Sitting of 14 January 1992

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

  CONTINGENCIES FUND 1990–91
  Ordered,
  That there be laid before the House accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1990–91, showing:

  (1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1991.

  (2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Textile Industry
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to assist job creation in the textile industry in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): The Department of Employment delivers a wide range of training, enterprise and employment measures through the Employment Service, training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and local enterprise companies in Scotland.
    Other agencies, including the Rural Development Commission, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, play an important role in encouraging and stimulating enterprise in many sectors, including textiles, in rural areas.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that countries such as Spain are considered suitable cases for special EC support because 18 per cent. of their work force are directly involved in textiles? Is the Minister aware that districts in the United Kingdom such as my own. south-east Scotland, have similar percentages of people employed in textiles but do not qualify for either national or European support? Will he assure us that he will talk with his ministerial colleagues to ensure that the resources available to local enterprise companies and training and enterprise councils are sufficient to enable them to support the existing textile industry and promote diversification?
    Mr. Jackson: I very much appreciate the importance of the knitwear and textile industry in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Although the unemployment rate in his constituency is well below the Scottish, and indeed the British, average, the textile industry in his district is going through bad times. The Government are helping to
    794
    diversify: Scottish Borders LEC is purchasing Jedburgh information centre to help promote tourism, and the food processing and fish farming industries are developing and being supported in the district. Scottish Enterprise and Lothian and Edinburgh LEC are taking important steps to develop designer knitwear initiatives within the textile industry. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to my colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland, as it falls to him to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about the designation of the district for European Community purposes.
    Sir John Farr: Will my hon. Friend look into the possibility of starting a form of the small engineering and firms investment scheme for small textile and knitwear firms in rural districts to encourage them to modernise and to re-equip their companies with up-to-date machines?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend's question is one for my colleague the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. One problem with my hon. Friend's suggestion is that there are European Community rules on the subsidies given to the textile and other industries. However, I shall refer his point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    Mr. McMaster: How can we believe that the Minister is serious about creating jobs in the textile industry when he will not even protect the ones that already exist? Is he aware that when the Conservative party came to power in 1979 many thousands of people were employed in the thread industry in Paisley and now only one mill remains, which employs 340 people and is threatened with closure this year? Is he going to stand by complacently while more and more people join the dole queues, or will he take action to save the jobs in the textile industry in Paisley?
    Mr. Jackson: We all know that the textile industry is an important industry which currently employs 400,000 people—48,500 of whom are employed in Scotland. During the past 10 years, the industry has been protected by the multi-fibre arrangement. The success of companies in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, my constituency and elsewhere in the country depends on their efforts, and the Government can do only a limited amount. The textile industry is still successful and employs many people, but its success depends on its own efforts.

    Job Training, Chelmsford
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Essex TEC to discuss job training in Chelmsford.
    Mr. Jackson: My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chairman of Essex training and enterprise council on 28 November. He is aware of the excellent contribution that Essex TEC is making to the training and enterprise needs of the area, but he has no plans to visit it in the immediate future.
    Mr. Burns: When my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of Essex TEC in Chelmsford, will he congratulate him on the splendid work that that TEC is doing in encouraging job creation, which in the past six months has led to 315 new small businesses starting in that area? Does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary agree that that belies the guffaws and

    795
    complaints of the moaning Minnies on the Opposition Benches, who constantly do down the excellent training that is available throughout Essex and the rest of the country?
    Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, which were heard also by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and I will convey them to Essex TEC, which is doing an excellent job. Its current budget is £28·75 million, which is a substantial sum from the taxpayer. It has 4,400 young people in youth training places and 1,300 people in employment training places. I am glad that my hon. Friend appreciates the good job that that TEC is doing.
    Mr. Ashton: Is not it a fact that all those training places were not needed in Chelmsford in 1979 because the young people there had jobs then, under a Labour Government? Is not unemployment the reason for the massive increase in the number of training places?
    Mr. Jackson: The whole House will be rather amused by the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. We all remember the serious problem of increasing youth unemployment in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Our training programmes—which are operating on a scale two and a half times larger in real terms than those of the last Labour Government—arose as a response to that problem, which existed when Labour was in office but about which that Government did nothing.

    Overseas Visitors
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the volume and value of overseas visitors for 1992; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): The British Tourist Authority's latest forecasts are that there will be 18·3 million overseas visits to the United Kingdom in 1992, resulting in expenditure of around £8 billion—8 per cent. higher than the estimated expenditure for 1991.
    Mr. Gregory: I congratulate my hon. Friend on those excellent estimates. Does he agree that it is about time that Labour acknowledged the importance of tourism, rather than keep referring to jobs in a Mickey Mouse and candy floss industry? Will my hon. Friend consider instituting a national tourism week, such as that organised in the United States, to draw attention to the importance of tourism and to its employment factor? Furthermore, will my—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Two questions are enough.
    Mr. Gregory: A national tourism week would draw attention to the growing importance of tourism in the United Kingdom.
    Mr Forth: I share my hon. Friend's frustration at the way in which the Opposition persistently regard jobs in tourism without any seriousness, given the major contribution that tourism consistently makes to the economy of my hon. Friend's constituency and to the whole country. My hon. Friend works very hard with local tourist bodies to promote York as a tourist centre, and very successfully too. I will certainly bring my hon.
    796
    Friend's imaginative suggestion of a national tourism week to the attention of the tourist authorities to see whether they can take it up positively.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister acknowledge that we on these Benches recognise the importance of the tourist industry to Wales? However, whereas the Scottish tourist board is entitled to market Scotland overseas, the position in Wales is not the same. What is the Government's attitude to the Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Wales) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), to give Wales equality of treatment in that regard?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend's Bill has received close scrutiny and attention by the Government, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the outocme of those deliberations will be known to the House shortly.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why we are so successful in attracting visitors from overseas is the strength of the United Kingdom market? Will he congratulate the English tourist board on its initiatives in promoting domestic tourism, and consider what more can be done to highlight its profile—just to perk up the aspidistras in guest houses and hotels throughout the south of England and elsewhere?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. I am happy to pay tribute to the excellent efforts made by all tourist boards and authorities throughout the United Kingdom which in their different ways do a splendid job of promoting this country's tourist potential. Some 17 million or 18 million people from abroad choose to visit this country each year. That alone is a testament to the excellent work that is done. A large number of those visitors end up on the Isle of Wight. I am surprised that, on this rare occasion, my hon. Friend did not mention the Isle of Wight, so I am delighted to do so—and to pay tribute to the work that he consistently does on behalf of his constituents.

    Industrial Relations
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the long-term improvement of industrial relations.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I have regular discussions with representatives of the CBI on a wide range of issues, including the long-term improvement of industrial relations. I have at present no plans for a meeting on the particular subject mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although the law can help to improve industrial relations, it is not enough in itself? When he next meets representatives of the CBI, will he impress on them the importance of greater employee participation as a means of improving industrial relations in the long term?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it was for that reason that, together with the CBI, I launched an initiative to increase employee participation in industry. I also launched a similar initiative in the European Social Affairs Council.
    It is of the utmost importance that we encourage employee participation to take place on a voluntary basis,

    797
    in the way that best reflects the circumstances of each firm and industry, and not as a result of some statutory straitjacket imposed by Brussels.
    Mr. Wallace: I accept that employee participation should be tailor-made for each industry. Does the Secretary of State accept, however, that, if industries are not willing to act accordingly, a backstop must be provided to prevent some employees from being deprived of their rights of participation?
    Mr. Howard: No employees are deprived of their rights of participation. When it comes to consultation and employee involvement, however, it is very much better for such processes to take place on a voluntary basis. I believe that the best practices of British industry are second to none in the world; our task must be to encourage others to follow the lead that has been set by the best in industry. That was the purpose of the campaign that I launched with the CBI.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the Opposition that the introduction of a minimum wage would harm industrial relations, rather than enhancing them? The sense of self-worth and the demonstration by employers of the value that they place on employees are best created by the existence of true differentials.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absoutely right. Not only would a national statutory minimum wage destroy countless jobs; one of the greatest problems that it would cause would be the maintaining of such differentials. Strife would inevitably arise as better-paid workers sought to maintain them. My hon. Friend has identified one of the most damaging consequences of the measures proposed by Labour.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Should not all anti-trade union laws be scrapped if workers are to have a real right to defend themselves—or does that not matter nowadays?
    Mr. Howard: It is interesting to hear the lion. Gentleman explain the reality behind the small print of Labour's proposals in such graphic terms.
    Mr. Hayward: When my right hon. and learned Friend discusses industrial relations with the CBI, will he compare the position in the United Kingdom with that in France? France has recently experienced strikes in the rubbish collection industry, the ports, air traffic control and the railway industry—and they have taken place under a socialist Government. Does not that compare dramatically with the present position in this country?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend correctly identified the position in France—a position with which this country would be faced if Labour were ever returned to office. More strikes took place in the last year of Labour Government than have taken place in the past six years put together.

    Employment Opportunities, Tameside
    Mr. Pendry: To ask the Secretary of State Employment what action he intends to take to increase employment opportunities in Tameside.
    Mr. Jackson: The Employment Service and Manchester training and enterprise council deliver a wide
    798
    range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help unemployed people in the creation of employment opportunities in Tameside, as elsewhere.
    In the 12 months to December 1991, Employment Service jobcentres in Tameside placed 7,119 people in jobs, and in Manchester placed 48,904 people in jobs.
    Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that, in Tameside, unemployment has risen by a staggering 63 per cent. in the past 18 months? Although unemployment is high in other Greater Manchester boroughs, because of the benefit obtained from urban programme status, it is rising less fast in those boroughs. Will the Minister join me in urging the Secretary of State for the Environment to give Tameside similar status, so that it can offset the terrible waste of talent in the borough?
    Mr. Jackson: I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the hon. Gentleman's point about Tameside. To set unemployment in context, of course it has risen in Tameside, as elsewhere. It is striking, however, that Britain has a higher proportion of its population of working age in work than any other country in Europe, apart from Denmark. We should set that fact in the context of any rise in unemployment.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that development corporations in Tameside, which adjoin my constituency, have greatly benefited jobs in the area? Did not a Labour Government want to abolish them?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is well-informed about his area. It is important to note that jobs continue to be created. A total of 25 per cent. of those who sign on as unemployed find jobs within one month, 50 per cent. find jobs within three months and two thirds find jobs within six months. There is a continuing flow through the register and there are job opportunities for people who will take them.

    Skill Training
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage the development of community-based skill-training schemes.
    Mr. Howard: The Government have given training and enterprise councils the responsibility and resources to plan and deliver training which is most appropriate to meet local needs.
    Mr. Wareing: What the Secretary of State said will be news to Hexagon Community Ltd. in East Lancashire road in Liverpool, which has found that the TEC in our area has abolished allowances for protective clothing and in many other spheres, as well as cutting the unit cost paid per person so that the entire staff has taken a pay reduction in the past few months. Is not it about time that the Government showed that they have a real commitment to training by encouraging self-help enterprises such as that in my constituency? Is not it appalling that those people, who give so much of their time, should be facing restrictions while the Secretary of State hides behind the skirt of TECs which have been created as shock absorbers for this dreadful Government?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he supports his party's policy on the training

    799
    and enterprise councils. We are assured constantly by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen that the Opposition support TECs, are enthusiastic about the idea and wish them to continue. Training and enterprise councils are responsible for dealing with matters in their area.
    The hon. Gentleman talks about resources. We are spending two and a half times as much in real terms as the Labour party spent when it was responsible for these matters. The hon. Gentleman must know that this is not one of the two immediate spending priorities to which the shadow Chief Secretary has signed up. He should face up to reality—drop the pledge or own up to the tax.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government have spent more on training than Labour did when it was in power, even taking account of inflation? Does he agree that we need no lectures on training from Opposition Front Benchers, because they have objected to employment training, the youth training scheme and every other training proposal that we have made?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. Before they start trying to lecture us on training, the Opposition—particularly the shadow spokesman on employment—would be well-advised to persuade the Transport and General Workers Union to drop its boycott of youth training, employment training and the training and enterprise councils.
    Mr. Leighton: Are not training programmes such as youth training and employment training predicated on employer participation but, because of the recession, the employers have contracted out, causing a crisis? We therefore need community programmes, such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), which are more expensive. Will the Secretary of State undertake to give extra resources to those programmes so that the ET and YT guarantees can be implemented? They are not being implemented now.
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept either of the assumptions on which the hon. Gentleman's question is predicated. It is incorrect to say that employers have contracted out. Every recent survey has shown that many more employers are maintaining or increasing their training than are reducing it. Over 90 per cent. of employers who responded to a recent survey said that they were providing as much, or more, off-the-job training as they were a year ago. So, the hon. Gentleman is being far too pessimistic about the employers' commitment to training.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, despite the Opposition's opposition to every scheme that the Government have introduced in the past 12 years, there has been a sevenfold increase in the number of people entering training schemes?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend draws attention to the substantial increase in the number of people now taking advantage of Government-sponsored training opportunities, but, of course, there has also been a tremendous increase in the training provided to people in work—an 85 per cent. increase between 1984 and 1990. We are making
    800
    great strides in the provision of training—employer-financed training and Government-financed training—and it is about time that the Opposition recognised that progress instead of constantly carping and criticising.
    Mr. Blair: As the recession is now much deeper and more pervasive than Ministers are prepared to admit and as we have the fastest rising unemployment in Europe, how can the Secretary of State justify cutting 110,000 places for training young people and the unemployed at the very time when the recession is hitting hardest?
    Mr. Howard: It is absolutely no use the hon. Gentleman banging on about resources, given that he has failed to persuade the shadow Chief Secretary that that should be one of the Opposition's two immediate spending priorities. Drop the pledge or own up to the tax.

    Catalytic Converters
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the numbers currently employed in the manufacture of catalytic converters for the automobile and transport industry.
    Mr. Forth: There are no separate estimates available for the manufacture of catalytic converters.
    Dr. Howells: The Minister will be aware that British firms such as Johnson Matthey are at the leading edge of this technology. Is he also aware that in scientific and engineering circles there is much concern that the Government's indolence and reticence in supporting long-term investment in research and development in the leading technology will result in our suffering badly in comparison with our major competitors?
    Mr. Forth: That matter is not strictly for me, but is one for my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry. However, the hon. Gentleman will find that this country's record in research and development—in the private and, indeed, in the public sector—will bear scrutiny and comparison with that of most, if not all, others. The very fact that we have in this country possibly the leading manufacturer of such a high technology product which is so essential to environmental and pollution control in the future surely bears testimony to that and sits ill with the fact that the hon. Gentleman has sought to raise the subject of our lack of technology and R and D while in the same breath mentioning a world-leading company.
    Mr. Madel: If we can get more cars sold on the domestic market, we can get more catalytic converters made. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abolish the 10 per cent. car tax in the Budget?
    Mr. Forth: I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity in using this question to raise what is undoubtedly an important matter. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury are very much aware of my hon. Friend's point. I take this opportunity to remind them of it and I am sure that they will take it fully into account in their pre-Budget deliberations.

    Unemployment, West Cumbria
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for the reduction of unemployment in west Cumbria.
    Mr. Jackson: The Employment Service and Cumbria training and enterprise council deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help employment prospects for unemployed people living in west Cumbria as elsewhere. A package of measures to help the area, announced by the Government in June 1991, includes the establishment of an action team to support local initiatives and a £15 million English Estates programme to provide new sites, factories and work space in Copeland and Furness.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I have an answer in a word of one syllable? Is the Minister satisfied that the resources in terms of the manpower and finance available to Cumbria TEC are sufficient to deal with the thousands of redundancies that are to be made at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield and also to deal with those now being announced by a number of companies in west Cumbria?
    Mr. Jackson: I should like to oblige the hon. Gentleman with a short answer, but it is difficult to encapsulate these things. I was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss those matters with him in my office and I understand the seriousness of unemployment in his constituency. We keep the question of resources for the training and enterprise councils under review. Government support for employment creation in the hon. Gentleman's area does not come only through the TECs. A number of initiatives are coming forward, such as regional development assistance and the special measures which have been announced. All of them are important and I will continue to keep in touch with the hon. Gentleman about them.

    Jobcentres
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobcentres there are.
    Mr. Howard: At the end of November, the Employment Service had a total of 954 local offices offering full jobcentre services.
    Mr. French: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the great improvement in the services, management and organisation of jobcentres. Is he aware that it is a great advantage to have the unemployment benefit office and the jobcentre under the same roof, as we have in Gloucester, and will he ensure that more offices are organised in that way?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is our intention to spread across the country the advantages of integrated jobcentres. Through the Employment Service, we are this year helping some 840,000 people with places on our programmes. We expect the number to approach 1 million next year.
    Mr. McLeish: Is the Secretary of State aware that our jobcentres now face an increasing demand for their services? Is that any wonder when from the second quarter of 1990 to the second quarter of 1991 employment has
    802
    grown by 300,000 in Italy, 200,000 in France, and 637,000 in Germany, while in the United Kingdom it has fallen by 706,000? Will the Secretary of State now own up to this unique recession which is causing so much damage and overworking so many of our jobcentres?
    Mr. Howard: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), a few moments ago when he pointed out that we have a greater proportion of people in work than any European country except Denmark and more women at work than any other EC member state. There are some 2·5 million more jobs in this country than there were in 1983 and we have an unprecedented record of job creation. As we emerge from recession as a result of the Government's policies, we shall be in a position to create jobs again in the 1990s on the scale achieved in the 1980s.

    Youth Training
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to initiate an immediate programme of youth training in Crewe and Nantwich.
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Lady calls for the Government to "initiate" an "immediate programme" of YT in Crewe and Nantwich. She will be interested to learn that in the past year the proportion of 16-year-olds in Crewe participating in full-time education and training has risen from 71 to 80 per cent. That seems pretty "immediate" to me.
    Moreover, the South and East Cheshire training and enterprise council is currently spending £5·5 million on youth training—a sum infinitely larger than that spent in the area by the previous Labour Government, of which the hon. Lady was such a notable adornment.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: In reply to a written question, the Minister told me yesterday that 55 per cent. of school leavers in the South and East Cheshire training and enterprise council area are going straight into youth training. He will also know that we have had a 47 per cent. rise in unemployment in my constituency in one year. Would he like to try to justify that to the young people who have no jobs and no hope of any being created under the present Government?
    Mr. Jackson: Unemployment is a fact and we deplore it. The hon. Lady's question, however, concerns youth training and implies that no youth training is available in her constituency. Her reference to my earlier answer shows that there is extensive provision of youth training in her constituency, on a far larger scale than ever before, and that people in her constituency are taking advantage of it.
    Mr. Rowe: Was it not a Front-Bench spokesman of the party of which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is a member who promised the 1990 Labour party conference that Labour would abolish youth training altogether?
    Mr. Jackson: The Labour party's record on youth training—and, indeed, on the whole range of training initiatives which have have come from the Government in the past decade—is deplorable. Opposition Members,

    803
    especially those associated with trade unions which have been boycotting our training efforts, would do well to recognise that.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is it not clear from the figures for Crewe, and from the naional figures which show that nearly 100,000 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds are still looking for training places, that the Government are failing our school leavers? What sort of future are the Government building for a generation of school leavers who will go from school to the dole queue?
    Mr. Jackson: I do not accept the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints. Hundreds of thousands of young people are on YT, and doing increasingly well on YT in terms of qualifications and of jobs on emerging from it. We are monitoring the position on the YT guarantee, to which we are firmly committed, and we are making additional resources available as and where necesary. We have not had a request for additional resources for YT in South and East Cheshire; there does not seem to be pressure in that area. We are sticking by the YT guarantee—an important guarantee which never existed in the days of the Labour Government.

    Part-time Work
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the number and percentage of the United Kingdom work force currently in part-time work.
    Mr. Howard: In June 1991, the latest date for which information is available, part-time employment in Great Britain was 6,491,000, or 25 per cent. of the work force in employment. Figures for part-time working in Northern Ireland are not available.
    Mr. Battle: I am slightly surprised by the Minister's answer, because, as recently as 16 December, he said in a parliamentary answer that new earnings survey coverage of part-time workers was not comprehensive and, more importantly, that many part-time workers earnings below the income tax threshold were not covered. In view of the Government's admission that they do not know the facts about part-time work, why have they set their face against protection and safeguards for part-time workers? Or are the Government saying that, under economic policy, part-time women workers are expendable?
    Mr. Howard: I have given the hon. Gentleman the figures which exist. He must recognise that no one will thank him for his vendetta against part-time work. Only 6 per cent. of those who engage in part-time work do so because they cannot get full-time jobs. We are interested in promoting part-time work and increasing the number of part-time jobs available, not diminishing it by imposing on such jobs the kind of restrictions that the Labour party is keen to see in place.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many women in Britain welcome part-time work because it fits in with caring for children and the family generally? We need no lessons from the Opposition who make rude comments about part-time jobs, saying that they are not real jobs. Many women think that they are real jobs and want more of them to be available.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. She understands the needs of her constituents. The Labour party would subject part-time workers to national insurance contributions and would burden employers to the extent that they could not afford to employ part-time workers in the way that they now do, which would dry up the supply of part-time work, to no one's advantage.
    Mr. Janner: Cannot the Minister see that there is no reason in logic, probably no reason in law, and certainly no reason in common sense, why part-timers should not have the same protections as full-time workers? Bearing in mind the fact that the vast majority of part-timers in the United Kingdom are women, does not the lack of protection represent obvious indirect discrimination against women workers?
    Mr. Howard: There is absolutely no question of discrimination.As a result of the Government's policies, there has been an unprecedented increase in part-time work, to the great advantage of those who benefit from it. The Labour party's policies would destroy those jobs.
    Mr. Knapman: What would be the effect on the number of part-time jobs of introducing a national minimum wage?
    Mr. Howard: As every independent survey has confirmed, there is no doubt that a national statutory minimum wage would destroy countless jobs. A large number of part-time jobs would doubtless be among those which would simply disappear if that disastrous policy were pursued.

