing of posts. Specialist projects were being cut and there was a reduction in facilities and maintenance, as well as a reduced use of school facilities.
The authorities involved are spread across the political spectrum. For example, it was reported in The Times last Wednesday, 29th January, that the Conservative Warwickshire County Council had agreed to disband the county's youth and community services in their present form to make savings which would help to avoid a second year of Government charge capping. My colleagues who sponsor the amendment have argued all along that our purpose is to strengthen the legislative commitment to the youth service in order to safeguard its future and to give overt legitimacy to the youth organisations and others in promoting the development of the service.
The amendment put forward today has moved from a specific singling out of the youth service, to which the Minister seemed to object previously. Instead, Amendment No. 20 refers to,
"informal, part-time social and leisure based educational activities and experiences suitable to the requirements of young people".
We are attempting to embody the characteristics of the youth service in the amendment. It is broader than the present clauses in the Bill. It reflects in a more comprehensive way the features of the youth service. The amendment deletes nothing in the present Bill. It merely elaborates on the Bill in a way that the youth service organisations wish.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, cannot be in the Chamber today to support the amendment. However, they have asked me to indicate their strong support for it. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I too regret that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has not written as he promised to those of us who took part in the debate on Report. As a signatory to the amendment, I need add little more than that I strongly support it as an admirable means of meeting the need identified on Report to provide an adequate definition of the work of the youth service.
At an earlier stage, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, told us that statutory powers are already available to local authorities to provide a youth service, and that although the service is not specifically mentioned in the Bill those powers are set out in Clause 11. In that case, I must ask what action the Government propose in the face of the budget cuts referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, to enable local authorities to make use of the powers.
42
The amendment is a last attempt to ensure that the work of the youth service is explicitly included in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I owe an abject apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for not writing to them. The noble Baroness is almost the last person I would wish to let down in that way. I am extremely sorry. I unreservedly apologise. I had sought to chase up correspondence. The noble Baroness and I have had a brief discussion. I was able to indicate my reaction, namely, that the amendment would not change much compared with the previous stage of the Bill, but that I would await the noble Baroness's arguments.
The new words in the amendment amplify and increase the description of the activities of the youth service which historically has always been contained in the 1944 Education Act in descriptive form without, perhaps rather oddly, referring to the youth service itself. However, while the new words,
"activities and experiences suitable to the requirements of young people",
are interesting, they carry with them a problem. For example, the expression "young people" is nowhere defined in the Education Act. But there is a risk of confusion with the term "young person" which is defined under Section 114(1) of the 1944 Act and which refers to a person over compulsory school age who has not reached the age of 18. The amendment could therefore unintentionally restrict the scope of the youth service to young people under the age of 18. The noble Baroness intended no such restriction.
I appreciate that part of the aim of the amendment is to protect the funding of the local youth services. However, nothing in the amendment or in the reference to,
"activities and experiences suitable to the requirements of young people",
helps to secure any particular level of provision for the youth service. The amendment is therefore ineffective in that intention. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord will know as well as I do that one of the reasons that it is not possible to get to grips with funding in such an amendment is that the central principle of our local government finance is that revenue support grant is paid for as a block without reference to specific services. It is for local authorities to make decisions about their priorities in the light of local needs and wishes.
If the noble Baroness will forgive my saying so, there is a paradox in the amendment. On the one hand the noble Baroness complained—I take her complaint seriously—of certain reports from different local authority areas of reductions in funding for the youth service. The main planks of the amendment were put forward with the greatest eloquence by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, gave specific examples of the way in which new initiatives in the youth service need to be covered by fresh and imaginative wording on the

43
statute. The paradox is that if that is so, all is not doom and gloom. It is not commensurate with saying that the youth service is dying on its feet.
For nearly 50 years the way in which the youth service works has been spelt out in wording under the 1944 Education Act. That is wide enough to allow the youth service to implement new ideas, and to bring in new systems and new methods. The difficulty is that if one tinkers with that wording it is possible, as with the amendment, to run into drafting trouble. I am not as complacent as I may sound. I believe that the wording in the 1944 Act is so wide that the youth service is enabled to do what it feels is right. Indeed, in my brief experience I do not think I have heard of somebody coming along and saying it is not possible to try a new initiative in the youth service because it is not covered by the 1944 Act. It is so often the case that that remarkable Act covers all that the youth service needs to cover.
I have to say that I believe the amendment to be defective in the way I explained at the beginning. I say that also on the ground that I do not want to let go of nurse—I do not want to depart from the wording of the 1944 Act because I believe it to be right and as soon as we go down the road in the direction of extra drafting we run into trouble. For those reasons I resist the amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am sorry about the Minister's response. I do not find it very convincing. He may be confident that the Act on the statute book and the Bill as drafted make it possible to include any new initiative but those working in the field are not confident. It is on their initiative and at their request that we have come forward with the amendment.
At Report stage the noble Lord was especially impressed by the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who referred among other things to the counselling of young offenders and so on. We deliberately drafted the clause to include "informal" and "social", which are not included in the rest of the Bill, so as to cover that specific example and all the other informal initiatives such as outreach work and so on which the youth service wants to establish or extend.
I am also not convinced by the noble Lord's argument that the amendment could be confusing. We have deliberately phrased the amendment so that it comes within the terms of the Long Title of the Bill which is concerned with further and higher education. I suggest that it follows from that that any activities undertaken under this specific clause will come within the area of further and higher education and could not be extended to those who are younger.
We have debated this matter on three occasions. Although each time the Minister has shown some sympathy with what we have been trying to do, he has not responded adequately. Therefore, I believe I must test the feeling of the House.
5.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 115.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Annan, L.

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Barnett, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Listowel, E.

Beloff, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mulley, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donoughue, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Phillips, B.

Falkender, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Galpern, L.

Richard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Russell, E.

Grey, E.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Grimond, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Guildford, Bp.

Seear, B.

Halsbury, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hampton, L.

Serota, B.

Hanworth, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Aldington, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Colwyn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Arran, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Astor, V.

Crook, L.

Auckland, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Balfour, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Belstead, L.

Derwent, L.

Blatch, B.

Elibank, L.

Blyth, L.

Elles, B.

Borthwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Faithfull, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Butterworth, L.

Ferrers, E.

Caithness, E.

Flather, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

45

Goschen, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Munster, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Nelson, E.

Hanson, L.

Norrie, L.

Haslam, L.

Orkney, E.

Henley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Holderness, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Pender, L.

Hood, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hooper, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Howe, E.

Quinton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Inglewood, L.

Reay, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Renwick, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Joseph, L.

Rodney, L.

Killearn, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kimball, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Limerick, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Liverpool, E.

Long, V.

Sudeley, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinfen, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trumpington, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tryon, L.

Mancroft, L.

Ullswater, V.

Manton, L.

Waddington, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Merrivale, L.

White of of Hull, L.

Mersey, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Milverton, L.

Wise, L.

Morris, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Mountevans, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.22 p.m.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Provision of further education in maintained schools]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I should tell your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 21 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 22.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 11, leave out lines 8 to 17.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I bring the House back to what is known as family education—at least, that is the aspect that interests me. A number of educational institutions have pioneered ways in which it is of benefit to teach children and parents together. That is especially true where there are ethnic minorities or a low literacy rate of one kind or another. When we discussed this issue on Report, it was recognised on all sides of the House that the Bill should not stay as drafted. We had a wide-ranging debate and there was widespread support for some amendment. It was further recognised that what family education is achieving is of great benefit and value. It is important to recognise that fact. I pay tribute to the work which the City Literary Institute has been doing. The noble Baroness, Lady David, drew attention to its work in our previous debates. I support her in paying tribute to that institution.
The amendment is cleaner and neater than the amendment which the Government propose to move if my amendment fails. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, provides that such education is not to be provided except in such circumstances as may be prescribed. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says, but I shall want to know who is to prescribe where and when such education may or may not take place. If it is to be the Secretary of State or DES I shall not he reassured because they may make the same kind of mistake—if I may put it in such blunt terms—as they made when they first drafted the Bill. We should not be moving the amendment if the Secretary of State or the department understood the issue and had made careful preparation for it. With due respect, I have to say that, if the answer is that it is the Secretary of State who is to prescribe, I shall need a great deal of assurance that it will be right to accept the Minister's amendment rather than mine.
Perhaps I may raise a further point. Do we need any such provision in the Bill? So far as I am aware—I said this on Report—there is no abuse of the system being pioneered in one or two places. It is developing. When we are so worried about the fact that legislation is so overloaded with provisions, I cannot understand why we have to insert anything along these lines.
Is there some bogey lurking in the background which the Government have in their sights and need to dispose of? If so, I should be glad to hear about it, but I am not aware of anything. In one or two places people are pioneering some valuable work, and I cannot for the life of me see why we should not allow that to continue and why we have to have special provisions to deal with the situation. In returning to the matter I hope that it is recognised on all sides that we need to make some amendment. I hope that your Lordships will feel that the cleanest and neatest way of proceeding is to excise the provision from the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name was down to a similar amendment moved on Report. It is accidental that it did not get down to this amendment in time for Third Reading. I endorse everything that the right reverend Prelate has said. I hope that the Government are beginning to understand what the amendment is all about. I have the same anxieties as the right reverend Prelate about the Government's amendment. We shall await with interest to hear what is said about it.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I respond to the amendment on behalf of my noble friend. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. This group of amendments returns to the issue of the restrictions currently in Clauses 12 and 13 upon where further education may be provided by school governors when pupils of the schools are also present.
I am well aware of the strength of feeling in the House about what is perceived to be an unnecessary restriction on the circumstances in which adults may be educated in schools alongside younger pupils. The Government understand that point. We have made it

47
clear at previous stages of the Bill why we believe that there is a need for a cautious approach in this area. Nevertheless, on Report I undertook further to consider Clause 12 with a view to bringing forward an amendment to enable, among other things, post-16 year-olds to join classes leading to public examinations. I know that that alone will not satisfy supporters of what has been termed family or parent education. We consider that the best way forward is to introduce in Clauses 12 and 13 a power to make regulations governing the circumstances in which adults and part-timers may be educated in the same room as registered pupils.
The government amendments replace the duty currently placed by Clauses 12 and 13 on governors to secure that further education is provided in a room in which pupils are being taught only if a majority of those pupils are over compulsory school age. In its place is substituted the duty to secure that further education is not provided at any time in a room where pupils are being taught except in the circumstances prescribed.
The right reverend Prelate said that he is unable to understand our anxiety. At an earlier stage of the Bill I spoke about the possibility of abuse. There seems to be a certain amount of scepticism about that. However, the Government have a duty to try to protect children. Even if there are not well known instances of abuse, there could always be a first instance. If there were, the Government would rightly he blamed.
As I have said, the amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations. It is the Secretary of State who would make the regulations which give effect to our commitment to allow adults and part-timers to be educated alongside pupils at sixth form level and in classes where courses leading to public examination are taught. We shall also consider the extent to which other provision of that kind mentioned in our debates in Committee and on Report may need to be covered by regulations.
I remain of the view that many of the examples of family education given during our debates on the issue will not fall foul of Clause 12 for reasons which we have covered. However, we shall consult further in order to consider the extent to which, in regulations, such provisions may need to be reflected alongside courses leading to public examination and sixth forms.
I give the right reverend Prelate the assurance that we have looked at this matter. I repeat categorically that there will be consultation. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will take that as a measure of our intention to take this matter seriously. I hope that he will not press the amendment and that he and your Lordships will accept that our amendments achieve what he seeks.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Perhaps I may express some puzzlement. He referred again, as he did on Report, to the possibility of child abuse. I suggest that we should knock that on the head in this context. I do not believe that it is a serious risk that in the context of a school classroom, with a number of
48
adults and parents present, there is likely to be child abuse. If there were to be, I should be the first to deplore and condemn it, but I cannot believe that that is a realistic issue in the context of this discussion.
Furthermore, if it is the reason that lies behind the Government's thinking, they will no more be able to deal with that by the Secretary of State making prescriptions than by any other means. That convinces me that I do not yet believe that the Government have seriously given their mind to what is being done and the issues lying behind this anxiety.
I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance that, if the Secretary of State were to prescribe the circumstances under which such family education will take place, there will be consultations. However, I am sure that the Minister will understand my scepticism when I say that he did not consult before drafting the Bill. Perhaps I may say that it is rather late—and I am sorry to speak in such trenchant terms—to assure us now that there will be consultation when it has been so lacking up to this point.
I have never yet divided the House but I believe that the Government have got into something of a muddle on this issue. It is much better that we should remove this unnecessary restriction from the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me, and I must divide the House on this issue.
5.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Guildford, Bp. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Adrian, L.

Hampton, L.

Airedale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Annan, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ardwick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Barnett, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hollick, L.

Beloff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Blackstone, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hughes, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jay, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jeger, B.

Combermere, V.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

David, B.

Kennet, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Desai, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Donoughue, L.

Listowel, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Lockwood, B.

Falkender, B.

Longford, E.

Falkland, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Foot, L.

McCarthy, L.

Gallacher, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Galpern, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Gladwyn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Mallalieu, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Grey, E.

Mayhew, L.

Grimond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

49

Molloy, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Serota, B.

Nicol, B.

Shepherd, L.

Ogmore, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Palmer, L.

Stedman, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Peston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Phillips, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Templeman, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rea, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Richard, L.

Underhill, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Rochester, L.

Warnock, B.

Russell, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Whaddon, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

White, B.

Seear, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Limerick, E.

Aldington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Ampthill, L.

Lyell, L.

Arran, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Astor, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Balfour, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Blatch, B.

Manton, L.

Blyth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Borthwick, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Milverton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moyne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Munster, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Nelson, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Norrie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigavon, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dainton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Pender, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Derwent, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elibank, L.

Quinton, L.

Elles, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Renwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Flather, B.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

St. Davids, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanson, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Haslam, L.

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Swinfen, L.

Holderness, L.

Teynham, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hood, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Tryon, L.

Inglewood, L.

Ullswater, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Waddington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

White of of Hull, L.

Joseph, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kimball, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wise, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 11, leave out lines 10 to 17 and insert ("that such education is not provided at any time in a room where pupils are at that time being taught except in such circumstances as may be prescribed." ").
Page 12, leave out lines 40 to 46 and insert ("that it is not provided at any time in a room where pupils are at that time being taught except in such circumstances as may be prescribed."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 were spoken to with Amendment No. 21.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Provision of further education in grant-maintained schools]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 12, leave out lines 40 to 46 and insert ("that it is not provided at any time in a room where pupils are at that time being taught except in such circumstances as may he prescribed."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 ["Further education corporation" and "operative date"]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Designation of institutions]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 23, line 14, at end insert:
("(bb) an institution (other than a school) maintained by a local education authority, which has a substantial and significant programme of courses listed in Schedule 2 to the Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 25 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 26, which is consequential. Again, the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, is supporting me on this matter.
The amendment seeks to extend designation to substantial education providers. I did not move a similar amendment at Report stage because the wording of an earlier amendment to Clause 15 at that time was criticised. I thought it wiser to re-word the amendment to eliminate some of the objections to the words "consortium" and "consortia". This is a simplified version and its purpose is to open up the possibility of direct access to the funding council for adult education providers. Discretion would still remain in the hands of the Secretary of State—as in line 1 of the clause—and most adult education services are not at present so organised that they could meet the requirements of Clause 29. But some are and others may wish to follow.
It must be remembered that some adult colleges and services are larger than the FE colleges they are now asked to progress through. Such services in many places are the only providers for basic education—for example, English as a second language and Welsh—and where there is no history of local co-operation they will bitterly resent the adequacy of their provision being judged by the FE college. For some such services Schedule 2 encompasses the majority of their work

51
and many part-time students are involved. For all those reasons we seek to open up a route for them out of subsidiary status to another institution.
Today I received from the principal of Colchester Adult Education College a special plea that I do my best in regard to this amendment. He said:
"It may be possible for the FE governors to be objective about a few courses in distant village community education settings, but having the power to make judgment on a sizeable portion of a nearby adult college programme (which could be thought to be a rival institution post-1993) puts them in a very difficult position".
The principal continues:
"This clause allows voluntary aided schools, LEA assisted institutions and grant-aided institutions access to FEFC funding procedures but makes no mention of the adult education colleges. This is despite the fact that, by virtue of their ethos and orientation, quite apart from their achievements and status in the eyes of the public, they are by far better placed to serve the purposes of the Bill, especially where schedule 2 work is concerned. It is not logical to allow access by institutions which may be inexperienced, and which have in most cases insignificant provision, whilst keeping out adult education colleges. In our case this means the exclusion of an institution with over 10,000 part-time enrolments, 650 courses, 50 per cent. of course hours within schedule 2, over 1,200 examination candidates per annum and a proven record of high quality provision".
I am sure that the feelings of the principal of that college are echoed throughout the country. I hope that the Minister will not refer again to Clause 6(5); that is not an adequate answer. We know all about Clause 6(5) and it does not cope with the situation we are discussing. For once I hope that the Minister can be sympathetic to this cause. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment, to which my name is attached. There is no doubt that to make the adult education colleges go through the further education colleges places them in a subordinate position and one in which they are being judged by people who may be in competition with them. The work of the adult colleges is difficult enough at the present time with the funding problems that they are experiencing. It is vital that that those organisations, which are doing a quite different job from the further education colleges but which have worked out their own often high standards, should be able to appeal for funds in their own right and to be judged on what they do and not by competitors.
Viscount Combermere: My Lords, I fully support the amendment. It is crucial. It is essential for the continued health of adult education in this country which I believe to be the aspiration of noble Lords on all sides of the House.
The issues involved have been debated before. The arrangement in the Bill as it stands is no more than an agency agreement whereby FE colleges sift through bids from AE centres for Schedule 2 work. There is a widespread view throughout the world of adult education that the present arrangement was introduced purely because the DES has not investigated what is going on in the adult education colleges in terms of the key areas of Schedule 2 work such as adult basic education. Furthermore, it is widely held that there was no proper consultation in the first place.
I shall not repeat the arguments previously
52
deployed in your Lordships' House. I merely remind your Lordships that the amendment will allow the current variety of progression routes to higher education to be maintained and that it could be invidious for one adult college to be at the beck and call of another, in spite of the earlier assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. Further, where there is no history of co-operation the adult education colleges may bitterly resent the adequacy of their provision being judged against a neighbouring FE college. I suspect that the real reason the DES is opposed to the amendment is that the funding councils would be swamped by bids. Far from a multiplicity of bids being involved if the amendment is adopted, through arrangements into consortia it is estimated that AE colleges will be making fewer than 60 bids altogether throughout the country.
At Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to the fact that there are over 1 million adults in adult education. That may well be so. At the same time, some adult colleges are larger than their neighbouring FE colleges through which the Government expect their bids to be routed. Further, some FE colleges in the country have few adult education students. For example, Surrey has roughly eight times as many students in AE colleges as in FE colleges, West Sussex has roughly five times as many and Cornwall and Buckinghamshire have four times as many. Where FE colleges have adult students in some cases they are not providing basic education, but they may offer such courses as business studies and perhaps even in an area where an AE college is in any case already offering substantial courses under Schedule 2.
This amendment is absolutely vital. I do not know of any college or colleague in adult education who would oppose it. It is the key to the future health of adult education in this country. That is a concern which about half a million people have already expressed in a recent petition organised by the Women's Institute, the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education and other concerned bodies.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I agree with every word that has been said so far in support of this amendment. I reiterate that the most important factor is to keep open the opportunities for those men and women returning to education later in life. My own experience is one which is not concerned with people in education. I can recall three people. One was a plumber. He left school and did his apprenticeship and his indentures. He then went to the LSE and became a postgraduate. As far as I know he is still in academe. I forget what another did, but he did not return to further education until he was in his early twenties. He did that via night-school. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that such places of education were known as night-schools. He went to various places and he is now a professor of history at an overseas university. The third person I recall only recently, and slightly late in his life, became a postgraduate medic. Those are just three examples. Noble Lords who have been concerned with education must know of plenty of

53
students who have had great successes and who are products of the night-school. The Government say that that is fine and that they will be looked after.
Such students are not concerned with administrative niceties. They want the right course and want it to be available locally. If needs be that course should be available from the adult education centre and not the college. We are told that arbitration is not necessary. I am grateful to my noble friend for his elucidation of that point in relation to an earlier amendment. He told us that arbitration would happen anyway. How is a council to know that arbitration is needed? This amendment will at least allow some adult centres to be designated for direct funding where they can make the case without being ruled out simply because the local education authority maintains them. This amendment must command support in the interests of students who are best served by real competition between institutions.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any misunderstanding on the part of the noble Baroness, Lady David, who moved the amendment or on the part of the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, and my noble friend Lord Teviot, as regards the importance of adult education institutes or colleges which at the moment are maintained by local education authorities. With respect to the noble Baroness and noble Lords, I believe that there is some misunderstanding about the way in which these institutions can have their courses, or in some cases the institute or college, centrally funded.
This amendment seeks to add to the list in Clause 28(2) adult colleges and centres maintained by local education authorities. If they are so added they will then be designated as eligible to receive funds administered by the new funding councils. The difficulty with the main thrust of the amendment is that I do not believe it is workable. These colleges and adult education centres are absolutely admirable. One has only to listen to the way in which my noble friend Lord Teviot referred to how he feels about them. Nonetheless, they do not have any status in law separate from the local education authority which maintains them. That is why we have provided in the Bill for institutions maintained by local education authorities to enter the new sector through incorporation under Clauses 15 and 16.
Designation is appropriate only for institutions which already have their own status in law, such as the City Lit. The noble Baroness referred to the Colchester Adult Education Centre. I do not know whether that has a governing body. Even if it has, that has no separate legal identity of its own. I was a little surprised to learn that a governing body is a collection of individuals. One advantage of incorporation is that the governors of colleges are not personally liable for debts incurred by the colleges during their term of office. That would otherwise be so even after their governorship ceases. In the case of corporations it is they themselves and not members of the governing bodies of the further education colleges which acquire rights and incur liabilities. That should make clear
54
why designation under Clause 28 is not the right way forward for colleges maintained by local education authorities even if they had governing bodies.
Having said that, which is negative, I now come to the positive. Both noble Lords and the noble Baroness have all spoken as though that were the end of the story and that it means complete exclusion of those not designated under Clause 28. I tried to make clear during Committee stage that it is going to be open to adult institutions—this would apply to all such institutions whether or not they have governing bodies—to explore the funding councils with the possibility of incorporation. Clause 16(3), and not Clause 6, is deliberately drafted in order to allow the funding councils to propose to the Secretary of State that any institution that provides further education should be included in the new sector.
I emphasise that the right way forward is for institutions to make application to the funding councils. I can give the assurance that the Secretaries of State for both Education and for Wales will ask the funding councils for England and Wales to consider any applications under Clause 16 as one of the first tasks that they undertake. At the risk of the noble Baroness, Lady David, slaying me, in addition I must add that there is also the avenue through Clause 6 for colleges or institutes which are providing Schedule 2 courses, to apply to receive funds through the system which we have already discussed this afternoon and which is found in Clause 6(5).
Quite apart from the fact that I like to believe that I have given a constructive answer, the real problem with the amendment is that it is unworkable. It seeks to say that the colleges and institutes referred to in the amendment—in other words, those maintained by local education authorities—should be designated under Clause 28. For the reasons that I gave early on in my remarks, that is not possible. For that reason alone I do not believe that the amendment could or should be made.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, on a point of information and clarification arising from what the noble Lord has said, am I right to assume that colleges which are becoming companies will have direct access to the funding councils because they are no longer maintained by local education authorities?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have been asked that question before in the course of the Bill. If I remember rightly, my answer was yes. I repeat that answer, yes, again. If by chance I am wrong I shall immediately notify the noble Baroness, but I do not believe I am.
Baroness David: My Lords, we have debated this matter a great many times now. The Minister has tried to give me some convincing answers, but I am not convinced. The amendment may be technically faulty, but there is always the chance to put that right before the Bill reaches the other place. Because of the strength of feeling that exists in the whole adult education world, I believe that we have now come to the end of the road at Third Reading. In order to show

55
the strength of feeling and the anxiety which is felt in the adult education colleges and institutes, I must test the opinion of the House.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 109.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Adrian, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Annan, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bottomley, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Combermere, V. [Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dainton, L.

Mayhew, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donoughue, L.

Palmer, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Phillips, B.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fitt, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Flowers, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Rochester, L.

Gregson, L.

Russell, E.

Grey, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grimond, L.

Seear, B.

Guildford, Bp.

Serota, B.

Halsbury, E.

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Teviot, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hollick, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Underhill, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hooson, L.

Warnock, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hughes, L.

Whaddon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Beloff, L.

Aldington, L.

Belstead, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Blatch, B.

Arran, E.

Blyth, L.

Astor, V.

Borthwick, L.

Auckland, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Balfour, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

56

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caithness, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Manton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Marlesford, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Merrivale, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Milverton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Morris, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Mottistone, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Munster, E.

Derwent, L.

Nelson, E.

Elibank, L.

Norrie, L.

Elles, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orkney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Flather, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pennock, L.

Greenway, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hanson, L.

Quinton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Haslam, L.

Reay, L.

Henley, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Holderness, L.

Rodney, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hood, V.

Seccombe, B.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Stockton, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Inglewood, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Sudeley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swinfen, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Joseph, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kimball, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Waddington, L.

Limerick, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Liverpool, E.

White of of Hull, L.

Long, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Lyell, L.

Wise, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.8 p.m.
Clause 32 [Transfer of property, etc., to designated institutions]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Attribution of surpluses and deficits]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 30, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("as") and insert ("and in the financial year ending immediately before that date (referred to in this section as the "relevant financial year"), the institution was covered by a scheme under section 33 or 139 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (schemes for financing schools or institutions of further or higher education); and in this section, in relation to the institution, the scheme is referred to as the "applicable scheme" and the authority concerned").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend and with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendment No. 27. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 28. This clause deals with the attribution of any surpluses or deficits on colleges' budgets at the date of transfer. We have not discussed the matter before in debate but it has been the subject of discussion with the local authority associations and college representatives who are

57
concerned that the arrangements on this issue should be as clear and as simple as possible. In particular there is concern among those who have to operate the arrangements that the existing wording of Clause 37 might not provide a workable definition by which an institution's budget share could be defined for the purposes of determining a surplus or a deficit. To meet that concern the amendment provides that an institution's budget share for this purpose will be determined by reference to its share under a local management scheme under the Education Reform Act 1988. That will greatly simplify the process of determining an institution's surplus or deficit.
The revised text does not alter the substance of what will happen to surpluses or deficits at the point of independence; they will transfer to the colleges. The amendment will, however, ensure that the arrangements are easier to operate.
In the light of the discussions with the interested parties, the amendment also allows for regulation to be made to provide how any sums payable under this clause will be paid over from the colleges to the authority and vice versa, thus providing for orderly arrangements. Regulations will of course be the subject of consultation before they are published.
These amendments have been introduced in response to specific concerns from the local authority associations and from colleges. I hope that the House will welcome them. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful for these amendments and I thank the noble Lord the Minister for writing to me in advance to explain what they mean. As I understand it, the amendments have been produced following contact between the local authority associations and Department of Education and Science officials over the drafting of this part of the Bill. A good deal of anxiety was expressed that the original wording could be construed to imply that the FE colleges would be forgiven debts owed to their maintaining authority at the point of incorporation. I know that that was not the Government's intention. Nevertheless, it is helpful that we now have a clause that will make it clear that there should be a proper and equitable settlement between the new corporations and their former maintaining authorities.
The inclusion of references to local authority schemes of delegation is particularly helpful. Therefore, on these Benches we strongly support the amendments. However, it would be most helpful if the Minister could clarify one point. It relates to the definition of "net budget share" as used in the clause. It would appear that any surplus accumulated by the colleges or by a college over a number of years would be taken into account in the overall calculation of the final surplus or deficit to be transferred. However, in calculating any repayment of deficit to the assisting local authority, it is not absolutely clear that accumulated deficits from previous years—perhaps several years—would be taken into account. The present wording uses the phrase,
"net expenditure of the institution for the relevant financial year is greater than the net budget share of the institution for that year".
58
I am asking whether the accumulated deficits will be taken into account. Perhaps it would be helpful if I mentioned that the DES circular and guidance on the drafting of schemes of delegation, which was sent out in September 1988, states:
"Colleges should be required to adhere to their budget limits. They should not plan for deficits and any unplanned deficit which arises should he deducted from the following year's budget share as anticipated spending".
Can the Minister clarify the issue? I once again welcome the amendments in general.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for the warm welcome that she gave to the amendments. We have improved the Bill as a result of consultations with the associations. Perhaps I may give a quick answer to her question. Yes, the accumulated deficit would be taken into account.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 30, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert:
("( ) If the net expenditure of the institution for the relevant financial year is less than the net budget share of the institution for that year, the assisting authority shall pay to the new governing body of the institution a sum equal to the shortfall.
( ) If the net expenditure of the institution for the relevant financial year is greater than the net budget share of the institution for that year, the new governing body of the institution shall pay to the assisting authority a sum equal to the excess.
( ) In this section, in respect of any financial year of the institution—
"net budget share" means the budget share—

(i) less such amount as may be prescribed in respect of any earned income, and

(ii) plus such amount as may be prescribed in respect of any surplus, and

"net expenditure" means any expenditure, less such amount as may be prescribed in respect of earned income.
( ) Any sum payable under this section shall be paid in accordance with regulations, and the regulations may provide for sums to be payable by prescribed instalments and for sums to carry prescribed interest.
( ) Regulations may, in the case of any institution where the operative date falls within a financial year in which the institution was covered by such a scheme as is referred to in subsection (1) above, make provision for applying this section with modifications relating to the amounts that are to be taken for the purposes of this section to be the net budget share and the net expenditure of the institution for that year.
( ) In this section, in respect of any financial year of the institution—
"budget share" means the amount which is that institution's budget share for the relevant financial year for the purposes of Chapter III of Part I or Chapter III of Part II of the Education Reform Act 1988,
"earned income" means any sums, other than sums appropriated for the purposes of the institution by the assisting authority, received by the institution in respect of the relevant financial year which the institution is authorised under the applicable scheme to retain,
"expenditure" means such expenditure for the purposes of the institution incurred in the relevant financial year by the former governing body or the assisting authority as may be prescribed,
"financial year" has the same meaning as in the Education Reform Act 1988,

59
"former governing body" means the governing body of the institution immediately before the operative date and "new governing body" means the governing body of the institution on or after that date, and
"surplus" means the amount of any surplus which the institution is authorised under the applicable scheme to carry forward to the relevant financial year.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 29:
Before Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Collective Worship
.—(1) In this section "institution of voluntary origin" means a further education institution which, when it became a further education institution, was a voluntary school or a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school before it became grant-maintained.
(2) The governing body of every further education institution except an institution which on the appointed day was a college of further education shall ensure that at an appropriate time on at least one day in each week during which the institution is open an act of collective worship is held at the institution which persons receiving education at the institution may attend.
(3) In an institution of voluntary origin such act of collective worship shall—

(a) be in such forms as to comply with the provisions of any trust deed affecting the institution, and

(b) reflect the religious traditions and practices of the institution before it became a further education institution.

(4) In all other further education institutions such act of collective worship shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character in that it shall reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief but need not be distinctive of any particular Christian denomination.
(5) If the governing body of a further education institution considers it appropriate to do so it may in addition to the act of collective worship referred to in subsection (3) or (4) provide for acts of worship which reflect the practices of some or all of the other religious traditions represented in Great Britain.
(6) In this section "the appointed day" means the day appointed under section 90 of this Act for the commencement of subsection (4) of section 15 of this Act.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 30. The amendments deal with rather distinct matters but they are interrelated. I make no apology for returning once again to the matter of religious education and worship in the context of sixth form colleges. I suggest that this is not just a matter of adjusting the curriculum. It touches the very nature of our education system.
The Education Reform Act 1988 refers to the education of the whole person, including the spiritual and moral dimension. I hope that we shall not lightly set that aside. Your Lordships will remember that sixth form colleges at the moment come within the terms of the schools regulations which require them to have a collective act of worship daily and to include religious education in the curriculum. But by transferring sixth form colleges from the schools sector to the further education sector this administrative or reorganisational step is having the effect of removing those provisions for religious education and worship from these educational institutions.
At previous stages I have moved amendments along these lines. The present amendments have been revised further in order to take account of the criticisms made of earlier drafts. I should like to remind your Lordships that the amendment now before the House requires the provision of worship but does not make attendance at it compulsory. The act of worship is not to be daily, as in the 1988 Act, but is to be provided at least once a week. There is no narrowness here. Specific reference is made to non-Christian religions. Where the governing body of the institution thinks that that kind of worship should be provided, provision for that is included in my amendment.
At Report stage, in referring to religious education, I gave four principal reasons why I thought this matter should be retained within the context of the Bill. I shall give them again. First, young people need the opportunity to reflect on their academic specialisms in a context where the moral and spiritual values of their studies can be explored. Secondly, spiritual experience is widespread and the power of religious conviction formidable. Young people need opportunity to analyse that. They need to understand it and, if necessary, redirect it. Thirdly, Christianity is a core element in our tradition and our culture. Every society needs to understand its own history. Fourthly, religious education as an academic discipline is linked with how we view it in general terms in the context of the curriculum. I summarise those arguments and do not elaborate them because I do not wish to weary your Lordships with merely repeating what I said at Report stage.
In rejecting my amendment the Minister said that it was inappropriate to make this or any other curriculum requirement in the FE sector. He said that,
"the curriculum is a matter for decision by institutions in the light of local demand".—[Official Report, 16/1/92; col. 428.]
I accept the general thrust of the noble Lord's argument, but I am sure he will recognise that in Schedule 2 to the Bill we give very considerable detailed attention to courses which shall be provided. Those are matters relating to the curriculum. I suggest to the Minister that his argument cannot be sustained. There are curriculum matters referred to in the Bill and I do not think he can say that this is a matter which therefore, on principle, cannot be considered.
Furthermore, we have in the context of the Bill given a great deal of attention to our wish that there should be special provision for people with learning difficulties. When we are dealing with particular people we do not leave this matter to local demand and to the particular views of governing bodies. We require certain things on the face of the Bill. My argument is that where we make the judgment that certain things are of sufficient importance and value, we ensure they are put on the face of the Bill. I wish to argue that these matters are indeed of importance. We hammered out an agreement in 1988 in the context of the Education Reform Act and I hope that we are not now, just four years later, going to start rejigging that agreement.
That brings me to a further point which I address to the Minister. I am sure he will understand if I say

61
that a certain number of his colleagues do from time to time "gun" for the Church because they feel that we fail to give a moral lead. When Ministers gun for the Church the people they actually have in their sights are the Bishops. We are obvious targets because of our quaint and conspicuous attire. When Ministers and others gun for the Bishops they are saying that we ought to give a moral lead. I put it to the House that we are now giving a moral lead. We are giving a moral lead by saying that we ought to retain and secure that element in our education system which enables people to explore the moral and spiritual dimension. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will recognise the seriousness with which we on these Benches view the matter. I also hope that he will look more sympathetically at the amendment before us and at the one which follows. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as an unbeliever I come to the subject from a perspective which is exactly the opposite to that of the right reverend Prelate. I recognise the fact that this is a heart-breakingly difficult subject. But it seems to me that the amendment respects everyone's conscience. I believe that the right reverend Prelate has come as near as is humanly possible to getting it right. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I should like him to reflect upon one phrase used by the right reverend Prelate; namely, "that certain things are of sufficient importance and value". It is certainly my view that things of sufficient importance and value are all too frequently put on one side today. Of course, it is just possible that my noble friend may have sound reasons for thinking that the amendment should be rejected. However, in inviting support for its rejection, I hope that he will not put those of us who ordinarily would support him in the position of denying a proper place for those things which are of sufficient importance and value.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has very fairly put to your Lordships an issue of great importance and one of a compelling nature. After all, we are a Christian country that has an established Church, with a monarch who is head of that Church. It would be unfortunate if we were to pass a Bill of this sort which made little or no provision for public worship. I very much commend the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate. I also very much agree with what my noble friend who is sitting behind me said. I sincerely hope that my noble friend the Minister will understand that many of us feel very strongly about the matter and feel more strongly about it than even our loyalty to the Government will enable us to resist.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on the matter because, as your Lordships may remember, I led the revolt against the Government (whom I support) on the act of collective worship. In the end, the Government conceded. Originally, the Government's attitude was, "Oh, there are many religions and many races; it is too difficult. We can't do it." However, your Lordships thought
62
otherwise. The result was that noble Lords on all sides of the House—which included believers as well as non-believers and those of various religions—came together to establish what in effect we see beautifully set out in subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the amendment before us.
Having declared my position, I should point out that at the outset of the Bill I openly declared my hand to my noble friend Lord Belstead. I told him that there were three things wrong with the Bill. The first concerned disabilities. I said that the position as regards children with learning difficulties had to be changed. The Government have done that. Secondly, I said that Clause 77 (as it was) was a monstrous provision and that it could not stand. It does not stand. Thirdly, I said, "I am no ecclesiastic and I have no right to draft amendments; but if my Bishops draft something that makes sense I must support it." Therefore, as a matter of conscience, I am committed to vote with the right reverend Prelate, irrespective of whether the Government win or lose.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, it would be inappropriate for me to speak at length in this debate, as other commitments sadly prevented me from contributing to earlier stages of debate on matters of principle. I very much regret that fact. I simply want to emphasise that the importance of the case advanced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford does not derive solely from his authority as chairman of the Church of England's Board of Education.
The status of religious education in our society is a very widespread concern in the Church of England and in other Christian Churches; and indeed in other faiths. A further loosening of the underpinnings of religious education would surely be seen by many as a step in the wrong direction. However, I was heartened by the readiness of the Government to include positive references to religious education and worship in the Education Reform Act 1988. I welcomed its emphasis that a balanced curriculum would include that which promotes the spiritual and moral development of pupils. Religious education should also be integral to preparing pupils for the opportunities and responsibilities of adult life. The religious and the spiritual factors are all too obviously present in today's world and cannot simply be wished away.
Therefore, I hope that the Government's mind will not be closed to the important arguments put forward by the right reverend Prelate, which have indeed already been backed by other speakers. I understand that the passage of such a complex Bill will involve some degree of compromise—give and take. This particular concern runs so deep that I do not feel that the Church can let it go. I support the claim of the right reverend Prelate that the amendment touches upon the nature of our society by asking how far we wish to give real effect to our concern for the spiritual dimension.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who spoke earlier, I too am an unbeliever. Moreover, were I to be a believer, it is extremely unlikely that I would be an Anglican.

63
However, I support the right reverend Prelate in the matter. I do so for one simple reason. Although I am not strong on religious observance or acts of worship, I believe that the right reverend Prelate is right to demand religious education. I believe that for the reason which he himself mentioned during the course of his speech; namely, that Western civilisation as we know it is, for the most part, a Christian civilisation. It is impossible, even for unbelievers, to understand the civilisation in which we live if we do not understand at least something of the ideas of Christianity, whether or not we accept the spiritual values. I support the right reverend Prelate and I hope that the Government will accept his amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like, first, to pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for the terms in which the amendment is couched. I believe that it is true to say, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, that the right reverend Prelate has taken the very greatest care to ensure that the amendment is most reasonable in nature. However, as was made clear by the speech of the right reverend Prelate, both amendments spring from a deeply held conviction. That is not to say—and I must warn your Lordships—that there are no problems of a technical nature with the amendment. I shall briefly explain what I mean.
The amendments relate mainly to sixth form colleges. As I explained during an intervention on Report, although sixth form colleges have hitherto been treated as part of the school sector, they are in many ways closer to the college sector where the curriculum is a matter for decision by the institutions in the light of local demand. The Bill will clarify the position of sixth form colleges by bringing them into an integrated new further education sector.
I must point out to your Lordships that the Government believe that curriculum decisions in all colleges in the new further education sector really ought to be a matter for their governing bodies, whenever that is possible, and not dictated by Parliament. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford made the point about Schedule 2, and it is indeed a telling point, but I simply say that whenever it is possible we believe that should be the situation so far as the further education sector is concerned.
In saying that, I recognise that there is considerable support in the House for ensuring that a collective act of worship is available for all those students who wish to attend one, and indeed, as I understood your Lordships, for Amendment No. 30, which deals with the question of religious education in the same way. The support for that was led by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, and by the most effective intervention that came from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.
May I say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, than whom there is no more stalwart supporter of the party to which I belong, that of course I understand it when he says to me that there are issues here that are matters of conscience, and I
64
respect him for saying that? But before I finish speaking may I cover a point that I think is worth covering, although it is only just germane to the discussion we are having? There should be no continuing concern that the absence of an explicit provision in the Bill for a collective act of worship and for religious education could have any detrimental effect on the former sixth form colleges which are denominational institutions. The most reverend Primate was generous in saying that he recognised the attitude of the Government so far as the Education Reform Act 1988 was concerned.
In the case of this particular Bill, urged on by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, assurances have been given by the Government concerning the safeguarding of the religious education nature of the denominational colleges. In the former voluntary-aided colleges foundation governors will of course continue to be in a majority on the governing bodies. All further education corporations will be able to apply to the Secretary of State to amend their instruments of government; for example, to increase the proportion of their foundation governors. I gave an assurance on Report that any such request from former voluntary-controlled colleges will be sympathetically considered.
Any provisions relating to religious education in the articles of government for voluntary-aided colleges will be retained. Also provision will be built into the articles of government for voluntary-controlled colleges to ensure that religious instruction is given in accordance with the trust deed. In addition to that, where the trust deed is silent on religious education the articles will provide that it must be given in accordance with the practice observed by the college before incorporation.
However, I realise that that is not the issue we are pursuing. Although these amendments are intended to relate mainly to sixth form colleges, I have to say that there is a technical defect to this amendment. If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment you must decide how that affects your Lordships' view on this amendment. I have been advised that the absence of a definition of a "further education institution" in subsection (2) of the proposed new clauses could cause difficulties. In particular those subsections could be held to apply to, for example, Ruskin College and the Workers' Educational Association. I find it difficult to believe that that is the right reverend Prelate's intention, because the amendments are intended to trench upon sixth form colleges which transfer to the further education sector.
I have listened with great care, and indeed sympathy, to the debate. I have had to point out that there is a defect, and a real technical defect, in these amendments. But I would not be doing my duty if I did not also say that I remain of the view that it is right, wherever we possibly can, not to lay upon the colleges in the further education sector statutory requirements in the curriculum relating to worship or religious education, not for dogmatic reasons but because the further education sector has always been a sector that, wherever it has been possible to do so, the curriculum has been for those who govern and run

65
the colleges. It has been the policy of the Government to try to increase that freedom and not to constrict it. I recognise the feeling on this particular subject. I now leave it to the right reverend Prelate to decide what to do with the amendments.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister sits down, and although we are on opposing sides at the moment, may I ask for clarification and help from him on the question of the technical defect? If there be a technical defect is this not the position: one says there is a technical defect, but that does not inhibit this House here and now, on a Division, from accepting the amendment, on the understanding that another place, if so advised, can put it right and deal with the defect? Is my understanding of this position correct?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is perfectly right, but my noble friend must not leap to the conclusion that that is what the Government would do in another place if your Lordships were to pass this particular amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate.I am particularly grateful to those who do not share my particular religious conviction but yet see the appropriateness of this amendment. I am particularly appreciative of that support. If I may say so, it has taken me somewhat by surprise. That makes me all the more grateful. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for making the point that he made a few moments ago. I do not want to be blown off course by being told that even now, after all my attempts at amendments, there are still technical difficulties. Those can, if it bears goodwill, be dealt with in due time. I think we must hold fast.
That brings me to the main and substantial point that, as I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made in his response. He said that if there is no provision in relation to worship and religious education in this Bill that will in no way detract from the freedom of those institutions to provide RE and worship where local demand so dictates. I appreciate that in one sense, but what I have to say is that I have been in touch with a number of sixth form colleges where they are doing fine work in this direction. The reality is that if we now, as we see them transferred, remove from them—because that is what we are doing—the requirement about religious education and worship, then we shall leave them naked and exposed.
It is not so much a matter of our saying, "Give us the tools, and we will finish the job". What we are saying is, "The job is being done. Do not steal the tools". I want to resist yet one more twist of the secularist screw. For that reason I have no option but to divide the House in order to test the opinion of those present.
6.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 89.

Division No. 4

66

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Judd, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Auckland, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Blackstone, B.

Limerick, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Longford, E.

Butterworth, L.

McCarthy, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Monson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Elton, L.

Palmer, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Falkender, B.

Peston, L.

Falkland, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Flowers, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Galpern, L.

Rea, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

Greenway, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gregson, L.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Guildford, Bp. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hampden, V.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Serota, B.

Hamwee, B.

Shackleton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Swinfen, L.

Hollick, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Templeman, L.

Hood, V.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Warnock, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jay, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Flather, B.

Aldington, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Annan, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Arran, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hanson, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Balfour, E.

Haslam, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

Holderness, L.

Borthwick, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Inglewood, L.

Caithness, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Kimball, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Derwent, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Elibank, L.

Liverpool, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

67

Lyell, L.

Reay, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Rennell, L.

Mancroft, L.

Renwick, L.

Manton, L.

Rodney, L.

Marlesford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Merrivale, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mersey, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stockton, E.

Munster, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Norrie, L.

Sudeley, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orkney, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Ullswater, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Vinson, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Waddington, L.

Pender, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

White of of Hull, L.

Quinton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.47 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 30:
Before Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Religious Education
.—(1) In this section "institution of voluntary origin" means a further education institution which, when it became a further education institution, was a voluntary school or a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school before it became grant-maintained.
(2) The governing body of every further education institution except an institution which on the appointed day was a college of further education shall ensure that religious education is provided at the institution for all persons attending the institution who wish to receive it.
(3) The governing body of a further education institution shall be deemed to be fulfilling its duty under this section if religious education is provided at a time or times at which it is convenient for the majority of full time students to attend.
(4) For the purpose of this section religious education may take the form of a course of lectures or classes or of single lectures or classes provided on a regular basis and may include a course of study leading to an examination or the award of a qualification.
(5) The form and content of religious education provided pursuant to this section shall be determined from time to time by the governing body of each further education institution and—

(a) in the case of an institution of voluntary origin—

(i) shall be in accordance with the provisions of any trust deed affecting the institution, and

(ii) shall not be contrary to the religious traditions of the institution before it became a further education institution;

(b) in the case of all further education institutions shall reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain.

(5) In this section "the appointed day" means the day appointed under section 90 of this Act for the commencement of subsection (4) of section 15 of this Act.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, fortified by the last few minutes, I beg to move this second amendment which deals specifically with religious education. In the earlier debate on Amendment No. 29 I spoke to the reasons why I thought this amendment also was important although I recognise that it raises different issues in some respects.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I believe that the amendment has already been spoken to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Yes, my Lords. I commend it to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Variation of trust deeds]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendments Nos. 31 and 32:
Page 36, line 38, leave out ("and").
Page 36, line 42, at end insert ("and
( ) where the instrument to be modified is a trust deed and the trustees are different from the persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the trustees.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend and with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 and speak to Amendments Nos. 57 and 58.
At Report stage, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford moved an amendment to Clause 44 requiring the Secretary of State to consult the trustees before modifying a trust deed relating to an institution in the further education sector. In moving his amendment, the right reverend Prelate pointed out that the trustees may not necessarily be the same group of people referred to in the present descriptions of people whom this clause requires the Secretary of State to consult before modifying a trust deed. I undertook to give further consideration to this point.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for raising this matter. These amendments now amend Clause 44—and its equivalent in Part II of the Bill, Clause 73—to require the Secretary of State to consult the trustees, if they are different from the persons currently mentioned in subsection (2), before he modifies a trust deed relating to an institution in the further or higher education sector. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to place on record my gratitude to the Minister. He has met exactly the point I raised at an earlier stage. I am grateful that the matter has been so satisfactorily attended to. I fully support my noble friend.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 48 [Information with respect to institutions within the further education sector]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
Page 38, line 13, leave out ("qualifying their students for") and insert ("of their students on").
Page 38, line 30, leave out ("disclose the name of") and insert ("name").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I wish to move Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. During the debate on Report on Amendment No. 114 I indicated that the Government wished to consider whether the power proposed in our amendment to Clause 48 was sufficiently wide in scope for the purpose intended. I said then that if we believed we could improve on the drafting a further amendment would be introduced at Third Reading.
We have come to the conclusion that the present wording defines too narrowly the information

69
required on the educational achievements of students starting at FE institutions. The purpose behind the particular provision in the clause is to get as accurate and complete a picture as possible of students' educational attainments before and during their courses so that meaningful information is available on the value added by institutions. This latest amendment would further that purpose.
Clause 48, as currently drafted, requires information only on educational achievements qualifying students for entry to institutions to be published and not a wider record of all educational achievements held by students on entry. Some students may hold relevant qualifications in addition to the ones needed to qualify for entry to an institution. It may even be that an institution has no entrance requirements and does not look at a person's educational achievements at all. We believe that it could be necessary for information on such achievements to be available in order to construct the base-line against which the value of the input made by the institution could properly be measured. The amendment which I now put forward would enable this more meaningful comparison to be made and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will doubtless recognise it as being along similar lines to the one he proposed in Committee.
Finally, I should like to remind your Lordships that, as I said on Report, we are not giving a commitment now to require the publication of the information in question. The Government agree that it could be useful to young people, parents and employers, but more thought is needed as to how it can be presented in as useful and straightforward a way as possible.
I now turn to Amendment No. 34. This amendment would provide that any information which the Secretary of State required the governing body of an institution to publish under Clause 48 should not name any student to whom it relates. The Bill, as drafted, would prevent the publication of any information that has the effect of disclosing the name of a student. We now realise that this wording could unduly restrict the range of information which an institution in the further education sector might publish. For example, it might prevent a college from publishing results where only one student has taken a particular qualification because it could be argued that to do so could lead to disclosure of the identity of the student. It is not uncommon for colleges to have single student entries; for instance, the occasional Greek A-level or one of the more specialist national vocational qualifications. I commend the amendments to the House.
I beg to move Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 52 [Duty to give information to the funding councils]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 40, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) Such information relating to the provision which has been made by a local education authority in respect of any pupil at an institution as the authority may require for the purposes of claiming any amount in respect of the pupil from
70
another authority under section 51 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 or by virtue of regulations under section 52 of that Act shall, where the institution becomes an institution within the further education sector, be provided to the authority by the governing body of the institution.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Belstead I wish to move this amendment. As with the amendment to Clause 37, this amendment has arisen as a result of discussion with the local authority associations. Under existing legislation local education authorities can make recoupment claims in respect of tuition provided in colleges in their area for pupils from outside their area. In most cases they can only do so on the basis of information provided by the colleges.
When the new sector is established those arrangements will come to an end as funding will relate to the number of students in a college rather than, under the local authority funding arrangements, to their place of residence. Claims for the period up to 31st March 1993 will remain to be settled between local education authorities. The amendment therefore adds a further duty to those placed upon college governing bodies; that is, to provide a local education authority with such information as it may require in connection with such claims. This amendment has also been introduced in response to a specific concern. I hope the House will welcome it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Directions]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 41, line 16, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) If the Secretary of State has reasonable cause to believe that there has been a want of due care in the conduct of the financial affairs of any institution to which this Part of this Act applies, being an institution substantially funded by one of the further education funding councils, he may, having undertaken consultations with the relevant funding council and having afforded an opportunity to the institution to make representations, give such directions as may appear to him to be expedient to rectify such financial situation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is not apparently in the Chamber I hope I may be permitted to move this amendment as it also bears my name. In moving this amendment I wish to return to what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said in his reply to me on 16th January at col. 449 of the Official Report when I moved an amendment to what was then Clause 53. Noble Lords will recall the Government had tabled amendments on Report to the higher education end of the Bill which eventually did not find favour with your Lordships. My aim at the time was to extend a similar provision to what was then Clause 53 at the further education end of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would then give no such commitment. After paying lip service to the achievements of the colleges, he expressed strong reservations. He said:
"However, it is quite a big step from there for the Government to say that we have the confidence to limit our long stop powers to intervene in the event of something going very wrong with one of the colleges and the funding council accounting officer failing to fulfil his responsibilities. For that would be the effect of these amendments. They would impose very important constraints. They provide that the Secretary of State may not frame directions by reference to particular courses of study. That includes an institution's ability to offer