    Asbestos
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will issue guidelines on the handling of asbestos in factories and other places of work.
    Mr. Forth: The Government have already published a comprehensive range of guidance on the handling of asbestos in factories and other places of work, in support of the legislation that we have introduced to reduce the risks from exposure to asbestos in the workplace. This guidance includes two approved codes of practice, nine Health and Safety Executive guidance notes on specific workplace-related matters and a number of free leaflets and priced booklets.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do Ministers share the concern of Bill Spiers and his colleagues in the Scottish Trades Union Congress about a matter that I have brought to the attention of the Department—that some insurance companies delay the finalising of asbestosis cases until the victims have died? If so, will the Government act on Lord Davidson's report in the event that it suggests a change in the law?
    Mr. Forth: My colleagues in the Scottish Office are well aware of the criticisms of the present law. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, they referred the issue to the Scottish Law Commission in September 1989. The commission is expected to report soon and I am assured that its recommendations will be considered urgently by my colleagues in the Scottish Office. However, I will bring the hon. Gentleman's concern to Scottish Office Ministers

    805
    so that the matter may be given maximum attention and due regard may be paid to the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Health and Safety Executive has received all the resources for which it has asked in recent years to enable it to carry out its various functions?
    Mr. Forth: I am delighted to be able to assure my hon. Friend that the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive, which each year make an estimate of the resources required to enable them to fulfil their statutory obligations, have received in full the amounts requested in recent years. Thus, they have been enabled to do a consistently excellent job in guaranteeing health and safety standards in the workplace. The standards in the United Kingdom are as good as those in many countries, and better than those in most.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Bearing in mind the fact that highly paid lawyers can secure massive libel settlements for their clients, can the Minister seriously justify the paltry payments which result from civil claims for compensation for negligence? In response to my hon. Friend's question, could he not simply have said that the Government accept that the disparity between English law and Scottish law is not tenable and that they will remedy it?
    Mr. Forth: I think that I have given that assurance in so far as it is possible to do so at this stage. We have to bear it in mind that the Law Commission has not yet reported. If we are to take seriously the work done by a body such as the Law Commission, we must await the results of its deliberations and then act as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman will have to be patient. Perhaps he will have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whose expertise in this matter is, I suspect, second to none. The hon. Member for Linlithgow will probably be able to provide the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress achieved by TECs in meeting their objectives.
    Mr. Howard: Training and enterprise councils have made excellent progress. All 82 are now operational and they are developing a wide range of innovative approaches to meeting the objectives that I have agreed with them.
    Mr. Nicholson: I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's reply. He will be aware of the progress being made by the training and enterprise council in Somerset and, in particular, the important role that it is playing in helping to set up an effective chamber of commerce and industry to represent and assist business in the county. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give me a pledge that he will do all that he can to help the Somerset TEC to maintain the quality of its youth training?
    Mr. Howard: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that pledge. The Somerset training and enterprise council is making excellent progress in improving the training being provided in the county and tailoring it to suit local circumstances. What is being achieved is what we expect to see when training is placed in the hands of local
    806
    employer-led bodies, which are in the best possible position to ensure that the training is relevant to local circumstances.

    Job Losses, Northumberland
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence he has of recent job losses in east and north-cast Northumberland.
    Mr. Jackson: In the three months to June 1991, the civilian work force in employment in the Northern region fell by 15,000. I am afraid that my Department does not have up-to-date figures for smaller areas within those standard regions.
    Mr. Beith: Surely the Minister is aware of the 300 jobs that were lost at the Alcan aluminium smelter and the 200 jobs which have gone from Ellington colliery. In those circumstances, does he recognise how vital it is to get European funds, genuinely additional to money being spent over here, so as to bring additional opportunities to areas that have been so hard hit? Will the Minister and his colleagues join in the fighting which seems to be going on in the Government and get the matter sorted out so that European funds can go to those areas?
    Mr. Jackson: I had a very useful and interesting meeting with the hon. Gentleman and some of his constituents to talk about unemployment in his constituency, so I know of it at first hand from him. I certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. He understands the problems of additionality. His remarks have certainly been heard and I will draw my colleagues' attention to them.

    EC Social Policy
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with his EC counterparts on the implementation of the social action programme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: I have frequent discussions, both at Councils of Ministers and individually with my EC counterparts, about measures brought forward under the Commission's social action programme. In those discussions, I emphasise that the United Kingdom expects to be able to support a majority of proposals under the action programme, while we shall continue to resist those which would damage jobs and competitiveness in this country.
    Mr. Welsh: In talks with European colleagues, will the Secretary of State ensure that workers in this country are not left behind in terms of employment protection and rights? European competitors can afford to give greater rights and protection to women, the low-paid and part-time workers, so why should workers in this country be offered anything less?
    Mr. Howard: Workers in this country will benefit from the greater flexibility with which British firms will be able to respond to the challenges that they will face in the 1990s, and we shall see more job opportunities created in this country as a result of the greater flexibility that will be available to us.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Prime Minister take some time today to examine his pledge not to turn his back on Lanarkshire? Will he give a clear indication of the earnestness of that pledge by agreeing to meet the shop stewards of Dalzell plant, who have indicated that they have a plan guaranteeing the effectiveness of their own plant, together with continued steel production in Scotland? Does he accept that he has an obligation to honour that pledge by examining every possible avenue to maintain steel production in Scotland, and in particular not to turn his back on a plan which has shown great effectiveness?
    The Prime Minister: I made my position clear in Scotland some time ago. We certainly would not abandon the people of north Lanarkshire. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall be seeking agreement from the European Community to establish an enterprise zone such as those which, in other parts, have been very successful. He will also know that in the past year we have provided about £120 million extra assistance for north Lanarkshire through the Scottish Enterprise fund, East Kilbride development corporation, the iron and steel employees readaption benefit scheme, the Scottish Development Agency and much else. I am sure that either my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be happy to meet the shop stewards in Dalzell.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, at a time of great international instability, the whole country welcomes his decision as chairman of the United Nations Security Council to call a meeting of that council later this month? Does not the acceptance of his invitation by President Bush, President Yeltsin, President Mitterrand and other world leaders prove the importance of that meeting? Is it not an insult to world leaders that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) should describe that as grubbing around for a photo opportunity?
    The Prime Minister: We have had a very favourable response from Heads of Government, all of whom share our view that the meeting offers a unique opportunity to reinforce the role of the United Nations as a peacemaker and peacekeeper, to look at the role that they can play in both disarmament and non-proliferation, and to reinforce the role that they can play in terms of improving good government and human rights records in a large number of countries. There has been unanimous acceptance by Heads of State and Government among Security Council members to attend. I hope and believe that it will be a useful and worthwhile occasion.
    Mr. Bidwell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bidwell: Is the Prime Minister aware that conflicting views about the future of the railways are coming from No. 10 Downing street and from the Secretary of State for Transport? It is said that the Prime Minister has a view. May the House hear it today? There is an old saying, "This is no way to run a railway"—I suggest that this is no way to run a Government either.
    The Prime Minister: On a non-controversial note, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his 75th birthday today.
    We are discussing within government the right way to take forward the privatisation of British Railways. Our aim is to ensure that passengers get a better deal as a result. We believe that the way to do that is to expose the railways to private sector disciplines. That is what we are discussing. In due course, when we have discussed the detail of how that will be brought about, we shall make a public statement.
    Mr. Lawrence: Since raising the quality of life of the British people is one of the main aims of my right hon. Friend's Government, can we count on his support for my National Lottery Bill?
    The Prime Minister: An important debate on my hon. and learned Friend's Bill is scheduled for this Friday. The Under Secretary of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), will make the Government's position clear in that debate.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to confirm that it is still his view that, as he put it in his own words just a few weeks ago,
    "tax cuts in the … Budget"
    would be "unwise", would "recreate…problems" and would be "fools' gold"?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has been misled. What I said in the interview in Harari, from which he has quoted, was that a reduction in interest rates just to stimulate the economy would he fools' gold—as it would be. However, to help the right hon. Gentleman, I went on to add that if there was a prospect of tax reductions, we would take it and give people the opportunity to spend their money in their own interests.
    Mr. Kinnock: Everyone will have the opportunity to check the words used in that interview and everyone will have the opportunity to ask why, if those words are so wrong, they have not been corrected before now. Does not the Prime Minister recall saying in precise terms that tax cuts in the Budget before the election—as he is precisely quoted as saying—would be "unwise", would "recreate … problems", would be "unfair", would "hurt" people and would be "economic tricks"—[Interruption.] Is it not clear—[Interruption.]
    Mr. SpeakerOrder.
    Mr. Kinnock: As the hopes of Conservative Members fade, so their voices grow louder.
    Is it not clear that what was fools' gold in October is fools' gold in January and would be fools' gold in March?
    The Prime Minister: As I said to the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago—clearly, he was not listening

    809
    —the quotation that he used refers to a reduction in interest rates, not to a reduction in taxation. The right hon. Gentleman can check the quote—perhaps he should have done so before using it inaccurately. When it is prudent to make tax reductions, we shall make them, because we believe that people are better able to look after their own interests with their own money than any Government, however benevolent, would be. It is the right hon. Gentleman's policy to increase taxation. He proposes the sharpest increases in taxes that we have had in peacetime since the war. That is expressly not the policy of this Government.
    Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman heads the Government who have imposed the highest tax burden in history on British families. He is the head of the party of high taxation. Why has he not the courage to stand by the words that he gave to his interviewer just a few months ago?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not repeat what he has twice been told is incorrect. If he is concerned about the level of taxation, he might perhaps explain to the country why he proposes to increase the rate of taxation if given the chance. He might also explain why his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has suggested a luxury rate of value added tax, after all that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), has said in recent weeks.
    Mr. Mills: Does my right hon. Friend recall those heady days in the early 1980s when, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), we changed industrial relations law? That has led to fewer days lost due to industrial action in Britain than in many of our competitor countries in Europe and abroad. Has my right hon. Friend read the recent report? Has he any comments? Will he continue to change industrial relations legislation to take further the Conservative progress which has helped democracy within trade unions and reduced the number of days lost to strikes?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that, as a result of the trade union reforms in the last decade, we have a far better record of industrial relations than our competitors elsewhere or than previously in Britain. When and where appropriate, we shall continue to make further improvements.
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fraser: Has the Prime Minister noted the remarks of the Minister for Public Transport about one class of service for business men and another, cheap and cheerful class of service, for typists? Despite the Minister's apology, does not that statement, accurately sum up the Government's policy on public services such as housing, education and health? The cheap and cheerful version of the service is hardly ever likely to be used by Cabinet Ministers or their families.
    The Prime Minister: That is uncharacteristic, and I would not have expressed myself as my hon. Friend did. My hon. Friend has subsequently made it clear that he
    810
    regrets expressing his views in that way. If every politician in government or opposition were forced to apologise for injudicious remarks, few of us would be doing anything else.
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as a result of discussions between the American company Kimberley Clarke and the Department of Trade and Industry, it is likely that a factory employing 800 people is to be built in my constituency? Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the DTI investment and the number of jobs to be created? Will he confirm that that is Conservative industrial policy working to the benefit of my constituency in particular and the country in general?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear of the proposed investment and job creation in my hon. Friend's constituency. The amount of grant offered is, of course, a confidential matter between the Department and the company. On the other specific questions that my hon. Friend asks, I will make inquiries and write to him. He is entirely right that inward investment is created by the right policies of deregulation and low taxation. The enormous amount of inward investment that we have seen in recent years would be lost if those policies were reversed.
    Mr. Ashdown: Further to the Prime Minister's previous answer, does he not realise that, while he and his Chancellor argue about the Budget, and while his Cabinet is split on the matter, there is widespread public support for the view that at this time investment in the nation's future should come before cuts in the basic rates of tax? Is the Prime Minister saying that he disagrees with that view?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the importance of investment. Where I might disagree with the right hon. Gentleman is that I do not believe that investment is increased by increasing taxes.
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospect of a dictator or an irresponsible third-world country acquiring any of the 27,000 nuclear weapons previously controlled by the Soviet Union is literally a terrifying thought? Against that background, does he further agree that to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent is as important and essential today as it ever has been?
    The Prime Minister: I do agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The end of the Soviet empire creates a large number of opportunities, but also some dangers. We have to be prepared for both. The diminished threat to NATO gives us the opportunity to make prudent reductions in defence, but they must be prudent and it would at this stage be imprudent to lift our nuclear shield in any way.
    Mr. Faulds: Why did the Prime Minister not have the courtesy to respond to a pre-Christmas appeal by Church leaders that he should make a statement—[interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Faulds rose—[interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is becoming disorderly.
    Mr. Faulds rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right to express his view as any other Member of the House.
    Mr. Faulds: Hon. Members seem embarrassed by good works. Why did the Prime Minister not have the courtesy to respond to a pre-Christmas appeal by Church leaders for him to make a statement urging stores not to break the Sunday trading laws? Did he simply lack the moral courage?
    The Prime Minister: I have indicated the Government's position on Sunday trading laws in the House on a number of occasions. I am interested to note the hon. Gentleman's concern on behalf of the Churches. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not mention it to me on new year's day when we had lunch together.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the three motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  Ordered,

  Statutory Instruments, &c.

    PARALYTIC SHELLFISH POISONING
    That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 13) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991, No. 2901) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 14) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991, No. 2902) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

    RATE SUPPORT GRANT (SCOTLAND)
    That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
    Question agreed to.

Point of Order
3.33 pm
Mr. Iain Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]—if hon. Gentlemen will allow me to speak. Can I draw your attention to a matter of confusion on Thursday, 21 November? I was shown in Hansard as voting, in the debate on the European Community, against a labour amendment in Division 14. That was correct. I was not shown as voting for the Government motion in Division 15. Subsequently, before I raised this matter with the Clerks, this was corrected. I am now shown correctly in Hansard as having voted for the Government in Division 15.
This is most important, as I believe that the Government were completely right. I can only suspect that the speed of my progress through the Division Lobby, as I was the second Member out that night, may have caused confusion. That was due to my enthusiasm for the excellent achievements of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Maastricht. I could not move fast enough to support him. I congratulate the Clerks on having corrected this before I raised the matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has now put the record straight.

Health Benefits
3.34 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend exemption from prescription charges to, and to make further provision for, persons in receipt of certain categories of benefit; to exempt from prescription charges the chronically ill and those over 60; and to exempt those over 60 from certain dental and optical charges.
If passed by the House, the Bill will reform fairly and effectively the forgotten area of the health benefits system. The present system is unwieldy, unnecessarily complex, inconsistent and over-bureaucratic. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly if they are not remaining for this ten-minute motion?
Mrs. Mahon: At present, health benefits are available to people who are eligible because they are exempt or who must claim on low-income grounds. The benefits are free prescriptions, optical and dental charges and help with fares to hospitals.
In its report "Health Warning", the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux highlighted deficiencies in the scheme in four respects. The first concerned simplicity. The rules are inconsistent because, for example, pensioners are automatically exempt from prescription charges but will qualify for help with other charges only if they have low incomes. Other people on incomes marginally above income support levels may get some help towards dental and optical charges but no help towards prescription charges.
The second deficiency concerned adequacy. The scheme aims to cover the cost of health charges so that the poorer sections of the community are not prevented from receiving health care by the cost. In practice, however, the scheme does not meet its objectives. Many thousands are deterred from claiming because of the complexity of the scheme, so many people go without vital treatment. There is also considerable evidence that even people entitled to, for instance, free glasses, must still contribute significant amounts to the cost, because the value of the benefit has not kept up with the cost of glasses.
The system has also failed on grounds of accessibility. NACAB's evidence shows that the scheme is about as accessible as Fort Knox. The relevant form is 20 pages long and contains more than 50 questions, and the 1 million people a year who labour to fill it in often fail to do so or are helped by relatives and friends; 100,000 go to the citizens advice bureaux for help. Even so, about 35 per cent. of those people—361,000—have their forms returned to them because they filled them in incorrectly. When I challenged the Secretary of State for Health to fill in the form, he not surprisingly refused. There is no comparison between this form and the one on which people claim for mortgage interest relief.
NACAB's fourth point is that the present scheme is deficient on grounds of equity. Anomalies cause confusion and anger among claimants. Often people entitled to free dental treatment find that they must contribute towards the cost of glasses, and the scheme cries out for reform. My Bill will effect just that. At a stroke, the need for 300 staff in the health benefit unit could end and they could be redeployed to improve other parts of the service.

815
This Bill proposes that health benefits be available free to all receiving means-tested benefits—for instance, the disabled working allowance benefit, due to begin in April 1992, could lead to claimants who take it up moving from income support to that benefit and thus losing the right to free prescriptions. That would cause considerable hardship.
My Bill proposes that people in receipt of this benefit and in receipt of poll tax benefit, invaliditity benefit, long-term sickness benefit, the severe disablement allowance, and mobility and attendance allowances should be exempt from prescription charges. Moreover, anyone categorised by his GP as chronically sick should be covered, as the list of prescribed illnesses is outdated.
People requiring regular medication would also be exempt from prescription charges. That would cover people with cystic fibrosis, inflammatory bowel disease, asthma, multiple sclerosis, cancer and a host of other long-term illnesses.
My Bill also seeks to right the serious and indefensible wrong brought about by the abolition of free eye and dental tests; and free prescriptions would be available to all over the age of 60. The Minister for Health sought to defend the indefensible when she wrote in a recent letter to The Guardian about the abolition of the tests. Her letter brought forth a torrent of rebukes from people far more expert than she—and far more caring.
Mr. Ian Hunter, Secretary General of the Association of Optometrists, wrote in reply to the Minister's letter:
"To restart national health service eye examinations for the over 60s would now cost about £25 million but the cost for not doing so will be two or three times as much because eye disease will remain undetected until treatment is less effective and more expensive. The real social costs of blindness for some have also regrettably to be added."
I can only add that the abolition of free eye tests is the worst false economy imaginable, and could only be contemplated by such a short-sighted Government.
The present scheme's inadequacies are best highlighted by a constituent, Mr. Russell, who wrote to me on the advice of his local DSS office, which also thinks that the system is unfair. Mr. Russell lost out when he received a 6p rise which put him above the income support level. He lost entitlement to free prescriptions; he also had to pay £24 for
816
dental treatment, and he can no longer claim his hospital fares unless they cost more than £8·50. He concluded his letter:
"The 6p rise I received means I am approximately £2·50 a week worse off. Surely this can't be right."
I agree with Mr. Russell.
Patients with mental illness are particularly vulnerable. My Bill would exempt many of them from prescription charges.
Charges have gone up 17 times under the Government. There has been a 600 per cent. increase, from 20p to £3·40, since 1979. They have created an intolerable burden on people on low incomes. Many people now go without the necessary treatment because they cannot afford prescriptions.
Even the Government have recognised the need for reform, although the review which they commissioned in 1990, which has yet to report, appears to have been an excuse for inaction. When it reports, it will address only the administration of the scheme and not the real solution, which would be to scrap the low income scheme and replace it with one based on exemptions.
The present scheme is bureaucratic, inconsistent and complex. We need in its place a scheme which is simple, fair and effective, one which people can understand and which delivers help for those who need it most. The scheme must be based on exemptions. My Bill would provide for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. John Battle, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. David Winnick and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

HEALTH BENEFITS
Mrs. Alice Mahon accordingly presented a Bill to extend exemption from prescription charges, and to make further provision for, persons in receipt of certain categories of benefit; to exempt from prescription charges the chronically ill and those over 60; and to exempt those over 60 from certain dental and optical charges: And the same was read the First time: and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 March and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

Nuclear Defence
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the debate upon nuclear defence. I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and that in view of the number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate, I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock. If those who are fortunate enough to be called before make brief speeches, it may be possible to relax the limit.
Mr. Cecil Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. You will no doubt be aware of the amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and others calling for the scrapping of Trident and the decommissioning of Polaris. May I draw to your attention the fact that 130 members of the parliamentary Labour party, if not more, are also members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and therefore that that amendment represents the majority view within the Labour party?
In those circumstances, Sir, would it not be more appropriate if you called the amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North rather than that in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, who apparently represents a minority view in his own party?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the selection of amendments is a matter for the Chair, and that I never give reasons for my decisions on such matters.
Mr. Roger King rose——
Mr. Speaker: No doubt it will be possible to make these telling points in the debate.
Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a relevant point. As you have announced, this is a debate on nuclear arms and this country's defence policy. I am surprised that rumours are circulating that the Opposition spokesman who is to reply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is the shadow Foreign Secretary. Are we not entitled to a reply from a leading Opposition defence spokesman if this is to be a fair and proper debate? Could this position have arisen because the Opposition defence spokesman is not a member of the Shadow Cabinet and the issue of defence is so unimportant in the eyes of the Opposition that they have had to press-gang somebody else as a front man?
Mr. Speaker: It is no rumour—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will open from the Front Bench—but the Opposition spokesman on defence will wind up.
3.45 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That this House supports unequivocally the concept of nuclear deterrence and the retention of a credible United Kingdom nuclear deterrent, while other countries have, or seek to acquire, nuclear weapons; notes the great dangers apparent in the increase in the number of countries gaining, or seeking to gain, access to nuclear weapons; understands that the country's nuclear deterrent remains essential for the defence of the United Kingdom and NATO; recognises the vital contribution to world peace which the United Kingdom's nuclear forces have made, and will continue to
818
make, through deterrence; and supports NATO's policy of also maintaining an up-to-date, sub-strategic nuclear capability based in Europe.
I notice that the words "nuclear defence" are absent from the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock).
I welcome the opportunity to debate in the House today the crucial issue of defence, particularly nuclear defence. it gives me an opportunity to report to the House on what, since we last met, have been the developments in the territory which represents the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and in which an extremely disturbing and alarming sequence of events is currently taking place, of which the House should take note.
When we debated related issues in November, the Soviet Union existed—now it does not. There was then a central control over the nuclear arsenal and assurances by President Gorbachev, Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, who had returned to government, and Marshal Shaposhnikov. We were also given what I suppose must be the shortest lived assurance of all time by General Lobov when he visited this country. When asked who was in charge of nuclear weapons, he said that he was, and two days later he was sacked. All those personalities and figures have gone.
I am sure that Opposition Members can occasionally show a sense of humour on the subject—I reflected how they must have felt as we watched the amazing pictures of the flag being lowered over the Kremlin. All those who had sung for so many years, "We'll keep the red flag flying here," could no longer stomach it being flown over the Kremlin.
Since then, in place of the USSR and President Gorbachev, there is the fragile creature of the Commonwealth of Independent States. While I am sure that all hon. Members wish it well and hope that it will be possible for a new relationship to develop, we must recognise that, as I speak to the House, there are continuing disputes between the republics over both nuclear weapons and their custody, and the conventional forces.
The House may know that one of the recent developments identified are changes in the communication patterns—the fact that some communications have been cut between existing headquarters and units whose allegiances have moved between central control and the republics. There have also been disputes about the strategic nature of the air force. We hope that the disputes over the Black sea fleet can be satisfactorily resolved.
I do not know how many hon. Members know that there was a public meeting in the Crimea attended by a substantial number of members of the Soviet fleet at one of the most acute moments of that dispute, at which a motion was overwhelmingly passed that the commanding admiral should be decleared president of an independent Crimea. We can see some of the tensions that affect the situation and the way in which they relate to military forces. Wholesale changes are occurring in the former Soviet Union's defence policy. We believe that, for the first time since records were kept in 1960, there is not a single combatant Soviet warship in either the Mediterranean or the Indian ocean. That is a measure of the withdrawal that is under way.
Although it is difficult to obtain accurate information about the Soviet Union's industrial situation and defence industries, we believe also that four out of five tank