71
particular courses or programmes. It applies to their content and it covers the way in which they are taught, supervised and assessed … In further education, however, it is a fact that, successful as they have been, many of the colleges are not long-standing and do not have a track record which can compare with that of our historic universities".—[Official Report, 16/1/92; col. 449.]
Whatever the Government's protests that they would be most unlikely to invoke such powers, a careful reading of that passage would seem to me to indicate that the Government want the power to frame directions by reference to particular courses of study, including an institution's ability to offer particular courses or programmes. The Government want to have the ultimate power over what is taught, supervised and assessed.
Apart from the fact that many further education institutions resent the rather disparaging reference to their track record, I suggest it would be a great mistake to go down that route. It does not accord with what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said on Amendment No. 29 moved by the right reverend Prelate when he said that curriculum decisions are for governing bodies. I particularly noted his remarks on that amendment.
Most principals—this applies both to further education and to sixth form colleges—welcome incorporation and the greater flexibility and freedom this will bring. They are not against local education authorities. They believe this move is in the national interest and in the interest of the individual. They therefore support the structural changes in the Bill. At the same time they are increasingly concerned by the powers the Government are taking to interfere with their curricular freedom. Academic freedom may sound more highflown and have a more emotional appeal but the essential freedom for colleges is to put on courses which they know students want and in the shape and form students want.
As one principal put it to me, young people have a sixth sense about what will be of interest or importance, for example media studies or leisure activities which are coming fast up the track. That is emphatically not something the man in Whitehall knows best about. The signals to the colleges should come from the students themselves in possession of the latest labour market information and good careers advice.
In a fast-changing scene old-fashioned manpower planning is totally discredited. For example, government pressure to increase courses in science and engineering has been counter-productive in terms of student response, while employers do not necessarily want candidates who have studied engineering when some higher education institutions offer engineering places in return for two A-levels at grade E. Not unnaturally employers prefer students with high grades who have demonstrated success in some other field.
A strong, self-confident further education sector, working with the grain of well-informed demand, can and will deliver the goods, provided only that the Secretary of State and his civil servants keep out of curricular matters. There is already a track record of
72
notable successes. For example, sixth form colleges have dramatically increased the staying-on rate in many areas. That has not been at the expense of other further education establishments. That success has to a great extent been due to the varied mix of courses which they offer. For example, I understand that 40 per cent. of A-level candidates in sixth form colleges straddle the science/arts divide. The colleges are becoming so popular in many areas that they are turning students away. In the further education sector colleges are working more closely with the TECs and industry. Both links demand a free hand in devising tailor-made courses to meet particular needs.
Against that background, though they believe the potential of the sector to be enormous, college principals are understandably anxious about a number of issues on which I hope the noble Lord can give us some assurances. Those are: first, that funding will be on a per capita basis and the funding councils will not be required to fund on a quota basis certain courses selected by the Government; secondly, that offers by colleges will not be restricted to accommodate the sixth forms of grant-maintained schools; and, thirdly, that the freedom enjoyed to offer BTEC, City and Guilds and other similar courses will not be narrowed under the new NCVQ arrangements. What can the Government tell us about their intentions in those areas? We need to know.
There is a final question, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he speaks, will put to your Lordships. I am speaking in his place only because he was a minute or two late in arriving in the Chamber. Sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. The goose of higher education will not be fattened and will not expand as we all desire if the gander of further education does not have the same free-range facilities which produce the best eggs. A major increase in participation in higher education will not be possible unless it is nourished by the further education sector. Nor is the distinction between the two sectors rigid.
There is already a growing further education-higher education interface. For example, joint arrangements exist between Solihull further education college of technology and Warwick University whereby the college prepares students to enter the second year of a degree course at Warwick. Such arrangements between colleges and polytechnics across the country are growing. That is a route which brings more people without traditional A-level qualifications into higher education, which is surely one of the Government's objectives.
In the light of those developments, to treat the two sectors in different ways is a form of discrimination which will not be fruitful. Any curtailment of control of the curriculum in a sector serving such an extraordinary diversity of students must be misguided. That is why the amendment would make a major improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, originally this was my amendment but I have changed my mind. On balance I oppose the amendment. Perhaps it would interest your Lordships to know why I have changed my mind.

73
The form of drafting of Clauses 53 and 77—now Clauses 54 and 79—as originally proposed obscured for me the substance of the disparity as between further education under Part I and higher education under Part II. Such was the case when I tabled the amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was good enough to support me. I was grateful to him.
The amendment is now supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. With the greatest respect to him, I do not think that the analogy of the goose and gander is apt as between the position in relation to Part I and the position in relation to Part II. The amendment is also now supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
I have been put under no pressure. My change of mind is not part of any deal. The position is simply that having considered the matter with some care and taken the advice of certain academics, all of whom I see present, I concluded that I am no longer able to accept the proposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that in a free society the principle of academic freedom is indivisible as between colleges and universities, as the noble Baroness said at col. 453 of Hansard of 16th January 1992. At that time I nodded my assent.
Secondly, I accept the need for disparity of treatment referred to by my noble friend Lord Belstead at col. 449, not only on the track record argument but for many other reasons given in the advice that I have received. Thirdly, according to the advice which I have received, in this arena the Secretary of State must have power to protect the £2 billion a year which is at stake if he is to act responsibly as Secretary of State and any limitations by specific designation would not be appropriate as establishing a list as it would exclude other situations in which those powers ought not to be exercised and would therefore provide a possible loophole. This is not a situation in which any responsible Secretary of State ought to be confronted with possible loopholes.
It is with considerable hesitation and reluctance that, on balance, for those reasons I have changed my mind and accept that Clause 54(2) of the Bill is the only responsible way in which the scheme for further education under the Bill can operate. There is, after all, a residual safeguard; namely, a direction embodied in orders made under statutory instrument under Clause 87 subject to negative resolution.
Having said on the second day of the Report stage that I took the view that unless Clause 53 was amended substantially to avoid directions to any specific institution I would support the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on her amendment that Clause 53, as it then was, do not stand part of the Bill, I felt that I owed the House an explanation of my change of mind.
Some additional factors have been brought to my attention. First, the new further education sector will comprise some 500 colleges of many types and sizes. Secondly, the powers being sought under Clause 54 will bear on the funding council and not directly on the colleges. They are considerably less interventionist than the existing powers of LEAs over a wide range of
74
institutions. Lastly, indirectly many colleges, particularly small and fragile ones with only a few hundred students, are likely, I am advised, to be reassured by the fact that the Secretary of State has chosen not to limit his institution-specific direction-making power. I say that I am advised because I lack the first-hand knowledge requisite to form a useful judgment. I hope that your Lordships will accept my explanation.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has given are those which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, himself gave: namely, that there is great disparity among the colleges; that some are very fragile; and that some do not have sufficient experience. However, the Government took cognisance of those points when they set up a funding council. The only reason I put down the amendment was the old principle of "Why keep a dog and bark yourself?". The council has been set up with Mr. Stubbs, an excellent choice, as its chairman. It is certainly a name which gives great confidence to those who have read constitutional history. I can see no reason why one cannot leave the matter to the council. The council is the body which ought to solve those problems. That is why I put my name to the amendment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I well understand why the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, have tabled the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, it runs in parallel to the many discussions that we have had, and no doubt will have, on Clauses 66 and 79.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, dismisses rather too easily the argument that further education is in a different position from higher education. At a future date it may well be that further education under the funding councils ought to have all the freedom that we wish higher education to have and, I am glad to say, will have with the amendments before us today. However, the truth of the matter is that one must look at history. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway made many of these points. There is an enormous variety of further education institutions, ranging from quite large further education colleges, to small sixth form colleges, some of which do not have more than 500 pupils. They have been under local authority control. That is a far greater control than will be the case under the new funding councils. The Government believe that it would not be wise to move from the present position to the arrangements which now apply to higher education. Universities have had years of experience of receiving government money. Polytechnics too have considerable experience. With £2 billion of funds going into further education, the Secretary of State will quite properly ask for further powers. I cannot support the amendment because I believe that further education represents a different situation from higher education.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, at every stage of the Bill I have registered my anxiety about the power of the Secretary of State to interfere in the work of individual institutions in the further education sector.

75
I do not wish to go over the ground again. I wish to reiterate that the power is just as unnecessary with respect to further education as it is to higher education for exactly the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has given.
What is a funding council for if it is not to ensure that institutions shall be financially responsible? I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I am not sure from whom he obtained his advice. He states that he spoke to academics. I regret to say that most academics with whom I am acquainted know absolutely damn all about what goes on in further education. Most of them have never been into a further education college and are therefore not qualified to make judgments on the matter.
A considerable amount of advanced work goes on in further education colleges. It is true that it is diverse, and will be more so after the Bill, with small sixth form colleges coming from the local authority sector into the new sector. We have always said that they should have stayed in the local authority sector. However, even with the addition of those colleges it will be for the funding council to ensure that they are financially responsible. I am sure that most principals of sixth form colleges would find some of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a little insulting. Although not large, it does not mean that they will not be and are not financially responsible.
As well as undertaking a considerable amount of advanced work in the FE colleges, it is sometimes forgotten—I wish to remind noble Lords—that a high proportion of students in further education are over 18. They are adults. We are not talking about the teaching of 16 to 19 year-olds. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, I repeat that academic freedom is indivisible. We cannot say that it applies to some post-school education institutions and not to others. Everything that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said on the matter is absolutely right.
It is interesting that the Government have deemed it fit to treat the two sectors in the same way with respect to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I am glad that the Minister introduced the amendments earlier and applied them to FE. I do not know how the Government will respond to Amendment No. 45 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. But Amendment No. 37 is similar to Amendment No. 45, the effect of which allows the Secretary of State powers of last resort—which he says that he wants—to intervene where he has reasonable cause to believe that there has been irresponsibility in the running of an institution's financial affairs. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Young, ignored that when she spoke.
It also requires the Secretary of State to consult the relevant funding council. That must surely be right. Indeed I cannot believe that any Secretary of State would want to intervene without doing that first. It also requires the Secretary of State to allow the institution to make representations before he makes directions. Again the Secretary of State would surely wish to do so in those circumstances.
Taking all those arguments into account, I do not
76
understand why the Government have difficulty in accepting the amendment. The provision would reassure principals of further education colleges. They have recently issued a statement in which they say,
"In particular we are concerned at the wide extent of the Secretary of State's powers contained in clauses 7 and 54 and strongly support their limitation to financial matters".
That is what the amendment seeks to do.
The Government have listened to the vice-chancellors and principals in higher education on Clause 79. I hope that they will listen to the FE college principals. To do otherwise would be to misunderstand the importance of academic freedom across our system of post-school education.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, the House is in danger of being misled into the belief that the power is somehow strange and new and has never existed before. It is important to remind the House that until 1987 the Secretary of State approved every individual advanced course, whether it was in a further education college or in a polytechnic. Every single new course had to be approved first by the local education authority and then by the Secretary of State himself or herself. It is not a new power. It was a longstanding tradition that courses in further education had to be individually approved. I welcome, as I am sure do the principals and staff of the colleges, the removal of the detailed power on the part of the Secretary of State. Nevertheless it is a relatively new experience for colleges to have been able to consult only their local education authorities and not the Secretary of State on every new course that they ran.
I remind the House that the local education authorities have been running those colleges and indeed still do so as we sit here today. They have had day-to-day control over everything that they did, including the teaching and the courses that they ran. It is not a sudden imposition and a taking away of freedom. It is a gradual moving of those powers away from the local education authorities to the funding council, giving the Secretary of State power to intervene if and when desirable and necessary. Because of all the reasons that my noble friends have stated, because they are moving into an era of greater freedom and self-management, I believe that the colleges will need much help in this transitional phase. I look forward to the day when such powers will not be needed. It is important that in the interim transitional period it will still be possible not only for the funding council but also the Secretary of State at times to be able to intervene.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may rebut what the noble Baroness said. I am sure that she believes strongly in what she said. However, it is incompatible with the Bill that the Government have put forward. The rationale of this part of the Bill is to free the further education sector from any kind of detailed interference. It looks as though the Government have lost their nerve at some critical point. Having seen the logic of what they are doing, they have tried to back away. The central point has nothing to do with interference in the sense in which the noble Baroness

77
was speaking. The central point is precisely that which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made: that we have set up a funding council to do all the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has said may need to be done in the interim.
The Government ought to have a bit of courage in promoting their own legislation and carry through the logic, and not keep a power which says that they actually do not believe that the reforms to be introduced will work. That is why I am deeply sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has been persuaded to change his view on this matter. His original view was correct; namely, that the Government had a logical position, about which at the very last minute they became slightly frightened. The amendment is trying to say to the Government, "Why not have some confidence in your own legislation?"
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have never been sure where further and higher education stop. I think that they overlap. Surely we should be applying the same principles to the institutions which deal with these two powers, which are emerging along a very jagged line.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the clause is founded on the proposition that the Secretary of State needs a longstop power of intervention in order to protect taxpayers' interests in the considerable sums of public money that do flow and will flow into further education in the form of grant to the funding councils. My noble friend Lady Young is quite right in saying that we are talking of a figure of about £2 billion a year.
However, the amendment provides for any directions in respect of an individual institution in all cases to be confined to supervising finances. While I accept that any direction would be most likely to be in response to an institution's financial situation, it is in the nature of this power that it would come into use only in very exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances would not necessarily always be financial ones.
As I have already said in debate on this matter, the colleges that will form the new further education sector will be many and various. As my noble friend Lord Campbell said, there will be about 500 such colleges, some with only a few hundred students and many of relatively recent origin. It is no discourtesy to that sector, but simply a recognition of the comparatively short length of time some of the colleges have been in existence, to say that their track record simply is not the same as that of the higher education sector and the polytechnics and universities. Nor will that sector have had the benefit of any prior experience of centralised funding arrangements when they come into the new sector, unlike the polytechnics and colleges of higher education in the period before they became independent of local authorities.
It is against that background that I hope your Lordships will understand why the Government do not feel able to accept that the power of making institution-specific directions should be limited to a situation in which there is financial mismanagement. It is for this reason that the Government have not brought forward an amendment to this clause
78
analogous to Clause 66, which we still have to come to, which is the amendment the Government have tabled to Clause 79.
I owe the House a very brief additional word to flesh out why I said earlier that the Government did not like the amendment because it dealt only with finances. The colleges provide an enormous number of courses ranging from sixth form colleges offering mainly A-levels to those offering the whole range of further and higher education. In some parts of the country sixth form colleges are the main local providers of A-level courses. An example of why we believe the Secretary of State needs an institution-specific direction-making power not confined to cases of financial management in this sector (not higher education) is the need to deal with a situation, however unlikely it might seem, in which a college in a particular area were to refuse to offer crucial A-levels and the funding council were to decline for whatever reason to take any action. We would be dealing with a situation where that would be absolutely essential for the school career of pupils between the ages of 16 and 18.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, will say to me it is all very well to say that but it is absolutely inconsistent with the rest of the Bill. I remind the noble Lord of the point put so pertinently by my noble friend Lady Perry. Until 1988 (only three years ago) advanced courses were subject to central approval. By contrast, we are indeed setting colleges free. Under the new funding regime they will be free to offer whatever courses they choose subject to any guidance from the funding council. The thrust of what we are doing is, as the noble Lord says, a logical one. But I believe that what my noble friend Lady Perry said has validity. College principals may well welcome the provisions of Clause 54 as a safeguard as they move into new territory. I remind your Lordships that as far as being funded by a central funding council is concerned it is for them uncharted territory. It is for those reasons that I resist this particular amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, did a complete U-turn. I thought that he might have reached a position of abstention without going the whole way.
On the question of academic freedom, although I accept it as a principle I draw some distinction when I talk about curricula freedom. What is really important in the further education sector is that they should be able to make the academic, educational and business-type mix which is suitable for their area. I profoundly hope that the Government will not interfere unnecessarily in that area.
We all agree that £2 billion a year it is an enormous sum of money, but I would have thought that Clause 55, unless amended by my Amendment No. 38, would give the Government absolutely swingeing powers in the case of mismanagement, whether or not of a financial nature. That does not exist in the second half of the Bill but it exists here. It is a very powerful instrument in the Secretary of State's hands. I believe this is a situation of overkill. I am absolutely on all

79
fours with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he says in reference to the funding councils, why keep a dog and bark yourself?
There was one point from which I derived a glimmer of hope. I refer to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. She talked about a transitional phase. I believe it would be of great help to the further education sector if the Government viewed it in that light and reconsidered these powers in the light of the development of the sector once the Bill was passed. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that college principals might welcome the powers in Clause 54. That is not the impression I have gained from them.
I know that all of us are anxious to move on to other matters which some noble Lords consider to be of more importance. I will not divide the House on the issue this evening but I say to the Government that I think this is a very important sector. There is a dual track for the expansion of further and higher education and the two must go hand in hand.
I hope that in future we revert to these matters, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Intervention in the event of mismanagement or breach of duty]:
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 62 [Transitional arrangements]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 46, line 31, leave out ("section 33") and insert ("the corresponding provisions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 39. The amendment will ensure that the reference to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill remains correct if the clause numbers of that Bill change as it is amended during its passage through Parliament.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Clause 63 [Administration of funds by councils.]
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 47, line 38, leave out ("subject to that").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to. I understand that it is accepted by the Government, so I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 [Administration of funds: supplementary]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 48, line 22, leave out ("a majority") and insert ("at least one quarter").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 48, line 24, leave out second ("or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 48, line 25, leave out ("all or most") and insert ("any").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 44:
80
Page 48, line 29, at end insert ("or
( ) any of the property held for the purposes of the institution is held on trust for or in connection with—

(i) the provision of education, or

(ii) the conduct of an educational institution, in accordance with the tenets of a religion or religious denomination.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Grants to councils]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 49, line 19, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2) below").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a paving amendment for the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 46. I shall speak briefly also to Amendments Nos. 47 to 51. This is an amendment to the first of two clauses that have been widely seen as threatening academic independence, the other being Clause 79. They give alternative approaches to the Secretary of State's power to intervene in the affairs of universities. The intervention might vary from the merest bureaucratic interference to gross political interference, the one shading off to the other. In the 1988 Bill such provisions were amended to safeguard against Executive intrusion. They were the counter-parts of Clauses 66 and 79, the reason being that they are two barrels of the same weapon.
Clause 79 gives the Secretary of State power to intervene by direction. Clause 66 gives him the power to intervene with the same object, but this time by annexing conditions to grants. It is universally accepted in your Lordships' House that academic independence should be respected. That has been so from when government first funded higher education. Even in the last century, the Minister was responsible to Parliament for the payments. He paid the piper, but, in wisdom, did not insist upon calling the tune; no more, for all its interest in the taxpayers' money, did Parliament so insist.
What has happened to change that position? My noble friend Lord Dainton explained on Second Reading that from the beginning the arm's length approach was accepted; in other words, although the Minister was responsible to Parliament for the payment, and responsible in that sense for the taxpayers' money, nevertheless he did not intervene, he did not exercise the power of the purse; he did not call the tune. That situation went on until 1988. In 1988, both those powers were taken in the Bill as presented to Parliament: the power to give directions or the alternative approach, the power to annex conditions to grants. There was universal protest from the academic world. I have only an honorary connection with that world, but I share fully the apprehension expressed then and now at what the Government propose.
Finally, in 1988 the Government yielded to the arguments and the pressure and brought forward amendments on Report in another place, having promised them in Committee. This is the crucial point: the Government amended not merely the counterpart of Clause 79 but the counterpart of Clause 66. That

81
was necessary because, being a double barrelled gun, the safety catch had to be fitted to each barrel, and that was done.
The next event, when all seemed safely tied up, was the action before Mr. Justice Simon Brown, to which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred in Committee and on Report. The Secretary of State then sought to obtain three things by annexing conditions to a grant. He withheld £13 million of the sums he was prepared to grant, on condition that the institution satisfied, broadly speaking, three things: first, greater accountability by teachers for their time spent in teaching; secondly, a more flexible deployment of teaching staff; and, thirdly, an appraisal of their situation. That was the case as it came before Mr. Justice Simon Brown, because the teachers' association did not found its case on the unreasonableness of the condition, merely upon the fact that it infringed the provision that had been inserted by the Government on Report in another place.
The learned judge upheld that contention. There are several disturbing things about that action. The first is that the intervention by the Minister was by no means a matter of last resort. On the contrary, it was a mere piece of bureaucratic intrusion into matters that would normally be considered to be the affair of the institution in question. Secondly, counsel for the Secretary of State advanced an argument justifying what had been done. That argument did not succeed, as your Lordships are aware, but if it had it would have driven an articulated lorry through the 1988 Act provisions. It would certainly have entirely nullified the concessions which had been made. In that connection, I call to mind that spokesmen for the department have on several occasions said that this Bill as it now stands, which reproduces the 1988 Act as unamended, does no more than carry out the intentions at the time.
When the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, repeated that he was asked whose intention that was and he replied that it was the Government's intention. Of course, the Government were only one party to what took place in Committee, on Report and during the negotiations in 1988. There were at least two other parties: one was Parliament, the other was the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals with which the concessions were negotiated. Therefore, it is neither here nor there that the Government hoped that the words would have a different meaning.
Under the rule of law, our rule of statutory construction is that it matters not at all what the promulgator of the document—in this case, the statute—means. What matters is the meaning of the words that have been given. That is the only approach which is compatible with the rule of law.
The rule of totalitarian societies is quite different. The German one has been studied in a book entitled In the Name of the Reich. However, we do not interpret statutes in the name of the government. That the Government hope that a concession they have made was really valueless is neither here nor there
82
except in casting doubt as to how one should approach concessions belatedly offered on behalf of the Government.
That was the position in 1988. It is conceded that the Bill was presented in its present form because of the decision of Mr. Justice Simon Brown and to give back the powers that he held were improperly exercised in the action to which I have referred.
It is astonishing that any attempt to alter what the Government have done has been fought successfully inch by inch and foot by foot. Extraordinarily, one now has a Bill exactly as it was introduced on Second Reading.
I turn now to the amendments. The main amendment is Amendment No. 46. That is an amendment under which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, speaking for the academic community, would feel safe. It would not feel safe under the amendments which have been grudgingly extracted.
Those other amendments fall into two groups. They both merely tinker with the wording of the provision under the statute which is quite unsuitable for discussion on Third Reading. I prefer the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and myself. However, the Government have tabled an amendment in effect to change the very dangerous word "each" to "every".
The word "each" was recognised from the beginning as a dangerous word, allowing the Government to single out particular institutions. "Each", "every" and "all" are ordinary English words and should be construed as such. "Each" is defined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary as:
"Every (one of two or more) regarded separately".
One asks how it is really possible, in view of that definition, that the Government have contested until today every suggestion that the word "each" should be changed to "every". That could have and should have been done in Committee but it is only now that it is being advanced. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals does not believe that the word "every" is entirely safe and it prefers Amendment No. 46.
In view of the matter which I have recited to your Lordships, is it any wonder that the academic community is somewhat suspicious and regards a late amendment like this one as a Greek gift?
Earlier I undertook that I would not endeavour to spell out the drafting niceties implicit in the different amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and myself on the one hand and the Government on the other. The Government have moved on this matter and, although I prefer the use of the word "all", I am not prepared to say that that is a matter on which I should divide the House at this stage of the Bill.
However, Amendment No. 46, being concerned intimately and ultimately with academic freedom, should be the stopping point. If necessary, I shall ask your Lordships in due course, if the noble Lord will not accept the amendment, to pronounce without

83
hesitation that enough is enough and that the Government should now do what the academic community wants them to do.
The amendment is drafted in order to allow the Secretary of State to intervene in matters on which it is claimed on his behalf that it is necessary that he should have the power; in other words, conditions of gross financial mismanagement, where the funding council and institution have both gone off the rails—a matter of last resort. That is conceded. Beyond that the matter should not go. The amendment carefully concedes what the noble Lord has required as regards Amendment No. 37. The noble Lord said that further education institutions differ from higher education institutions. In the former more is required than intervention on financial grounds. In effect he said that higher education differed in that respect. There all that is needed is an ultimate power to intervene on financial grounds. Without hesitation, I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, as the amendment has been proposed as a paving amendment to Amendment No. 46, I should inform the House that if Amendment No. 46 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 47 to 51 inclusive.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in speaking to the amendments I shall be brief. I have little to add to what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
After all the anxiety expressed at Report stage from all sides of the House that the government amendment did not adequately meet the concerns in regard to this clause, and then the Government withdrawing the amendment, I am surprised that they can do no better than return with the same amendment. That is extremely surprising and a let-down for us all. I am surprised also that the Government did not think it fit, indeed necessary, to consult with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on the matter, despite a number of requests that they should do so.
The problem with the clause at present is that it is open to a number of interpretations and there seems to be no agreement about what is the right one. I am not a lawyer and do not claim to understand all the legal niceties of the many variations discussed with regard to some of the phrases in the clause. In those circumstances I must accept the advice of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals' lawyers, who share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that the clause would allow the Secretary of State to use the funding councils as a conduit pipe to a specific institution. I shall not go into the arguments regarding the use of the phrase,
"or each institution falling within a class or description".
That was done on a number of previous occasions, in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and others who are much better qualified than I.
I support the amendments, which seem to get us out of our difficulties and provide the safeguards that we require. In supporting the amendments and speaking personally I know that I reflect the views of my
84
colleagues who are vice-chancellors and principals of other institutions, all of whom entirely understand the need for financial accountability and indeed for responsibility in financial management. At the same time they are frightened that the clause unamended would give rise to undesirable and unnecessary political interference. As the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, let me also make clear that the Labour Party believes that such interference would be highly undesirable as well as unnecessary. We therefore strongly support the amendments.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, in some ways I should have preferred the main debate on academic freedom to have taken place in the debate on Amendment No. 53 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. However, as the debate seems to be developing perhaps I should intervene now and support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
The history of the issue over the past 11 weeks has been a striking illustration both of the instinctive wisdom of this House and of the danger of weakness in implementing it. At Second Reading, on 16th November—that now seems a long time ago—there were 36 non-government speeches. Of those 36, 28 expressed anxiety in regard to Clauses 64 and 77, as they were then. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, was the only noble Lord to support the Government. Eight noble Lords did not mention the issue. I guess that a good half of them, including the noble Baroness, Lady David, would have been on the side of the critics had she mentioned it, but was no doubt eager, as were others, to save time. It was an overwhelming deployment of the case. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that he would take the matter away and reflect on it. He could hardly do less in the circumstances.
We came to the Committee stage on 16th December and the Chamber was even more unitedly hostile to the threat contained in Clause 64, as it still was, and indeed Clause 77. The hostility came from every quarter of the Chamber on that occasion in a way one rarely sees. The Minister at that stage said that he may produce some government amendments, whereas previously he had merely said that he would consider some Back-Bench amendments.
We waited until 20th January, when we came to the third stage, and the Minister brought forward what was generally agreed to be disappointing to the point of unacceptability. I well remember the debate in which the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Peyton of Yeovil, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, who moved this amendment, made speeches of memorable force, as indeed did many others. Nevertheless, at the last moment we did not vote. I thought it was a mistake not to vote when we had reached that stage.
My experience with the 1988 Act was that when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, as he then was—alas, he is no longer with us in this House—and I moved an amendment on academic freedom, we hesitated for a moment as to whether or not to vote. We voted and carried the amendment. The then Secretary of State fulminated against it and said that

85
he would put the issue back as it was before. In fact he did not do so. The lesson I draw from that is that when your Lordships, by a substantial consensus, feel strongly about an issue, there is a great deal to be said for voting for changing the Bill and seizing the interior lines of communication rather than constantly pleading with the Government from outside the citadel.
The Paymaster General is particularly good at avoiding matters ever being brought to a head and making us feel ungrateful if we even suggest that they should be. Today he has brought forward something substantially better in Clause 79 as it is to become, but Clause 66 remains as objectionable as ever. If we allow it to stand we shall be showing how easy it is, through a mixture of courtesy, patience and salami tactics, for a skilled government spokesman to disperse even the more formidable array of informed opinion in this House, which could hardly have been greater than it was on Second Reading, at Committee and on Report.
Academic freedom is surely an issue on which your Lordships' House is entitled to express an effective view. When the volume of university experience contained here, fortified by the legal acumen of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and fortified also by the libertarian common sense of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, with his great experience of government, are unanimously united, surely the House of Lords should express a firm and effective opinion. I hope tonight that the House will vote, and vote successfully, for the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and then for that of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, there is much in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. However, he overlooked one crucial point; that is, that since many of us spoke to point out to the Government the deficiencies of Clause 66 at Second Reading, at Committee and Report stage, the Government have tabled amendments which have widely been found to be satisfactory. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, also omitted to make reference to that circumstance in her speech. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, did so, but the issue before the House is not whether we need an amendment but whether we have got the amendment we need.
I believe I am not mistaken in feeling that Amendments Nos. 45 to 51 are grouped. I hope therefore that it is not inappropriate for me to refer to my noble friend the Minister's Amendment No 47 together with Amendment No. 50 before he himself speaks to it. I hope that it is not inappropriate to do so as these amendments are grouped.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the situation. My understanding is that Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are grouped, but Amendment No. 47 and the other amendments will come later and that we shall have a separate debate on them. Can that be clarified?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it may be that they do, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, spoke to Amendments Nos. 47 to 50 as well.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said that he was also speaking to Amendments Nos. 47 to 51. The noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am mistaken. In addition, as Amendments Nos. 45 and 47 are clearly alternate, it is scarcely possible to speak to the one effectively without addressing the other.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I cannot see that Amendments Nos. 45 and 47 are alternate. Technically, if Amendment No. 46 were carried, the subsection would disappear and the other amendments would not be debatable. But that is a different matter. They are not alternate in the sense of dealing with the same problem. It just happens that technically, if Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are carried, the Government would have to return with another form of words. Although I believe we can speak on anything we like, the grouped amendments are as my noble friend said.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, they were originally grouped on the list of groupings. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who requested an uncoupling as regards Clause 7, has addressed himself to the complete suite of amendments. More substantively, the point that we are discussing is how Clause 66 should read. That is the issue to which I am addressing myself.
The point is that we have before us a very satisfactory reading for Clause 66. Many of us spoke with considerable concern and anxiety in relation to the existing Clause 66, focusing on the word "each". It is that word to which the noble and learned Lord has substantially addressed himself. It was agreed on many sides, and it is fair to say, that the Government were slow in bringing forward an amendment dealing with this issue. They have now brought forward an amendment which deals with the matter effectively.
It is necessary to deal with the matter in context as indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, did, which is to go back to the 1988 Act. That Act says at Section 134(7):
"The conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to either of the Funding Councils shall not relate to the making of grants or other payments by the Council to any specified institution".
That was the position reached then. Many members of the academic community have wished to return, as far as possible, to that position.
It turned out that, as a result of the ruling by Mr. Justice Simon Brown in the ACPT case, it was difficult for the Government to make a general condition of that kind and then to apply it to a specific institution which fell out of line. I, and I believe many of us, fully accept that the Government framed Clause 66 as it stands in the Bill unamended in order to deal with that matter. That is what so much concerned many of us at subsequent stages of the Bill. I am happy to say that the Government amendment very satisfactorily deals with the matter by leaving out the word "each" and, as was discussed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord

87
Simon of Glaisdale, inserting the word "every". The provision is continued under Amendment No. 50 so that the matter is not caught in the twist which proved so difficult in the ruling by Mr. Justice Simon Brown—that is to say,
"being requirements to be complied with in the case of any institution to which the requirements apply".
From the discussions that I have had with academics—I cannot speak for the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals—and with many noble Lords who are here today and who are in contact with that committee, it appears that they are broadly satisfied with this amendment. There will still remain the issue of the further amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Beloff. I shall not speak on that matter now. By their amendment the Government have met the concerns of noble Lords on both sides of the House.
It is perfectly reasonable for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to argue that his amendment is preferable. However, I must point out one difficulty. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be able to deal with the matter more adequately than I. The difficulty is that the amendment (I do not speak as a specialist) proposed by the noble and learned Lord carries with it pretty much the same problems as turned out to pertain to the original wording of the 1988 Act. That is not surprising since it begins with precisely the same wording. There may be other problems concerning the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
It is for these reasons that in the end I believe that the House will have to chose which it prefers—that is to say, whether it prefers the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, or that of the Government. I am grateful that the Government have at last, albeit belatedly—here I accept the point made so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—tabled an amendment which satisfies the position concerning the issue. It is certainly a much simpler and more concise amendment than the other on offer.
I am not speaking to Amendments Nos. 48, 49 or 51 which take another line altogether and which I believe implicitly have fallen by the wayside in these discussions. Ultimately the House will have to decide whether it prefers Amendment No 45, which we are primarily discussing, or Amendment No. 47. I feel that the Government have done very well in offering Amendment No. 47 and I propose to support it.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, before the debate proceeds, it is as well to repeat to the House what I said when Amendment No. 45 was proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale; namely, that as it is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 46, should Amendment No. 45 or Amendment No. 46 be agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 47 to 51 inclusive.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may put forward very briefly a slightly different presentation from that of my noble friend who has just
88
spoken, largely in deference to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. It is a matter of extreme concern to the whole House. Put quite simply, we seem to have gone ahead a little to Clause 77. But we always do because that is the phantom that worries us. Suppose that we more or less dealt with the phantom under Clause 77, subject to a point of clarification as regards which I have tabled an amendment, can the Government, through Clause 66, in effect do what they might have done under Clause 77? I am putting the matter in child's language because it is a very simple problem.
I am not quite sure, and that is the problem. I am not saying that the Government will effect the change or that the party Opposite, if returned to power will, but that is not the point. The point is whether it can be done. We are a revising Chamber of the Houses of Parliament. I hope for correction if I am wrong. I have read Mr. Justice Simon Brown's judgment, but not for about three weeks. I seem to remember that it was what I call a "condition of grant situation" and not a "direction situation".
If my memory is right, it is strictly relevant and in point on Clause 66 before we reach Clause 79. Can we grasp the nettle now. If the case dealt with by Mr. Justice Simon Brown was a "condition of grant situation", then we know that the reason for Clause 66 was to override the reasoning of Mr. Justice Simon Brown. I am putting it quite simply. Why be complicated? This, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has said, drives the proverbial articulated lorry through the very concept of the safeguard of academic freedom that we are seeking to establish. That is the view of the noble and learned Lord. The noble and learned Lord's opinion on this is something to which I pay the very gravest respect.
Also, there is the CVCP. I do not know why it sends me briefs, but I received one this morning dated 31st January 1992. The CVCP should know, up to a point, what it is up to. It supports the amendment of the noble and learned Lord. What the situation is from here I do not know. I am extremely worried about it. If my simple analysis is right, I can only say that I am worried about it.
I do not take on board at all the technical considerations to which my noble friend the Minister has referred. First, I do not think that they arise; and if they do, as no manuscript amendments can be put down here, clearly one can invite the House at Third Reading to vote on the principle, leaving it to be corrected by another place later on. So I am putting aside all that I call "the clever stuff"—all the technical argument. But on the broad merits, where are we? Am I right to be worried about this?
Baroness Young: My Lords, those of us who are not lawyers have found ourselves in an extremely difficult position throughout the long discussions on both Clauses 66 and 79. I should like to start by saying that I believe that the Government have given us virtually everything that we have asked for, certainly on Clause 79 and personally I am satisfied on Clause 66. It is a

89
matter of regret that this should have been described by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in these rather grudging terms.
The House of Lords is a revising Chamber. It is quite right that we should have debated at considerable length the matter of academic freedom, about which we all feel so strongly; there is no monopoly on this anywhere. It is quite right that it should have been debated at the various stages. After all, in the whole process of the passage of a Bill this Bill still has to go to another place; it is only half way through its parliamentary process. The Government brought forward an amendment at Report stage which I think everybody agreed was unsatisfactory. So they went back and have now produced a series of amendments. I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Renfrew that, because of the way the amendments have been grouped, we can get ourselves into a lot of difficulties over this. The two government Amendments Nos. 47 and 50, amending Clause 66, are the alternative to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale has proposed.
I do not wish to speak at length on this issue because the points have already been made very well by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. To a large extent it is a matter of dispute between lawyers. In the considerable discussions that I have had, I believe—and I recall my noble friend Lord Belstead saying this at an earlier stage in the debate this afternoon on Clause 7—that the Government's interest in academic freedom and that of the universities is the same. There is no dispute about the objective; it is whether or not we have a form of words that meets the case. As a non-lawyer I found the long debate on what "each" means very interesting. It is rather comforting to know that it is better to say that it means "every", although it is not at first blush what most people would have thought, but at least it is now quite clear. That removes this great anxiety that conditions could apply to individual institutions.
I recognise that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is worried about each institution falling within a class or description. My understanding is—as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said—that it is to meet the result of the ruling on the case by Mr. Justice Simon Brown. I quite appreciate that it moves slightly beyond what was said in the Education Reform Act 1988. But, considering the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, this is something that I can accept. I have argued at each stage that I could not understand why the Government required greater powers than they already had in 1988. Now, with the amendments that have been brought forward, we have effectively put the position back to where it was, except in this particular point. For my part I am prepared to accept the Government amendments. I hope that the House will as well. We should be very grateful for the immense amount of work that I know my noble friend Lord Belstead has put into this, with such success. I have seen many things in political life but there is not always the most successful of outcomes at the end of it all. The House should be
90
grateful. The Government have listened to the experience of the House of Lords and we now have a much better Bill as a result.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sure that no one wished in any way to give the impression of sounding churlish towards the noble Baroness, Lady Young. This is not the first time that I have had to acknowledge the debt of the universities to the efforts of the noble Baroness. They have been considerable and they have been rewarded and I am sure that the House is very grateful. But when we began we had two causes of concern; the power to issue directives and the power to make terms and conditions. The noble Baroness has produced a completely satisfactory answer on one of them. But misgivings on the other remain. The third issue of the duration of courses is yet to come and I shall say no more about it.
It is a rule in politics, and has been for centuries, that when one tries to achieve reassurance by concessions the longer one defers the concessions, the bigger they need to be before reassurance is achieved. I hope the noble Baroness will take that into account. We are very grateful for what she has done, but misgivings still remain.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I would not have ventured to weary your Lordships with any further observations had it not been for the kindly and extremely well meant remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, about a previous utterance of mine. However, I have my name down to one of the amendments which we are now discussing and I would therefore trespass upon your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments.
There is no need for me to repeat now, at length, the reasons which I gave earlier as to why and how governments get themselves into these statutory messes from time to time. But I contributed—and I put this very briefly—to the procedures which permit an intolerable volume of legislation, a volume so great as to inhibit careful enough scrutiny at an early stage when the dangers might as a result become apparent; they do not.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, made very clear, at successive stages the Government's plight has been made very clear to them from both sides of your Lordships' House. For my part I would not wish to see amendments which my noble friend has now brought forward, submerged under the earlier one. I shall therefore not vote for the first amendment. It would be wrong to set aside as merely low cunning the efforts of my noble friend to meet the very proper demands of this House. I believe that he has had a considerable victory over what I earlier described as the forces of darkness, who had been so blind as not to see the obvious objection to the Bill as it originally stood. For my part, even though I do not feel that we are in an ideal situation, I believe that to dismiss my noble friend's efforts as mere cunning would be a cruel reward. I shall therefore not do so.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, I assume that we shall shortly be coming to a choice between the

91
amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Belstead. That is likely to be the outcome in a few minutes' time. There are, I believe, two or three things which have not yet been said which are worthy of mention. First, it is absolutely true, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, reminded us, that in Committee concern was expressed by the great majority of speakers on this issue. However, the noble Lord expressed his remarks as if nothing had changed since then. A great deal has changed. We have had a succession of amendments and debates as a result of which the Government have come forward with proposals which now stand on the Marshalled List. Indeed, the thanks of the House are due, as my noble friend Lady Young remarked, to the Minister for the success he has had in his arguments with the Department of Education and Science and for his willingness to engage in innumerable consultations to arrive at the situation expressed in his amendment. I therefore believe that he deserves support on the line that I assume he will take. It is right to say that my noble friend is not isolated in that line by any manner or means.
Secondly, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics has issued a statement to the effect that the Government's position is now acceptable to it. The directors collectively have an interest in this issue just as does the CVCP. There was a leading article last week in the magazine now called The Higher—probably better remembered by noble Lords as The Times Higher Education Supplement—which came to the same conclusion. Thirdly, there is a mechanism of delivery whereby, through the Department of Education and Science and the funding councils, around £5 billion a year of public money is made available to institutions. We are in danger of overlooking this point. It would be naive to believe that any government could go farther than they regarded as wholly prudent in excluding areas from which they might be able to intervene if they really thought it was necessary.
I believe that this matter has been pursued as far as it can be in that regard. I speak as a chairman of a polytechnic. I speak for myself and I have to say that I find the Government's position on this matter to be now quite acceptable.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite wrong. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has issued a statement, which I have in my hand, in which it supports the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. The committee states quite specifically that it would like to see Clause 66 amended so that there is no doubt about the interpretation.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, the noble Lord is misquoting me. I referred not to the CVCP but to the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics as having issued this supportive statement. He will find that to be correct.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in that case I apologise to the noble Earl. I heard it as the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. That does not take me away from the point. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, is also wrong in considering that this a debate within the field of the law. It is not. It is a debate between the academic community and the politicians. It is within the academic community surely that one finds the safeguards for academic freedom. Surely it is one of the proudest possessions of this country that we have built up trust and confidence in our academic community to preserve academic freedom. That has to be preserved against the potential incursions of politicians. Those of us who have taught at universities abroad know from personal experience the danger to academic freedom in teaching, in appointing staff, in recruiting students and in the form of courses that comes from political interference. Surely the debate is about whether the Government can trust, will trust and do trust the academic community to lay down the bounds of academic freedom, to keep those bounds and to preserve that academic freedom against at least the potential interference of politicians.
I say both to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that this is the issue that was debated at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. It is still the same issue. In fact the Government have brought forward the same amendment that they had at Report stage. We have not reached it yet but that is the next amendment to be addressed. I have the full backing of my own university, the University of East Anglia, which supports what the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has laid down. It believes that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is an amendment to protect academic freedom. The issue we are now debating is the issue between academic freedom as defined within the academic community and the dangers of the incursion of politicians.
I have one last word. Surely it is a test as to whether academic freedom is in danger if one compares two Acts of Parliament. The clause as it now reads will give the Government greater powers than they had in the 1988 Act. I am supported in that analysis by Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, the former chairman of the University Grants Committee. If the clause gives the political world greater power, surely that in itself shows that this is an incursion into and a diminution of academic freedom. Those within the academic world have spoken out quite openly in support of the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I have refrained from intervening in the debate until now simply because I think your Lordships know very well my own record on the matter of academic freedom from my speeches in the debates from Second Reading onwards and in the debates in 1988. Noble Lords may have known me in my capacity as an academic, and later as someone

93
having to administer—if one can use that phrase: I use it well because it means ministering to the needs of the university system for five years.
I have in a sense been increasingly dismayed by what appears to be a sharp division developing in the House today. My own stance is as follows. I ask myself the question—as no doubt everyone, including the Government, will—as to whether we all adhere very firmly to the principle of academic freedom. Assuming that we do, we shall from that point of view judge whether the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, gives more benefit than it does harm. Again on that matter, I have to tell myself that the benefit must be set against whatever benefit will be produced by the government amendments which are before the House and which we have yet to discuss.
My own point of view—and it is a matter of personal judgment; and I accept that others may take a different view—is that, as the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, said, the government amendments go very nearly all the way, if not all the way, towards achieving what is required. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, say that the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics was content.
I have read all the materials that have been sent out by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and other organisations. However, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one practical matter. At the end of the day what happens in the system depends upon how it works. I have thought back through my own experience to ascertain what powers the Secretary of State actually needs. I have concluded that he needs powers to give some direction to the funding councils—for example, some terms and conditions—with respect to groups of universities. I could give your Lordships endless examples, but I shall focus for the present on a very real one which took place in my time.
I refer to the question of medical students. As I think some noble Lords will know from the Royal Commission on Medical Education, the Government deliberated on the matter and set a target raising the intake to medical schools from 2,400 a year to 4,200. It fell to me to implement that policy as best I could. But, of course, constraints had to be applied immediately as regards both what one could and what one should do. The constraints with regard to what it was possible to do were the limitations imposed by the fact that medicine involves clinical teaching and therefore that the health service was depended on to provide some of those services. Thus, discussions had to take place between the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Health.
At the other end, there had to be agreement on whether raising numbers to a target level was practical and feasible. Ultimately, figures were set which were agreed for those universities which had medical and dental schools. It was agreed that the number should rise progressively from the lower figure that I gave to the upper figure. It seems to me that there are similar issues here in respect of which, as in the case that I
94
have cited regarding the provision of doctors to man the health service in the future, the Secretary of State may find it necessary from time to time to say to a funding council, "This is a matter of government policy which goes outside the purely university domain and which sets a parameter for the universities which fall into a particular group".
Amendment No. 46, tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, calls for the deletion of subsection (2) of Clause 66. However, subsection (2) would allow the Secretary of State to do good things of the kind that I have described. I know where I stand, but I believe that it is for your Lordships to balance on the one hand whether there is a real, finite danger to academic freedom in the Bill as it now stands and as it will be as modified by the government amendments, and, on the other, the detriment which may arise from putting a handicap on the powers of the Secretary of State in areas where I think that he should have such powers. I hope that I have managed to convince your Lordships that there are areas in which the Secretary of State needs to have such powers.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as my name is attached to the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I should like to say briefly that it seems to me that the crux of the matter is that the amendment limits the powers of the Secretary of State to interfering where there is a financial issue involved. We agree that that is proper. If there is financial mismanagement of a gross nature, it is obviously right and proper that the Secretary of State should intervene. However, the amendment is limited to that; it does not allow intervention in other matters. That limitation on the Secretary of State's interference in financial matters is, to my mind, a great safeguard of academic freedom. Other abuses may arise, but that is a price one has to pay occasionally in order to obtain the much greater good of academic freedom outside this area.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, during the debate on Amendments Nos. 45 and 46, tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn said that in his view the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, had overlooked a crucial point in his remarks—namely, that the Government have put down amendments since the previous stages of the Bill to meet the anxieties expressed on both Clauses 66 and 79. If I may say so, I believe that my noble friend was justified in that view. It is ahead of us and I refer to it only briefly, but I must stress that the Government have put down an amendment which essentially meets all the issues put forward in what was Amendment No. 169C on the much debated former Clause 77.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I should like to point out that I said in my speech that I thought that the Paymaster General had removed our doubts about the former Clause 77, which is now Clause 79; but not as regards the former Clause 64, which is now Clause 66. I fully recognise that Clause 79 is now broadly satisfactory.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I apologise if I misrepresented him. It seems we are agreed that the points raised in regard to Clause 79 have been met.
In addition, the Government have endeavoured to meet the worries which were expressed and which finally came to a head when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, tabled Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 in order to ensure that Clause 66 cannot have institution-specific conditions. Perhaps I may briefly say on that point—I said this earlier today but much time has passed since then, so I must repeat it—that I recognise that the noble and learned Lord's persistence and shrewd argument of his case both inside and outside your Lordships' House (both he and I have had consultations on the matter) have moved the Government to try to meet the aims of the amendments which he has tabled.
I must say to the noble and learned Lord with the greatest respect, that although he has been absolutely instrumental in achieving movement in the area, there is one fundamental flaw in the amendments to which I have referred. They appear to require all institutions to satisfy requirements and conditions before funds can be provided to "any non-compliant" institution. Again, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I think that that, inadvertently, is almost exactly the opposite of the objective which both he and the Government wish to achieve. Therefore, the Government have tabled Amendments Nos. 47 and 50. In essence I spoke to those amendments about five or six hours ago when we discussed Clause 7. The effect is exactly the same.
I believe that those amendments make crystal clear the fact that the power for attaching conditions to grant in Clause 66 is about attaching general conditions which, although they may have different impacts on institutions according to whether those institutions meet the requirements specified, cannot be about making conditions institution by institution. When I said that earlier, I believe that I struck a chord with your Lordships that that was a good and sensible thing to do. I believe that the House accepted it. In addition, the Government have tabled Amendment No. 52. It is the old academic freedom amendment, which makes it quite clear that particular courses of study or research cannot be affected by the making of conditions.
Therefore, on behalf of the Government, I have tried quite genuinely to meet the concerns expressed by your Lordships on Clause 79 as regards the way in which conditions are made under Clause 66 so that they cannot be institution specific. In addition, we have tried to ensure that such conditions cannot possibly be directed against particular courses of study or research. It is what I think in shorthand I call the academic freedom amendment. Although nobody is perfect in this life, and I am the last one who is, I am grateful to those of your Lordships who have said that perhaps we have at least gone quite a long way in the right direction.
I was grateful to my noble friends behind me—and in particular my noble friend Lord Peyton, who had amendments down which were hostile to the
96
Government—for what they said, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord said in case I misrepresent him, but the noble Lord was, broadly speaking, approving.
So where are we on these amendments? As your Lordships have just heard me say, the amendments we have already discussed today put entirely beyond doubt that the Secretary of State may not make conditions institution by institution. He may impose only general conditions, which may impact differently on individual institutions, in pursuit of his policy, for example, on pay and conditions settlements in higher education. It is—I say this quite openly—this aspect of the condition-making power in Clause 66 which these amendments appear to want to rule out and which I think are important.
It is my contention that it is firmly part of the Secretary of State's legitimate policy in higher education to have an interest in, for example, securing satisfactory pay and conditions settlements, and that it is right that he should have such an interest given the level of public funding made available to higher education. The way in which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has sought to exercise influence in this has been through holding back grant to be released to the funding councils only when a satisfactory settlement has been reached. This has operated for three years in relation to the polytechnics, colleges and universities, and so far the Secretary of State has always been able to release all the withheld funds to the councils each year for distribution to the institutions because satisfactory settlements have been reached at the national level.
However, it cannot be ruled out that national negotiations do break down, and then local settlements are made. In those circumstances the Secretary of State would need to be able to say to the funding councils that they may release funds to those institutions which reach satisfactory settlements but not to those which do not. As your Lordships will know from our earlier discussions, it is to allow this kind of influence to be exercised that Clause 66(2) (a) is drafted as it is, and it is exactly that that this amendment would remove.
Just quickly, another example of the possible use of this kind of condition might be for the Secretary of State to say to the funding councils that they should not release a particular proportion of funding to institutions which do not over time receive satisfactory reports back from the unit which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics are going to establish to look at institutions' internal quality control systems. In case that sounds draconian, let me record that both the CVCP and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics have accepted that this kind of financial penalty must be available as a last resort in their published submission to the Secretary of State on the work of the quality assessment unit. Let me quote what they said. The CVCP and the CDP have said:
"It is recognised that an institution's public funding could ultimately be affected by an unsatisfactory audit report, and that an institution in such circumstances would be given a defined period in which to correct adverse aspects".