819
factories have been closed, and that Russia is proposing to halt all production of tanks, armoured personnel carriers, small arms, and aircraft.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it not have been more appropriate if today's debate had been initiated by the Foreign Secretary, and had dealt with what steps could be taken—particularly by the west—to help the former Soviet Union to avoid anarchy and a return to dictatorship? Today's debate—as every right hon. and hon. Member and all the media know—is held because the Government are on the skids, terrified of holding a general election, and trying to deflect public attention from domestic issues.
Mr. King: That intervention did not do the hon. Gentleman justice, and he will excuse me if I do not deign to reply to it.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Is it not a fact that—contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—with the majority of Members of Parliament in the Ukraine determined to go their own way, the House should address this issue, which is of crucial national importance?
Mr. King: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) accepts that I am trying to set out as fairly as I can, on the basis of the best intelligence available to me, the current situation in the former Soviet Union. We make no apology for debating defence, but every time we do so, someone on the Opposition Benches says, "Talk about something else." We happen to believe that defence is of critical importance to our country.
At a time when the largest nuclear power that the world has seen is in the process of potential disintegration, we believe that we have a duty to tell the country where we stand. We as a Government do not shirk that responsibility, and any party with aspirations to government should not do so either.
Perhaps the most worrying feature is not the withdrawal from operational activity of the Soviet fleet, which might have been caused by fuel shortages or uncertainties about control at home, but that which we indentify as happening within the armed forces. [Interruption.] That situation may be a laughing matter to some, but its seriousness is of gravity to others.
There now appears to be virtually a total collapse in conscription. One might expect the strength of the Soviet conscript army to number between 650,000 and 750,000. The latest figures that I have make us doubt whether more than 20 per cent. of that figure have come forward this year. There is arguably a shortfall of half a million conscripts entering what were the Soviet armed forces.
In a sense, that is hardly surprising. There are uncertainties as to whether those personnel will get paid and fed, and whether there will be any housing for them.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Sounds like the British housing shortage.
Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman approaches the subject with his usual lack of seriousness, and looks for any opportunity to make a snide remark, in the way that he did in respect of the meeting between my right hon.
820
Friend the Prime Minister and President Yeltsin and President Bush. The right hon. Gentleman described that critically important meeting between world leaders as a glorified photo opportunity, which shows that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) fails to rise to such occasions with the seriousness that is needed.
Many of us had suspicions about the awfulness of the Soviet conscript system, and as discipline now breaks down and further information becomes available, the appalling problems that were already evident of trying to control a conscript system that attempted to meld as many as 30 different nationalities in one uniform armed force are becoming very clear.
We know of the contempt of the officer groups for their conscripts, and the arrogant, arbitrary and bureaucratic way in which they were treated. We know of the lack of control that that treatment reflected, which led, in turn, to the death of a number of officers. Hon. Members may know of the army's appalling record in that regard, and of the attacks that were made. We also know that there is no regular non-commissioned officer corps in the Soviet army system, and we are aware of the ill-discipline and criminality that have developed. Marshal Yazov, when he was Minister of Defence, estimated that up to 30 per cent. of conscripts entering the army either had criminal records or were known to the police for various reasons.
We know of the existence of gangs—of ethnic groups, for instance—and of the bullying and torture that have taken place. Some 4,000 conscripts die every year, of whom more than 1,000 may be suicides. A serious breakdown in discipline and morale has now been aggravated. The latest figures that I have received suggest that some 400,000 people are homeless, living either in tents or in the corners of barrack rooms. That problem is likely to worsen. The supply of food has broken down in some instances, and units are having to barter fuel supplies for food.
Because of the effects of inflation on the armed forces, a regimental commander may now earn half as much as a city bus driver. A sense of defeat and despair is affecting the forces. In recent years, they have been expelled from Afghanistan and East Germany; now, they face virtual expulsion from what they had thought was their country, in the shape of the Baltic states. The sense of alienation and desperation that exists not only in the officer corps, but throughout the armed forces, represents a very serious development. Although the current changes present no external threat at present, they pose a major threat within what was the Soviet Union, along with the risk that that represents.
Sir Patrick Duffy: The Secretary of State's description of a breakdown in social organisation must move some of us to wonder about its effect on morale within the unified structure of the armed services, especially that of the strategic containment forces, which are trying to exercise some control over nuclear weapons.
Can the right hon. Gentleman offer any assessment of the effectiveness of the command and control of those containment forces, given his conversation with General Lobov and the successor whom we know to have been appointed, and his meetings with Marshal Shaposhnikov? How effective is that crucial central command of nuclear weapons?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correctly identifying the reasons why I thought it important to set some of the background for the House. We are talking about the condition of the armed forces. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, different elements exist within those forces: that applies particularly to the elite forces, which have the particular responsibility of guarding nuclear weapons. While we may seek assurances, at the highest level, of the determination to ensure the most careful security in regard to such weapons, that security will ultimately be only as good as the commitment, morale and dependability of the people concerned.
That is the seriousness of the present position. I am talking about the morale not of some small, insignificant, backward country, but of a country that, through its obsession with armaments and defence expenditure, has made itself a major military super-power—a super-power that is now fast disintegrating, along with control. In such circumstances, a breakdown in morale is very serious.
I have not given the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) a clear answer, for the simple reason that I have been given assurances—I have mentioned the assurance that I received from General Lobov—which have been good for about 24 hours. That underlines the difficulty we face.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is it not clear from what the Secretary of State has been saying that the Soviet Union's possession of nuclear weapons was no guarantee of its security? That security has now broken down.
Is it not also clear that the army that has followed that disintegration is in no position to threaten this country, and, moreover, that the British Government and other western Governments for a long time did all they could to bring about the present situation? Part of western strategy was the encouragement of nationalism, and even of Islam—as was high defence expenditure in the Soviet Union.
Will the Secretary of State look again at Churchill's memorandum to the Cabinet, issued in 1918? Churchill warned the Cabinet then that the division of the Ukraine from Russia would pose a very serious danger. That memorandum is included in "The World Crisis: The Aftermath", and the right hon. Gentleman would do well to study it before he addresses us on the basis of his present approach.
Mr. King: I should take up too much of the House's time if I answered all those points.
I want to talk about the grave situation that we face and what we, together with NATO, our allies and the west, can best do to help meet it.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. King: I have given way many times. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will hope to catch Mr. Speaker's eye and have an opportunity to make his speech.
Currently, there is a dangerously explosive mix of catastrophically low morale and a feeling of alienation.
Right hon. and hon. Members have said that we must welcome the changes in the sense of the end of the cold war and, we hope, the end of confrontation and the opportunities that will arise. However, because of the risks that remain, I wish to put soberly to the House the reasons for our belief in the continuing importance of nuclear defence.
822
We estimate that there are about 27,000 nuclear warheads within the Soviet Union and, of those, there are some 13,000 strategic nuclear weapons in the four republics—Russia, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Byelorussia. If they stayed as they were, it is significant that each of the republics would have more strategic nuclear weapons than China, and three, excluding Byelorussia, would have more than the United Kingdom.
The republics assure us that they will proceed with and honour the strategic arms reduction talks. If they continue with that and with the further reductions proposed by Mr. Gorbachev, they would halve their nuclear arsenal over the next 10 years. We estimate that 10 years is the minimum time that it would take to remove that number of nuclear weapons in a stable society with a well-organised system. At the end of that time—there are many qualifications to what I have said—the republics would still have 20 times more warheads than we have now. Within the territory which was the Soviet Union and which, if the plans go ahead, may be contained within what is now Russia, there will, for at least the next 20 years, be a substantial nuclear arsenal of strategic weapons. We must address that.
In addition to the strategic weapons, there is also the risk of tactical nuclear weapons, whether they be torpedoes, air-launched missiles or nuclear artillery shells. My best estimate shows that they are located on 100 sites in 13 different republics. Considerable effort has been made to withdraw them to within Russia. That is the objective, and it is hoped that it will be achieved by the middle of July. Some of those weapons are under the control of some of the elements to which I referred earlier, whose morale, must, at the very least, be described as extremely dubious.
We are concerned not just about the vast nuclear arsenal but, as I said in an earlier debate in the House, the technology and nuclear scientists. It has been suggested that there are some 3,000 nuclear scientists who could make a significant contribution in other countries that may be seeking to develop their weapons. My information is that at least one group of those nuclear scientists was not paid in December and that control of and responsibility for them appears to have broken down. We also have evidence that some countries are undoubtedly actively trying to enlist the services of some of those people, so the risk of proliferation has never been greater.
As some hon. Members may know, my colleague—or my friend—the United States Defence Secretary said yesterday that the United States estimates that nine third-world countries are likely to have nuclear weapons in 10 years. The news this morning of further developments in Iraq and the further evidence of the steps that some people have taken to pursue a covert programme is warning enough that some countries—some of them rich—are able to develop a substantial industrial programme.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. King: No, I am conscious of the time.
I deal now with what I believe our response should be. I welcome the new contacts that are developing, and I also welcome—as does the whole House—the meeting of what is called the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, at which, before Christmas, the Foreign Ministers of the former Warsaw pact countries met those from NATO

823
countries. I very much welcome the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in inviting President Yeltsin, who, as the House will know, will be coming to London at the end of the month on his way to New York, where the leaders of the permanent members of the Security Council will meet.
We also welcome the fact that the START negotiations and agreements have been confirmed. We welcome the proposal to consolidate the tactical weapons in the 13 republics in Russia and the agreement that that should be achieved in July this year. We have made clear our willingness to help in the handling of nuclear weapons and to give any assistance we can, perhaps by providing extra facilities for their dismantling and disarming in Russia. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit Kazakhstan on Sunday, from where he will go to Kiev and to Moscow. His visit to Kazakhstan is especially important, because that republic has expressed a different view about what it will do about nuclear weapons.
Such developments are important, but beyond them it is clear that the lessons that we must have learned from Iraq are the difficulties experienced by the International Atomic Energy Agency and those experienced in the enforcement and observation of the non-proliferation treaty. We and our allies in the agency are giving high priority to the work of strengthening the safeguards. With our European Community partners and other like-minded states, we have made and will make specific proposals.
An especially important matter is that of special inspections. Particular importance is to be placed on them, and I am sure that the House will accept that their importance is clear from what happened in Iraq. Anyone who has been watching developments in Iraq will know of the problem of undeclared sites, and will know how few of the sites on which we have found material for weapons of mass destruction were originally declared. The problem of undeclared sites is fundamental, and limits the effectiveness of the present safeguard system.
We believe in the strictest supplier controls, and we are keen to promote them. We welcome the reactivation in 1991 of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the supportive work to draw up a regime to control nuclear dual use items. Of course, the skill in exploiting what were dual use items has been a key in the Iraqi programme. We also intend to introduce the full-scope safeguards for nuclear supply. The lessons of Iraq bring home clearly that area of work, and we will pursue it actively——
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. King:—as we shall also pursue discussions in the United Nations. I referred to the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has called during our presidency of the Security Council to give the opportunity to start to discuss the ways in which the United Nations can be more active in that area.
The House will know of the welcome early visit to this country yesterday by the new Secretary-General of the United Nations and of his meetings with the Prime Minister, with the Leader of the Opposition and with the Foreign Secretary.
We face uncertainty and great danger at present. We need to take every step possible to try to ensure that, both
824
in the security of the weapons that are in the Soviet Union and in the risks of proliferation, we act as effectively as possible and as closely together as possible with our allies and with all those who share our concerns.
Mr. Douglas rose——
Mr. King: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
There can be no guarantee that we shall succeed. I have set out for the House the time frame we face, and I have explained why we believe that, as we face a period of real danger and uncertainty in the nuclear area, we must ensure that our own nuclear defences are sound.
I will set out clearly where we stand. We face the risk of a major strategic arsenal, and we cannot be sure under whose control that arsenal may fall. I have talked about the prospects for the next 10 years and about the number of weapons that would still be left—perhaps for 20 years. To be blunt, we do not have a single idea about who may be in control in 10 years' time. We do not even have a good idea or any confidence about who may be in control 10 weeks from now.
Against that background, it is important for the House to restate its commitment to the need for a strategic deterrent. If we have a strategic deterrent, it must be credible. That means that it must at all times be available and at all times able to preserve its effectiveness. The House knows—there is no point in arguing—that we need four Trident submarines. There is no point in saying that we shall have half a deterrent or three quarters of a deterrent, or that we may say a bit of money if we do not have the last quarter. The professional advice to me, which I accept and which has been accepted by successive Governments, is for our deterrent to be credible and effective. The minimum need is for four Trident submarines.
As has been recognised in the NATO strategic concept and by all our NATO allies, we also need to have a sub-strategic capability to ensure the flexibility of our nuclear response and to ensure its credibility. That is the NATO policy, which has been endorsed only recently—the new policy in the new situation—and that is the policy by which we stand.
In dealing with the existing time scales—the years for which we have to provide—we cannot turn our deterrent on and off like a tap. One either believes in, supports, maintains, equips and trains to ensure the operation of our sub-strategic deterrent for year after year, or one does not invest in it at all. That is our policy.
Mr. Kaufman: As the right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the importance of the availability and credibility of the nuclear deterrent, will he tell the House in what circumstances the Government would use nuclear weapons?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. We reserve the option of nuclear use if circumstances are sufficiently dire to warrant it. We will not give the precise details of those circumstances.
Mr. Kaufman rose——
Mr. King: I will not give way.
What one does not do is stand up and say:
"There are no circumstances in which I would order or permit the firing of a nuclear weapon".

825
The House knows that I am quoting the words of the Leader of the Opposition of 1983. In May 1989, the right hon. Gentleman tried to crawl back from those words and correct himself, but the damage had been done. Lest any hon. Member does not believe that the damage was done, I remind the House that 50 Labour Members did: they signed a letter that appeared in The Guardian dated 5 May 1989. A number of them are sitting on the Back Benches now; I recognise their faces.
The letter said:
"We believe it is impossible for any Labour Prime Minister to convince the British public there are any circumstances in which a Labour Prime Minister would press the nuclear button."
They were right. The credibility of the Leader of the Opposition has gone. He said that there were no circumstances in which he would take such action, and both the people and his own party believed him.
Mr. Kaufman: In response to my earlier question, the Secretary of State said that it would be wrong for him to state the circumstances in which the Government might use nuclear weapons. He therefore concurs with the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who said:
"It would undermine our strategy of deterrence to spell out in advance the precise way in which nuclear weapons would or might be used in any given circumstances."—[Official Report 7 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 160.]
Those are extremely sensible words, which the present Prime Minister would do well to learn, given that he asked the Opposition in what circumstances we would use nuclear weapons.
Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman and I will return to the problems of credibility faced by the Leader of the Opposition on nuclear defence.
We have made our position on nuclear defence absolutely clear. We believe that we need a four-boat Trident fleet, and that our nuclear deterrent should continue in operation. We believe in the need for a sub-strategic capability and have determined to support Nato in its policy on sub-strategic nuclear weapons. Our position is absolutely clear. Only to those unwilling to listen is it not clear.
We think that we have a duty to tell the country what our position is now that the situation has changed—at the end of the cold war and at a time when there is no longer a Soviet Union, but when a huge nuclear arsenal is lying there and could fall into the wrong hands. Is it so outrageous—so embarrassing—to ask the Opposition to tell us, just for a moment, what their policy is?
In their amendment, the Liberal Democrats support the Government's policy on the Trident submarine. They are not so good when it comes to supporting NATO policy on the sub-strategic deterrent, but then they have the rather engaging additional policy of cutting defence expenditure by 50 per cent. over the next 10 years, which means that they could not afford it anyway, so we can see where they stand on that.
Why will the Labour party simply not answer the question? Why does Labour publish policy papers on every subject under the sun but nothing on nuclear deterrence? I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition asking, "How can we avoid the coming election being about personalities and not policies, when you have no policies?" It is significant that I received no reply. I do not often
826
resort to quoting Mr. Martin Jacques, the former editor of Marxism Today, but he made an interesting comment with which I think many would agree:
"The Labour Party has virtually abstained from the post cold war debate on defence. Paralysed by the memory of the 1983 and 1987 elections, its only concern is to reassure. Labour"—
listen to this—
"does not want a defence debat: the very mention of defence sends it running for cover."
Nothing that I have seen today contradicts that.
Why is the Labour party paralysed? It is paralysed because it is split from top to bottom. Let us look at today's Order Paper. Nowhere does the official Opposition's amendment make any reference to nuclear defence. But what about the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)? Obviously he is quite confident, because he knows where the bulk of Opposition Members stand—behind him.
Only two years ago, 50 members of the Labour party—among them the hon. Member for Islington, North, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks)—wrote to the Guardian as follows:
"We, members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, reaffirm our support for Labour Party defence policy as set out in composite 56, carried at last year's Annual Conference of the Labour party, namely 'to unconditionally remove all nuclear weapons and nuclear bases from British soil and waters in the first Parliament of the next Labour Government.'"
That is where Opposition Members stand.
What about the Leader of the Opposition? Only three years ago, he wrote to Sanity, the magazine of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, to congratulate the organisation on 30 years of effort to secure a nuclear-free Europe. He stressed the need to make and win the argument for non-nuclear defence.
But the Leader of the Opposition is not the only Labour Member who adopts that position. I need only draw attention to several Front-Bench Members—the hon. Members for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), for Livingston (Mr. Cook), for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and for Barking (Ms. Richardson). It has been estimated that 16 of the 22 members of the present shadow Cabinet have an anti-nuclear background.
I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who has to take a lot of flak. It is disgraceful that defence is not represented in the Labour shadow Cabinet. People may have different political views, but it is scandalous that defence is not represented. For the hon. Member for Clackmannan, it must be really galling that the person who beat him for the last place in the shadow Cabinet is the hon. Member for Barking, who, I understand, has shadow Cabinet responsibility for women. It is interesting that the hon. Lady is also a vice-president of CND.
When we raise the question of the CND background of Labour Members, we are told that it is a McCarthyite thing to do. Why should it be regarded as McCarthyite? The hon. Member for Islington, North does not think that it is McCarthyite; he is proud of it. He does not think that membership of CND is a matter for shame. He is proud to say what he believes, and we respect him for standing up for his beliefs.
Mr. Benn rose——
Mr. King: I cannot give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must say that he too stands up for his opinions.
Mr. Benn rose——
Mr. King: I apologise for being unable to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I have done so once already.
The shameful thing is not that there are Opposition Members who are in CND and are prepared to stand up for what they believe in, but that there are people who pretend that they are no longer members or who have let their membership lapse. They are the people we despise. Anyone who wants to know what the parliamentary Labour party thinks about nuclear defence should note the identity of those who are officers of the newly elected Back-Bench committee. How many people know who is the chairman of the Labour parliamentary defence committee?
Mr. Harry Cohen rose——
Mr. King: On cue, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) identifies himself.
Who are the hon. Gentleman's noble colleagues as vice-chairmen? They are two well-known multilateralists—the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). If ever one could hear the voice of the Labour party, and if one wanted to know what Labour Back-Bench Members think, they have spelt it out very clearly indeed.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful that, at last, the Secretary of State has given way. It is all very interesting stuff that he is giving. Will he explain to the people of this country why it is necessary to spend £23 billion on purchasing a Trident submarine system that has a fire power equal to 3,800 Hiroshima bombs, when there is no discernible enemy whatsoever, yet the world is split apart by poverty in the south and militarism in the north? Will the right hon. Gentleman address the real needs of the people of this country and the rest of the world, and instead opt for nuclear disarmament and arms conversion rather than the madness of the militarism that he is talking about?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member, because he might not have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, and then we would have been denied the real voice of the Labour party. I wonder how to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I understand his sincerity. I happen to believe that, while a massive number of nuclear weapons could be targeted on this country, it would be madness to deny ourselves a minimum nuclear deterrent. However, I suppose that what really must get to the hon Gentleman is that people who he thought supported his point of view but who have now deserted him would actually claim to support my position. I do not believe that they do so, but that is the pretence that they are carrying out at this moment.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. King: If my hon. Friend will excuse me, I shall not, as I am conscious of the time that we have taken.
As with nuclear, so with conventional. Three successive Labour party conferences have voted for overwhelming reductions in defence expenditure. Whether it is £6 billion a year, other hon. Members who supposedly support our
828
defence expenditure claim that it is much more. At successive conferences, the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friends have been conclusively and substantially beaten by a coalition led by Mr. Bruce Kent and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. They have tried to repudiate that. They have tried to say, "No, that won't happen. We don't have to pay attention to these conference resolutions." Unfortunately, they forgot that repudiation and that resolution when they printed "Looking to the Future".
Last year, we looked forward to huge negotiated cuts in conventional armaments. The effective collapse of the Warsaw pact and such international agreements can make possible reductions in United Kingdom defence spending far beyond anything envisaged at last year's Labour party conference. The hon. Member for Clackmannan went further and said:
"The scope for defence cuts will likely be that much greater."
Of course, the secret came out in that leaked memorandum from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), in which he said:
"Defence cuts could arguably be the North sea oil of the 1990s."
We got the message. As the House may know, North sea oil has been worth £100 billion. Over the next 10 years, defence expenditure might be £240 billion. We see the hidden agenda. Indeed there are plans, not just on the Labour Back Benches and not just in the reaches of a Labour party conference, but on the Opposition Front Bench and in the inner workings of any ambitions of a future Labour Government for a massive reduction.
I doubt whether we shall get any straight answers. The right hon. Member for Gorton will try to insult and smear any comments that we make. No doubt he will tell us that Labour's policy is already clearly spelt out in "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change". It has been reaffirmed in "Looking to the Future", and it has been reaffirmed in "Opportunity Britain". That is the inspired policy that called for the simultaneous dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw pact, and they really subscribe to that. We have made it quite clear that, when we tackle the very real challenges of the Soviet Union, we shall do what needs to be done.
If one challenges the Labour party on defence expenditure, its members say, "We shall do what needs to be done when we get into office." Their slogan is, "Trust us," but to do so would be to give a blank cheque to all those who have been wrong on every count in the past two elections and who would have destroyed our defences. They expect the British people to buy unseen a defence policy of which they know nothing. This is the end of the road for consumers—[Interruption.]
The purpose of today's debate is to ask two direct and straight questions of the right hon. Member for Gorton. As we sit here, we have a nuclear deterrent which is maintained by our service men. What we and the country need to know from the Opposition is whether they now believe in the importance of keeping a strategic nuclear deterrent while other countries have nuclear weapons targeted on us. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the fourth Trident boat is built to guarantee the effective operation of that strategic deterrent? In addition, and separately, do the Opposition support NATO's policy of sub-strategic nuclear weapons based in Europe and kept up to date?