97
There are legitimate and perfectly reputable reasons—in fact important reasons—as to why there should be the power to attach conditions of grant in Clause 66 and in the part of Clause 66 that this amendment would sweep away. Do not let us forget that we had the example put by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, in his intervention, which was that, in his view, it would he the case that the amendment under discussion would prevent the legitimate interest of the Secretary of State of the day in, for instance, the number of medical students who should be in higher education.
Finally, let me say, because this expression I think has been used by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that the funding councils will not be conduits doing the Secretary of State's bidding and no more. They will develop policies of their own, particularly in relation to the general methodology for funding institutions but on specific issues as well. The Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council have both done so. But in establishing a balance between the interests of the Secretary of State, the funding councils and the institutions of higher education, I believe that it is essential to give the Secretary of State the power to make conditions of the kind which I have identified and which the second part of this amendment would seek to remove.
All this of course is on the strict understanding that conditions under Clause 66 cannot be institution-specific and cannot be directed at issues concerning academic freedom, on both points of which I have amendments down that I hope your Lordships will allow me to move and to which we can agree. In saying that I am grateful to my noble friends who have supported me on this amendment as having moved as far as possible towards the views expressed by your Lordships on this clause and also on Clause 79 when we come to it, let me say that this amendment would remove the condition-making power that I have been outlining even with its safeguards, and that I must resist.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to those of your Lordships who have contributed to this debate, which I think has covered all the ground. In the end it comes down to a simple point. The overwhelming mass of the academic community only feels safe with Amendment No. 46. The Government tell them that they ought to be satisfied with something else. In view of the history as I laid it before your Lordships, is it any wonder that they want instead Amendment No. 46?
Those who are content with something less lose nothing by having something more. This is a matter for academic freedom, and I beg to test the feelings of the House in the Division Lobbies.
8.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 45) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 84.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Acton, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Addington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Adrian, L.

Lockwood, B.

Airedale, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Annan, L.

McCarthy, L.

Avebury, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Beloff, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Blackstone, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Monson, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigavon, V.

Palmer, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Desai, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Underhill, L.

Hooson, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Judd, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kennet, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Greenway, L.

Ampthill, L.

Haslam, L.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Astor, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Barber, L.

Howe, E.

Belstead, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Bethell, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blyth, L.

Kimball, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Limerick, E.

Butterfield, L.

Liverpool, E.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Marlesford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mersey, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cross, V.

Newcastle, Bp.

Dainton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pender, L.

Elles, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Flather, B.

Reay, L.

Flowers, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rennell, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ridley, V.

99

St. Davids, V.

Trumpington, B.

Seccombe, B.

Ullswater, V.

Selsdon, L.

Vinson, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Waddington, L.

Stockton, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Warnock, B.

Wise, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Young, B.

Trefgarne, L,

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.57 p.m.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 49, line 25, leave out ("each institution, or each") and insert ("every institution, or every").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier this afternoon. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 49, line 26, after ("conditions") insert ("being requirements to be complied with in the case of any institution to which the requirements apply").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 49, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) Such terms and conditions may not be framed by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research (including the contents of such courses or programmes and the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed) other than the duration of such courses or programmes.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the amendment to which I referred during the past 20 minutes. It was moved at the previous stage of the Bill when I referred to it as the "academic freedom" amendment. I maintain that description. If your Lordships do not think it discourteous, I beg to move.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 52, Amendment No. 53:
Line 5, leave out ("other than the duration of such courses or programmes") and insert ("or to the criteria for the selection and appointment of academic staff and for the admission of students").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships' anxiety about academic freedom has been shown by the narrowness of the majority on the last amendment. Therefore there is probably good reason for returning to the subject.
I ask your Lordships to note first that the amendment I propose has sponsors from every quarter of your Lordships' House. I believe that if the rules of the House permitted more than four sponsors, as do the rules of the other place, I could have assembled a powerful extra team of sponsors.
The amendment I now propose would be universally applauded on any academic campus to which it was put. One of the regrets one has is over the failure to consult which has been so characteristically a feature of the handling of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has already pointed out today. One of the regrettable features is that no
100
attempt has been made to find out on the ground, not only from the University of East Anglia but all the other universities, what they feel on the subject of academic freedom and whether it is adequately dealt with by the amendment now proposed by the noble Lord on the Front Bench. That is something that could have been done. The Secretary of State himself could have visited a university. But I think it is as unlikely that one would see the Secretary of State on a university campus as that your Lordships would see the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack at Annabel's. There are frameworks appropriate to particular persons.
We are also in universities—I speak here after my chancellor but on behalf again of the University of Oxford with which I have been in close contact throughout proceedings on this Bill—worried because we feel that the Government's provision represents an attempt to enlarge the powers of central Government at the expense of the universities. We believe that that attempt is one which has been made on more than one occasion. People talk now as though we must take the Education Reform Act 1988 as gospel. However, I remind your Lordships that it only reached its tolerable form because your Lordships fought hard against the first version of that Bill.
Where does this pressure come from? I believe it was Bernard Shaw who said:
"Those who can do and those who can't teach".
Had Bernard Shaw been around today he might have added, "and those who cannot teach become civil servants in the Department of Education and Science". That is the core of our problem. It has nothing to do with the ambitions of Ministers, and yet it is something we should resist.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to whose courtesy and willingness to listen I and other noble Lords have paid tribute before—I pay tribute to that again—referred to his amendment as the academic freedom amendment. That would suggest that the only kind of interference that matters is interference in the actual content of courses. Yet even that is qualified by the fact that he wishes still that there should be intervention in relation to the length of programmes and courses. But one cannot separate those two things. If a course lasts for two, four or five years, the content is likely to be different; the methods of teaching will be different and the methods of assessment will be different. How one can divide up the teaching functions of a university in this way is something I find difficult to comprehend.
Furthermore, as I have pointed out in the words which I suggest should be added to this amendment, there is—this was referred to at earlier stages, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who is supporting me on this amendment—also the question of the possible making of conditions as to the criteria for the appointment of staff or the admission of students. Some noble Lords think that somehow or other, by a mechanism I have not been able to understand, this might prevent initiatives on the part of the Government on funding for particular forms of additional support. The so-called new blood proposals of a few years ago are cited in this regard.
That is not the issue at all. The issue is whether any future government—by that I mean any future group of civil servants who have a spokesman in government—could say that there should be quotas for admission as regards students. Could they say that a proportion of students should be admitted with no qualifications at all? That is an extreme view which is held in some quarters, if not in this country then elsewhere. Those are all important issues. As I have said, any Minister or Secretary of State who had bothered to spend a few hours in a university would know that the present proposal is unacceptable and that my amendment represents the minimum that academic freedom now demands.
That is really the point at issue. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, the question is one of academic freedom. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will say, as he has said before, that the Government believe in academic freedom. What I have attempted to provide in this amendment is a litmus test. If one accepts this amendment, one accepts academic freedom because one accepts its substance. Otherwise it is totally irrelevant. It is like someone saying, "Of course I am not a racist, but you would not expect me to employ a black man". That is the position the Government are taking. They want to say that they are for academic freedom, but not the substance, as defined by the people who have to work the system and the individual institutions. That is something we are not prepared to accept. At this hour I think I need say no more. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister described his amendment as the academic freedom amendment. I would prefer to describe it as the "some academic freedoms" amendment. It enshrines some academic freedoms for which I am grateful, but the power to decide the standard of the degree is as vital a part of academic freedom as the power to conduct one's own research. A degree is a certificate of approval from the academic community. Should the power to use these conditions come into effect, by its mere use it would certify that the degree in question did not have the approval of the academic community. Therefore the real degree-awarding body would not be the university but the Department of Education and Science.
Is the Department of Education and Science a proper degree-awarding body? I look at the Department of Education and Science News, the paper on degree-awarding bodies which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, kindly sent me in December. The paper stated that a degree-awarding body should be,
"a self-critical, cohesive academic community".
It should have,
"appropriate external academic and professional points of reference so that standards were judged against those of the wider academic world".
It is my submission that the Department of Education and Science passes neither of those tests. It is not an appropriate degree-awarding body. In resisting this extension of the powers of the Secretary of State we are fighting a constitutional not an academic battle and one in which other people also have an interest.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the noble Lord clarify two points? Can he deny that if the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is not accepted the Secretary of State in some future government will have the power to interfere with the admission of students and the appointment of staff?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment. We on this side of the House supported the amendment at Report stage. The amendment was withdrawn then because the Government agreed to think again about the clause. However, the absence of any apparent further thought on the exclusions has meant that it was necessary to put down the amendment again.
The exclusions the Government have listed do not go nearly far enough. While of course it is a great improvement with respect to academic freedom to have excluded the content of courses and how they are taught, more is needed. First, the inclusion of the right to frame terms and conditions with respect to the duration of courses is surely unnecessary. The Government can exercise general control over course duration through the overall public funding they make available to the funding councils. It is then a matter for the funding councils to negotiate with individual institutions on the length of particular courses on a case by case basis. The necessary expertise should be, and I believe would be, available to the funding council and its staff. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, it is unlikely that the Secretary of State will know enough about such matters to take a view. Nor do I think that civil servants in the DES are likely to know more. Therefore that part of the clause should be deleted as the amendment proposes.
Turning to the second part of the amendment, the selection of students and their admission are entirely, and must be, matters for individual academic institutions. No government, or even the funding, councils, should be involved in such detail. We must trust responsible people to get on with the running of institutions, deciding whom they can teach and who can best benefit from the courses they run. Any head of an institution would find it insulting to be told by anyone, even the Secretary of State, whom he or she should admit to study at his or her institution. Heads of institutions would be even more concerned if constraints were placed on them with respect to the academic staff to be appointed. That runs right into the issue of academic freedom.
Nor at Report stage did I hear the Minister say anything which was remotely convincing in support of the argument that the additional exclusions should not be accepted by the Government. If the Government are genuinely concerned with safeguarding academic freedom they will accept the amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, asked me directly whether I could give an assurance that the condition-making power in Clause 66 could not lead to interference in the appointment of staff or the admission of students. I can offer this important assurance. The Secretary of State could not use his condition-making power under that clause to

103
affect the appointment of individual staff, the admission of individual students or the length of individual courses. To do any of those the Secretary of State would have to make a condition in respect of a particular institution. The Government have always understood that to be ruled out under Clause 66 as originally drafted. The government amendments, Amendments Nos. 47 and 50, which were finally agreed to 25 minutes ago, now put that beyond all doubt.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon but there is a point of clarification which is vital. He said that the Government could not impose conditions on the appointment of individual staff. As one who has experience of affirmative action in the United States, I ask whether the Government can by this procedure impose conditions on the appointment of categories of staff?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will look at the clause. It is important to remember the context of the powers, which essentially relate to public funding and accountability. If, for example, a Secretary of State sought to influence, through imposing a condition, the filling of a particular post or to require institutions to recruit a particular number of students, or if he sought to prohibit the admission or appointment of a particular individual or to determine the length of a particular course, I am advised, and I believe, that he would rightly be found to be exceeding his powers and to be riding roughshod over the autonomy granted to universities under their charters and statutes and to polytechnics and colleges under their instruments and articles of government. It is true that I have not quite answered the question, but will the noble Earl bear with me for a moment? I shall come back to the point he put to me.
The discussion has been brief. It has hung on the peg of an amendment which I rather grandiloquently called an amendment on academic freedom. It was an offer that I brought forward at Report stage but withdrew. The effect of Amendment No. 52 would be that the Secretary of State may not frame conditions by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research. That includes an institution's ability to offer particular courses on programmes. It also applies to the content of an institution's courses or programmes. It covers the way in which those matters are taught, supervised or assessed.
The two points at issue are whether the amendment ought to extend the constraint upon the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers to cover the appointment of staff and the admission of students and whether it should exempt from the exclusion a condition-making power in respect of the duration of courses. Both points are tackled in the amendment which was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Beloff, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, having also put their names to it.
I sought to make clear at Report stage that there are circumstances in which the Secretary of State may
104
have a quite legitimate policy which would cause him to make conditions which inevitably touch on those areas. For example, the Secretary of State has an interest in attaching conditions in respect of the number of publicly funded medical students. I have not thought that example up. It was one given by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, whose experience in these matters rivals that of almost anyone in your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lord Cavendish has made clear that funding councils will be expected as a condition of grant to ensure that they have specialist advice about the education of students with disabilities. That is worthy; it is good. It is about students. As to staff, funds have been earmarked in the past to enable institutions to restructure their staffing or to introduce new blood posts. Those are all policy interests for a government to pursue through the Secretary of State's condition-making powers. However, they inevitably have an effect on or a relationship with students and staff.
As to the duration of courses, it is important to distinguish powers in respect of the funding council from powers in respect of institutions. The condition-making power sought under Clause 66 is attached to the grant being made by the Secretary of State to the funding council. That enables the Secretary of State to further legitimate policies in respect of course length by making his grant to the council subject to terms and conditions of its use. But the power would not extend to the determination of length of higher education courses within individual institutions. Institutions are free to make up their own minds about that within the financial framework set by the funding council.
Perhaps I may give a couple of examples of what I believe are legitimate government interests in course duration. The higher education White Paper emphasised the Government's commitment to expand higher education. It also made clear that while the Government remain committed to awarding higher education a fair share of public expenditure, the result would not be an expansion of student numbers if additional resources merely served to fund the same number of students on longer courses. The White Paper made clear too that the Government do not see a case for an increase in the average length of courses. The condition-making power which we are discussing enables the Secretary of State to exercise influence in that area through funding. But it does not allow him to tell institutions what they may or may not do.
The power would also enable the Secretary of State to earmark funds for specific purposes in respect of course patents. Indeed there is a current example. At the Secretary of State's request the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council is making available no less than £1 million in 1992–93 to support a pilot scheme involving the provision of accelerated and intensive routes to degree courses. The response from institutions in the form of bids for those funds has been enthusiastic. I understand that just over 450 places on 12 courses with 11 different institutions are

105
to be funded by the PCFC. I believe that it would be wrong to rule out the constructive use of conditions for such desirable development.
I end as I began with an important reassurance. The Secretary of State could not use his condition-making power to affect the appointment of individual staff, the admission of individual students or the length of individual courses. To do any of those things the Secretary of State would have to make a condition in respect of a specific institution. The Government, having always thought that that is exactly what Clause 66 would prevent, now have the agreement of your Lordships to Amendments Nos. 47 and 50 which finally make clear beyond all doubt that institution-specific conditions under Clause 66 are completely out of court.
I well understand why Amendment No. 53 has been moved, but I hope your Lordships will feel that I have taken the issues head on and have answered them all.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, we will be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his speech in reply to the amendment. It seems to me that he has protested a great deal about a matter of which we have already found him innocent. It has not been suggested in my amendment, or in any of the speeches made in support of it, that the Government are even suspected of contemplating dealing with individual cases of staff appointments, student admissions and the length of individual courses. What we have been talking about is whether general powers to lay down conditions applying to all institutions could be imposed under this clause, perhaps by some less high-minded Minister than the present one. That was why I began by saying that the amendment had the unanimous support of the university community.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I say with very great respect to my noble friend that he cannot get away with that. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, gave an example of the clearest possible kind which even I could understand. Of course it is right, and has been accepted procedure in the past, that if one is talking of a category of students the Secretary of State has a say as far as numbers are concerned. When the noble Lord says to the House, "Is it the case that categories of student can be interfered with by the Secretary of State?" and that is a matter which is the concern of everybody interested in academic freedom, all I can say is that I would have hoped the noble Lord might have listened to the noble Lord opposite.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord opposite. My answer must be that I am not speaking here as an individual. If the content with the situation is such as the noble Lord the Minister suggests why does the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals want my amendment to be passed? That is a fact known by everyone here who has been briefed by that committee. Surely, I am more likely to be right if I listen to the representatives of nearly 50 universities than in any other way. I must ask the House to give its opinion on the amendment I have moved.
9.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment, No. 53 (as an amendment to Amendment No. 52) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 72.

Division No. 6

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Judd, L.

Acton, L.

Kennet, L.

Addington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Adrian, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Ampthill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Annan, L.

Lockwood, B.

Avebury, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Barnett, L.

McCarthy, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Beloff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Butterfield, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Coleraine, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigavon, V.

Palmer, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dainton, L.

Peston, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ridley, V.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Flowers, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Serota, B.

Greenway, L.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warnock, B.

Hooson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Flather, B.

Arran, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Astor, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Balfour, E.

Haslam, L.

Barber, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Blyth, L.

Hooper, B.

Borthwick, L.

Howe, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Caithness, E.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Limerick, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Liverpool, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Long, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Lyell, L.

Cross, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Elles, B.

Marlesford, L.

Elton, L.

Mersey, V.

Ferrers, E.

Mountevans, L.

107

Orr-Ewing, L.

Stockton, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Perry of Southwark, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Reay, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rennell, L.

Ullswater, V.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Vinson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

Seccombe, B.

Waddington, L.

Selsdon, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Young, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Amendment No. 52, as amended, agreed to.
9.32 p.m.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Clause 68 [Assessment of quality of education provided by institutions]:
Lord Annan Lord Annan moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 51, line 4, after ("functions") insert ("(such as the profile of courses and the appointment of external examiners)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment originally arises from disclosures by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, of political indoctrination in various institutions.
I make it clear in moving the amendment that I believe in academic freedom. If a member of staff is appointed legitimately, it is a matter of indifference whether he is a Marxist, a monetarist, a Beysian or a continuous creationist like Sir Fred Hoyle.
What is more, I go further. There is on a member of staff who gives lectures and who teaches no obligation whatsoever to be fair. There is no obligation on him at all to draw attention to contrary views or even to indicate that his own views may not be wholly acceptable. Some of the most gifted and remarkable lecturers that I have ever heard were fanatics for their own vision of life. On the other hand when a group of like-minded people get into a department and the students find that in that department only one view is permitted, and that in their examinations they will be expected to toe the line, there is a real danger. It is in that spirit that the amendment on Report was moved.
However, this amendment goes to a matter much wider than the question of political indoctrination. Your Lordships will know that the amendment refers to two matters: the profile of courses and the appointment of external examiners. Students these days are extremely sophisticated. They expect to choose their institution because that is the institution in which they find the course which they wish to study. It is that that attracts them to the particular place.
It is essential that the profiles of courses are set out in full. That is particularly important when students arrive in their university and find that the course which they had no doubt seen described in rather abbreviated terms in a handbook is very different from what they had expected. It is incumbent upon them to change their course when they arrive if they find that they have been misled by the handbook. It is important that the students know what the course
108
comprises and what books and other materials they are expected to study in order to pass the examinations at the end of the course.
The external examiners are mentioned for another reason. Originally they were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, because, in the departments in which political indoctrination was occurring, the external examiners were chosen because they were parties to the view being pushed down the throats of the students by all the teachers in those departments. That gave the students no escape. However, we are concerned with a wider issue.
Before the Bill imposed upon the funding councils a quality assessment committee, the universities had begun to say, "Perhaps we are to be attacked on whether or not we assess the quality of our teachers and the courses and had better look at it ourselves". As I understand it, when they began to do that, some were found wanting; that is to say, they had not insisted that external examiners should be appointed. The external examiner is the safeguard that standards are being maintained and also that fairness of assessment in the examination is being obtained. He is therefore an essential factor in maintaining academic freedom and fairness to students.
I understand that the amendment is perhaps not worded delicately enough or with sufficient finesse and that it may need further amending. However, I am hoping to extract from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, an expression of sympathy indicating that he will bear its aims in mind, and that the Secretary of State will ask, in his submissions to the funding councils with their quality assessment committees, that they too should bear these points in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am a little foxed by the amendment. Did the quality assessment committee exist at Cambridge before the war or is it something quite new? If it did exist, it did not seem to do much. Most of my law dons were eccentric—certainly my law tutor was—and if there had been a quality assessment committee I should have learned less law than I did. I am not sure what it is all about.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I hope to answer my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in my few brief remarks. I begin by apologising to your Lordships on behalf of my noble friend Lady Cox as she is unable to be with us to speak on the amendment. She is still occupied with the tragic situation in Nagorno Karabakh, which remains under siege by Azerbaijan. I should also like to apologise to your Lordships for the inaccurate wording of the amendment, although I trust its spirit is clear.
First, the amendment intends to lay a duty on the new funding councils with their quality assessment committees to require publication by institutions of their course profiles and the names of their external examiners. The aim of the amendment is to improve accountability first and foremost to students who would thus have a better idea of what is on offer; secondly, accountability to the taxpayer to reduce the present waste in our system of higher education, and, thirdly, to improve accountability to academic quality and thus to academic freedom itself.

109
As I said at Report stage on this Bill, academic quality requires a certain amount of rigour. A course which does nothing to stretch the students on it, but rather leaves them bored and de-motivated for three or four years, is unlikely to meet the standards of academic quality which noble Lords rightly take for granted in a degree course. I have also mentioned at earlier stages of the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House that academic freedom, about which we have again heard much today, is neither honourable nor justified if it does not discharge its sacred duty to academic quality. Academic freedom must not become the cloak which covers up academic self-indulgence.
My noble friend Lady Cox and I have given a number of examples where academic quality has been or is so low as to defraud the students on the courses in question and thus to betray its duty to academic freedom. I do not imagine that the law course followed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway at Cambridge before the war was exactly in that category. I am happy to repeat and emphasise that our examples come largely from the faculties of humanities, social sciences and teacher education. I know that my noble friend would join with me in paying tribute to our polytechnics and universities for their magnificent work in what I would call the harder disciplines; for example, medicine, chemistry, physics and engineering.
Indeed, we believe that this amendment on the face of the Bill would do much to ensure that the good work of the Council for National Academic Awards in these areas is continued and expanded. However, the faculties we have criticised and other soft disciplines account for nearly half of the first degree students in our polytechnics. I imagine that the proportion may be higher in our universities.
Looking back over our debates on this Bill, I remind your Lordships that we have given one example where a whole institution accredited, I have to say, by the CNAA, had admitted that its quality assurance mechanisms are not working properly. We have given examples where whole departments within institutions have been unacceptably narrow in the teaching that they offer. Indeed, I was given another example of that only last week. We have given examples where whole subject disciplines, such as cultural studies, independence studies and, I am afraid, much of teacher training, do not contain the breadth and depth of academic quality which your Lordships would expect in a degree course.
In this respect I am sure that many of your Lordships were somewhat shocked to read in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph that students in half the country's polytechnics and colleges and in several universities, are now able to gain degrees in English Literature without reading a word of Shakespeare. That is just another example of the sort of thing I am speaking about.
At Report stage I even ventured to query the workload of a tutorial history Fellow at Oxbridge who is required to give 16 lectures per annum and to teach no more than 15 hours per week for 24 weeks of the year, at handsome terms of employment. The noble
110
Earl, Lord Russell, whom I am sorry to see is not in his place, took me to task for that, saying that 15 hours teaching means 50 hours work for the don in question and that I was profoundly mistaken if I confused his 28 weeks of vacation with a holiday. I do not know, but I have thought it over. I have discussed the matter with a number of Oxbridge academics. I am afraid I have to stick to my guns against the noble Earl.
Of course I accept that 15 hours teaching might mean 50 hours work when the academic in question is teaching one of the hard subjects to which I have paid tribute; when, for example, he is extending the frontiers of knowledge in particle physics or something like that. I would not have thought that that could apply to mature academic teaching, for example, of a defined period of British history. I really would not have thought that our history was being rewritten quite so fast as to require such a workload from 15 hours teaching for 24 weeks of the year.
Whether the noble Earl is right or whether I am right about this particular example, I have now been told of a teaching don at one of our leading universities who, during term time, runs an entirely separate small business virtually full-time. I am told that there are also examples of teaching professors—for example, professors of politics, economics and international relations—who spend more of their time working lucratively for consultancy firms than they do on their official teaching duties. No doubt they would justify that as research, or perhaps scholarly activity. But I am not sure that their students or the taxpayer would necessarily agree with them. This amendment would help to flush this sort of thing out into the open, especially if the new funding councils were to encourage university faculties to look a little more closely at the real teaching load of their staff. It seems clear that the academics who are honourably doing their duty and more, would welcome and benefit from such scrutiny at the long overdue expense of those who are not.
I should add immediately that no government interference with academic freedom would be involved. I am sure that open discussion at academic boards and in senates would soon have the desired effect without impinging on genuine research and scholarly activity.
There is a wider and perhaps more disturbing point behind all this which was brought home to me forcibly by two leaders of the United States insurance industry who were my guests at dinner in New York last Thursday evening. They told me that British university degrees in the faculties I am criticising are beginning to be seen as inferior in the United States business community and this despite all the prestige which our great universities carry over there. I am happy to say that they were fulsome in their praise of the hard subjects—medicine, physics, chemistry, engineering and so on.
One of my guests backed up his accusation with embarrassing personal detail. He has two student children, one at a leading US college and the other at a leading British university. Both are reading English and history and both are in their second year. Last vacation they compared their respective courses and