829
The time for fudging and evasion is over. The time for telling the country where the Opposition stand on nuclear defence is here. The country is entitled to straight answers to those questions. We shall listen with interest to see whether we shall now get them at last.
4.31 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"calls on Her Majesty's Government, taking into account the perils, problems and uncertainties of the world situation following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and while providing an effective defence for the United Kingdom based on the necessary level of forces provided with the appropriate equipment and weaponry, to formulate a policy based on arms control and reduction negotiations involving the eight nuclear powers, a strengthened and extended nuclear non-proliferation treaty backed by sanctions, a comprehensive test-ban treaty, and a new round of conventional forces negotiations involving the participation of the post-Soviet republics to promote an internationally structured aid programme for the post-Communist countries of central and eastern Europe under the auspices of the G7 countries and to implement a diversification programme within the United Kingdom to assist the defence industries to maintain employment and continue their contribution to the national economy."
Since the House adjourned for the Christmas recess, unprecedented events have taken place in the world. The Soviet Union has been dissolved. Mikhail Gorbachev has resigned as Soviet president. The Commonwealth of Independent States has been born. Three additional nuclear powers have arisen, two of which have larger arsenals than the United Kingdom. A permanent member of the United Nations Security Council has disappeared, with a completely new sovereign state seeking to take its place. A world power balance which lasted for 46 years has ended. A super-power has vanished. Alarming uncertainties have arisen. The danger of nuclear proliferation through the seepage of weapons and of scientists is immensely disturbing.
In those extraordinary circumstances, the Labour party took the view that a narrow debate on nuclear defence did not meet the scale of the problems and perils facing the international community, especially since the House debated nuclear defence only six weeks ago, when the Secretary of State made largely the same speech, with the same poor cracks and the same old quotations that he has given us today.
The Labour party therefore proposed to the Government that the scope of the debate should be widened and that the Foreign Secretary should participate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has appropriately proposed. But the Government refused that proposal because they are wedded to staging a stunt debate to serve their petty party agenda and to distract attention from the "John Major economic slump—made in Downing street" that is driving the Tory party to electoral defeat. The Tory party believed that the Foreign Secretary's obligations to Parliament could be fulfilled by a shoddy little interview in the Sunday Express——
Mr. Sayeed rose——
Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way in a little while, but I should like to proceed for a moment. The hon. Gentleman generally seeks to intervene in my speeches and I give way to him from time to time.
830
The Labour party has therefore tabled an amendment to the Government's motion so as to give the House the opportunity for a sensible and serious debate on the international situation. How wise we were has been proved by the trivial and inadequate speech that we have just heard from the Secretary of State for Defence, a speech which sank under its own lack of weight.
A year ago, the world was dominated by two nuclear super-powers which, after more than 40 years of confrontation, had learnt to work together and had brought a new stability to our planet. Now there is one nuclear super-power, which paradoxically has to cope with profound world instability. The end of the cold war celebrated in Paris in November 1990 brought peace but uncertainty. The end of the USSR has opened a Pandora's box. The conflict in Georgia could be just a foretaste of what might follow.
The west bears its own heavy responsibility for what has taken place. At the G7 summit six months ago, Mikhail Gorbachev was treated like a mendicant. Seeking aid for his country, he was sent home empty-handed and humiliated. The Tory Government in Britain could have altered the balance of three to four in the G7 and could have helped to provide meaningful aid for Gorbachev. In their narrow view of world affairs, they chose not to do so. The August coup followed, and the regime of Mikhail Gorbachev was in ruins. Mikhail Gorbachev was the greatest peacetime leader in international affairs this century. The Prime Minister paid a mawkish tribute to him when he resigned last month but did not lift a finger to help him when he might have been saved.
The question now for the international community is not what can be done to restore the old stability—that is not possible—but how to create a new and lasting stability. With the United States still dominant, but economically weak and ready to accept others sharing its hegemony, there is an unprecedented opportunity for the United Kingdom to give a lead not as a super-power but as a catalyst. Britain can count in the world. There is an agenda waiting to be implemented and Britain can help to formulate that agenda.
Mr. Ian Taylor: It would be unwise to try to rewrite history so quickly. The reality of the G7 meeting was that President Gorbachev could not satisfy the leaders that he could use the aid properly and that it would go to the right quarters. Those assurances were sought but not given, and the lack of those assurances was well understood by Yeltsin and other people in the Soviet Union at that time. The failure of President Gorbachev to apply his reforms ultimately led to the crisis.
Mr. Kaufman: That failure was not recognised in the way that the hon. Gentleman implies by Chancellor Kohl or President Mitterand who, with the Italian Government, wished to provide substantial aid for the Soviet Union at the G7 summit. If the United Kingdom had been with Germany, Italy and France, there would have been a majority at the G7 summit for structured aid to the Soviet Union. That is the scale of the Prime Minister's shortcomings at the G7 summit.
Britain can count in the world. First, we must try to contain the nuclear instability that has arisen and prevent it from leading to a nuclear free-for-all. The START negotiating process between Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev, which was continued by President Bush,

831
resulted in the agreement to reduce American and Soviet strategic nuclear weapons by a third. It is essential that the successor republics to the Soviet Union fulfil that agreement. But there will be no further START process involving the two super-powers. That process is over because there are no longer two super-powers.
All the eight nuclear powers should now become involved in the next phase of the START process. That means negotiations involving the United States, the four former Soviet nuclear powers, France, China and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom should take the lead in urging the convening of such talks, aimed at reducing the stockpiles of all the eight and with the hope of reducing them to low and unthreatening levels. Elimination of all eight stockpiles is the obvious and sensible goal, although when that will be possible it is far too soon to say.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: No, I will not give way. I want to proceed a little. When I have dealt with this passage, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Beside that sensible and reasonable objective, this Tory Government look particularly puny and petty as they brandish their nuclear weapons like some macho symbol. They are the Government who have stood in the way of all progress on nuclear disarmament by negotiation the Government who insisted that the Lance missile system should be modernised even when its owner, the United States, accepted that Lance modernisation made no sense. They are the Government who alone opposed negotiations on short-range nuclear weapons when the rest of NATO saw that such negotiations were necessary.
Two years ago, the Secretary of State for Defence sat on the Government Front Bench nodding like an obedient poodle when his Prime Minister said this:
"Removal of the imbalance in conventional forces would not obviate the continuing need for short-range missiles. Short-range nuclear weapons must be available to commanders in the field at all stages."
That is what the Prime Minister said; that is what the Secretary of State for Defence expounded. Yet exactly three months ago, the Secretary of State told the House:
"we will entirely give up the short-range nuclear capability of the Lance system …the 50th Missile Regiment Royal Artillery will disband. Similarly, we shall give up our nuclear artillery capability." [Official Report, 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 58.]
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Things have changed.
Mr. Kaufman: Of course things have changed. That is the point. The whole point of defence policy is that the Government stick there in the mud not acknowledging that the world situation has changed.
Mr. Robert G.Hughes rose——
Mr. Kaufman: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman—not in any circumstances.
The Secretary of State for Defence likes to accuse the Opposition of advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament. Yet six weeks ago the Secretary of State for Defence
832
announced to the House unilateral British measures to divest this country of nuclear capability, and boasted of it as an achievement.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim rose——
Mr. James Arbuthnot rose——
Mr. Julian Brazier rose——
Mr. Churchill rose——
Mr. Ian Taylor rose——
Mr. Kaufman: As far as I can gather, Mr. Deputy Speaker, every one of the hon. Gentlemen who seek to intervene on me will not be a Member of the House within six months.
Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman knows as little about my constituency as he does about defence policy.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman may not know much about his constituency either. However, since I believe that there is no place like home, I will give way to the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill).
Mr. Churchill: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this country would not have a nuclear deterrent today had a Labour Government been elected in either 1983 or 1987?
Mr. Kaufman: According to the Government's own calculations, we do not have a nuclear deterrent. The Government say that the minimum necessary deterrent for this country is four Tridents, and the number of Polaris warheads is far fewer than four Trident warheads, so I am not too sure of the status of the deterrent at the moment.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
Mr. Kaufman: After first of all advocating Lance missiles and opposing the negotiations on short-range nuclear weapons, the Secretary of State for Defence, after two years, has boasted of getting rid of the Lance missile and of unilaterally getting rid of short-range nuclear weapons. This is the right hon. Gentleman who had the nerve to say in the debate on 22 November:
"It is also important that it should be understood that this country adopts a consistent and relevant approach to nuclear matters.—[Official Report, 22 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 544.]
The right hon. Gentleman said that in the House six months ago. He has stood on his head in nuclear matters, turned a public somersault, yet he has the nerve to give the Opposition lectures on consistency.
The Government not only change their mind on what they regard as basic nuclear defence issues—they do not even understand what to do with the nuclear weapons that they possess or seek to retain. They are led by a Prime Minister so completely illiterate on defence matters that on 11 July last year he challenged the Labour party to state in what circumstances it would use nuclear weapons, when the Secretary of State for Defence today rightly refused to do so and when his Prime Minister also refused to do so on the basis that it would undermine the strategy of deterrence.
Mr. Quentin Davies rose——
Mr. Kaufman: The Government cannot be relied upon to take the lead in international nuclear arms control discussions, but the Labour Government soon to be elected will certainly take that lead.
A great danger arises from the multiplication of ownership of both strategic and short-range nuclear weapons: the danger of proliferation. There is a real peril that weapons will find their way from former Soviet republics to less responsible and more reckless ownership. There is a danger that nuclear scientists, ill paid and uncertain about their future, might be bought up by other countries, taking with them perhaps materials and certainly their know-how. Dick Cheney, United States Defense Secretary, yesterday gave a sombre warning about that possibility.
That is a prospect never before experienced or expected, and we must do all that we can to prevent it from happening. That is why the nuclear non-proliferation treaty must be extended. All the successor Soviet republics, especially those already in possession of nuclear weapons, must be persuaded to sign the non-proliferation treaty. The treaty must be strengthened, with more intrusive inspection. Any country refusing to sign it must not be permitted to buy any nuclear materials even for professedly peaceful purposes.
Mr. Salmond rose——
Mr. Kaufman: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The whole process should be backed up by sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council. It is highly encouraging that China has decided to adhere to the non-proliferation treaty. That gives all five permanent members of the Security Council a common interest in ensuring that the non-proliferation treaty really works.
Mr. Salmond: Would this proposal not carry more weight and have more moral force in terms of reducing escalation and stopping proliferation if the Conservative and Labour parties were not both engaged in a unilateral escalation—by a factor of eight—of the British strategic strike force? What possible contribution can that make to non-escalation and non-proliferation?
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is unacquainted with what we have said about this matter, which is that we would not agree to more warheads on Trident than there are on Polaris. That is the position of the Labour party.
Mr. Alan Clark: It is a new one.
Mr. Kaufman: The Minister of State is wrong. It is not new—we announced it two and a half years ago, so the hon. Gentleman may as well catch up now.
Mr. Alan Clark: It is very reassuring to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the fourth Trident boat in answer to my hon. Friend the member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). Will he, however, clarify the uncertainties that his hon. Friends have introduced on the subject by confirming that the Labour party intends to order a fourth boat but will ensure that it carries only the same number of warheads as the Polaris boats?
Mr. Kaufman: We shall have to wait for the Government to order the fourth boat first. The Government put it out to tender six months ago, and so far they have not placed an order. Indeed, the press expected
834
the Secretary of State to surprise us all by announcing that order today. The Government cannot make up their mind about an order, yet they ask us to say whether we would cancel it.
Mr. Cecil Franks (Barrown and Furness) rose——
Mr. Kaufman: No, no, the Trident programme does not belong to the hon. Gentleman. He has only a few weeks left in the House, during which he would do well to press the Government to provide work for the Barrow shipyard beyond any Trident programme. I have spoken to the work force there and I know that they are desperately worried about the work programme for Barrow even beyond a fourth Trident submarine.
Mr. Franks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman:No.
Mr. Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that I am right in thinking that it is a convention of this House that, when an hon. Member refers to another hon. Member, he must then give way to him, should the latter wish to intervene.
Mr. Kaufman: As I said, the hon. Gentleman has an obligation to his constituents beyond seeking a formula that can get him through to the next general election.
Mr. Franks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you give us a ruling on what I said?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is the point of order?
Mr. Franks: It is the one that I raised a few moments ago.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the point of order, but I was hoping that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) would respond to it.
Mr. Kaufman: I do not respond to points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I will respond to your response to a point of order. I therefore give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Franks: I would usually say that I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he gave way with such a lack of dignity that he does not deserve my gratitude.
The question that I put to the right hon. Gentleman—he can save his hyperbole for the general election—is one that I put twice in writing to the Leader of the Opposition, who refused to answer it. I put the question on behalf of constituents from the shipyard who came to see me at my advice bureau, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to it now. Will the Labour party build the fourth Trident submarine—yes or no?
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman had better ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to build the fourth Trident. He put it out to tender in July and he has not yet placed the order. There are arguments within the defence community about it.
I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman what his right hon. Friend cannot tell him: with or without a fourth Trident, a Labour Government will provide the Barrow shipyard with work equivalent to the fourth Trident. We said that too, in May 1989, when we published our policy document on this matter. It is not new, and if the Minister

835
of State for Defence Procurement had paid serious attention to these matters he would have known this nearly three years ago.
Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Gentleman has given a categorical pledge to the work force at Barrow, who are deeply involved in defence expenditure and whose jobs depend on it. Will he give the same assurance to the workers at Yarrow and at Swan Hunter?
Mr. Kaufman: We gave our assurance to the workers at Barrow in May 1989. If the right hon. Gentleman had studied our policy document he would have known that long ago. It is about time he announced whether he will place the order for the fourth Trident before the general election.
On 22 November, the Secretary of State for Defence was not very clear about this. He said:
"subject to a successful analysis, we shall proceed with the project".—[Official Report, 22 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 542.]
That is not unequivocal. Today the right hon. Gentleman could have told the House that he was placing the order for the fourth Trident. Perhaps he will now do so in an intervention.
Mr. King: As the right hon. Gentleman correctly said, the project went out to tender in July. The tenders have been received and are now being evaluated, and we intend to proceed. We are talking about substantial sums of public money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) has said, we have already given the authority to proceed with long-lead items. We are already building the fourth Trident submarine at this moment, and authority has been granted in line with previous practice. We are dealing with a monopoly supplier—a nuclear submarine cannot go out to competitive tender and we have a heavy responsibility to ensure that the contract is fully evaluated, but we intend to proceed. Will the right hon. Gentleman proceed?
Mr. Kaufman: And that from a right hon. Member whose hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) asked me for a yes or no answer.
We have heard much recently from this Tory Government about the need to prevent nuclear proliferation and to stop Saddam Hussein obtaining nuclear weapons for Iraq. The Foreign Secretary told the Sunday Express this week in a statement that revealed the Tory old Adam beneath that bland image that, with a Labour Government, Saddam
"might think it might be worth taking a risk or two".
We will not accept that kind of slander from a Government and Foreign Secretary who connived at the export from Britain of nuclear weapons materials to Iraq in violation of their own arms embargo. We will not take this sort of slander from a Government and Foreign Secretary who allowed Iraq to obtain from this country components for a supergun that could have fired nuclear warheads. We will not take it from a Government and Foreign Secretary who, in violation of their own arms embargo, permitted the export to Iraq—right up to the day of the invasion of Kuwait—of the following products, as listed in the Department of Trade and Industry memorandum to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
836
I quote only part of the list of what the Government have admitted they allowed to be exported to Iraq in violation of their own arms embargo:
"38 mm signal cartridges; air defence simulator; armoured vehicle spares; armoured vehicle; artillery fire control; artillery body arm; explosives; fast assault craft; guns sound ranging equipment; helicopter engines; hostile fire indicator; laser range finder; long range surveillance; mortar locating radar; naval spares; night vision equipment; night vision goggles; night vision training; pistols; rifles; shotguns; portable explosive detectors; radar systems and equipment; secure phone spares; secure telephone systems; short-burst crypto; small aircraft; speech encryption units; speech scramblers; tank helmets; under water training aids".
How many of those were used against British forces when we were fighting in the Gulf a year ago? Yet these are the people who have the nerve to say that a Labour Government might encourage Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we sat here listening to the Secretary of State for Defence trying to preach to the Labour party? Now that my right hon. Friend has read out that list, it is clear that the Government cannot be trusted.
Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend puts the point with his usual moderation.
The Government, against the advice explicitly given by the Opposition Front Bench, went on granting increasing trade credits to Iraq right up to the invasion of Kuwait. So I say to the Government, "Spare us your sanctimony and your hypocrisy—it is too much to stomach."
Mr. Chris Mullin: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on placing that list on the record. While we are on the subject of selling arms to dictators, is my right hon. Friend aware that last September the Secretary of State was touring Indonesia, one of the bloodiest regimes in the world? On 19 September he had a meeting with the Indonesian dictator, General Suharto; the subject under discussion was the sale of more arms to Indonesia. The massacre in East Timor—only a small part of what has gone on in Indonesia—occurred two months later. What right have those people to lecture us?
Mr. Kaufman: When it comes to these matters, there is about the Government a duplicity which makes one wonder how they have the nerve to bring such a motion before the House. They lack the credentials to take an initiative which will strengthen the non-proliferation treaty. The Labour Government, soon to be elected, certainly will take that lead.
Mr. Winnick rose——
Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to my hon. Friend. After that I must proceed, because I do not want to take as much time as the Secretary of State took.
Mr. Winnick: 1, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on placing on record what the Tory Government have done in regard to exports to Iraq. When I had an Adjournment debate in April 1990, some months before the criminal invasion of Kuwait, I argued that trade credits should be discontinued. The Minister who replied—the present Secretary of State for Health—argued that, if Britain did not export to Iraq. other countries would. So the Tory Government knew full well what was happening.
Mr. Kaufman: I know that my hon. Friend argued that trade credits should be stopped. We did so too from the

837
Front Bench, in particular after the supergun was found and after the case of the nuclear triggers. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told us that we were going over the top in making that request.
Mr. Paul Flynn rose——
Mr. Corbyn rose——
Mr. Kaufman: I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me for not giving way; I have said that I do not want to take any more interventions because of the lack of time.
There is another way in which nuclear proliferation can be prevented. Any country which becomes able to manufacture nuclear weapons needs to test them. so a comprehensive text ban treaty would be of great value. Any disadvantage to powers already in possession of nuclear capability would he more than counter-balanced by the advantage derived from preventing new nuclear powers being created. Such a treaty would need to be backed by international sanctions through the Security Council.
Last September, Mikhail Gorbachev imposed a moratorium on Soviet nuclear testing. That should be the first step to a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, but the Government show no interest whatever in such a move. The Labour Government, soon to be elected, will take the lead on that as well.
While the prevention of nuclear proliferation is the greatest prize, further moves in conventional arms control and negotiated disarmament are essential. Some countries are already making cuts. The Germans have just announced cuts. President Bush is expected to propose cuts and a peace dividend for the United States in his state of the union message later this month. While other Governments, even including the Tory Government, are committed to making cuts, negotiation is the best way of achieving cuts because negotiated agreements open the way to verification.
If the former Soviet republics become involved in new talks on conventional forces in Europe, it may help to allay their mistrust of each other if they observe each other to be part of an arms cutting process. The Tory Government have shown no interest in a renewed CFE process. The Labour Government, soon to be elected, will seek to give a lead in bringing about such negotiations.
The former communist countries, ex-Soviet republics and others, continue to face grave economic problems which threaten their stability and in consequence threaten world stability as well. We believe that the G7 countries, in co-operation with the European Community, should take the initiative in working out a structure plan to assist those countries to rebuild their economies. Such a plan would include financial aid and credits, technological help and assistance in making convertible currencies possible.
The Labour party called for such a new Marshall plan two years ago. We have since been joined in advocating such a scheme, with that name, by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe—only last month—and by Lech Walesa, the President of Poland. The moment we proposed it, that wiseacre the Foreign Secretary scoffed at it. I understand that last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer included the cost of a new Marshall plan in the mythical total from which he derived his estimate of taxation under a Labour Government.
Until discussions take place about such a plan, it is not known how many countries would participate, how much
838
finance would be involved and what the time scale would be. Therefore, it is impossible for any rational person to cost it. That the Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen fit to do so lets us into the secret of how he arrives at his own economic forecasts, which even he has now admitted are wrong.
If our proposal for such a plan had been followed up when we first made it two years ago, real progress could have been made and it would have been possible to avoid the demeaning scenes of Russians scrambling for food belatedly supplied halfway through the winter. The Tory Government show no interest whatever in such long-term planning so the Labour Government, soon to be elected, will give a lead.
The impact of the end of the cold war is being felt not only among our former adversaries; it is hitting hard at home as well. Tory defence cuts, together with technological change in the defence industries, have cost an estimated 74,000 jobs in Britain in the past 18 months. The Defence Manufacturers Association has warned that, as the decade proceeds, 123,000 more defence jobs will he lost. The country cannot afford that additional unemployment, that casting away of scarce and expensive skills, that destruction of a whole sector of our economy. The Tory Government have shown little or no interest in that grave problem. When the defence manufacturers recently sought a meeting with the Prime Minister, they got no response.
It is known that the dialogue between defence manufacturers and the Ministry of Defence is inadequate. How can it be otherwise when the latest White Paper on defence states:
"It is not for the Government to seek to influence such decisions."
Those who work in our defence industries have the right to hope for a more reliable future from a country that relies on their contribution to its defence. The Tory Government show no interest in that problem. The Labour Government, soon to be elected—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] Yes, the Labour party that will be elected as soon as the Conservatives have the nerve to call a general election—why do they run away from it if they are so confident?
We shall set up a defence diversification agency that will work with industry and unions to provide information, advice and retraining to ensure that the country is not deprived of vital skills and talents. We have good reason to know that the leaders of the defence industry will be ready to co-operate with us and with the work of such an agency.
While the Labour party takes a positive approach to the problems that beset us, the Tory Government are bereft of ideas. Nostalgic for the cold war, they can only mouth the slogans of that war, as the Government motion and the Secretary of State and his colleagues do. I resent their untruthful re-writing of the Labour party's commitment to the nation's defence.
The Labour Governments of 1945–1951, 1964–1970 and 1974–1979 were as diligent in providing for this nation's defence as any other Government that there have ever been. I know how the Secretary of State may respond: he may say that the 1945 Government were different from the Labour party facing him today. Of course, he is right—the 1945 Labour Government were the one that the Tories said in the 1945 election campaign would bring the Gestapo to Britain.

839
Whenever the Tories know that they are facing electoral defeat, they dive head first into the political sewer—[Interruption.] I think that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), is having a seizure. The 1945 Gestapo scare has its equivalent in the 1972 scare that Saddam Hussein might take a risk or two. The Tory bogeymen may change, but the Tory lack of principle remains the same.
The Opposition resent even more the Conservative's arrogant assumption that Britain's defence is the property of the Tory party. Labour voters are among the work forces that produce the planes and ships of our forces. Labour voters were among the men who last week were used by the Prime Minister as a background for a photo opportunity at a tank factory. Labour voters were among the men and women who risked their lives, and the men who sacrificed their lives, in the Falklands and the Gulf. Labour voters are among the men who patrol the dangerous—[Interruption.] Labour voters opposed David Irving and all that he stood for—they opposed the Nazism of David Irving.
Labour voters are among the men who patrol the dangerous places in Northern Ireland—risking and sacrificing their lives. When an IRA sniper aims his rifle at a British soldier, he does not pause to check which way he votes in a general election. It is about time that the Tory party, which stages phoney defence debate after phoney defence debate, accepted that patriotism knows no party. We are sick and tired of the Tories claiming that only their supporters are patriots—we are not having that, and they had better stop making the claim.
The Falklands and Gulf wars were not won on the playing fields of Eton, but in the comprehensive schools and colleges of Manchester, Strathclyde, Gwent, Clwyd, Lincolnshire and Somerset. The nation's defence is the concern of all hon. Members and all our people. In a very few months, a Labour Government will be entrusted with the defence of our country and, as it always has in the past, the Labour party will keep faith.
5.15 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: I suppose it was inevitable that such a debate would involve an element of overheating. I do not want to blame any hon. Member for using a touch of hyperbole. I do not think that anyone doubts that most people who vote Labour are patriots, and that is not the point that Conservative Members seek to make. We are talking not about the millions of people who support the Labour party for whatever reason and who are nevertheless thoroughly good patriotic British citizens, but about Members of Parliament who are sent here under false pretences and who, using the public platform that this place provides them, do nothing but talk down our defence and all the efforts made by those very people to whom the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred, thus damaging and undermining the credibility of our defence. To the right hon. Member for Gorton, I say:
"By their fruits ye shall know them",
not by their fine words.
Now that we face an election, the Opposition offer to bail out some defence companies. "We shall take £8 billion
840
off the defence budget," they say, "but no one will get hurt." Their constituents will be guaranteed to keep their defence jobs or be given different jobs as swords are turned into ploughshares. The Opposition's schemes are unquantified—how much money will they need? We do not know, as they do not tell us.
The serious point underlying my comments has been made at length and stands repeating. With the world changing at the speed that it is, we must keep reassessing commitments and what we are planning to do to discover whether our plans still make sense. I believe that nuclear deterrence makes more sense today than ever before.
Some hon. Members have remained consistent and signed the 50-signature Labour motion, stating their utter abhorrence of and opposition to all forms of nuclear weapons. At least their position is consistent. I think that it is wrong, but I understand it and can respect it. It is those who have changed—wriggled and squirmed from positionto position with nothing more than political opportunism in mind—whom one cannot respect.
During the past four years, I have usually followed the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who seems deeply uncomfortable as he delivers speeches that make Labour Back-Bench Members almost retch because they know that the words that he issues on behalf of the Labour party are not those of the true Labour party. One has a certain sympathy for him.
My right hon.Friend the Secretary of State concentrated most of his fire on the Labour party as the only credible alternative Government, but the Liberal Democrats are not very different. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) does not have to worry about those behind him, because there are none. He stands alone in debate after debate constantly trying to correct some of the worst excesses uttered by and voted on by his party's members at conferences. We need to turn an electoral spotlight on the Liberal Democrats' defence policy.
I think that the most significant meeting that is likely to take place this year is the one to take place shortly between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Mr. Yeltsin and President Bush. It will be the first occasion on which a leader of most of the former Soviet Union, having control of a large part of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, will be attending a meeting at which it will be in his own vital interest to ensure that nuclear weapons are kept under control. That has not been the case before. It is arguable that, at the start of the Gorbachev negotiations, he saw the way that things might go and wanted to devise a way of controlling his own nuclear arsenal—but I am not sure that history will bear that out.
As for today, it must be so important for President Yeltsin to make certain that he can reach with the west some accommodation in respect of sensible nuclear reduction, arms control and inspection and verification—so that, with the break-up of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the Commonwealth of Independent States and other republics, he does not face a great danger to himself, and to his own security and stability, in having an uncontrolled nuclear arsenal loose on what was formerly Soviet territory. For the right hon. Member for Gorton to scorn that meeting as an electoral photo opportunity is to demean the whole cause for which those three men will be trying to work together.
The problem with debates about nuclear deterrence over the past 40 years is that no one could say who was

841
right and who was wrong. One body of opinion held that deterrents kept the peace, while another argued that the possession of nuclear weapons posed the threat of war. No one knew the answers, because it was only in a negative sense that one could prove that deterrence was working.
When we reached the end of the cold war—which began with our determination not to let the old Soviet Union get away with introducing a new generation of intermediate nuclear forces into the European theatre and our deployment of cruise, which was a brave political decision made in the teeth of opposition by all the Opposition parties—we were given the answer on whether or not deterrence worked. We were told so not by anyone here but by President Gorbachev himself.
When the INF treaty was concluded and we were able to wipe from the slate a whole range of nuclear weapons for the first time in history, someone asked Gorbachev whether he would have given up his intermediate weapons if we had not deployed cruise. He answered, "Of course not. You do not give up something for nothing." We forced him to do that, and events forced him to do so as well. It was acknowledged that, by negotiating from a position of strength on both sides, one can lower the threshold and reduce strategic, intermediate and sub-strategic weapons. We know that, without them, one has no cards to lay on the table and one can do nothing.
Mr. Corbyn: Can the hon. Gentleman therefore explain why he and his party support the adoption of the Trident submarine system—which represents a massive proliferation of nuclear firepower—in a world that he claims is becoming more peaceful?
Mr. Mates: I do not agree that that does represent proliferation, or that it is a new deployment. It is clear that Polaris is out of date and that, in four or five years' time, it will not be an effective deterrent. Does one replace it or abandon it? The hon. Gentleman and I take a comprehensively different view of those two ends of the argument, but Trident is the minimum deterrent that we can maintain in the present circumstances, and will see strategic deterrence through into the next century. There is no other way that that can be done.
The fact that Trident has a longer range and the capability for carrying more warheads is a function of the development of nuclear technology over the years. One cannot disinvent that technology or build a more primitive weapon—except at prohibitive cost, and there would be no effectiveness at the end of it. Although Trident may be slightly more than is needed or desirable, one must have it if one is to proceed with a deterrent at all. That argument has been rehearsed many times, so I will not repeat it.
Far from knocking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for preparing for what could be one of the most important and significant meetings ever on the future of nuclear deterrence, right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House ought to wish him well and hope that he can persuade Mr. Yeltsin—as I am sure President Bush will try to do—that it is in everyone's interest to get negotiations going again. First, we must introduce a regime of inspection and verification, which will do much to allay the anxieties that Mr. Yeltsin and his helpers must themselves feel about the nuclear weapons that exist in the old republics.
Mr. Benn rose——
Mr. Mates: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Benn: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had finished.
Mr. Mates: Hope springs eternal! I can tell the right hon. gentleman without fear of contradiction that I will be briefer than he will.
As we near the time of a general election, it is as important as it was in the past two or three general elections to make the British public aware of what it is that the various competing parties are offering in defence terms. That is an easy job for us, because we have done so successfully for the past 14 years, with public confidence. We have had difficulties, and are having some now over defence reductions that had to be made as a consequence of changes in the world scene over the past year or two.
There has been a debate in the Conservative party as to whether those reductions have at the margin gone a little too far, or not far enough, and whether the balance is right. Those are perfectly legitimate concerns, and my party continues to debate them openly—but no one doubts our intentions.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence covered comprehensively what Labour is offering, so I will consider instead what is on offer from the Liberal Democrats. While the spotlight has been on the row between the haves and the have-nots in Labour—between those who want to destroy our nuclear defences and those who want to retain some credibility for electoral purposes—the Liberal Democrats have sat in the shadows saying very little, and hoping that what little they do say is not getting too wide an audience.
Some of the remarks made by the Liberal Democrats' leader do not stand up to too much examination. He has the useful asset of being a former Royal Marines captain, and so is thought to be sound on defence. Again,
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
I believe that I can say without any fear of going too far that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) once showed that he sympathised with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, having shared a platform with the Leader of the Opposition at a great rally against the deployment of cruise and Trident.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman reading from a pamphlet?
Mr. Mates: No, I just have a note of some of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil that I will share with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East.
I suppose that one cannot blame the leader of the Liberal Democrats for appearing in the communist Morning Star alongside the then chairman of CND—the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock)—and Labour's parliamentary CND chairman, when he was reported as describing the Trident programme as
"a monstrous folly which we should divest ourselves of as soon as possible."
That did not go down very well with the voters in 1983, so like Labour—but more slowly and less perceptibly—the Liberals decided to shift their position. A brave speech was made by the party's leader at that time, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who said that his party must not keep its unilateralist policies

843
"because I believe they are politically disastrous. The electorate has demonstrated time and time again that, rightly, in my view, they will not vote for any party which dodges its basic responsibility for the security of our country."
However, as that same news item reported, the right hon. Gentleman's standing ovation could not match the ecstatic applause for the right hon. Member for Yeovil, who was the architect of the policy demanding the abandonment of cruise missiles, and was tipped then eventually to replace the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale.
If that is the way in which the good captain of the Royal Marines parades his service, patriotism and commitment to defence, it is a very strange way of doing so. What the Liberal Democrats have in their locker is even better than what Labour has to offer. Labour will slash £8 billion from our defence budget, although it has not told us how that will be done or who will be affected, or what time scale will be involved. The Liberal Democrats have gone one better:they intend to halve the defence budget and, moreover, they have given us a time scale. They say that they will have completed the process by the end of the century.
That means a cut of about £12 billion over eight years—a cut of £1·5 billion each year—and it provides us with a yardstick of sorts. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East intends to speak in the debate, and will tell us what the effect of such a cut would be; or perhaps he will hide behind the saving remarks of the right hon. Member for Yeovil, who observed that it was not a policy but an aspiration.
If the people are to decide to whose care to entrust our defence over the next four or five years, they—and we—need not aspirations, but a policy. If the policy of the Liberal Democrats is indeed to halve the defence budget in eight short years, I need not tell the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East that the effect on our forces—on manpower, equipment, morale and, perhaps above all, defence industries throughout the country—would be catastrophic.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman knows a way in which he could achieve his aim without causing such a result, I suggest that he write it down on one side of a sheet of foolscap and send it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I believe, however, that if a sound method of achieving that aim existed my right hon. Friend would have discovered it: he is, after all, under some pressure himself to cut the defence budget in the present difficult times.
Of course, our friends the Liberal Democrats constantly seek to be all things to all men. As recently as the occasion of the last Scottish by-election, they were saying that we had gone too far with our defence cuts. We have announced a cut from 160,000 men to about 116,000; the so-called Liberal Democrats' White Paper mentions a figure of 73,000. That, of course, does not include the Gordon Highlanders, because there was a by-election in their recruiting area.
How cynical can people get when we are trying to hold a reasoned debate? Ultimately, a judgment will be made about the policy around which the right hon. Member for Gorton skirted for 40 tedious minutes as he tried to challenge us about what we would do. By their fruits ye
844
shall know them. We have looked after the country's defence faithfully and well for the past 12 years and, God willing, we shall do so for the next 12 years.
5.32 pm
Sir Patrick Duffy: Few could have foreseen that the end of the cold war would bring the world not more security, but a great deal less. As the Secretary of State told us at the beginning of the debate, the end of the Soviet Union threatens to bring anarchy and an outburst of tribal passions—"a Yugoslavia with nukes", as James Baker has put it. Given that fearful prospect, we must ber thankful for the loose association of 11 former Soviet republics that is now called the Commonwealth of Independent States, or CIS; but the years of Soviet power have so inoculated each republic against centralisation that co-ordination will be a struggle.
Earlier this month, at Minsk, the 11 leaders failed, for example, to agree to keep a joint conventional military force. Tricky decisions lie ahead about how to split up the 4 million-strong ex-Soviet force. Last week's Ukraine claims to the full Black sea fleet is a case in point.
Last Friday, here in London—as the Secretary of State is only too well aware—Mr. Richard Cheney, the right hon. Gentleman's opposite number in Washington, said that the United States was watching the dispute over the Black sea fleet very carefully, because
"a dispute over military assets could slop over and affect the nuclear industry".
The west is now resigned to having to deal with four nuclear powers on the territory of the old Soviet Union. It is clearly not possible to ask Mr. Yeltsin, the President of the Russian Federation, to destroy his strategic arsenal when he has nuclear-armed China as a neighbour. The other three nuclear republics—the Ukraine, Byelorussia and Kazakhstan—are thought unlikely to disarm completely, because they are fearful of giving Mr. Yeltsin a monopoly of nuclear weapons.
The greatest confusion, however, surrounds the fate of central Asia, which contains five Muslim republics, of 60 million people. If they opt to break for Moscow's control, that will clearly have a profound effect on the middle east and China. Turkey, Iran and Pakistan are all interested in stamping their mark on them. Saudi Arabia has already established financial links with Kazakhstan, and there are disturbing reports of secret visits by delegations from Libya, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia to Dushanbe, the capital of Muslim Tajikistgan. All are reported to be interested in buying enriched uranium from the republic, which has deposits of the ore and houses the former Soviet Union's first uraniun enriching plant. Does that portend an Islam bomb?
The major concern of the West is to ensure that nuclear weapons are kept safe from the turmoil that threatens to engulf the area of the old Soviet Union. As we have already been reminded in today's debate, only last month General Vladimir Lobov, then chief of general staff, pronounced during a visit to London that—as he had personally assured me in Madrid in October—he was entirely satisfied with the nuclear safeguards covering the arsenal of 27,000 warheads. Within 24 hours of his return home, however, General Lobov was sacked and replaced by General Viktor Samsonov. That added to uncertainty in the west about who was really in command of the nuclear weapons.

845
How can there be effective central control of the systems when there is no longer a real political centre? That is not to say that Armageddon can be instigated by a group bent on mischief simply through the pressing of a button; as the Secretary of State knows, it does not work like that. The chain of control is too complex and too sophisticated. Unfortunately, the more sophisticated safety measures are found only on the more modern weapons. More disturbing are recent reports that Russia and the republics will run out of money: the Secretary of State has already given us an instance of that. Soon, there may no longer be any cash to pay the armed forces, or to buy food imports.
The military-industrial complex, which may account for as much as half of the Soviet economy, is already starting to fall apart. Before Christmas, the head of Soviet military counter-intelligence, Major-General Yuri Bulygin, warned that safety standards were falling because of instability in the demoralised armed forces. While long-range strategic weapons may be secure, that is not necessarily true of shorter-range tactical weapons. Many of those are old, and may not even be as well safeguarded as the more potent strategic weapons.
The repatriation of nuclear systems—strategic and tactical—to, say, the territory of the Russian federation could be both difficult and dangerous. There would be a problem of storage, as existing facilities are overloaded. Even destroying them on the spot would be very expensive, and would probably require western help.
The best technical measures to control nuclear weapons cannot withstand the complete breakdown of social organisation. Instead of just having many hungry people, the Commonwealth of Independent States may soon have many well-armed but hungry people who may be tempted to sell their weapons and skills. As a result of such a black-market brain drain, a growing number of countries in the third world may acquire weapons of mass destruction. Thus, at a stroke, the collapse of the Soviet Union will have unravelled all the work of the non-proliferation treaties. Critically, at a time when smaller nations, from Iraq to Pakistan, have circumvented the cartel to the very edge of nuclear capability, a host of potential nuclear mini-powers has appeared on our horizon.
What can be done? First, as with the Germans, there must be more active involvement in eastern Europe and the CIS—prodding here and hand-holding there. Secondly, in exchange for western aid, technology, and expertise, there must be a binding agreement on the political control of nuclear weapons within the CIS. Thirdly, safety procedures, including physical measures as well as codes, must be strengthened in order to reduce the risk of unauthorised use of nuclear weapons.
Fourthly, last month's NATO meeting in Brussels with representatives from several of the new republics must be repeated on a regular basis, and the emphasis on deterrence must be replaced increasingly by concern with disarmament, restructuring and co-operative arms control measures.
Fifthly, signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty have a chance to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency when its board of governors meets in February. Sixthly, there are two favourable domestic factors—the only constant factors—in the chaos that was
846
once the Soviet Union. The first is the red army and the second is the character of the peoples that made up the Soviet Union, especially the Russians.
The military was always the least corrupt and morally compromised of the pillars of the Soviet state, and the officer corps remains, even now, fundamentally honest and less cynical than any other section of society. Therefore, I believe that we should intensify the dialogue that began between the Soviet army and its western counterparts during the Gorbachev years.
Incidentally, that was preceded by a dialogue involving NATO parliamentarians—notably, the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Mr. George), the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and his colleagues on the Select Committee. They all entered into dialogue even before our professional colleagues did so in Brussels and at other command centres. They had discussions with senior political and military Russians and with senior political and military figures throughout the Warsaw pact while it was still in being. Such dialogue forged real friendships at a high level, and I believe that they are much valued throughout what used to be the Warsaw pact as well as the Soviet Union. I hope that such friendships will be maintained and, where possible, intensified.
The other factor is the character of the peoples of the old Soviet Union. Their capacity for endurance is remarkable. Without it, they would not have survived the war years—they could not have overcome the German onslaught—much less the trials of the past 70 years. Now, their ability to endure what western Europeans might find unendurable may be the salvation of Russia.
It is likely that the west will have to rethink its entire defence strategy, giving increased emphasis to anti-missile defence. In the new environment, can we be sure that the Trident system—however essential its deterrent value—will continue to head our strategic priorities?
5.44 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy). As he pointed out, in company with other right hon. and hon. Members, he has played anotable part in forging relationships with the eastern European countries—former members of the Warsaw pact—and leading members of the now disbanded Soviet Union. Such work, although at a low level compared with that done by Ministers, has played a useful part in building confidence between what were, at that time, two opposing blocks. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a continuing role at that level, and I believe that his suggestions should be given close and detailed attention by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
During his speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly drew attention to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and hinted at other means of destruction which are also a cause of growing concern. He also said—I support his view—that for the foreseeable future we shall need a strong nuclear defence. It is a necessary and vital part of our defence structure and the defence structure of the western world.
I understand that that is also the official policy of those on the Opposition Front Bench. To be fair, their