111
found that, in fact they bore no comparison. The American course is immeasurably broader, deeper and tougher than its British counterpart. The student at the British university may well even get a first class degree, but he is bored and frustrated and now wishes that he had gone to college in the United States instead.
I am sure that we would all agree that it is serious indeed if the currency of some of our great university degrees is starting to be seen as debased by the international business community and no doubt by others too.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Lord telling us that those two people in the insurance industry are judges of the quality of all the subjects which he has listed?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness I would say that I have given many other examples of that during the course of these debates. As leaders of a major United States insurance company they have worldwide experience, having branches worldwide. They are also very interested—and this is where the conversation started—in the quality of the students they employ in the various countries where they operate. I admit that it is somewhat anecdotal, but it fits with the rest of the experience and I do not think that it is idiosyncratic or too anecdotal to bring to your Lordships' attention. I believe that this means that we are failing not only the taxpayer and our students but also, inevitably, the country.
Having spoken to many students and academics in different institutions, I am fairly sure that I see something of what is going wrong. The picture which emerges is as follows. The academic gold standard of British education is the A-level exam which many of our young people work extremely hard to achieve. However, the best of them are then creamed off by the so-called best universities and are all too often allowed to coast through the next three or four years towards a comfortable second class degree. Less good A-level students are often treated similarly by less good universities. Not much academic value appears to be added by our universities in this process, although of course I accept that it is usually so when a student is trying to get a first class degree.
Perhaps I have been unlucky in the very many students I have spoken to, not one of whom would disagree with what I have said tonight. Perhaps student perception is misguided; But this amendment on the face of the Bill would do much to find out where the truth lies. Therefore I earnestly commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I hope that this amendment is not pressed. The Bill sets up funding councils which are instructed to look after the quality of the teaching and research in the universities. Moreover, it tells those funding councils that they are to set up quality assessment committees which will specialise in giving the funding councils advice on just those responsibilities.
112
I respectfully suggest to noble Lords that it is not our job in this House to move odd amendments in order to give effect to every hobbyhorse which we individually may have. We should trust the bodies that we set up to be sensible and we should ask, "What do we need in order to guarantee quality in our higher education institutions?" We have a committee to tell us. We may give it some guidelines but we should let the committee get on with the job. It will in due course advise us. If we do not like its advice we can send the committee back to do it again. However, let us not try to write into the Bill all the things that the committee should be thinking about. Partly we shall forget them and partly the things that it should be thinking about will change with time. In any case, all the things I have heard tonight are nothing more than hobbyhorses.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to provide that among the functions conferred on the quality assessment committees by the funding councils would be that of giving advice on the profile of courses and the appointment of external examiners. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, and my noble friend Lord Pearson have spoken with considerable feeling on the desirability of that line of thought. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, asked me to reply on behalf of the Government that we understand the case that has been made and are sympathetic to it. If I may, I shall come to that in a moment or two.
As I ventured to say during the debate at Report stage, the Government are at one with the views expressed by many noble Lords on the importance of institutions being accountable for the way they spend public funds and in particular for the ways in which they seek to maintain and improve the quality of what they offer. Under the Government's proposals, there will be external assessment of the quality of an institution's teaching and research, and institutions will establish and run a unit to monitor the quality assurance machinery in all institutions. Reports of quality assessments and quality audits of individual institutions will be published.
The external examiner arrangements within institutions will clearly need to be the subject of scrutiny by the quality audit unit in view of their importance in ensuring independent checks. The institutions have fully recognised this. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will also encourage the quality audit unit to maintain a register of external examiners and advise on their development and training.
Profiles of courses are already published by institutions, most notably in their prospectuses. As I have said, the quality of those courses will be the subject of assessment by staff of the funding council as part of their normal duties. However, while I respect the concerns expressed that the content of some courses may not be as relevant as we may like—my noble friend Lord Pearson has spoken, roughly speaking, on those lines—it really must be for individual institutions to determine that content, guided where appropriate by the requirements of the professional bodies. Otherwise, we really do get near to the slippery slope of centralised control of academic thought.

113
This clause already provides for the councils to require the quality assessment committee to provide such advice as it sees fit. I see some difficulty in legislating by exemplar as the amendment seeks to do. But having said that, I give my noble friend this assurance. The Government take very seriously indeed the need for a flow of information to be available from institutions to students, parents, schools and employers on matters of genuine interest. I very much take the point made by my noble friend Lord Pearson that the views of others, particularly those in industry and commerce, are important so far as concerns the academic world.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was going to ask the Minister whether he would rebut the remarks of his noble friend. I have sat here feeling unable to join in. I have never as an academic taught as much as 15 hours a week. I am a teacher of what his noble friend calls a soft subject. It appears now that my economics graduates are not up to the standard of an American insurance company. That has really shocked me. I was rather hoping that the Minister would say a word or two on behalf of those of us who carry the burden of teaching in this country at least slightly to criticise his noble friend for what I thought were, to say the least, personally outrageous remarks.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have contented myself this evening with saying that I understand the general thrust of what my noble friend Lord Pearson said so far as concerns the importance of the views of those in the business world and their perception of what happens in the academic world without going into specifics. I do not intend to go into specifics. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is admirably well qualified to say what he wishes to say on behalf of the academic community; indeed, the noble Lord is distinguished in both politics and academics. I can go no further than that.
I should add that the Secretary of State will want to discuss with the institutions and the funding councils the scope of the information which should be available from institutions to students, parents, schools and employers and the role which the assessment committees and the quality audit unit might play in monitoring it. I hope that those reassurances will be acceptable to and welcomed by the noble Lords who tabled the amendment. As the amendment has now been debated, I hope that it will be withdrawn.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having taken such trouble to respond to the amendment. I shall not ride or rein in any hobbyhorses. Indeed, half an hour ago we actually rode two hobbyhorses which ultimately defeated the Government; that is to say, the hobbyhorses as regards the admission of students and the appointment of academic staff. However, leaving that aside, I believe that the issue has been given a good airing. I am most pleased and reassured by what the Minister said. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 [Higher education corporations: constitution and conduct]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 53, line 48, leave out ("original") and insert ("then subsisting").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that Clause 69 inserts Sections 124A, 124B and 124C into the Education Reform Act 1988. New Section 124C(4) provides that when the Privy Council makes a new instrument for a higher education corporation the present members (other than those specified in Section 124C(5)) shall continue,
"for the residue of the term of their original appointment".
However, some of those members may have been re-appointed following their "original" appointment, and the subsection in its present form could be taken to mean that re-appointed members should not continue. That was not the intention; the intention was for present members to continue until the end of their present appointment, whether it was an original or subsequent appointment. The amendment is needed to ensure that this intention is realised beyond doubt. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Variation of trust deeds]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 58, line 28, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was debated when we discussed Amendment No. 31. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 58, line 32, at end insert ("and
( ) where the instrument to be modified is a trust deed and the trustees are different from the persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the trustees.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74 [Power to award degrees, etc.]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 58, line 33, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Privy Council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 60. I signalled at Report stage that I would be moving an amendment transferring the power to specify an institution as competent to grant its own awards from the Secretary of State to the Privy Council. Such an arrangement would be consistent with the proposals elsewhere in the Bill for the Privy Council to have the responsibilities in relation to institutional titles and governance. That is what these amendments do.
The amendments which I have brought to your Lordships today do not change one iota the policy that all present polytechnics will receive the full range of degree-awarding powers. The criteria which other institutions will need to meet will remain those announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 16th December. The arrangements by which my right honourable friend will receive advice on whether institutions meet the criteria are not affected either. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 60:

115
Page 59, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) Section 124D of the Education Reform Act 1988 applies in relation to orders under subsection (1) above as it applies in relation to the exercise of powers for the purposes of Part II of that Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 79 [Directions]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 60, line 36, after ("directions") insert ("under this section, and such directions shall be").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61 and speak to Amendments Nos. 62 to 67 and 69.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me? I am content that he should speak in that way, but I ought to give him notice that I shall be moving Amendment No. 66 separately. That is the affirmative resolution amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be moving Amendment No. 63 separately.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, let me start again and move Amendment No. 61 and speak also to my Amendment No. 65 and to the other amendments I mentioned, less the two amendments that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway are going to move separately.
As with Clause 66, the Government have been thinking very carefully about the scope of the Secretary of State's power of direction under Clause 79. As Amendments Nos. 61 and 65 in my name make clear, the Government have been persuaded by the argument put on all sides of the House at Report. Put very simply, the new amendments adopt in full the proposition embodied in what was Amendment No. 169C at Report in the names of my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Renfrew, Lady Young and Lord Beloff, that rather than limiting by exclusion the nature of any direction which might be given, the Bill should instead limit the circumstances in which a direction could be contemplated.
As the House had asked, the amendment now limits the Secretary of State's power to make institution-specific directions to a situation in which, in an institution funded by the funding councils, there is financial mismanagement. It requires the Secretary of State to consult both the council and the institution concerned before making a direction. And it restricts the nature of any direction to being one which is necessary or expedient to tackle that mismanagement.
In addition to explaining briefly my amendments, may I give one assurance that I think is relevant to these amendments. The power to give general directions under Clause 79 in the amendment that I am moving, which in effect retains the power that the Secretary of State already has under Section 134(8) in the Education Reform Act, could not be used to give an institution specific directions. It is this concern that I understand has prompted Amendment No. 63 in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway,
116
which we shall come to. But may I say at this stage that the juxtaposition of a subsection concerned with general directions and a subsection with an institution-specific power makes it clear that the powers conferred by the two subsections are mutually exclusive.
If it had been the intention to make the institution-specific power merely one way in which the general power could be used, then the amendment would have to be worded very differently indeed. With just that one assurance, which I believe is absolutely correct—I have taken great trouble to take advice on it and I, for one, am wholly convinced by the advice but we shall come back to it again on my noble friend Lord Campbell's Amendment No. 63—I beg to move Amendment No. 61.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this affords a measure of clarification but it does not exclude directions which relate to the activities carried on by a particular institution save as is provided by Clause 79(1), as proposed by Amendment No. 63, to which I shall come in due course. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his assurance. I am not only grateful to him for the tremendous trouble he has taken in order to produce his Amendment No. 65, which in fact is wholly satisfactory save as to qualification, but also for considering the matter with which I have to deal, which is whether Amendment No. 61 affords the requisite measure of clarification. In my view, the assurance is in no way binding upon any court or judge. It is not apparent to anyone who reads the statute and it is insufficient.
We are here concerned with a method of conferring a power by Parliament on the Executive to do various things. I suggest that that should be expressed on the face of the Bill and not be implicit in what is to be read out of the Bill; nor be covered by an assurance from any Minister, however reliable and however much respected throughout the House, as is my noble friend Lord Belstead. There is nothing personal in this; quite the reverse.
We are a revising House. The way this matter should be dealt with is that if Parliament confers a power on a Secretary of State, it should be open, expressed and clear on the face of the Bill for everyone to see. In my respectful submission, Amendment No. 61 goes some way but not all the way. Against that background, while accepting that Amendment No. 61 goes some of the way, I quote the CVCP brief which I received this morning. That organisation should know what it wants and should understand the subject. It seeks,
"further clarification and if this is accepted, a proper balance between financial accountability and academic freedom will have been reached".
That is in support of my Amendment No. 63.
To reach that end, I invite your Lordships—and it does not require much invitation—to accept Amendment No. 63 in due course on the basis that another place may substitute for,
"directed to any specific institution",
the words,
"relate to the activities carried on by any particular institution".

117
It is not possible at this stage to table a manuscript amendment. I am advised that the appropriate way, as a matter of principle and if your Lordships agree with me, is this. We should accept Amendment No. 63 in due course, if the House is so minded, and leave it to another place to deal with the matter, if it is so advised, when the Bill reaches it.
Amendment No. 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is acceptable. It reflects the substance of the Conservative Back-Bench amendment which commended itself to all sides of the House. I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Belstead for his Herculean endeavours, and also my noble friend Lord Cavendish for the care, time, trouble, patience and courtesy with which they have both dealt with the problems.
There is little more to be said. I rest upon the position that the power conferred by the legislature upon the Executive to lay a draft of a proposed statutory instrument before each House of Parliament in which directions are given is conferred by Clause 79(1). As your Lordships know, the procedure is governed by Clause 87. This is a delegation of legislative power and the nature and extent of the delegation should be clear and expressed on the face of the Bill and not subject to implication or assurance. I know that it may well be said that this is implicit. Well, is it?
I defer in such matters to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, and I accept that this point is arguable, but we cannot accept that it is the inevitable conclusion. If such be the intention of Government—my noble friend has assured us that is the case, and I accept his assurance and his good faith; who would not accept that?—it should be expressed on the face of the Bill. That is the sole issue between us. It is a matter for your Lordships and for clarification. In the good order of producing legislation I suggest to your Lordships that it is proper to accept, in due course, not only Amendment No. 61 but also Amendment No. 63.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I join in the welcome given to the Government's amendments to this clause. It seems to me they have gone a long way to meeting the anxieties that have been expressed about this clause. I would only say that that accentuates and is bound to exacerbate the suspicions that have already been aroused by the tenacity of the refusal to grant the crucial concomitant concession on Clause 66.
As regards this clause, subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has said, it seems to me that, largely, the Government have gone a long way to meeting all the legitimate objections. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in my respectful submission he is plainly right. The noble Lord the Paymaster General may be right on his point of statutory construction. That is not a matter to be argued at this time of night. It is sufficient to say it rests on an implication. I can certainly envisage—as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, can—a counter argument. The matter therefore ought not to be left on an implication but should be made explicit on the face of the Bill.
118
My only other point is this. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is clearly right as regards the procedural method. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, should accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in principle and undertake to put it into the proper form in another place.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I believe nothing has given so much dissatisfaction to this House in the whole progress of the Bill than the original Clause 79(2) giving a widespread and unbridled power to the Secretary of State as regards making directions. That is what the amendment of my noble friend the Minister now rectifies. I wish to echo the point made by other noble Lords, that we are all grateful for the enormous care which the noble Lords, Lord Belstead and Lord Cavendish, have taken over this matter so that the amendment which originally figured as the so-called Conservative Back-Bench amendment has now come forward in the form of Amendment No. 65.
Amendment No. 62 is the relic of that Back-Bench amendment which should have been withdrawn sooner. I hasten to withdraw it now. I wish to add simply that among those academics and indeed lawyers whom I have consulted there is a consensus that the clause, as amended by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is satisfactory.
I should particularly like to draw the attention of your Lordships to Amendment No. 61. It appears to be a paving amendment but it means that Clause 79(1) will read:
"shall comply with any directions under this section, and such directions shall be contained in an order made by the Secretary of State".
That means that compliance must be in accordance with subsections (1A) and (1B) of Amendment No. 65. Therefore, the power of general directions under subsection (1A) of Amendment No. 65 and the specific powers spelt out in subsection (1B) relating to intervention when the finances have gone off the rails are the powers afforded.
It is not for me to seek alternative interpretations to those offered by the noble and learned Lord or by my noble friend. However, I have taken advice and I find that very persuasive. It is unfortunate that, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has by implication conceded by his mention of a manuscript amendment, his own amendment is defective in a minor sense. It provides that the directions of the Secretary of State may not be directed towards any specific institution whereas the mechanism of the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make directions to the council which then passes them on to specific institutions. That is no doubt the nature of the manuscript amendment which would have to be introduced. I do not want to go into that complexity. If the House feels that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, would be helpful if further amended in that way, I hope that my noble friend Lord Belstead will accept it. I do not believe that it alters the intention in any way.
The main point which I wish to emphasise is that we can now feel satisfied—although some of us may feel that we could have been satisfied earlier—that the

119
Government have brought forward amendments which satisfactorily restrict the powers, which were formerly very wide powers. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on having brought matters to that satisfactory conclusion.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renfrew for those words and to other noble Lords who have said that they are satisfied with Amendment No. 61, together with the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 65. Those amendments are the complete answer to the original amendment, Amendment No. 169C, which was moved at the Report stage of the Bill. In that respect I am encouraged in moving the amendment.
However, I am somewhat dismayed that my noble friend Lord Campbell, who spoke to his amendment, Amendment No. 63, is of the view that the two limbs of Amendment No. 65 are not mutually exclusive as I asserted. I made that assertion on advice. I said that:
"The juxtaposition of a subsection concerned with general directions and a subsection with an institution-specific power makes it clear that the powers conferred by the two subsections are mutually exclusive".
If it had been the intention to make the institution-specific power merely one way in which the general power could be used the main part of the amendment —subsection (1B)—would need to have been worded very differently.
I ought not to cross swords with two distinguished lawyers —the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, being a Law Lord in addition—and particularly after they were very generous in what they said to me. However, I put it to my noble friend and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that they have not explained why they believe that the two limbs are mutually exclusive. The noble Lord, Lord Simon, simply rose to his feet and said that my noble friend Lord Campbell was right and sat down again. My noble friend Lord Campbell simply said that the matter was clouded in mystery and ought to be put right, but did not explain why.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, surely it would be an imposition to embark on detailed matters of statutory construction at this hour of the night and at this stage of the Bill?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I accept that from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and turn to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell. My noble friend's amendment would not work. Assuming, as I think is the case, that his reference to subsections (1A) and (1B) of Amendment No. 65 is intended to refer to the two limbs of my amendment, that implies that both the general power in the first limb and the specific power in the second limb are institution-specific. That would mean that there is no direction-making power left in the amendment which is not specific. Presumably that is not what my noble
120
friend intends; it would make a complete nonsense of his amendment. It makes Amendment No. 63 in the name of my noble friend absolutely nonsensical.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 60, line 37, at end insert ("which save as provided by subsections (1A) and (1B) below, may not be directed to any specific institution.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the advice to my noble friend Lord Belstead was calculated to make nonsense of my amendment. Of course the noble Lord appreciates that I make no complaint that he gives your Lordships the advice that he receives. However, I have not been particularly impressed at any stage of the Bill with the quality of that advice and I question it. The advice of course was such that it rubbishes the amendment.
Perhaps I may read an extract from a document that I received this morning from the CVCP. I did not ask for it. It states:
"The amendment tabled by Lord Campbell of Alloway, Baroness Warnock and Lord Flowers seeks further clarification and if this is accepted a proper balance between financial accountability and academic freedom will have been reached".
They were not prepared to rubbish the amendment but perhaps they received other legal advice.
Most lawyers tend to disagree on the question of advice. It is very seldom that one finds the advice of lawyers wholly consistent. All that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon and I are saying is, first, that it is an arguable point that warrants clarification; secondly, if one is delegating powers to a Secretary of State it should be plain on the face of the statute.
My noble friend Lord Belstead may be right that this juxtaposition advice that he has received is wholly well founded and totally convincing. But it is not assuredly right. Rather than relying on the game of shuttlecock between one legal adviser and another, why not have the matter plain on the face of the statute? I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I have already indicated that it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is right. If one relies on an implication it is arguable and therefore it is best to make the matter specific.
I rise again only to say this because the noble Lord the Leader of the House is present. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, cannot under the rules of order move a manuscript amendment at Third Reading. There have been many examples of how inconvenient that rule is. This is yet another. It matters less with this measure going to another place, but when your Lordships' House is the last place of consideration it is a highly inconvenient rule. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House might consider taking up the matter again with the Procedure Committee.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 61, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(1A) The Secretary of State may give general directions to a council about the exercise of their functions.
(1B) If it appears to the Secretary of State that the financial affairs of any institution within the higher education sector have been or are being mismanaged he may, after consulting the council and the institution, give such directions to the council about the provision of financial support in respect of the activities carried on by the institution as he considers are necessary or expedient by reason of the mismanagement.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 61, line 4, at end insert:
("( ) No order under this section shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment proposes that the direction-making power should be subject to affirmative resolution. It also goes with the next amendment which is consequential. This amendment is the same as that put down at an earlier stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Cogent as the argument was then, it has been reinforced by the terms of the amendment of the noble Lord the Paymaster General which your Lordships have just approved.
We have been over this ground before and know the advantages of affirmative resolution over negative resolution. The negative resolution frequently and generally does not come on at all in the other place. When it does, it comes on at an inconvenient hour. The first advantage of the affirmative resolution procedure is that the Government have to make time for it. The second advantage is that the Minister in charge moves the regulation and explains why it is needed. It is universally regarded that the affirmative resolution procedure is a superior form of parliamentary control than the negative procedure. It was for that reason that the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1972 and 1973 laid down criteria for the choice of affirmative or negative resolution.
Your Lordships will remember that those matters were canvassed at Report stage on an amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The criterion of the Joint Select Committee was that it should be affirmative if the regulations were likely to be important or substantial. The Joint Select Committee explained what it meant by that. It recognised that "important" and "substantial" were somewhat vague terms and one had to look at "important" in contradistinction to "trivial" and several other things like "consequential".
The sole question here is whether the regulations are likely to be important or trivial. Opinions differed on the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It was very much a borderline case. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, having hesitated, on the whole thought they could be described as trivial. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, took a different view. In view of the difference of opinion the noble Earl did not pursue the
122
matter. But here there can be no possible question at all. I ask your Lordships to look at the new Amendment No. 65. It states:
"The Secretary of State may give general directions to a council about the exercise of their functions".
Obviously, a general direction of that type must be important. I hope that the noble Lord the Paymaster General will say whether he believes that regulations made under his new subsection (1) are important or trivial. The same goes for subsection (2), although it can be treated differently.
Subsection (2) is the institution-specific direction. I am anticipating an argument that will be put forward on subsection (2), because the noble Lord the Paymaster General put it forward in relation to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is that an affirmative resolution attracts the hybrid regulation procedure in your Lordships' House alone. The argument will be that quick action will be needed in a subsection (2) regulation; the hybrid regulation procedure may impose delay; and, therefore, it should not be entertained so far as subsection (2) is concerned.
The answer to that point is simple. Hybridity can be excluded. The proper course would be for the noble Lord the Paymaster General to accept the amendment and if he fears hybridity to exclude it in the other place so far as subsection (2) is concerned. That is done in the Local Government Bill which is currently before Parliament. I have drawn the attention of the noble Lord the Paymaster General to the relevant clause. It has been done in a previous Local Government Bill. The exclusion of hybridity was countenanced by the Joint Select Committee, although it said that that action should be exercised with caution.
We return to the fact that in relation to both the criterion of importance is surmounted; the criterion of triviality cannot be advanced; and so far as hybridity is concerned it can be excluded. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I favour the amendment. Noble Lords will be aware that the question of affirmative versus negative procedures usually does not exercise me. It is my view that modern, efficient government requires Secretaries of State to have order-making powers. When they are of the negative type it does not seem to me, as it does to other noble Lords, that it is the first step along the road to the Gulag Archipelago; but in this case it seems to me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is right, especially as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, argued that the powers would be used in extremis only; in other words, they would be used only in special and difficult cases. Therefore, it seems to me to be right that for once the affirmative procedure should be the one for which the Secretary of State would wish to go.
I believe that the Secretary of State would wish to be able to put his case to us via the affirmative procedure. Unusually for me, I support the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an affirmative answer.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hesitate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who has spoken cogently on this matter, but I believe that Amendment No. 65, which was tabled in direct response to what the House asked for at the previous stage and which includes the consultation process in subsection (1B), should not be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. An order under this clause would be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The reason I say that—and this has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whose amendment we are now debating—is because a statutory instrument containing an institution's specific direction under the affirmative resolution procedure would almost certainly be hybrid and, as such, subject to the hybrid instrument procedure of this House. As your Lordships know, that involves, among other things, giving the affected institution the right to petition and to appear before the Hybrid Instruments Committee. The procedure can be extremely lengthy.
It is in the nature of emergencies that they often need a rapid as well as an effective response. The Secretary of State is already required by Amendments Nos. 61 and 65 to consult the funding council and the institution concerned before making a direction. That is not only a safeguard but it is also bound to take time. To involve also the hybrid instrument procedure, piling representation upon consultation, would surely put at risk the effectiveness of using the amendment at all.
I was surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, commend as a solution to that problem the "dehybridising" of the affirmative resolution procedure. It is true that the Government sought to take that course on one of the local government Bills, when the noble and learned Lord, like a deus ex machine, appeared as if from nowhere and both in Committee and on Report tabled amendments castigating the Government for daring to do such a thing.
Even if I were not surprised that the noble and learned Lord should be promoting something which he condemned only a few months ago, if there is, as the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, say, a strong case for an affirmative resolution and there should be a hybrid procedure, the case for maintaining the private rights and interests of the hybrid procedure is surely all the stronger.
The problem about that is that it would mean that the amendment tabled with the agreement of all sides of the House—namely, Amendment No. 65—would be unworkable because of the hybrid affirmative resolution procedure. I must resist that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, first, I must apologise for the fact that I was losing my voice when moving the amendment.
Perhaps I may say that I was not in the least surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, did not answer my question as to whether the regulations are likely to be important or trivial. Obviously, he could not answer that because they are bound to be important for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
124
However, the Minister did not disappoint me by referring to hybridity. Hybridity might make subsection (2) (b) quickly unworkable. However, that can be avoided in the way that I pointed out. It is true that I thought that that was unjustified in the local government Bill but the Minister in charge of the Bill argued strongly for it. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out, the case here is much stronger. If it is "dehybridised", as the noble Lord put it, in the other place, I should not find it possible to argue that your Lordships ought not to accept that amendment from the other place.
Therefore, we come back to the fact that, under both subsections, these are important amendments in so far as the valuable hybrid regulation procedure, peculiar to your Lordships' House, can be excluded. The argument for the affirmative resolution procedure as regards both limbs of the amendment stands unimpugned.
It would be absurd to divide the House at this hour on this point. But I am bound to say that, while the Government persistently try to downgrade parliamentary control of subordinate legislation, they will do themselves great constitutional harm. Considerable doubts have been aroused in influential quarters as a result of the way in which the passage of the Bill has been conducted. I do not refer to the noble Lord the Paymaster General, who has been courteous and patient throughout. But the fact is that every concession has been fought inch by inch to the last moment, and now we find the department arguing strongly that the minimum proper parliamentary controls shall be still further minimised and only the insufficient negative resolution procedure shall be available.
As I said, it would be absurd to divide the House at this time, but it is with some indignation that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Clause 87 [Orders, regulations and directions]:
[Amendment Nos. 68 and 69 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Courses of Further Education]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 71, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) a course to teach independent living and communication skills to persons having learning difficulties which prepares them for entry to another course falling within paragraphs (d) to (h) above;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 70 is to extend the list of courses for which the FEFCs are responsible to include a course in independent living and communication skills. It is similar to amendments I withdrew at earlier stages but, following discussions and a most helpful meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, and one of his officials, the amendment now seeks to achieve its purpose in a rather different and, I hope, more satisfactory way.
The amendment will cover most students needing courses in independent living; that is, when they are one step before a preparatory course or a further basic skills programme. They will thus benefit from being