847
conversion lacks the fervour normally associated with converts, possibly because their conviction is muted by the memory of many of them—both on the Front and Back Benches—that they have devoted the best part of their adult lives to unilateral disarmament. That is why we continue what some people say is a wrangle.
It is important that, in debates such as this, we should test the sincerity and devotion of what is often professed from the Opposition Front Bench, especially by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), that there is no difference between the two Front Benches. There is a difference and, although we regret it, we believe that it will continue. Today, as often before, little has been said from the Back Benches that restores my conviction that, if there were to be a Labour Government, they would have the guts to go ahead with the policies that we know are right for this nation.
My purpose is not to dwell on the integrity of the Opposition and their defence policy. I have a high regard for the talents of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). He speaks with knowledge and a great conviction as a member of the North Atlantic Assembly. However, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) that there is a Janus aspect—it is appropriate that the debate should take place in January—to the Liberal Democrat approach. They look both ways.
It is not credible to say that they are committed to a fourth Trident boat and that they support that aspect of nuclear policy, while muttering loudly and clearly to the wider public that their aspiration is to cut defence by 50 per cent. in the next decade. When politicians talk that way, some people believe them. I hope that, in due course, the views of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East will prevail, because it is not in the interests of our nation or Parliament that we should be divided on this point.
My purpose is to look at the international aspects of nuclear weapons and follow some of the points made by the hon. Member for Attercliffe. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drew our attention to those nations that are seeking to develop nuclear weapons, he underlined the fact that the passing of the cold war still leaves us facing a greater variety of potential threats to our security and that, in some ways, that creates a far more volatile and dangerous situation than we have faced before.
Whether or not it is more dangerous and volatile—I believe that it is—I am sure of one thing: that we got into the habit of knowing how to second-guess the Russians. We began to learn how to out-bluff them and how to face them down. We began to develop confidence and a unity developed between the United States and the western European nations. That was one of the great achievements of statesmanship in the post-war world.
What worries me is that, in facing a new situation in which we are not sure where the next threat is coming from, we shall not have the mechanism in place to deal effectively with the problems. Therefore, the ruthlessness of Saddam Hussein, the unpredictability and exotic behaviour of some of today's leaders and the instability of
848
so many countries pose new and more threats of a different type from those which we have faced and with which we became used to dealing after world war two.
The most dangerous aspect is that the ambitions of so many of today's world leaders are fuelled by nationalist aspirations and sometimes by religious fervour, which supports the belief that the possession of chemical and even biological weapons will further their economic and political aims. That is sheer lunacy.
Nearly half a century has elapsed since the end of world war two, when it seemed to Britain that our very existence depended on developing weapons which would ensure our survival. Who would doubt that our judgment on that occasion was right? We had the knowledge, which was confirmed after the war, that our main enemy—Nazi Germany—was developing nuclear weapons and was soon to be followed by the Soviet Union, which did the same.
Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir G. Johnson Smith: I shall give way, but not for long. I do not want to disrupt the debate, because I want to allow other hon. Members to speak.
Mr. Flynn: How will the hon. Gentleman dissuade the countries from what he rightly describes as their lunacy by adopting the posture urged on us today, which would involve our not reducing arms but increasing them?
Sir G. Johnson Smith: I had set up my argument to deal with that very problem, and I respect the hon. Gentleman for asking the question. I see a reduction in our nuclear weapons and in our reliance on them, which is why, for example, the Government have announced that we shall withdraw the use of nuclear artillery, and that no surface ships will be equipped with nuclear weapons. There is in train a massive reduction in nuclear weapons, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred and in which we are already playing our part.
However, as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, we face the daunting task of persuading the nations that were not threatened as we were that it is not in their interests or in those of world peace to initiate nuclear programmes just as—as I said earlier—the existing nuclear powers have begun to contain and reduce their nuclear arsenals, which will lead to their virtual elimination together with that of other weapons of mass destruction such as chemical weapons. I refer, of course, to the agreement on chemical weapons made between the United States and the Soviet Union.
It is regrettable that, at this time in the evolution of the relationship between the democracies and the former communist powers of eastern Europe, the situation has been complicated by the emerging capability of some countries outside Europe to develop or to buy at cut prices delivery systems using other forms of mass destruction. The nations which are behind their regional rivals in developing a nuclear capability can—as we know—acquire a chemical capability as an equivalent deterrent which is cheaper and easier to make.
That is why I believe that chemical weapons delivered by ballistic missiles are such an attractive proposition to nations in the middle east which are concerned about Israel's nuclear ability. Therefore, the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and missile technologies is closely

849
linked. That poses a major challenge to our efforts to stop these forms of proliferation. If we are to succeed, we must deal with all the problems simultaneously.
The verification and other control procedures are inadequate. We know that, but we also know that they pose enormous technical and financial problems. No one should underestimate them, but we must—and I believe we can—do better. The common denominator of all the systems is the delivery system—the ballistic missile.
The belated discovery of the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme has shown that the International Atomic Energy Agency non-proliferation safeguards are not up to the job. Therefore, I hope that, when the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is reviewed—as it shortly will be—the Government will urge that ballistic missiles be brought under the control of the NPT formula and that they will back the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with increased powers of surveillance.
As we know, export controls and diplomacy can delay missile projects, but they need to be reinforced. That is why some nations drop a few not very well disguised hints that they are within reach of developing a nuclear capability, but never openly admit that they have already become nuclear powers. They know that, if they were to do so, they would be in breach of the NPT and would be subject to enormous financial and economic pressures. Many hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Attercliffe—referred to that issue. Any decisions taken on this front to tighten the nuclear non-proliferation treaty must have the force of economic trade pressures behind them.
The trouble with schemes designed to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is that it is difficult for the haves to persuade the have-nots. It is fundamental to the success of arms control that the haves are seen to be negotiating reductions in good faith. The recent agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union—not only those involving nuclear and chemical weapons—are good examples of what I have in mind, but we shall need to move beyond such bilateral agreements.
To succeed in reducing proliferation as well as cutting the level of nuclear and chemical weapons will require from all the nations a degree of international co-operation and intrusion into their defence, industrial and research establishments which some will certainly not find it easy to accept. Nor will they find it easy to accept the cost not only of inspection but of the safe disposal of chemicals and of nuclear materials.
The destruction of Soviet chemical weapons was due to begin at the end of 1992 under the terms of the American-Soviet agreement. However, the Soviet Union has not yet begun—it cannot start. It has no place to put the material to be destroyed and, if it does find a special site, as we hope it will, it will cost about 3 billion roubles. That is the estimate of one of the committees of the North Atlantic Assembly.
It is also estimated that the building of the facilities to destroy that category of weapons alone will be 10 times as expensive as the creation of the weapons themselves. The verification of the United States/Soviet nuclear agreement, if it is carried out effectively in the first year as promised, will be about $1 billion. Clearly, the costs will have to be shared between nations if a system of international verification is to succeed. That is why I welcome the
850
assurance by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that it is the Government's intention to help with those costs.
We know that the European Community, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, NATO and the other bodies can play a part in monitoring the trade of weapons of mass destruction and in making agreements, but if there is to be a widespread system of verification which will have the confidence of all the nations with their widely differing cultures and political traditions, our country must press hard to put such matters increasingly within the ambit of the United Nations, of a United Nations agency working to internationally agreed procedures. That point was well and truly recognised by our Prime Minister who got the United Nations to increase its role last year when he put forward the idea of a register of conventional arms sales. We should take the initiative a stage further; that is the only way in which to ensure that the haves and have-nots work together in good faith. That is beginning to happen in Europe.
The former Warsaw pact countries do not fear the NATO alliance: they even want to join it. The republics in the new commonwealth which was the Soviet Union are heirs to the arms and inspections agreements that have already been negotiated. All those are the first steps, and they are important. They have done a great deal to bridge the gap that once divided us, and what is being done in Europe can be done globally.
6 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Notwithstanding the latter part of the remarks by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), I will begin by paying him a compliment. He may recall that, approximately 18 months ago, on an occasion similar to this, he said to the House that the pace of change until then had seemed breathtaking, but that it was nothing compared with the even swifter pace of change which was likely in the future. If he had told the House then that, within 18 months, the Soviet Union would be no more, none of us would have thought that that was a credible proposition. He has certainly been proved right, because the speed of change has accelerated far more than anyone could have expected.
The hon. Member for East Hampshire could have used a better source of information than the recently published Conservative party pamphlet, which I have had the opportunity to read. It is a rather tawdry little missive. I hope that, in future, he will find authorities for his propositions which carry a little more dignity. As he has heard me say many times before in the House, the proper approach to the changing nature of our defence requirement is to have a full-scale defence review and to follow that with an analysis of what our obligations are and are likely to be. That will determine the military resources necessary to meet those obligations, which in turn will determine what financial resources are necessary to meet the military resources. That is also the view of my colleagues in the House of Commons.
The 50 per cent. figure is an objective. However, I must make it clear—I hope that the hon. Member for East Hampshire will accept this—that it is entirely subordinate to the requirement to provide for the United Kingdom a

851
defence policy that recognises the changing nature of the defence obligations to which we are likely to be subject in future.
I may have difficulty sitting here with no one behind me. I recall that, in the days when the hon. Member for East Hampshire ploughed a lonely furrow against the poll tax and when young men used to be sent in to ambush him at every opportunity, he made a point of making his speeches from the precise position in which he is sitting at the moment, to ensure that his back was no more exposed than his front.
I feel a sense of disappointment that there is nothing in the motion about how we might limit nuclear proliferation. I understand that it is wrong to be too literal about the terms of the motion on an occasion such as this, but I feel a sense of disappointment that there is nothing about how we might limit nuclear proliferation; nothing about how to continue the process of multilateral nuclear disarmament—the process begun in the INF treaty and carried on by the signing of the START treaty in July between the United States and the Soviet Union—nothing about the contribution that the test ban treaty might make to discouraging the spread of nuclear weapons; nothing about how to persuade the emerging republics of the Soviet Union that their security need not depend on the possession of strategic nuclear weapons; and nothing about how we may inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons technology or the sale of tactical weapons out of the deepening disarray which now grips what was once the Soviet military machine. As the debate has demonstrated, those are matters on which there is substantial consensus in the House. It is a pity that the terms of the motion were not drawn to attract that consensus.
We cannot sensibly debate the issues raised by the motion without some discussion of the nature of nuclear deterrence. There is no intrinsic merit in nuclear weapons. Their utility is the perception they raise in the minds of a potential adversary. We all know that nuclear deterrence fails as a strategy if the weapons that lie behind it ever have to be used. Nuclear deterrence depends for its success on uncertainty, not about the availability of the weapons, but about their use.
To try to define more precisely the circumstances in which one would use nuclear weapons is extremely unwise. Here I part company from the approach of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who seemed to be anxious to try to establish the circumstances in which a Secretary of State for Defence might feel compelled to use nuclear weapons.
Mr. George Robertson: The very opposite.
Mr. Campbell: I was present for that part of the debate. If my understanding is wrong, I have no doubt that I will be better informed after reading Hansard.
What is clear beyond question is that it is wrong to say in which circumstances one would use nuclear weapons. Apart from anything else, that is almost certainly an invitation to an adversary to press on to the point at which nuclear weapons might be used.
Similarly, to announce a policy of no first use seems to be wholly contradictory to the theory of deterrence. Such a declaration, even if made in good faith, is worthless. It is unenforceable and can easily be abandoned without
852
notice. It embraces not deterrence, but retaliation. It accepts by implication that deterrence may fail. It may provoke an adversary to test the sincerity of a declaration of no first use.
Theories of deterrence within NATO have been the subject of considerable change. First there was mutual assured destruction—I always thought that it was aptly referred to by the acronym MAD—which was replaced by flexible response. That theory was displaced by the idea that nuclear weapons should only be weapons of last resort, and that in turn has been replaced by the theory of minimum deterrence. As the nature and the scale of the threat have changed, so has the doctrine.
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. Minimum deterrence means minimum in relation to the nature and scale of the weapons to be deployed. It cannot mean minimum in relation to the availability of the deterrent. A deterrent that is not constant may induce in an adversary a willingness to take risks in the hope that it is either inoperable or unavailable. In that real sense, a deterrent that is not constant may prove destructively destabilising.
If we are to have a strategic nuclear deterrent which is constant in the terms in which I have sought to define the word, we require a four-boat submarine fleet to bring it about. Before the topic for today's debate was announced, I had arranged to visit Barrow-in-Furness and Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. so that I could be better informed about the circumstances of that company.
Apart from the impression of extraordinary realism on the part of the confederation of trade unions and of the management, whom I met, the clear impression that I took away from the meeting was that, although people were clearly concerned about the provision of employment and about the continuation of the company, they did not see surface vessels, for example, as a substitute for the fourth submarine. They believed that, without the fourth submarine, which would have consequences for their business, they would be precluded from becoming involved in surface vessels.
The right hon. Member for Gorton appeared to suggest that, if there was no fourth submarine, it would be the policy of an incoming Labour Government—if that were the flavour of the month in which the election was held—to provide work for VSEL. My impression—the right hon. Member for Gorton can check this if he likes—is that those responsible for the conduct of the management of VSEL are more than doubtful about the company's ability to survive without the submarine.
Mr. Douglas: I may have been completely wrong, but I thought that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was going a little further than the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting, by guaranteeing employment for the work force—more than 11,000 people, if I am right. Perhaps when the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) sums up, he will alter one letter—change "B" to "Y"—and we will get the same guarantee for Yarrow.
Mr. Campbell: That missile was aimed not so much at me as at those on the Labour Front Bench. I think that I will keep my head down and leave those concerned to have the necessary exchanges in due course. I would merely reinforce my point that the clear indication that I took away from my meetings in Barrow-in-Furness yesterday was that, without the fourth submarine, the survivability of VSEL is very much in question. Both management and unions told me, without any question of its being confidential, that, if the number of employees ever falls below 5,000, the question of the yard's continuation will become a matter of acute importance.
Mr. Franks: The hon. and learned Gentleman was here an hour or so ago, and no doubt heard the exchange between the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and myself. So far as I am aware, the right hon. Gentleman has not visited Barrow during my eight and a half years as an hon. Member or ever—unless he has come in the middle of the night.
I wonder whether, during the hon. and learned Gentleman's visit yesterday, representatives of management took him into the Devonshire dock ship hall. If so, no doubt he was taken to the ninth floor and could look down and see what was being built. Can you confirm—[HON. MEMBERS: "He."] Can the hon. and learned Member confirm that, as the Secretary of State said earlier, the fourth Trident submarine is currently under construction and is roughly one quarter built already?
Mr. Campbell: I understand that to be the case, although I have to say that I was not invited to view the submarine under construction because security clearance had not been obtained sufficiently far in advance. I may have a somewhat sinister appearance, and for that reason may not be regarded as someone to be trusted, although, as a member of the North Atlantic Assembly, I was invited to inspect one of the French nuclear submarines. Clearly, the French authorities trust me more than the Ministry of Defence does.
The agreements at Maastricht have confirmed two things—first, the continuing primacy of NATO for the foreseeable future; secondly the acceptance by the countries of the European Community of an organic growth in the nature of the defence relationships between them.
NATO is likely to remain a nuclear alliance for the foreseeable future. The British contribution to NATO's nuclear armaments is not, nor need it be, designed to meet all the eventualities that NATO might face. Neither in NATO nor in the Community are we the only country that possesses nuclear weapons. If NATO's doctrine is truly one of minimum deterrence, surely it is not necessary for the United Kingdom to contribute at every level. That is why I see no reason to increase the number of warheads on the Trident system, if deployed, beyond those of the Polaris system which it is said to replace—I shall come back to the question of replacement in a moment.
If Polaris currently provides an effective contribution to minimum nuclear deterrence within NATO, why is it necessary to increase the number of warheads available with Trident by what may be a factor of three? In some respects, it is misplaced to call Trident a replacement. The range of Polaris missiles is 4,600 km, whereas the range of Trident missiles is 9,700 km. Trident missiles are generally regarded as more accurate.
854
Moreover, Polaris warheads are not independently targetable, whereas the warheads on Trident missiles are. That means that, if one adopts the approach that I have urged on the House and on the Secretary of State in the past—that we should deploy no more warheads on the Trident system than are available on the Polaris system—it would be able to hit 192 targets instead of 64.
The Government's answer to the proposition that we should not deploy any more warheads than are available on Polaris is that, because of the increasing sophistication of defensive systems, we need the enhanced capability that Trident possesses. But those defensive systems are to be found around Moscow, and the question that we must ask ourselves—even taking the Government's position as the correct one—is whether the United Kingdom, as a member of NATO, requires a strategic system with which, acting alone and independently, it can penetrate the defence system round Moscow.
To put the question another way, do we foresee circumstances in which the United Kingdom, acting independently, would want to fire strategic nuclear weapons at Moscow? I cannot conceive that the answer to either of those questions can be in the affirmative. In my judgment, the United Kingdom's contribution to NATO's doctrine of minimum deterrence can be met if we limit the number of warheads on the Trident system to be deployed.
I am also of the view that NATO's philosophy of minimum deterrence can be met without the United Kingdom having recourse to a tactical air-to-surface missile at a cost now put at around £3 billion. I understand that a decision on that has yet to be made. If what Ministers say is to be accepted, such a decision may be made towards the end of the century. There may be a NATO case for a tactical air-to-surface missile, although I think that a number of questions require answers.
First, in the absence of the doctrine of flexible response, is a tactical air-to-surface missile required? Secondly, being deployed on aircraft, is not TASM vulnerable to pre-emptive strike? Thirdly, did not the Gulf war show that the power of conventional weapons is so great that any so-called benefit from TASM can be more than outweighed by the use of conventional means? I can see no merit in the case for the United Kingdom deploying TASM. In the end, that case must depend on the proposition that all the NATO strategic and tactical nuclear weapons will be an insufficient deterrent without the addition of a united Kingdom tactical weapon. I beg leave to doubt the validity of that proposition.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): May I seek to clarify the hon. and learned Gentleman's thinking? I have heard him argue the case against TASM. Will he tell the House whether, in addition to what he said against TASM, he is saying that a sub-strategic weapon of any kind is unnecessary from the point of view of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Campbell: From the point of view of the United Kingdom, yes. I argue that the United Kingdom is a member of NATO, an alliance that is likely to be a nuclear alliance for the foreseeable future, and that there is no justification for the United Kingdom endeavouring to provide that alliance with nuclear weapons at every level. That seems a well-founded proposition.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: I should like to make some progress if I may. I have given way once or twice, and I know that other hon. Members want to speak before the witching hour of seven o'clock.
It is clear that the end of what came to be called the east-west confrontation has given rise to a whole range of new threats. It is clear from what has been said today that several hon. Members recognise that fact. Those threats are based on the nuclear proliferation that has been caused by the break-up of the Soviet Union and by the access to nuclear technology that several other countries have been able to achieve.
Following the successful containment of the Soviet empire, it seems to me that our efforts must be directed towards non-proliferation. In that respect, I agree with what the right hon. Member for Gorton said, in a particularly powerful and appropriate passage of his speech. The one thing we know is that we cannot afford a rash of new nuclear states. In the short term, it may not be possible to prevent some of the former Soviet republics from obtaining a nuclear capability, but surely it is essential to persuade them to subscribe, and to continue to subscribe, to a strategic-weapons centralised commandand-control system. We should be encouraging them to destroy both strategic and tactical weapons, and should be giving them the means to do so.
The scale of the problem with which we are dealing may be reflected in two figures. First, some estimate that there are 14,000 tactical nuclear weapons in the Commonwealth of Independent States. Secondly, it is estimated that there are 5,000 scientists—people previously in the employment of the Soviet Union—with experience in plutonium separation and uranium enrichment. One recalls that, after the second world war, the United States was careful to ensure that Dr. von Braun was transported to the United States-not because of any inherent qualities of personality but because he was the leading exponent of rocket technology. [Interruption.]
Mr. Douglas: It was not Ron Brown.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The names may sound similar, but I fear that comparisons are not easy to draw.
Under the somewhat frenetic stimulus of the impending general election, our own domestic concerns may seem increasingly urgent, but this debate may justify the conclusion that our safety is more likely to be assured by vigorous pursuit of the goals of non-proliferation and arms reduction in the international arena.
6.23 pm
Mr. David Howell: Having listened to the expose of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), I cannot say that I have a crystal-clear understanding of Liberal Democrat defence policy. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman raised some very interesting points. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) unkindly said that Liberal policy was two-faced. Having heard the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that it would be quite an achievement for the Liberal Democrats to have just two faces. There is some work to be done before Liberal policy reaches that stage.
I fully concede that, in the past, one of the problems in debating nuclear deterrence has been that the issues are so fiendishly complex that it is very difficult to state them at
856
all. It is a relief that, on this occasion and in these times, one issue stands out with stark clarity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave an assessment of the dangers in the world today, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who is extremely well versed in these matters, made a very informative speech. My right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman made the point that there could not be a worse time to contemplate weakening our nuclear defences or our commitment to them. It is crystal clear that, because of the terrifying vista of proliferation, now is the time to keep our nuclear defences and to ensure that they are totally effective. If our policies were not to succeed, we could be on the verge of a quantum leap in nuclear proliferation.
The number of nations with nuclear or ballistic missile capacity and the ability to gain access to plutonium warheads or enriched nuclear warheads could be about to double or treble. This is what, 20 or 30 years ago, defence and policy experts saw as a nightmare. The stark scene was set with great calmness and clarity by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by other hon. Members. It is one for which we have to plan with the utmost care.
Reference has fairly been made to another obvious point: that there must be some evolution of the nuclear doctrine of the west. Although there has not been final confirmation, it looks as though the context has changed totally. We are facing entirely new conditions and new threats. As the hon. Member for Attercliffe said in what was almost an aside, it may well be that, given the fact that threats could come from all sorts of areas and in all sorts of ways that we cannot yet quantify, the need will be not for major cuts in our defence spending but for expenditure in that voraciously expensive area of defence—effective anti-missile systems. In the world into which we are moving, people will rightly want to feel that their nations are absolutely secure against totally unpredictable and wild acts of international banditry. It is into anti-missile defences that we shall have to put many more resources.
Whether or not that is the right way forward, however, it seems to me that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) missed a point again and again. It is a point that his hon. Friends missed in the early 1980s. I refer to the fact that all improvements and other changes in the nuclear climate—all effective means of heading off the horror of proliferation, such as the achievements, jointly with the former Soviet empire, in winding down nuclear defences—are the result of operating from a position of strength. All the successful moves have resulted from negotiation from a position of strength. If that is not understood—and I fear that Labour Front Bench Members still do not understand it—those who see things differently would condemn this nation and the rest of the western alliance to ineffectiveness in dealing with the terrors and horrors of the spread of nuclear weapons.
The new dangers and challenges have been mentioned by almost all hon. Members who have spoken, so I shall not refer to them in detail. There has crept up on us the prospect that Iraq, probably Iran and perhaps even Algeria—countries which were dismissed as being incapable of producing ballistic missiles or nuclear warheads—have a very advanced capability. In addition, the break-up of the Soviet Union raises the prospect of proliferation and of the export of warheads, equipment and personnel. That is something of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminded us. In that area, therefore, our mission is to do everything possible, by