125
based in FE colleges and can gain from the daily contact with other students. It has the strong support of disability organisations.
The Spastics Society says that its educational centres have frequent problems in placing students on further skills courses or pre-vocational courses because of the difficulties that students experience in communicating, and this amendment will be valuable to them. The RNID support the amendment because it means that most sign language classes will be under the funding councils.
However, with the amendment in its present form two groups of people will not be covered, and I hope that if the amendment is accepted, the Minister will be able to give thought as to how their needs may be met, whether by a letter to the LEAs, in guidance or whatever. First, families of deaf children: the latter are increasingly taught to sign at school so it is important that the siblings and parents also learn sign language to enable the family to communicate. There is a need to clarify the LEA's duties to provide such courses free or at reasonable cost.
Secondly, lip readers: while some young deafened people will be covered by the amendment, by far the greatest number of people in need of lip-reading classes will be elderly. Therefore they will not be covered in the amendment. There is a great shortage of lip-reading classes. Deaf Accord and the British Association for the Hard of Hearing, which has several thousand members, are anxious about the matter. Part of the problem is that there is some doubt as to whether they are the responsibility of LEAs, health authorities or social services. That needs to be made clear. I hope, therefore, that the Minister is able to come up with some way of safeguarding the needs of those two groups.
Meanwhile, I hope that the amendment provides a satisfactory solution for the students needing courses in independent living and communication skills. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am glad to say that the Government are able to accept this amendment. Its effect, in combination with the words already in the schedule, is to bring into the FEFCs' area of responsibility courses in independent living and communication skills for students with learning difficulties, where they lead on to any of the other types of course listed in that schedule.
Your Lordships will recall that we have debated the matter before. I have also had the opportunity to discuss it in more detail with the noble Baroness, as she said. I would like to pay tribute to her persistence in advancing her cause. Those for whom she works must have great cause for gratitude. I am glad that those discussions have enabled us to reach a common view.
As regards the other matters that the noble Baroness raised, I hope that at this time of night she will not mind if I write to her, especially as I am not yet in a position to say exactly what the situation might be. Meanwhile, I am glad to say that we can accept the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the Minister very warmly indeed, not least for the kind things that he said about me. As I said, the amendment will be greatly welcomed by the disability organisations. Of course I do not expect the noble Lord to come up with a solution at this hour for the other two groups which are not covered. I very much hope that eventually he will be able to do so. I hope that we have correspondence about it. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for always being so willing to discuss, reflect and come up with a satisfactory solution.
I am not going to make a speech on Bill do now pass; I have spoken quite enough. But perhaps I may thank the noble Lords, Lord Belstead and Lord Cavendish, for their unfailing co-operation and good humour. The Government have responded very generously to students with learning difficulties. I am most grateful for the amendments on transport and the condition of grant on funding councils. I am particularly pleased that the Government have been able to accept this amendment to Schedule 2. It may seem very small in relation to the broader issues that we have been discussing over the past few hours, but it is very important and of great benefit to the students concerned.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [New Schedule 7A to the Education Reform Act 1988]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness: moved Amendment No. 71.
Page 78, line 28, after ("board") insert ("and up to two may be students at the institution nominated by the students at the institution").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I move Amendment No. 71 and speak to Amendments Nos. 72 to 74. We had lengthy discussions about student representation on higher education corporation governing bodies in Committee and at Report stage. At Report stage, the House voted on and rejected an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which would have restored the automatic right of student representation.
This amendment has the same effect as one which my noble friend Lord Renfrew had tabled at Report. It continues to be phrased in terms of a freedom rather than a requirement. But it expresses that freedom full square on the face of the Bill and, if I may employ the expression used in the earlier debate by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, it provides for students, if chosen, to be pukka members of the corporation: involved in choosing co-opted members, rather than being in that category themselves.
Turning now to Amendments Nos. 72, 73 and 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I point out that they have virtually the same effect as Amendment No. 71. The principle underlying them is identical. There are three differences of detail. First, Amendments Nos. 72 to 74 limit the students who may be members of the governing body to full-time students. Amendment No. 71 does not contain that limitation. I imagine that where there are student governors they will be for the most part full-time students, but in institutions in which there are large

127
numbers, perhaps even a majority of part-time students, it is desirable to have the added flexibility which is in Amendment No. 71.
Amendments Nos. 72 to 74 provide for student governors to be elected rather than nominated. In practice it may be that there is not a great deal of difference between these two. It seems unlikely that students will elect governors whom they have not already elected to represent them in one capacity or another. On balance, I believe that nomination does offer a little more flexibility for governing bodies and students to attain a mutually agreeable approach. The Education Reform Act already provides for nomination.
Amendments Nos. 72 to 74 have the possibly unintended effect of providing that students could be independent members of governing bodies. It seems to me that that would blur unhelpfully with the distinction between the variable categories. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, it is pleasant to end on a note of harmony. Like the last speaker but one, I should also like to commend my noble friends Lord Cavendish of Furness and Lord Belstead not only for the sympathetic way in which they have treated this matter but for the sympathetic manner in which they have treated all these difficult issues throughout the debate. It was the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in bringing this general matter to the attention of the House, that has been largely instrumental in achieving the satisfactory outcome which we now have. I very much hope that in a moment he will profess himself satisfied.
This Bill goes a long way towards restoring the position of students on the higher education corporations to that which appertained in the 1988 Act. The only regret one might have is that here it says "may" rather than "shall". But at any rate students are restored to an integral place along with teachers at the institutions as pukka members; that is, as appointed, not co-opted members. Further down the printed page this amendment allows the provision that they may also serve as co-opted members. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been reported as saying that provision for students was dropped initially in the Bill at the instance of certain directors of polytechnics. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, made reference to that at an earlier stage of the Bill. But that has always seemed to be an extraordinary representation and I am happy to say that, now that the polytechnics are going to become universities, they will also, I hope, have that greater degree of maturity whereby students will take an integral part in their deliberations. This is a most happy outcome which I commend to the House.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government Front Bench for bringing forward this amendment and for allowing us to debate this issue so often. We achieved the final answer at Third Reading, although the issue was originally raised in
128
Committee. Nevertheless I thank both the noble Lords who have steered the Bill, who have put the case forward and who have handled it with great courtesy.
The final amendment is one that addresses the issue of part-time students. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, was instrumental in drawing up the three amendments which appear under my name, but both he and I would like to express our appreciation that part-time students are now included. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for his neat footwork at various stages of the Bill in allowing this issue finally to be raised at this stage and for giving us a stop-gap position. I thank the noble Lord and the Government Front Bench.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I should also like to add my thanks to the two noble Lords for their help with this amendment and for their drafting of this new amendment. I hope that the position as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, will not go on record as being the position in polytechnics. Our record of student participation and student democracy is without question as good as and possibly, in some cases, better than that in some universities. As a group, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics has continued to press for flexibility in the way that the Bill is worded and I very much welcome the fact that Amendment No. 71 provides for that flexibility.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris who is unable to be here, I too would like to welcome this amendment and to thank the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for bringing it forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 72 to 74 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
At this hour your Lordships will not wish me to say very much. However, in the tradition which I believe is embedded in our Companion to the Standing Orders, referring to the Motion "That this Bill do now pass", that we do not lament what is not in the Bill but perhaps extol what is in the Bill, may I say that with the help of all your Lordships we have covered some very useful ground. Indeed it can almost be said that we have left no stone unturned. In particular, my mind goes back to the fact that the Government have been able to give some useful assurances to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, about the long-term residential colleges, the WEA and the four London colleges for adults. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, was extremely generous in what she said about the changes for the disabled.
We have been over the ground thoroughly—indeed we have been over it again today—and no one could be a doughtier champion of adult education than the noble Baroness, Lady David. Although I realise that there are issues which divide us, it has been useful that during the proceedings on the Bill we have been able to establish that local education authorities will have a continuing duty to ensure adequate provision for all

129
kinds of courses for adults that do not fall to the funding councils and that that duty will be supported by funding through the rate support grant settlement.
On the higher education clauses, well, enough is enough. However, I think that we would agree on one point. They are leaving the House in better shape than when they came here, although noble Lords will not expect me, speaking from this Dispatch Box, to say that that includes Amendment No. 53. I say that in a spirit of friendliness to my noble friend Lord Beloff.
I should like to make on other point. I have heard criticisms being voiced in the House today of the department as a department. I remind the House that it is not possible to make headway in making changes to a long and complicated Bill unless those who are members of the department are enthusiastic about, as they see it, improving the Bill in co-operation with your Lordships. I am extremely grateful for the work that has been done on the Bill by the department.
I am also extremely grateful to your Lordships. I thank my noble friends on these Benches. Of those who are still here I thank my noble friends Lord Renfrew, Lady Young, Lady Perry, Lord Limerick and Lord Beloff, who I find a difficult opponent but a splendid friend. I thank my noble friend Lord Pearson and others. I thank noble Lords on the Cross-Benches who have taken part in the debates. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Flowers, Lord Adrian and Lord Dainton, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I feel sure that I have made omissions. On the Liberal Democrat Benches I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for the part they have played. Finally, I thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, opposite.
I say quite genuinely that no one could have to contend a Bill against fairer opponents but I regret to say that no one could have to contend a Bill against more knowledgeable and formidable opponents. Noble Lords opposite certainly have played a remarkable part in the proceedings on the Bill.
In conclusion, perhaps I may—because it is engraved on my mind —thank those on the Bishops' Bench who have taken part; the most reverend Primate today and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford throughout the proceedings on the Bill. The right reverend Prelate notched up a famous victory today. Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Cavendish for doing a very great deal to pilot this Bill through. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps I may just say a few words of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. He has given a parliamentary performance of quite astonishing vitality and courtesy. He has fought a very difficult battle and he has fought it all the way with the greatest charm and the greatest willingness to meet the House. My mind went back to the 1970s when he used to speak for education. It went back in another way. It was then that Mrs. Shirley Williams put 13 points to the universities and they rubbished them. Well, since that time, the Conservative Government have been putting, at any rate, some of those 13 points into
130
operation. Because, obviously, the former vice-chancellors and chairmen of the UGC have spoken with such vigour in moving amendments, the noble Lord should not think that universities are not sensible of the need for change.
The Bill before us is very important as regards producing change in the universities; indeed, it is much needed. Moreover, I believe that there is still too great a reluctance in universities to accept the fact that perhaps the criticisms of some people on the outside are justified or, at any rate, partially justified. We may look back on the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, with some approbation in some quarters and some regret and chagrin in others. I believe that changes will take place in universities as a result of the Bill. I welcome them; and I welcome the kind of changes that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has in mind.
11 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking all those who have taken part in the deliberations on the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for the extremely courteous and helpful way that they have handled the Bill. They have been extremely responsive to the many requests which were made for further information and clarification. I, alone, must have received at least five or six letters during the course of the proceedings in answer to questions that were difficult to answer in the Chamber. Of course, we also received many answers to questions put in the House on a direct basis.
However, I regret the fact that the Government were a little slow to accept the legitimate concerns of many of your Lordships on Clauses 66 and 79, so that we were left on Third Reading with the task of trying to sort out some of the problems. But it is possible that that was beyond the control of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, because the matter was determined by the Secretary of State and his advisers.
I should especially like to welcome the contributions made by new Members of the House; for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and my noble friend Lord Desai. Higher education is a subject in respect of which there is a great deal of expertise in the House, especially on the Cross-Benches. I should also like to thank all those Cross-Bench Peers who have helped to improve the Bill, thus making it a better Bill as it leaves this House than was the case when it arrived here. Similarly, I should like to extend my thanks to those who spoke from the Bishops' Benches.
Because of the very extensive knowledge of higher education in the House, the debates may have been a little longer than they might otherwise have been. However, they have certainly been of a higher quality. Last but not least, I should like to thank all my noble friends on these Benches who have contributed to the debates. I should especially like to thank my noble friends Lady David and Lord Peston.
If I have one regret about the proceedings it is that there has been much less interest in the further

131
education part of the Bill. It is just as important as higher education, if not more so. It affects just as many adults and young people, if not more; and it is a growing part of our education system. It is a sector that we must get right and make work well. Unfortunately, if the Bill is enacted, I do not believe that it will achieve those aims.
Throughout the debates, no good educational arguments were put forward as to why further education should be taken out of local government control. Many noble Lords accepted that further education colleges are local institutions. Indeed, no one denied that during our debates, or made a convincing case to show that the further education funding councils would be a better way of allocating funding to the further education colleges and providing the structure in which this sector of the education system would operate.
We were told that further education college principals wanted this change, and of course any institution wants the maximum autonomy. The right approach would have been to give the further education colleges greater autonomy through corporate status but to leave the local authorities as the strategic planners of 16 to 19 education and of further education for the adult population in their areas. This would have had the benefit of greater independence for the colleges without the massive disruption to the system entailed in the new funding councils and the regional structure beneath them. The Government have always claimed that they dislike unnecessary bureaucracy, but it seems to us that what they have done in this Bill is to create an unnecessary tier of bureaucracy and one that will be rather expensive.
The vendetta the Government have been pursuing against the local authorities has now reached a point where it can only be described as a damaging obsession. By objecting to amendments to ensure that local authority representatives should sit on the funding council and the new corporation governing bodies, supported with considerable conviction by my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff and others, the Government have rejected a sensible compromise which would at least have created proper links within the new structure to be established. Informal links are one thing, and they are to be welcomed, but we need a guarantee of more formal links in order to maximise communication and ensure co-operation.
The unnecessary speed with which the Government are trying to bring about these major changes to the delivery of further education is also a matter of concern. At every stage of our discussions on the Bill I have put down amendments designed to establish a more realistic timetable. I now understand that not only are the college principals concerned about the way the transition to the new structure is being rushed through; so also is the new chief executive of the English funding council. It cannot be right to jeopardise orderly and well-managed change by an absurdly short timetable. In the end it will be the students who will suffer because their education is
132
damaged, and in turn the nation then suffers. I only hope that my worries about this prove to be unfounded. I shall be delighted to be proved wrong.
What of course is fundamentally important is the quality of courses on offer. There is unfortunately nothing in this Bill about the content of further education, and again amendments put forward on the curriculum were rejected by the Government. The Bill's proposals for monitoring the work of the colleges are also a matter of concern and will need to be watched carefully. Without the long-standing expertise and experience of local authority advisers and officers some colleges will certainly suffer. Despite the Government's assurances, there will also be a great deal of concern about the question of charging in both schools and colleges, concern which is being voiced now by the college principals themselves.
If the Government's promises on this matter are broken we will certainly not hesitate to bring this to the public's attention. When the Labour Party wins the election, as will happen in a matter of months, we shall wish to reconsider the further education part of this Bill. It is in our view flawed. We shall also wish to ensure that adult education gets the support and resources that it deserves. Again there have been many opportunities in Committee and on Report and Third Reading for the Government to accept amendments which would have provided the reassurance that millions of adult learners want.
Even today my noble friend Lady David moved amendments to achieve this, but again the Government have been deaf to the pleas of the adult education world and the students for whom the opportunities it provides are so important. I regret this intransigence almost more than the failure of the Government to listen to some other aspects of the first part of the Bill.
Turning to higher education, the Labour Party has argued vigorously for some time that the binary line between the polytechnics and the universities should disappear. We have favoured merging the existing funding councils for a number of years and are glad that, having resisted this for quite a while, the Government have at last accepted our arguments. If the new system is to work, resources must be found to support the expansion of higher education. We cannot go on increasing student numbers without providing the wherewithal to do so and to maintain quality.
The Bill as originally drafted gave rise to a storm of protest over the powers it gave the Secretary of State to interfere in the activities of individual universities. To have left such powers on the face of the Bill would have been very dangerous indeed. Only the Secretary of State and perhaps the Department of Education and Science civil servants advising him seemed unable to recognise this initially. In this House the unified opposition of government Back-Benchers, the Labour Opposition, the Liberal Democrats—whom I also wish to thank for their part in the work on the Bill —and the independent peers in the end forced the Government to retreat and bring forward amendments to protect academic freedom. It took time, but in the end, against the threat of certain defeat, the Government thought again.

133
I am grateful to all those who took part in the debates. We have secured important changes to this part of the Bill. It is an excellent illustration of the important role this House can play in revising legislation when the Government have got it wrong.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, Lord Beaconsfield described Lord Hartington's speech on the Treaty of Berlin as a string of congratulatory regrets. The atmosphere on a Third Reading or on the Motion that the Bill do now pass generally has that character. On this occasion the congratulations can be fervent, particularly so far as they relate to the noble Lord the Paymaster General. On the other hand, so far as I have been able to read the Bill—and this is only on higher education and the threats to academic freedom—the regrets must be profound.
However, it is pleasanter to start with the felicitations. My noble friend Lord Annan and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, as well as the noble Lord the Paymaster General have expressed solicitously what we all feel about those who have been principally concerned with the Bill.
I wish to say a few words about the noble Lord the Paymaster General. In 40 years of Parliament I have never known a Minister face greater difficulties and carry his Bill through to the very end so triumphantly. Just think of the difficulties. The Bill went back on undertakings that were given in 1988. That had to be justified. It went back on them after a failure to nullify the effects of those undertakings in the case before Mr. Justice Simon Brown. It was a fantastic difficulty. Added to that, the provisions of the Bill as introduced had aroused widespread alarm throughout the academic community.
Those apprehensions were increased rather than reduced by the way every concession had to be wrung and every step was contested inch by inch, as I said earlier. Those were great difficulties and yet the noble Lord has brought the Bill, unamended in those two important clauses, to Third Reading. But then the regrets begin. Although a safety catch was fitted on the Clause 79 barrel, I fear that Clause 66 is still full of potential mischief. I do not suppose for a moment that those who are now in charge will misuse it, although one must not forget that the attempt before Mr Justice Brown to nullify the 1988 concessions took place within three years.
The other point I wanted to make by way of regret was the attitude just recently evinced as to parliamentary control. It is part of a serious pattern in which parliamentary control over administrative bodies has been persistently devalued in the past, I suppose, five years. The time will come when all the unconstitutional provisions that have crept in to our legislation—not least in the so-called child support Act—must be pulled together. Tonight is not the night to tackle that issue. One can only express regret that a further grave intrusion upon parliamentary control has occurred in the shape of this Bill. However, I do not want to end on that note. I prefer to end as I began, with the congratulations which are abundantly due to the noble Lord the Paymaster General and also to the other noble Lords who have been mentioned.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Minister thanked those who had taken part in this debate he spoke in a way absolutely characteristic of him. I wish to join in the thanks to all those he named, save one. For that one I can only say thank you. If I say that the Minister has been courteous, I say what everybody knows and nobody would have doubted. I say the Minister has been patient and I believe he cannot always have found that easy during this Bill. I say the Minister has been gentle. He has been reasonable and accessible, but, what is more, the Minister has undertaken a formidable task of negotiation.
We have heard tonight in the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth)—I assure her, the amendment was not small at all—and in the amendment on student representation just two of the fruits of the Minister's powers of negotiation and of the work, patience and persistence he has put into those issues.
I do not know how great were the difficulties that he has been labouring under, but I have an imagination and I have a considerable respect. I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, who is one of the most thoughtful people on the Government Front Bench. An argument in which he joins is one he will think about afterwards. Engaging in debate with him is always interesting.
My admiration for the Ministers, which is deep, does not extend to the Bill. When the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made his statement about Part I of the Bill I said that it sounded to me like a knee-jerk reaction. Nothing that I have heard since has forced me to change my mind. I still do not understand why the Government have introduced Part I of the Bill. It has given rise to an extremely large postbag, the largest I have received on any issue before this House since the restrictions on political activity by employees in local government. My correspondents did not appear to have great confidence in the funding council regime. I hope that their fears are misplaced.
I also found that the fears among those taking part in adult education that they would not be adequately funded were even deeper than in any other area. Shortly Ministers will have an opportunity to speak directly to those who have those fears. I hope that they will have good answers for them.
In the debates on Part II of the Bill I have never known the House speak on such a non-party basis. I must thank your Lordships for the support and understanding which the universities have received in every quarter of the House. I am delighted by the success of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, with Amendment No. 53. That is essential to the value and the international standing of the degree. Once, in Edwardian Oxford, someone who applied to do postgraduate work was asked, "Where is your first degree?". He replied, "BA, Albuquerque, New Mexico". He watched the man fill in the form and saw the writing upside down. What was written looked to him suspiciously like, "No degree". The Americans are a very generous people, as I have good cause to know, but there might be one among them who might at some time take pleasure in returning the

135
compliment. If that amendment is not accepted we have a good deal of talking still in front of us. We all hope that we shall not have to go round that course again.
On the other hand, in respect of Clause 79 I am deeply grateful to the Minister, to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew - who has had a notable first Bill—and to many others who have taken part in discussion on the clause. In accepting that clause as satisfactory I feel that I, too, have moved. In 1988 I would not have accepted the specific power to which tonight I have agreed, but over Christmas I re-read the Public Accounts Committee report on the hearings on University College, Cardiff. Politicians and academics cross each other on many occasions. We have one thing in common: both are thespian professions. Some harsh things have been said about Whitehall in the course of the proceedings on the Bill. But we do not always understand the anxieties of Whitehall. It is a profession in which it is much easier to receive blame than to receive praise. It is because that got through to my imagination as well as to my intellect that I am happy with Clause 79 as it stands. However, I hope that the Government will not mistake poverty for mismanagement.
There is a link between autonomy and funding. Autonomy is about choosing. That is something that, tautologically, beggars cannot do. The House will be delighted that I shall not enter into a debate on funding at this time of night. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is beginning one. I shall listen to it with great interest, but that is another story.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

The Homeless in London: Emergency Provision
11.25 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will extend the emergency provisions made for the homeless in London and elsewhere.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is an unusual time to begin debate on an Unstarred Question. There was some suggestion that the issue might be better served if I did not move the Question today but at a later date. However, the debate does not relate to those people who are registered homeless but to those who sleep rough. That issue is as important as the eight-hour debate today in this House on the final stages of the Further and Higher Education Bill. I shall not shorten what I had intended to say because of the hour; it has to be said. I assure my opponent who will speak from the Dispatch Box that the debate is not an attack on the Government. It is an attempt to bring further attention to a difficult situation which continues to deteriorate.
I and other noble Lords have referred to the subject winter after winter. Because homeless people are having to sleep rough, on 24th January Shelter produced a document entitled Freezing on the Streets. I have no doubt that, through the efficient civil servants who assist her, the Minister will have been adequately briefed on the document. It states:
"Last February homeless people sleeping rough endured over a week of Arctic temperature and deep snow. The response from central government was limited help for rough sleepers in Central London only. People outside London had to rely on the help that Shelter and other voluntary groups were able to hastily organise".
The Minister will recall that when that aid was announced I welcomed it from these Benches. However, I entered a caveat. I asked why such help was limited to London. The problem existed elsewhere too and ought to be addressed.
The document states:
"Since then the census has shown that, whilst large numbers of rough sleepers are in London, at least 60 per cent. of people sleeping rough are outside London. Yet Government emergency help to avoid the worst effects of freezing weather continues to be confined to Central London".
I do not believe that any noble Lord will deny that in the past two or three weeks the weather has been severe and very cold indeed. The document continues:
"Even in Central London the extra cold weather provision will provide only a maximum of 345 places in temporary shelters. Shelter's Night-line emergency telephone service found that hostel provision in London was full during the cold weather in January, leaving many people no choice but to face freezing temperatures on the street.
"As we enter what could be the coldest period of the year"—
we may have already experienced some of it—
"Shelter and Crisis are on stand by to again mobilise a network of local charities, church and other voluntary groups to provide makeshift emergency shelter in the event of freezing weather. The two charities have set aside a special cold weather fund of £100,000 for this purpose".
But on meeting a delegation from both organisations today I was told that that sum would disappear in one week if really adverse weather hit us. It is not a failsafe position in any substantial sense.
The document continues:
"By setting aside this special fund, Crisis and Shelter hope to prevent severe hardship and the danger of deaths. But, with clear evidence that rough sleeping is a nationwide problem, this emergency charitable help is no substitute for a durable nationwide strategy agreed between central and local government to help homeless people during the coldest part of the year.
Shelter estimates that as many as 8,000 people are sleeping rough throughout England. This estimate is based on a count that Shelter and local homelessness workers undertook during the freezing weather last year."
Although no figure can be produced yet, I am told by well-informed people that at the moment the figure is in excess of 8,000 and is on the increase. I continue the quotation:
"The count revealed 2,078 people sleeping rough in 35 towns and cities. Extrapolating this figure to cover the whole of England indicates that as many as 5,000 people are sleeping rough outside London."
Other people cannot be counted as they cannot be located or tallied and properly identified.
The document goes on to say:
"The figures clearly show that the majority of people sleeping rough are outside London. The most important corroboration comes from the census count on the night of 21–22 April 1991. A total of 2,703 were found in 453 sites