857
means of our own policies and strategies and those of our NATO and other western allies, to discourage proliferation and, where possible, to encourage denuclearisation.
A number of the states which have succeeded the Soviet Union have said that they want to be non-nuclear. However, I am not hopeful on that front, and I think that the same can be said of the hon. Member for Attercliffe. The independent states may say that non-nuclear status is their intention, but Kazakhstan, for instance, is in what amounts to a nuclear neighbourhood of central Asia. It is surrounded by countries—Pakistan, India, China and Russia—with nuclear weapons openly developed or with the prospect of achieving nuclear weapons. It could be a very long time before the understandable aspiration of those new democracies, or semi-democracies, to be non-nuclear powers is realised. That is one challenge, anyway.
The next challenge—in a way, it is the biggest and the most immediate—is to help to locate, control and destroy thousands of nuclear weapons, as required not only by START but by the September Bush-Gorbachev proposals for non-strategic weapons and by the aspirations of those countries. Hon. Members are right to remind the House that those weapons are not just the new ones that are easily coded and described, and for which procedures are laid down, but old nuclear weapons as well.
We do not even know the number. We talk about 27,000 or 30,000 strategic and non-strategic weapons being around somewhere in the established Soviet system. It makes us warm to feel that Marshal Shaposhnikov and his colleagues have a location not only for the strategic weapons being controlled through their authorising and enabling codes—incidentally, we do not know whether they are authorising or enabling—but for all non-strategic weapons, both the warheads and the launchers, which I understand tend to be kept by different branches of the former Soviet armed forces.
On top of that, we do not really know—and we do not know whether the former Soviet command in control of communications systems knows—where all the older weapons are. We know by comparison that, since 1945, the United States has manufactured some 60,000 to 65,000 nuclear weapons, of which it has about 18,000 to 20,000 outstanding. Over the years, it has had a programme of, first, maintenance and control and, secondly, destroying, degrading, deactivating and dismantling nuclear weapons. Has that gone on in the successor states? Has it gone on in the Soviet Union? We have no idea. Until we establish that point, the danger of some of those warheads going for a walk and ending up in utterly irresponsible hands is very acute.
We are now entering—I detect almost a lack of urgency even in policy-making circles—a terrifying transition period in these matters. What existed before in the united Soviet Union was not just a few generals and a few little bags with code numbers. It was a huge complex of nuclear fabrication—the making of rich uranium, of course, and plutonium, and the component parts, the gigantic culture of science behind all that, and the vast knowledge and organisation required to maintain all those weapons under the control of the custody cadres—the custody troops, as opposed to the launch troops.
I refer also to the huge organisation and bureaucracy required for the transport and movement of those equipments and weapons, which at one time covered not just the Soviet Union but the whole of eastern Europe. It
858
is possible, although I agree that it is anecdotal, that some tactical warheads are still in areas of eastern Europe and have not finally left. Above all, there is the vast complexity of the control system at all levels, both for the strategic weapons which are in the four major republics and for the tactical weapons which we now know are spread over many more republics.
That is what existed before. It is too optimistic to assume that that system still exists. If it existed before, it depended upon central political authority. We know for a fact that central political authority does not exist. There was the Minsk agreement that the three signing-up members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, and perhaps Kazakhstan, would carry on with the stategic nuclear control system in the hands of the military, Marshal Shaposhnikov, and the four political heads of the four states.
We have no guarantees at all of the huge complex system which has to lie behind an effectively maintained system of control over a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, some new, some old, some well maintained, some deteriorating, some under close guard near Moscow, and some perhaps lost away under guard or perhaps not under adequate guard in faraway places. We have no guarantee that the politico-technical system required to contol all that exists any more. In fact, it is almost certain that it does not exist.
That leads me to the view that, when thinking about maintaining and being committed to nuclear deterrence—there was never a more important time to do that—we should also combine it with the most accelerated and intense efforts to work with our other NATO allies, including the Americans, in coming to grips with the problem in the successor states. Mr. Bartholomew, the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Defense, has gone with a team to Kiev, Alma Ata and other places. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will travel in that direction at the weekend. The American Senate has had some very good debates on the subject. After talking earlier about a $ billion sum that it wanted to devote to resources for coming to grips with the control of that splintered and dispersed vast arsenal, it voted an initial $400 million, which is still a vast resource.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will confirm that the Americans have invited their NATO allies to begin to form a coalition force—an international task force—this time, not for getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait but for bringing together all the nuclear expertise of NATO to ensure that the crumbling system of nuclear command and control in the former Soviet Union is replaced extremely quickly by effective systems which can maintain control of the system before real irresponsibility and real danger creep in.
What is needed over and above strengthening the territorial defence of this nation—as I suggested in my remarks about improved anti-missile defence, perhaps we should do more in that direction—is, of course, that the successor republics carry through their commitment to stick to the START provisions. It looks as though they have done that. They need also to carry through their commitment to stick to the principles outlined at the Bush-Gorbachev meeting in September 1991, which in theory was far-sighted in its undertakings and its verbal side as it pointed to a huge mutual destruction of non-strategic weapons.

859
We do not know whether any capacity exists to carry that out. We shall not know, until we ourselves assist in the forming of task forces, whether forces are equipped and have the resources to move all those weapons to deactivation and dismantling sites. We do not know whether the political resources exist, even if politicians are found in Alma Ata, Kiev and Moscow to agree to the fulfilment of START and the Bush-Gorbachev deal, and whether their political power extends to actually achieving all that at present.
There is a problem about sending vast teams of people to remote cities. They sit in hotels and discover that they cannot find anybody in charge of programmes. However, I do not think that that should deter us for one moment. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to chair a Security Council meeting at the end of the month to try to focus on those matters, on how the new successor states fit into the international order, on how Russia takes its place as a member of the Security Council, and on what that will do to relationships with the other successor state countries. That is very good, but I urge my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and our right hon. Friends to accept that the issue is by far the greatest and most dangerous issue facing the world at this moment.
The urgency is immense, and the task forces should now be mobilised. I know that the cry "public expenditure" goes up, but heaven knows, the prize is very great. If we fail to prevent proliferation and ensure that safe systems are in place, defence expenditure further down the line would dwarf anything that we might have to spend to get the task forces moving. We must also ensure that all successor states sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As we know from the Iraq experience, that treaty is not good enough. The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, which may be a worthy organisation, failed in the Iraq case. It did not spot what was going on. Clearly, the whole treaty needs beefing up very fast indeed. That, too, should be done not in a few months, not when we have considered all the factors, but now—at this moment—before the equipment begins to fall into other hands, as it will.
As has been said, if some of the Muslim states in the transcaucasian republics find such equipment on their soil, their incentive to hand it over to Moscow is low whereas their incentive to hand it over to their Muslim brothers in other areas is high. We must remember that irresistible incentives are being offered to some of the scientific teams, experts and individuals who could earn hard currency, be given housing facilities and exchange their present misery—their shortages of food, freezing conditions, inadequate heating and low salaries in devalued roubles—for the sort of salaries being offered in Baghdad, Tehran and Peking. The incentives are irresistible, and they will not be resisted. Those people will be—may already be—on the move.
The House, the Government and the policy makers of the west must consider either how to keep such people in Moscow where the former Soviet—now the Russian—academy of sciences is considering that question, or whether to bring them into western universities and academies, as happened with some of the leading German rocket scientists after the second world war. We must
860
consider how to do that and how to do it quickly because time is passing and the splintering effects that I have described are happening now.
My message to my right hon. Friends is that they are right to think in terms of total commitment to a strong nuclear defence at this time. All those who want to tinker with it or to suggest that we have half a deal or, say, three submarines should think again at what is a time of potential proliferation on a terrifying scale. Another message to my right hon. Friends and to policy makers in the west is that we need to move not only fast and thoroughly, but on what might be an expensive scale if we are not to leave the next 10 or 20 years with a terrifying legacy of proliferation of nuclear weapons that may be cheap, can still be delivered by ballistic missiles, but can nevertheless still inflict the most hideous damage on all our peoples, including this island.
I repeat that this issue is the major concern of our time. Playing games with our own deterrent is a form of global irresponsibility. As the right hon. Member for Gorton said, defence is the property of the nation. Having heard his speech this afternoon, I must confess to being glad that it is not the property of the Labour party—and never will be.
6.41 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: When the election comes, I shall present myself to the people of Chesterfield as a candidate who is committed to the ending of nuclear weapons and bases in Britain. I shall do that because that is what I put to the electors in 1987 and 1984. I know that this is not a debate about individual records, but I resigned from my Front Bench in 1958–34 years ago—because I could not support a policy of using nuclear weapons. That is my position. When people ask, I shall also make clear to them the fact that there is a wide measure of agreement—if not total agreement—across the House about what should be done.
At the end of the cold war, it is necessary for those of us who take the view that I take to restate our position, given contemporary circumstances. One of the things that has happened in the past 12 months is that British, American and other forces have killed 200,000 Iraqis and have almost certainly caused the deaths of 150,000 children under five in Iraq. That was done with modern conventional forces, using more weapons and dropping more bombs than were dropped in the whole of the Vietnam war. Despite that, the Government still stress the importance of nuclear weapons. I opposed the Gulf war, and nothing that I have heard today has convinced me that it would have been better if we had had more powerful weapons.
When I listend to the Secretary of State's arguments, I became even more convinced of the rightness of what I have been saying. The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons on a huge scale, but they did not protect the Soviet Union. It collapsed. Indeed, it collapsed partly because it had wasted so much money on nuclear weapons but I shall return to that point in a moment. Nuclear weapons do not guarantee the integrity of a state against either internal or external enemies.
If it is really true that some nuclear weapons are now in the hands of hungry, riotous and underpaid soldiers and are being serviced by nuclear scientists who are not receiving any money, what effect can a British deterrent

861
have? Those people probably do not have sufficient communications to know of the existence of such a deterrent.
Mr. Peter Viggers rose——
Mr. Benn: I am outside the constraints of the 10-minute rule, but should like to develop my points first.
I put it to the Secretary of State that it was the policy of the west to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Ken Coates, who is a Member of the European Parliament and a friend of mine, has just returned from a mission to the Soviet Union. I asked him for his best estimate of the amount of gross national product that the Russians spent on defence. He said that it was between 30 and 70 per cent. I do not know the exact figure and I have no doubt that the Ministry of Defence has a better figure than that, but the fact is that the Soviet Union was bankrupted by its military expenditure. That, more than anything else, probably explains why changes have occurred in the Soviet Union.
I hope that no one thinks that what has happened in the Soviet Union happened because people in Moscow went around whispering to each other, "The British Government are ordering Trident: we had better abandon communism." That had nothing to do with what happened. The Soviet people wanted freedom. What happened had nothing to do with the threat from the west.
I must say something else so that it is put on the record before it passes into history. The western intelligence agents used Islam to undermine communism. There is all the evidence in the world to show that Khomeini was brought to power because it was thought that the fundamentalists in Iran would help to encourage rebellion in the Soviet Union. Nationalism was also encouraged.
We are also told that it is wicked for Russian scientists to leave the Soviet Union to get more money elsewhere. I thought that that was what market forces are all about. The Conservative party says that one cannot interfere with market forces, but if a Russian scientist goes to Tehran to work on nuclear matters. Conservative Members say that that must be stopped—if necessary by having more Trident missiles. What nonsense the whole businesss is. Turning to arms sales, are we not the world's second largest arms exporter? But if the Russians cannot get enough food and sell a few weapons to buy food, Conservative Members say that that must be stopped.
I fear that at the end of this period we shall see a repetition of the Gulf war—against Libya and Cuba and, possibly, the toppling of Castro and Gaddafi—because the Soviet Union's weakness has led the Americans to believe that they can run the world. That is what the new world order is about.
I should now like briefly to rehearse some of the arguments against nuclear weapons because people listening to the debate or reading the Hansard of it should know——
Mr. Viggers: The whole House respects the integrity of the right hon. Gentleman, who is a signatory to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). How many of his hon. Friends does the right hon. Gentleman think will put before their electors the clear policy that he intends to put before the voters of Chesterfield? How many Labour Members and Labour candidates does the right hon. Gentleman think would support the amendment that has been tabled by his
862
hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North? Does the right hon. Gentleman regard himself—I say this in a friendly manner—as something of a political dodo?
Mr. Benn: My position is unilateralist and always has been. The hon. Gentleman has asked a very silly question because a substantial number of people in this country share my view—far more than might be suggested by the number of their parliamentary representatives.
Let us start with the argument that the cold war was ended by the nuclear deterrent and that we did not have a war because of that deterrent. It was not until I went to Hiroshima that I learned that, far from the bomb being dropped there to bring the Japanese to the peace table, they had offered to surrender weeks before. The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima to tell the Russians that we had such a weapon. That all came out at the war crimes tribunals in Japan.
As those who know anything about me will know, I have never had any sympathy with the Soviet system and its lack of democracy, but I never believed that the Russians were threatening to invade western Europe. Like, I am sure, most people in this country, I never believed that. Does anyone honestly think that the Russians, with all their domestic problems, planned to take over West Germany, Italy and France and come to London to "deal with Ken Livingstone" or go to Northern Ireland to "deal with Ian Paisley"? Does anyone honestly think that that was their strategy? That threat was the most convenient political instrument ever used in domestic politics because those who criticised the Conservative Government were regarded as agents of the KGB.
Indeed, when the Secretary of State for Defence talks about the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, he ought to know. His Department ordered the bugging of CND and treated its members, who were honest, decent people, as though they were enemies of the state. Cathy Massiter resigned from MI5 because she would not go along with its KGB tactics. So of course the Secretary of State knows a lot about CND. He probably knows a lot about what we say to each other on our telephones today. I hope that he does, because my telephone is the only remaining link that I have with the British establishment. So I speak clearly and I hope that those who are listening understand what I am saying.
The second argument against nuclear weapons is that we cannot afford them. I am one of probably only two or three remaining Members of Parliament who heard Aneurin Bevan make his resignation speech from the place where the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) now sits. He made it in 1951 when the big defence budget was introduced. It is worth reading what Nye said. He said that we could not afford it. When we look back at the reasons why the British economy has been weak in the past 40 years, one of the main ones is that we have wasted too much money on weapons of war that are not necessary.
I think that I am right in saying that six out of 10 scientists in Britain still work on defence or in defence-related industries. Let us consider the country which now has the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world—America. Bush has to go to Japan to plead with the Japanese to buy a few more gas guzzlers from Detroit. Why is Japan so rich? Because it has not wasted all that money on nuclear and other weapons. Neither have the Germans. We would not let them do so at the beginning. But the shops are full of Japanese cameras, videos, cars

863
and Japanese this and that. All that we can offer to sell is a few missiles to a sheikh. That is our major export drive as a major arms supplier. We cannot afford those weapons. That is a powerful reason for not having them.
The third argument against nuclear weapons is that they do not deter anyone. Has anyone re-examined the deterrent argument? Argentina attacked a nuclear state—Britain—when it went into the Falklands. Did nuclear weapons deter Galtieri? Not on your life. He knew that we could not use them against him. Saddam Hussein defied an ultimatum from two nuclear states—the United States and Britain. Did nuclear weapons deter him? Not on your life. He dropped some Scuds on another nuclear state—Israel. Did nuclear weapons deter him? Not on your life. The whole deterrent argument is a fraud.
I watched the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), the spokesman for the Liberal party dancing on a minefield with the skill of a ballet dancer. He was really saying that, unless a country says that is will use nuclear weapons first, it is not worth having them.
Mr. Menzies Campbell indicated dissent.
Mr. Benn: The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but I will read Hansard.
I now come to another point, and perhaps I may put on another hat. I was the Minister responsible for Aldermaston from 1966 to 1970. Like most people, I have had a chequered career. We do not have our own nuclear weapons. Since the Vulcan and the early bombs, we have depended on the Americans. Aldermaston may not even be able—I do not claim inside knowledge; if I had it, I would not speak in this way—to refurbish the weapons that the Americans give us. We do not have a nuclear deterrent and if we did we could not use it without the American worldwide satellite network which provides communication.
The Labour party was never unilateralist in Parliament. I challenge anyone to find one motion tabled in the House of Commons in which the Labour Front Bench advocated unilateralism. It simply talked about it at conference and then came back and did nothing about it. But can anyone imagine a more absurd democratic fiasco than that there should be election after election in which we discuss whether we should, or should not, have what we do not have anyway?
I tell the House solemnly one thing that the Americans would do. If Boris Yeltsin said, "I will take my nuclear weapons away from the Ukraine if you will take them away from Britain," the Americans would be wise to do so, because the Ukraine is more of a threat than Britain. The Americans could take our weapons away simply by cutting off the supply.
My last point is dear to my heart. Simply having nuclear weapons destroys democracy. When a country has them, Ministers—of all parties—lie. No Minister has ever told the truth about any central question of nuclear policy. We heard that today. We were told that the Government could not say when they would use nuclear weapons. If we ask whether they exist in any one location, the Government say that they cannot confirm or deny it. Every party has done the same. I am not making a party point. Mr. Attlee built the atom bomb without telling
864
Parliament. When Aneurin Bevan made that speech, he may have known—although I doubt it—that atomic bombs were being built. But Parliament did not know.
I think that there were some nuclear weapons on HMS Sheffield when it went down in the Falklands, but that has never been admitted. Then there was Chevaline and all the rest of it. To lie about nuclear weapons in the interests of defending one's country undermines what one is defending.
If the world continues spending money on weapons, the problems will worsen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, the real problem of the world is poverty. The dangerous thing about hungry soldiers with nuclear weapons in Russia is that they are hungry. The dangerous thing about the third world is that it does not have enough to eat. If nuclear weapons would give a country a little more territory or something else, it might well be tempted by them. I do not believe that the world would be a safer place if we had more nuclear weapons.
Of course, any leader of a third-world country who reads the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence will be able to use it in his own assembly to say, "If the British say that, it must be right for Iran, Libya and everywhere else." The Secretary of State made the most powerful case for nuclear proliferation. We are proliferating with Trident. It represents a major addition to our armoury.
Britain is a small country, but we have such pretensions—we speak as though we were a super-power. We are a tiny country, and the idea that our deterrent will somehow determine whether Kazakhstan will agree to inspection is misleading. If one continues misleading people, in the end it will catch up with one. That is what Russia learned. It is time that we came to terms with the fact that we are a small island off the west coast of Europe. We depend on a new association across the whole of Europe. I have introduced a Bill to create a commonwealth of Europe including the whole lot. That is a better way of dealing with the problem of Russia. We should bring them into a pan-European association rather than building up our own weapons, which is what the Liberal party has policies for. We must seek political solutions to problems which we are still told are best dealt with by military means.
There is a great deal of poverty in the world. In the west we are heading for a slump. I do not think that it is a recession. I refer to the whole of the west—I am not merely joining in the swiping at the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We must recognise that in a slump people swing to the right, not to the left. I am old enough to remember the pre-war Europe, with Pilsudski in Poland, Field Marshal Mannerheim, King Zog, King Michael, King Carol, Hitler, Mussolini, Salazar and Franco. That was a world which had weapons and had a slump. Unless we put our money into recovery, meeting human need and giving people hope again, and unless we build political structures to deal with those problems, the problems will get worse. People will blame the Germans or others when in fact our economic system is deteriorating. Someone once said that we had the best defended dole queues in the world. That was an old joke in the Labour movement. It is even more true now.
We must find political answers. Obviously, I shall oppose the Government tonight, but neither can I support the Labour amendment, as I have told the Opposition Chief Whip. Without spelling it out, the amendment incorporates the maintenance of the nuclear deterrent, so