137
throughout Britain. Significantly, almost 60 per cent of these were found outside London … The count was limited to main sites only. It was unable to cover more isolated and dispersed rough sleepers."
That prevents a totally accurate estimate being made of what was taking place.
What has been the Government's response to this matter since June 1990? The Government's announcement of assistance amounting to £128 million from various departmental sources to provide a mixture of hostel and move-on accommodation for people sleeping rough has been welcomed by these Benches and in a general sense. Despite evidence of the geographical dispersal of rough-sleepers, only £3 million of that figure is directed to areas outside London. I am not trying to make the case that other areas want some of the £125 million London is getting but that the Government should provide extra funding to compensate other areas and let them get on with the job.
The expenditure has been allocated as follows. In June 1990 the Department of the Environment allocated £15 million for the street homeless in London. In July 1990 the Department of Health allocated £5 million to provide 70 to 80 hostel places in London for homeless people with chronic mental illness. In January 1991 the Department of Health allocated £3 million over three years to provide on a national basis short stay accommodation for young homeless people. A sum of £3 million was provided for that national problem. In May 1991 the Department of the Environment allocated £96 million to ease the plight of rough-sleepers in central London. In November 1991—only a few months ago—the Department of Energy allocated £1 million to provide 300 places, as I said, but once again in London. In January 1991—only last month—the Department of Health allocated £8 million over three years to provide accommodation and psychiatric care for mentally ill people sleeping rough on the streets of central London.
The Government's policy of providing resources solely to London to deal with issues that other authorities are trying to deal with will lead to only one result. It has already started to show, from what I have been told. The problem is being sucked from other cities into the centre of London because those other cities have no facilities to deal with it. They have little hope of receiving help.
There has been a response from Shelter and Crisis which suggests a policy which could help the position outside central London. There should be a more national and general approach. First, a clear statutory responsibility should be placed on local authorities to draw up and implement contingency plans for making provision for people sleeping rough in severe weather. Government funding should be made available to local authorities to enable them to meet the cost of such an operation and plans. Linked to that, the Government should allocate resources to extend the four-month cold weather initiative in central London, announced on 27th November 1991, to other parts of the country. That would ensure equity of provision inside and outside London, enabling extra bed spaces to be provided in the four worst winter months.
The Government should carry out an urgent inquiry into the failure of the DSS Resettlement Unit closure programme and take immediate action to ensure that adequate replacement facilities are in place before the next four units planned for closure disappear on 31st March, with large bed reductions. That would be a retrograde step. The Government should require local authorities to establish the number of single homeless people sleeping rough in their areas and include them in their quarterly statistical returns to the DoE to help identify the extent of the problem.
I did say that I was not criticising the Government, and I hope that the Government do not take what I have said in that way. When increased provision was announced for London some time ago, I said that I could not understand why cities such as Manchester, Leeds, Bristol and Liverpool were not receiving the same help as London when they were grappling with similar problems. Manchester has said that it is just coping with the position with the help of charitable organisations. It is short of funding and is dealing with a deteriorating situation. Manchester does not know how long it can continue. It has a problem that requires immediate assistance.
I have a cutting from the Yorkshire Evening Post which states:
"Homeless people in Leeds could face a nightmare winter if the Government does not provide immediate emergency cash to ease the city's growing housing crisis, it has been claimed".
It goes on:
"Urgent action needs to be taken now to ease homelessness, the majority of which can be found outside London".
Once again, one of the major cities (Leeds, which I represented in the other place) is not making a special plea. It is saying that it believes that it is entitled to help.
A brief has been provided to me by the Bristol Cyrenians. In June 1989 it was reported that groups of people had been sleeping rough at major sites in Bristol. In 1989 the same group reported that of the 2,000 visitors to its day centre, 600 were sleeping
In making the case to the noble Baroness, I do not criticise the Government. I am reluctant to accept the views which the Prime Minister allegedly expressed on "Desert Island Discs". I hope he has been misquoted and that he did not say that people choose to sleep in cardboard boxes. I know the Prime Minister, having worked alongside him as a Junior Whip in another place. I did not find him to be that kind of man. It is a tragedy if he has been misquoted on such an important subject.
The Government do spend money on needy cases. I do not suggest there is a lot of surplus money, although it is calculated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have £2 billion to spend in his give-away Budget before the election. I ask the Minister to join with the local authorities and charitable organisations as regards this problem. Charities such as Shelter and Crisis are doing a magnificent job in trying to deal with the problem. I know that the Government have provided funds for various schemes but I am told that the money

139
provided in this sphere is spent on administration rather than the provision of services. I understand that negotiations were taking place with a view to Crisis carrying out some research in this field. It looked as though agreement would be reached and a figure of £500,000 was quoted to carry out the work. The Department of the Environment was making sympathetic noises but the Treasury has sat on that scheme. Shelter's helpline is paid for by the department to help improve co-ordination of effort. It works closely with the voluntary organisations on the initiative, but, once again, that is restricted to London.
When I speak about people who are homeless, I do not mean those people who are registered homeless and who are living in bed and breakfast accommodation. I am talking about people who have no choice other than to sleep rough. The needs of such people living outside London are as great as those living either in central London or on the outskirts. The authorities in Bristol, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and other smaller towns need the funds to carry out this extremely necessary social operation in order to give help and succour to the people who need it most.
11.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, in the North there is a jingle:
"If the sun shines on Candlemas Day,
The worst of the winter is still on the way".
It did shine yesterday in the North, but it shone wanly and not at all warmly. One therefore does not know what sort of augury that is for the rest of the winter. But one does know that the Question before your Lordships fastens attention on the plight of the homeless in bitter weather.
The Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, mentions the homeless in London and elsewhere. The noble Lord emphasised that the problem is by no means confined to London. Figures are notoriously difficult to come by for the whole problem of homelessness, but I read that in Leeds in 1990 over 200 young people per month became homeless. I am told that in Newcastle in the past 12 months the number of homeless people has increased by 11 per cent., and I am reliably informed that 40 per cent. of homeless people on Tyneside have been in care.
It is clear to all workers in this field that many homeless people are mentally ill; they are casualties of the failure of care in the community to work properly. There is a further aggravating feature in the North East. Two of the institutions that provide direct access accommodation are about to be closed, and I am told that there is no direct access accommodation for women by themselves without children.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate will give way. He said that 40 per cent. of the people were in care. Does he mean 40 per cent. of the people or 40 per cent. of another figure?
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, 40 per cent. had been in care rather than are presently in care, if that is the answer my noble friend is seeking to elicit. That was the figure I received.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful again to the right reverend Prelate for giving way. Is that 40 per cent. of the people, 40 per cent. of the homeless or 40 per cent. of whom?
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, 40 per cent. of those who are now homeless on Tyneside have been in care. I am sorry that I did not make that sufficiently plain. I was trying to say that of those who are homeless quite a high proportion had been in care; quite a number are clearly mentally ill; there is the aggravating feature that two of the direct access accommodation units are about to close, and there is no provision, I gather, for women by themselves without children. If women have children there is accommodation for them but not for women by themselves. Those three categories of people—those who have been in care, mentally ill persons and unaccompanied women and girls—are particularly vulnerable and form a substantial number of homeless people. Society surely has a particular responsibility for such vulnerable people and indeed for all who have no helper.
One adds to that the sad fact that young people leave home and find themselves without a roof over their heads on account of the breakdown of family relationships for one reason or another. Charitable bodies of various sorts make valiant efforts in that field, and the noble Lord has given some examples. I read that the Children's Society has provided some safe houses; the English Churches Housing Group has provided some hostel accommodation; Nightstop in Leeds has a wide reputation in this connection; and certain Church premises open their doors to the homeless at night. There is no doubt that there is much more that we could all do; there always is.
However, there is a certain fortuitous quality—haphazard quality—about the availability of charitable help. In any case, I do not believe that a problem of such proportions can be solved solely by voluntary bodies. It is for those reasons that many people who work in this field will be much interested in the reply to the Question before the House. In particular, they will hope that adequate replacement facilities and bed spaces will be provided before the resettlement units due for closure are actually closed. Those who work in this field and we in this House will be listening closely to the reply to discover whether the worst of the winter is already over or not.
11.49 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord for asking this Question which becomes extremely urgent at this time of the year. We know that the Government have done and are intending to do a certain amount about the situation in central London, but the problem does not concern simply central London. It spreads right out to the suburbs where my parishes were. For the past five years I have been in Richmond. Until recently it was not thought

141
of as a place where people slept rough. Now it, and suburbs like it all round London, have become places where emergency accommodation must be provided. In Richmond a most remarkable lady, Mrs Penny Wade, had campaigned for and set up a shelter for the homeless, but as soon as that was done, it was swamped. It became clear that the needs were greater than had been thought. That is true everywhere. However much has been done so far, there is still greater need. And very little has been done outside London. It is time that something very much more positive was done.
The first priority is to deal with the cold weather and emergency provisions. There is a danger that if we just stick there, the real needs will not be met. Warehousing people is not the answer to the very real housing shortage that there is for certain types of people and for the lack of care for them. There is a great need for the long-term provision of different types of housing. Night shelters are of course needed, but housing for those who have mental illness and who should be looked after in the community is also needed. There is also a great need for homes for the young and single and those who cannot find anywhere with the resources that they have at their disposal.
These different forms of housing should all be inter-connected so that people can move from one to the other as necessary. As has been suggested by Shelter and as the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has already said, these facilities should be tied up with the work of the local councils. They need to be asked firmly by central Government to provide not so much the resources, because the Government must do that, but the machinery for finding out which people are sleeping rough, and for making returns to central Government so that they know and we all know the size of the problem. Thanks to Shelter and other such bodies, we have some idea of the problem, but we do not really know the full extent of it. That information should be provided by the local authorities. The Government should ask them to submit quarterly statistical returns to help identify the extent of the problem.
The facts are known. Many of them are in the Shelter report and many of them have been rehearsed tonight by the the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. All of us here have read the report. We are now waiting for the Government to reply with something which is really helpful that we can take back to those bodies which are trying to cope. I refer to the churches, Shelter and other such bodies. With inadequate resources they are trying to cope with a job which, in any civilised society, is ultimately the responsibility of government. I am delighted that this Question has been asked tonight. I only hope that it gets a worthy answer.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I too, am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for again bringing this very important debate to the House. I am also grateful to him for saying that this was not tabled as a criticism essentially against the Government, but to bring and keep before the House this important subject.
142
We are now over halfway through a three-year programme, the aim of which is to make it unnecessary for anybody to sleep rough on the streets of cental London. We are spending £96 million to provide a range of accommodation for those who are actually sleeping rough or in imminent danger of having to do so. We have already created 1,900 new bedspaces and by the time the initiative ends in March 1992, we shall have provided over 2,500 new bedspaces. In the process, we have also freed up a lot of existing hostels which prior to our initiative were silted up.
The initiative was worked out with the full co-operation and support of those voluntary organisations which work most closely with homeless people on the streets. They told us that the major problem was a lack of accommodation for those in hostels to move on to. This was having the effect of silting-up the existing hostels and preventing them from offering accommodation to those sleeping rough. We are therefore using the bulk of the £96 million to provide permanent homes for those in hostels to move into. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. At the same time we are using 10 per cent. of the available capital resources to provide some 900 short-term hostel spaces which, being provided relatively quickly, have enabled people on the streets to gain immediate access to accommodation.
And I am pleased to be able to tell noble Lords, that the initiative has already had a significant effect. One year ago, the voluntary organisations estimated that there were 1,046 people sleeping rough in central London. Twelve months later, in mid-December, they estimated that there were only 430. I shall deal shortly with the specific measures which we have put in place to help those 430.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. However, I was not making a focal point of a criticism of central London. My main point concerns extending the type of assistance that the Minister is quite correctly highlighting now to the other areas where the need is shown to be just as vital.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I take the point that the noble Lord is making, but I am coming now to those areas outside of London.
Although as noble Lords will readily appreciate, the problem of rough sleeping is at its most acute in central London, we recognise that there is a problem outside the capital. My department therefore funds a programme of grants under Section 73 of the Housing Act 1985. This year we have made grants of £4.5 million to voluntary organisations throughout the country. Next year—1992–93—this sum will increase to £6.1 million—a real terms increase of around 30 per cent. Over the next three years, a total of nearly £20 million will be made available. More than 90 voluntary organisations, two-thirds of them outside London, already receive grants under this programme for a variety of projects providing practical help to homeless people. Most of these projects will continue in 1992–93. In addition, many other voluntary groups

143
outside central London have applied to the department for the extra resources available in 1992–93. In assessing their bids the department will give priority to imaginative new projects offering direct, practical help to single homeless people in areas with significant numbers of rough sleepers.
These programmes have benefited many homeless people, but there are still people on the streets. These people are, of course, particularly vulnerable over the winter, which is why the Government are providing temporary winter accommodation for those in central London where the problem is most serious.
We began planning with the voluntary organisations and with "Single Homelessness in London" back in September. We identified 340 bedspaces in emergency shelters. That is 340 bedspaces on top of the 500 short-term hostel spaces which we have opened under the main initiative in the past year. Moreover, these shelters, unlike those in previous years, do not rely on a temperature trigger to determine when they should open. We took the common sense view that at some time during the winter, it will get cold, and so we decided that the shelters should be open from December right through to the end of March. And we are still looking for more bedspaces.
It is very easy for individuals or organisations not personally involved in running emergency shelters to sit on the sidelines and criticise. But in doing so, they demean the dedication and commitment of those organisations which have been able to help and which, as we speak, are again providing accommodation for homeless people all over the country tonight. I should like to pay tribute to all the organisations which are taking part in the winter shelter programme and to place on record the Government's acknowledgment of the good work they are doing.
It is also fitting to remember the great movement of Open Christmas, which was started by the late Sir lain Macleod in 1967 and is carried on to the present day by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve and many others. It extends care, hospitality, advice, food and shelter to those sleeping rough in London and at Christmas time when many other volunteers take a well earned break. I hope I can be forgiven for paying a tribute to my honourable friend the Minister for Housing who has been diligent in tackling the problem of homelessness and has shown great personal commitment to this work not just from his office in Marsham Street but through getting out and about in London to witness the problem at first hand.
Even so, we always recognised that we would probably need to find more beds if the weather got particularly bad. There are people sleeping rough who will only abandon the streets when the weather is especially severe and who, as yet, have not taken up places in the shelters already provided. We have therefore put in place contingency plans to provide additional bed spaces if the weather gets particularly cold. In all, we are planning to have 500 bed spaces available for use when the weather is particularly
144
severe. I can assure noble Lords that we are making every effort to see that nobody, but nobody, is left on the streets if, and when, the weather gets worse.
Outside central London, the situation is entirely different and we take the view that it is for local authorities to make provision for those people sleeping rough in their areas. As last year's census showed, the concentration of rough sleepers in individual local authority areas outside central London is comparatively low. Moreover, the problem is ovewhelmingly a local one; a problem of homelessness among local people. It is interesting to note that by and large the rough sleepers in London come from across the country, from Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and so on. The problems in the provinces are very often Liverpool people in Liverpool, Leeds people in Leeds, Newcastle people in Newcastle and so on.
The problem of rough sleeping in central London, on the other hand, is totally different both in scale and nature. Many people are attracted to the heart of London from all parts of the country and from Scotland and even Ireland. The concentration of rough sleepers is therefore very much higher than in any other local authority area. We took the view that it was unreasonable to expect local authorities in central London to deal with the problem without some assistance. Outside central London, however, local authorities have a responsibility to help those sleeping out in the event of severe weather, in just the same way as they have a responsibility to respond to other local crises.
Sadly, as Shelter reported last year, too few local authorities took their responsibility seriously and too few local authorities responded positively to the needs of those sleeping rough last winter. For this reason, Shelter in co-operation with the charity Crisis has this year established a fund to provide financial and practical assistance to voluntary organisations outside London to help them establish emergency accommodation. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Government are assisting this work by meeting the salary and other costs of running this project.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, was worried that if all the resources were targeted on London people in other places might not be helped. As I have said, there is no evidence that the rough sleepers initiative—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I think she will find that her theory is not quite correct. As a former chairman of housing in Manchester I can tell her that in my day Manchester was a catalyst for Irish people, Scottish people and people from all over the country with housing problems. I think the Minister will find that those sleeping rough in the centre of Newcastle are not all Geordies. She will find that those sleeping rough in the centre of Manchester are not all Mancunians and that those sleeping rough in the centre of Liverpool are not all Liverpudlians. She will find that there are also Irish accents, Scottish accents and all kinds of other accents among those sleeping rough.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord. However, I have much more recent statistics based on a survey which has been carried out countrywide with which I shall deal in a moment. It is important to note that the measures taken in London have had a dramatic impact on the numbers as a whole in the country.
Perhaps I may turn now to those statistics. The most recent figures we have are for 1991. The figure for the whole of England and Wales was 2,703. Of that figure, 1,275 were for Greater London, and of that figure 1,046 were in fact in central London. Therefore, it can be seen that the bulk of the problem is in London. We also expect to have a proper count at the end of the month as part of a research project that the department is funding. At that time we hope to be able to update those figures. However, as a result of all the measures taken, it was estimated that the number in London had been reduced to 430. As I have already said, considerable effort is being made now to reduce that figure yet further.
Perhaps I may run through the figures of some of the areas which have been mentioned and which were part of the 1991 survey. In central Manchester the figure was 23, and just 16 if one includes Bolton and Rochdale; in Liverpool, 51; in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 11; in Leeds, 21; and in Bristol, which has been mentioned, the figure is 128 but still it does not compare with the figures about which we are talking in respect of London. It is interesting to note that a very high figure of 99 occurs in Basingstoke in Hampshire. However, as I said, that is nothing compared with the figures for London.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to the resettlement agency and the resettlement units. That is an important point. If the House will bear with me, I should like to spend a few minutes on that issue. Resettlement units provide temporary board and lodging for single homeless people without a settled way of life. The majority cater for men only, as was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, although there is one in London which caters for women. At present there are 19 units throughout the country, six of which are situated in London. The London units are heavily used while the provincial ones are used less.
The units vary in condition; indeed, some are very old army camps which are well passed their best, while others were purpose designed as recently as the mid-1970s. The National Assistance Board took over responsibility for running the units in 1948. Since that time they have continued to be administered by the Department of Social Security and its predecessors. The biggest and best known unit was at Camberwell. That large Victorian hostel known as "the Spike" had in its heyday 1,000 beds. By the early 1980s plans were well in hand to replace the unit, which then accommodated about 550 men.
There are now 95 hostels funded in London, with 837 beds, which form part of the Camberwell replacement scheme. In 1985 the Government decided that facilities for single homeless people with an unsettled way of life could be better supplied by voluntary organisations or local authorities. It was felt
146
that a service more suited to local conditions would be provided in that way. Plans were drawn up to replace the unit by transferring funds used to run the old unit to the new providers. It was made quite clear that this was not a cost-cutting exercise.
In 1989 the resettlement agency was set up to take forward that policy. To date three units have been replaced. In addition to Camberwell, the resettlement agency ceased to operate units in Liverpool and Brighton in March 1991. In Brighton a 38-bed unit has been replaced by a 12-bed hostel in the town, together with 26 new beds in the Southampton area. A direct-access hostel for 20 beds will open in Brighton in the summer of 1992. As a result of providing funding to the YMCA, the agency has nomination rights for a further 30 beds.
In Liverpool, the 51-bed unit at Fazakerley is to be replaced by a 36-bed direct hostel on the same site as the resettlement unit, together with a 20-bed hostel for women which is already open, and a 22-bed hostel for men which will open in two to three weeks' time. Those three replacement hostels will provide 78 beds. That is well in excess of the number of beds previously available which, as I said, was 51. In the meantime, and until these hostels are operational, the existing unit continues to be run by the local authority.
The resettlement agency plans to replace a further four units by 31st March 1992. They are situated in Bristol, Derby, Durham and Manchester. The agency will ensure that sufficient replacement provision is in place in each case before any closure is effected. I believe that that answers a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. For example, in the Derby area there will be 102 beds operational by March 1992 to replace a 74-bed unit, and in the North East 60 beds will be available to replace the Durham unit, which, on average, is occupied by 52 men. The Resettlement Agency can close a unit only if the responsible Minister is satisfied that sufficient suitable replacement facilities are in place.
The mental illness of some of the homeless has been mentioned, and I have to say that that is one of our most serious problems with rough sleepers in London. Under the Department of Health homeless mentally ill initiative announced in July, 74 short-term places in six hostels have been provided in Central London for homeless people with mental illness. Up to 150 permanent move-on places are being provided in 1991/92, and a further 300 beds in the two years 1992/93 and 1993/94 taken together. Community psychiatric teams were set up in the three central London regions to make contact with homeless mentally ill people. The Department of Health is also making available a further £2.7 million over the next three years to enable central London's health and social services authorities to expand their community psychiatric teams.
Last February the department took over responsibility for emergency shelters from the Department of Health. Sir George Young, my honourable friend in another place, agreed to forgo half a million pounds of his budget to transfer to the Department of Health on condition that the Department of Health use the money to develop primary health care services for homeless people, including those in need of

147
psychiatric care. The health department have used the money as part of their £2.7 million programme for community psychiatric teams.
A further initiative was announced in June aimed specifically at young people sleeping rough in London and elsewhere. The package comprises £200,000 over three years to the Children's Society for the short-stay hostel; £250,000 to establish projects to help young homeless people in towns outside of London; guidance to local authorities on their responsibilities under the Children's Act; £118,000 to First Key, a voluntary organisation to provide advice on good practice in dealing with young people leaving local authority care; and funding for a Leeds University research project on approaches to policy and practice affecting young people leaving care.
On 21st January 1992 the Secretary of State for Health announced an extra £8 million for the initiative over the next three years, taking the total resources available to help the mentally ill to over £20 million by 1994/95. In all, over 750 places in more permanent accommodation will now be provided under the initiative as a whole for people in the specialist short-term hostels to move into. The Section 73 grants, to which I referred earlier, of the Housing Act 1985 allow the Secretary of State to make grants to voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness. The amount available for this programme rose from £2 million in 1990 to over £4.5 million in 1991/92, and will rise again to £6.1 million in 1992, £6.7 million in 1993, and £6.8 million in 1994. That is nearly £20 million over three years.
In the current financial year £1.6 million has been allocated to the second phase of the National Homelessness Advice Service, which is co-ordinated through the citizens advice bureaux, with specialist training, consultancy, and referral services provided by Shelter and Shack, the London Housing Aid Centre. The remainder of the funds supports nearly 100 practical projects offering direct help to homeless people either by helping them to find accommodation and to maintain an independent life style, or by providing help and support to dissuade them from sleeping rough in the first place. Nearly two-thirds of these people are outside London.
Most of the current projects will continue to receive support in 1992/93, but voluntary organisations outside Central London are being invited to bid for
148
the extra resources. Priority will be given to areas with a high census count of rough sleepers, but consideration will be given to projects in other areas if evidence of need is provided.
I hope I have been able to deal with some of the questions and problems raised by noble Lords tonight. In concluding my remarks, I should like to underline again the Government's commitment to tackling the problem of homelessness. The problem is complex, as I hope everyone will agree. There is no single cause and there can be no straightforward answer. However, the Government have in place to tackle the problem comprehensively a range of initiatives which range from trying to prevent people from resorting to homelessness in the first place to dealing with the problems of the mentally ill and looking for not just short-term emergency accommodation but moving on to medium and long-term provision too.
To recap, in central London we have already provided 489 places in hostels, 374 places in permanent accommodation and 521 places in flats and houses leased from private sector landlords for up to three years. By early April, the initiative will have delivered a further 158 places in permanent accommodation, 190 properties leased from the private sector and 195 places in hostels. We have provided a further 340 places in emergency shelters, together with free transport to these shelters from a number of pick-up points all over London. We are looking to provide still more.
Outside central London, we are spending £4½ million on a range of practical projects for homeless people, which, as I have already said, will rise to £6.1 million next year. Over the next three years we shall spend nearly £20 million targeted in particular on areas shown by the census to have high concentrations of rough sleepers.
These initiatives demonstrate better than anything the Government's commitment to tackling the misery caused by homelessness. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate tonight, especially at this late hour.

London Underground Bill
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past midnight.

  BR: COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ON UNMANNED STATIONS
  BR: COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ON UNMANNED STATIONS
  UNROADWORTHY VEHICLES: SURVEY RESULT
  UNROADWORTHY VEHICLES: SURVEY RESULT
  PURCHASING POWER OF THE POUND
  PURCHASING POWER OF THE POUND
  BAGGAGE: CONTROL AT EC INTERNAL FRONTIERS
  BAGGAGE: CONTROL AT EC INTERNAL FRONTIERS
  NURSING COSTS: REPORT
  NURSING COSTS: REPORT
  DEPENDENCY DISORDERS: PURCHASE OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES
  DEPENDENCY DISORDERS: PURCHASE OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES
  KING'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL: IN UTERO TREATMENT OF BABY
  KING'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL: IN UTERO TREATMENT OF BABY
  HEALTH CARE SPENDING IN THE EC
  HEALTH CARE SPENDING IN THE EC
  RENT ARREARS
  RENT ARREARS
  INSURANCE COVER FOR EXPORTS TO LEBANON
  INSURANCE COVER FOR EXPORTS TO LEBANON
  PUBLIC HOUSE RENTS
  PUBLIC HOUSE RENTS
  BEER: MEASUREMENT BY LIQUID CONTENT
  BEER: MEASUREMENT BY LIQUID CONTENT
  DRAUGHT GUINNESS: MEASUREMENT
  DRAUGHT GUINNESS: MEASUREMENT