865
I cannot support it. I say that in all conscience, and I hope that conscience still has a tiny place in British politics. But it is not just conscience. The arguments against the policy are strong, and millions of people in Britain and throughout the world share that view.
Several hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches operates from 7 o'clock.
6.58 pm
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) must be commended, for two reasons. First, he has woken up the debate, 'which was getting into a sombre mood. Secondly, he has brought us back to the central point of the debate. If, one day in the future, the Labour party won a general election, would the views that we have just heard expressed have majority support on the Labour Benches or not? I know my answer to that question.
At the start of this debate, there was some suggestion that it was inappropriate, that the House was pursuing the wrong hare. Those of us who have sat through the debate so far will have realised that it is a highly relevant debate. We have had some excellent speeches and I believe that the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was most important.
People outside the House, as well as those inside it, are extremely concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons within what was the Soviet Union. It is the central issue in terms of British foreign policy, and I am delighted at the way in which the Government have been handling it. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will chair a meeting of the Security Council and I am delighted that the Government recognise the great role that the United Nations must play if we are to avoid further proliferation. We have a new Secretary-General in New York, Dr. Boutros Ghali, and I believe that he well understands the need during his five-year term of office to turn into reality President Bush's phrase about the new world order, and what better way of doing that than by making genuine progress in checking nuclear proliferation?
In October, I was in Moscow at the human rights conference with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and we had a discussion there with the Ukrainian delegation to the conference. To start with, members of that delegation said that they expected that it would be the Ukrainian Government's policy to have no nuclear weapons. Then, of course, as the discussion proceeded, they admitted that they would not give up their nuclear weapons without striking a very good bargain with Russia in return. I think that matters have moved on even during the intervening few weeks.
I have always been a strong supporter of Britain's having an independent nuclear deterrent. Unlike the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, I believe that we have just that. Since the war, eight different Governments have looked into this question—obviously, Governments of different persuasions—and have come to the conclusion that it is in the national interest to have such a deterrent. Taking that a little further, it means that several hundred Cabinet members must have heard the arguments for and against, and reached that consensus.
866
There are two main reasons for having an independent nuclear deterrent. First, I believe strongly that one western European NATO country should be in possession of such a weapons system. We know perfectly well that, while France has a force de frappe, that country has distanced itself from NATO planning over the years and continues to do so.
Just after I came to the House of Commons I was taken on a tour to see the French nuclear deterrent. We visited one of its nuclear submarines. I shall never forget seeing a fish bowl in the wardroom mess; several hundred metres below the surface, the officers relaxing over dinner could watch fish swimming around in the tank. We were also shown the command and control centre and funny things sticking out of silos. I have no doubt that the French have a good system, but it must be an integral part of NATO; that is the important point.
Secondly, I support the argument which was well to the fore during the time of the east-west confrontation, that there should be two different centres of decision making. I happen to believe that the United States will withdraw from Europe to a large extent over the next decade, unwelcome though that may be to us, if not to the French. That is why I believe that it is particularly important to emphasise the need for two different centres of decision making.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was Secretary of State for Defence, I detected signs that in certain circumstances the British Government would be prepared to throw Britain's nuclear deterrent into the disarmament pot. It was never really spelled out exactly what those circumstances would be. I believe, without there having been any major statement from the Government Front Bench, that we have now given up that policy, and that we are right to do so.
In recent years, there has been a dangerous proliferation of nuclear weapons involving Israel and Iraq, and we read that Pakistan may also be in that league. It would be fatal at this time of great uncertainty for Britain to decide either that we did not need a nuclear deterrent or that in some way we could get by with a half-hearted job—three boats instead of four, for example. I could equally argue the case for five boats, so that we could have two permanently on patrol. I should hate to stand up in a public place and argue the case for three.
Equally, I should hate to stand up in a public place and argue the case for a nuclear deterrent that did not deter. How much the Russians and others have improved their defences in recent years seems to have been forgotten. If the deterrent is to work, it must to be able to get through such defences.
I feel sure that our allies welcome Britain's nuclear deterrent. They formally stated their position in the 1974 Ottawa declaration. Rather more recently, on 11 March 1982, President Reagan, speaking of the help that the United States had given Britain over Trident and its components, said:
"The United States' readiness to provide these systems is a demonstration of the great importance which the US Government attach to the maintenance by the UK of an independent nuclear deterrent."
Some years ago President Reagan talked in terms of a world free of nuclear weapons. I seem to remember that President Gorbachev echoed the same cry. I thought that that was a fatal mistake. Imagine a world free of nuclear weapons, when we all know perfectly well that one cannot

867
disinvent nuclear weapons. There is an old story—I have no idea whether it is true—about a professor at Princeton university asking his students to see if, over a few weeks, they could invent a nuclear weapon from the records available to the public in the United States. After a few weeks, the exercise had to be aborted because they were proving all too successful.
A world in which there were no nuclear weapons, in which one evil country could set about inventing and producing nuclear weapons, strikes me as an extraordinarily unpleasant world in which to have to live.
Finally, I wish to counter the suggestion which I have been reading in articles published during the Christmas recess that somehow the world today is more dangerous than it was a few years ago. I, like other speakers, have emphasised just how alarmed we are about nuclear proliferation, but I ask hon. Members to cast their minds back to the Khrushchev era, when the Soviet Union was hellbent on expansion in north Africa and southern Africa and was prepared to use force to gain its way, when the Warsaw pact was still in existence, when there were vast conventional armies waiting to be deployed by the Kremlin. Surely we can all see that times were far more dangerous then.
I happened to be serving in the Berlin garrison at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. I did not doubt the possibility that the Soviet Union might retaliate in Germany, over Berlin, rather than nearer the United States. I was in the House in January 1990 when Francis Pym, then Secretary of State for Defence, addressed the House on the subject of nuclear weapons. He said:
"For good or ill, we live in a world where nuclear weapons exist. We seek increasingly to control them in various ways, but we cannot disinvent them.
I should dearly like…to see the world kept in peace and freedom by a security system which has less need to possess such awful instruments in reserve, or better still, no need. To desire a new system is one thing; to make it real, effective and dependable is quite another…The Government are not prepared to dispense with, or weaken, the structure which shelters us now."—[Official Report, 24 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 672–3.]
Those words are just as appropriate in 1992 as they were in January 1980.
7.10 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: I want to explore a perspective which so far has been missing from the debate, although the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) touched on it when he mentioned the importance of the European Community; unfortunately, he then veered away from that point.
A succession of speakers have discussed how best to defend and secure our vital national interests; how our national defence planning will be affected by changes in the east; how much we as a nation can afford to spend on defence; and how we can contribute to the progress of arms reduction and non-proliferation in the world. All these questions start from too narrow a premise, and all could be more sensibly discussed, and need to be discussed, from the perspective of our part in the European Community.
If, as the Government say, we are engaged in a fundamental review looking forward 20 or 30 years, we need to recognise that the biggest adjustment with which
868
this House will have to cope over that period will be the move away from a purely national concept of our security interests to one based on a more European, and more precisely a more Community, perspective. That idea represents a striking omission from tonight's debate and from previous debates on these issues, which have focused too narrowly on national interests that are rapidly becoming out of date.
The shape of Britain's world in 20 or 30 years' time was drawn in Maastricht. What was agreed there was not a treaty of collaboration or of closer co-operation; it was not even a treaty of friendship or an alliance; it was nothing less than a treaty of political union, a fact which has yet to penetrate the public consciousness. It was not taken up even in the most aware journalistic comment after the agreement, but in the remainder of this year it will become the salient, all-absorbing fact demanding our attention.
Two historic forms of agreement on defence were entered into at Maastricht. Gone is the old separation between foreign policy and defence. Gone too is the theological distinction between political and other aspects of security. At the heart of political union is a commitment to develop a common defence policy leading in time to a common defence. The text is absolutely clear on that score—it is one area that the Government did not opt out of. The commitment in the treaty is unmistakable, and the Government must begin to base all their long-term thinking and planning on the perspective of the Community, even in defence.
Two aspects of the Maastricht agreement relate particularly to this debate. One is that the European Commission is to be involved in this process from the outset. The treaty requires that the Commission be consulted and kept informed on defence matters. That is important, because it represents a move away from the separate pillar approach advocated by the British Government. The Commission already has a foot in the door, and over time that will lead, no doubt, to it taking on a co-ordinating and servicing role in defence.
The second point of the treaty to which I draw attention is that the chosen vehicle for defence co-operation, the Western European Union, is, contrary to what the Government repeatedly say, de facto an integral part of European union. Theoretically it may be true, as the Foreign Secretary continually says, that WEU is a separate institution based on a wholly separate treaty, but it has no independent life. The members of WEU are a sub-set of the members of the European Council, so anything decided by the European Council is automatically agreed to by the Western European Union——
Mr. Douglas: The two bodies are not the same.
Mr. Macdonald: As I said, the members of the WEU are a sub-set of the European Council; some members of the Council are not members of WEU. The distinction that some try to draw between WEU and other institutions of political union in the Community is nothing more than a formality. I suspect that, after 1997, even that distinction will disappear.
These developments are irresistible. We cannot have political union without defence union, and we cannot have monetary union without political union. That is not just a matter of theory; it is a matter of supreme practical importance for British nuclear defence. By the end of this decade, it will be inconceivable that British strategic

869
nuclear weapons—or French, for that matter—should be used or even threatened or deployed separately from and against the wishes of the Community. We must face that fact. There will be no space in the Community of the future for an ultimate defence of separate and divergent national interests.
As always, other European Governments are exploring these emerging realities. President Mitterrand talked over the weekend of placing the French nuclear deterrent at the disposal of Europe. Jacques Delors, possibly the next President of France, has gone even further and spoken of a Community deterrent collectively owned and controlled. We need to think urgently about these ideas. Unless we do, we will find the agenda set in this area, as in social and economic policy, by others.
The British and French Governments should be talking about establishing co-operation in nuclear matters on a more formal basis. They should be discussing combined patrolling and targeting. They should be implementing immediately the recommendation in the first report of the Defence Select Committee to establish permanent liaison officers at French bases. Above all, they should co-ordinate their work on procurement policy.
Doe we really need an aggregate of nine or 10 strategic submarines in Europe? Would not fewer than half that number be enough to service our collective needs? That would release public funds for other more productive purposes aned contribute positively on a European scale to the process of arms reduction in which Russia and America are already engaged.
Far from being the birth of a bloated nuclear super-power, the emergence of a collective European defence identity can contribute directly and powerfully to the process of arms control and non-proliferation. Consolidation, above all, is the very opposite of proliferation, and consolidation is exactly what the Government advocate in the ruins of the Soviet empire. We rightly fear the emergence of four strategic nuclear powers where one existed before in the Soviet Union.
We urge a collective defence identity upon them in the form of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Is it not hypocritical, therefore, for us to resist that logic in western Europe. A European defence community can and should mean fewer weapons in fewer hands. That is what we should be talking about instead of the arcane and absurd debate about four versus three submarines.
7.19 pm
Sir Anthony Durant: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. Any Government are responsible for the defence of the realm to avoid attack, to avoid occupation and, perhaps more important these days, to avoid political blackmail. We live in a dangerous world caused not so much now by the eastern and western blocks as by the break-up of the Soviet Union, which may lead to great problems. The question is, do we lower our guard?
My father served in three wars—the Boer war, the great war and the last war. He gave me just one piece of advice: "Do not lower your guard—all three wars were terrible and two of them could have been avoided if we had not lowered our guard." I have always supported that view.
We face uncertainty in the east and in the Arab countries. We do not know where proliferation of nuclear weapons will take place. It may happen in south America—one does not know. We hear that North Korea is
870
possibly only a year away from having a nuclear weapon. Knowledge about nuclear weapons may be sold, stolen or provided by western Governments to some of those countries. Iraq was a good example.
The Government have maintained a nuclear deterrent all the time they have been in office, in spite of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The women were at Greenham Common, just down the road from me, for months and months, but they made not a ha'p'orth of difference. It was an abortive and ineffective campaign. They did not stop the arrival of cruise missiles, nor did they stop the training or the tests, although they sat there month after month.
Then we had crazy Labour councils with nuclear-free zones. I lived in a nuclear-free zone just across the river in Lambeth.
Mr. Tony Banks: And you did not get blown up.
Sir Anthony Durant: No thanks to the council. I used to sleep easy in my bed because I thought that the Russians would not drop anything on me in Lambeth, although they might in Westminster. We have already heard from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that he doubted whether Mr. Gorbachev would have taken any notice of nuclear-free zones. It was a crazy policy, which cost a lot of money.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield made a good point when he said that his party had always been against nuclear weapons at conferences but not on the Front Bench in the House. We have seen that many times. In September 1985, Tribune relaunched a statement headed "Democratic Socialism", which said that the search for peace was a determination to disengage immediately from the nuclear arms race. It also said that a Britain not aligned to any major power was best placed to advance those policies.
Who signed that statement? It is a surprising list of people, including the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and, above all, for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was described by Tribune as one of those instrumental in winning the Labour party to a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament. That was in Tribune on 6 September 1985.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Why does the hon. Gentleman not write his own speeches?
Sir Anthony Durant: I only wanted to give a helpful view. At least half the Labour Members do not believe what their Front Bench is saying. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) signed that document, too, so there is no confidence there.
We must have all four Trident submarines. On 28 December, The Times agreed with that view and was critical of the stance of the Labour party. The wife of the Leader of the Opposition was a leading member of CND and went to Greenham Common. The Leader of the Opposition was also a member of CND—he was not very active, but I understand that he paid the subscription until recently.
There is no credibility when Opposition Members say that they are in favour of retaining the nuclear deterrent and Trident. Their record is bad. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and some of his Back-Bench colleagues are honourable and have always stuck to their view. Like the hon. Member for Chesterfield, they

871
have promoted their view. I do not agree with everything that the right hon. Gentleman says, but at least his position is honourable.
What would happen if Labour were elected next time? Who would call the tune—the Labour conference, the Tribune group, or the extreme left? I do not believe that it would be those on the Front Bench, but rather those who sit on the Back Benches.
7.26 pm
Mr. John Cartwright: In examining the problems of nuclear defence, I take as my starting point NATO, which has kept the peace in Europe for the past 40 years. It is a tried and trusted organisation. Therefore, British nuclear defence policy should be firmly in line with the nuclear policy of NATO. The Rome declaration of 7 and 8 November last year set out NATO's strategic concept. That made it clear that, to prevent war and to protect peace, the alliance should retain a mix of nuclear and conventional forces in Europe.
The communiqué also stated the central point which is coming out of the debate—that conventional forces alone cannot prevent war. Nuclear eapons are unique in rendering the risks of aggression incalculable and unacceptable. No other weapons can sow such seeds of doubt in the mind of an aggressor. That is what gives them such great deterrent power.
The NATO concept also made it clear that there must be flexibility and survivability of nuclear weapons to ensure that they remain effective and credible. There is no point in clinging to nuclear weapon systems which are outdated or ineffective. That is common sense. However, it means that, if we maintain a nuclear deterrent, it must from time to time be modernised and brought up to date.
The NATO concept also called for adequate sub-strategic forces based in Europe to provide an essential link with the strategic nuclear forces and to reinforce the transatlantic relationship. The welcome removal of the intermediate nuclear forces and the negotiating away of the short-range and tactical battlefield nuclear forces means that the sub-strategic systems that NATO has will consist solely of dual-capable aircraft.
We have to accept that manned aircraft will be increasingly vulnerable to improving air defences. The experience in the Gulf war does not invalidate that view. Iraqi air defences crumbled under the sheer weight of a non-stop onslaught. That unequal scenario is unlikely to be repeated in any more balanced conflict. The early stages of the Gulf war underlined the effectiveness of straightforward Iraqi conventional anti-aircraft fire and the importance of stand-off weapons which could be launched from aircraft well beyond the reach of anti-aircraft systems.
Therefore, I believe that it is absolutely vital that NATO develops and deploys an effective tactical air-to-surface missile with a nuclear capability. If it does not, I believe that NATO's sub-strategic systems will steadily lose both effectiveness and credibility. Against the background of growing nuclear proliferation, that would be a matter of great concern.
Even without the events in the Soviet Union, which have been mentioned so frequently in today's debate, there are obvious risks in increasing the number of nations with
872
not just the ability to develop nuclear weapons, but the technology involved in ballistic missiles so that they can develop the delivery systems related to nuclear weapons. That is a dangerous enough prospect, but the disintegration of the former Soviet Union adds to the risks.
Most of us accept that it should be possible to maintain effective controls and safeguards over the former Soviet Union strategic nuclear weapons, but there are large numbers of sub-strategic systems, including short-range weapons, tactical weapons, battlefield systems and nuclear artillery. No one seems to know how many systems there are, but estimates that I have seen put the figure at about 14,000. Those are systems about which we should be most seriously concerned because they could easily find their way into dangerous hands. As other hon. Members have said, the obvious risks of former Soviet scientists selling their expertise to willing buyers is a chilling prospect.
Therefore, I believe that the British policy should rest clearly on the completion of the Trident programme. I have heard the arguments that it is possible to co-ordinate the pattern of patrols and refits to ensure that one boat can be kept on station with only a three-submarine fleet. However, that gives us no margin for the unexpected, and Murphy's law should have taught us that the unexpected is always likely to happen. We are well aware of the problems with the nuclear propulsion systems in Polaris submarines, and similar problems can occur in the Trident system. A four-boat Trident fleet would provide assurance against unforseen emergencies. There is no point in having a deterrent unless it is clearly seen to work. The comparatively small saving gained by cancelling a fourth submarine would be a false economy because it would seriously undermine the credibility of Britain's nuclear deterrent.
Is Trident enough? It is a flexible system, based on four submarines that each carry 16 missiles which each have eight warheads, giving a total potential of 512 warheads. As other hon. Members have said, particularly the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), the missile does not have to be operated at that level. It is a flexible system which can be used at much lower levels of fire power if circumstances allow.
The number of missiles in each submarine can be reduced, as can the number of warheads on each missile. Therefore, it can be used to provide a minimum strategic deterrent at whatever level is needed. I strongly agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East when he questions our slavish adherence to the concept of the Moscow criteria. Why should we take the best protected Russian city and say that our ability to deliver a nuclear deterrent must be geared to the ability to strike Moscow? I believe that Trident could be operated effectively at a much lower level of fire power.
We must also ask whether Trident, by itself, is enough to meet the nuclear deterrence that Britain needs. However flexible Trident is, it clearly cannot provide a sub-strategic nuclear deterrent in the United Kingdom. At present, that sub-strategic system is carried by manned aircraft with WE177 free-fall nuclear bombs. We all know that it is an aging system that will have to be replaced, if not by the turn of this century, certainly early in the next one. Here I part company with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East——
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Not for the first time.
Mr. Cartwright: Or, I guess, for the last time.
In my view there is a powerful case for Britain to deploy a tactical air-to-surface missile. I have already referred to the problems of improving the aircraft defences with which manned aircraft will have to deal. TASM is a flexible system which can be used against a wide variety of targets including airports, ports, barracks, troop concentrations, industrial facilities or even ships. There is no way that Trident can be used in such a scenario.
TASM has the ability to respond swiftly, almost anywhere in the world and the flexibility to be retargetted during an aircraft's flight. It can deliver small numbers of nuclear warheads against widely spaced targets. It enables the aircraft to be used in conventional or nuclear roles. Trident cannot play such a flexible sub-strategic role.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter Harding argued at a lecture last year that Britain needed options in the nuclear basket in addition to Trident. He saw Trident—as most of us do—as a last-ditch weapon to be used only against a threat of total destruction. TASM provides the ability to deal with risks that fall well short of that doomsday scenario but which are likely to occur in an unstable world.
I do not believe that any of us needs to read newspapers or watch television to know that the world remains a dangerous and uncertain place. The clear and obvious threat under which we have lived for the past 40 years may have gone, but it has been replaced by a series of new threats. They may be less clear, but they are no less dangerous in a world in which there is likely to be an increasing number of nuclear-capable nations.
This is no time for vagueness, uncertainty or dubious double talk. We must make it absolutely crystal clear that, while other nations maintain nuclear weapons that can threaten this country and its people, we must maintain an effective nuclear capability of our own. I believe that most people in this country regard that as simple, prudent common sense.
7.37 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: My sense of commitment to defence started early, as I am just old enough to remember the time when this country was under missile attack in the last war, with Vls and V2s flying over. That led me to believe that we must always remain strong enough to defend ourselves fully.
I formed my political views during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s—a time of considerable danger and threat from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact countries. Wherever we looked, in whichever category—helicopters, artillery with nuclear capacity, tactical nuclear weapons or aircraft—the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact had that superiority of about two and a half or three to one which analysts of defence and offence have always felt to be sufficient to enable an attack to succeed.
That was a time of danger. People could not work out why the Warsaw pact countries needed such massive forces. Why did the Warsaw pact forces need such a huge submarine superiority? It could not possibly be merely to defend their communication lines, because those were internal land lines. Therefore, the only conclusion for a cautious person to reach was that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact forces were poised for offence.
I suppose that, with hindsight, it is possible to say that the military-industrial complex within the Warsaw pact Soviet Union countries led to that massive military
874
expansion, but any wise observer in those days had to recognise that the western countries and NATO faced a threat. However, that was the time of the flowering of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the "Ban the Bomb" marches, the campaigns for one-sided unilateral disarmament. CND campaigned actively and swam against the tide of facts and public opinion. Fortunately, public opinion had much more sense than CND both now and then, and the unilateral disarmament policies of the Labour and Liberal parties played a significant part in their electoral failures of 1983 and 1987.
There is now a completely new position, especially in terms of nuclear weapons. The resolution of the United Kingdom and the United States in particular led to the western powers deploying cruise and Pershing missiles. In turn, that led to the intermediate nuclear forces treaty and proved a significant factor in encouraging the Soviet Union to agree to it. Ultimately, it resulted in the removal of intermediate nuclear weapons from Europe. That seemed a big step at the time, but it was nothing compared with the massive steps taken since—the abolition of the Warsaw pact and dissolution of the Soviet Union. Suddenly, the Ukraine, of all places, has become the world's third largest holder of strategic nuclear warheads after the United States and Russia. The six Islamic republics within the old Soviet Union have nuclear weapons, and they are all in economic and political turmoil, with no certainty of steady military control.
Several estimates have been made tonight of the number of scientists and military specialists within the old Soviet Union who are now available because their skills are no longer required or they are not being fully paid. Those estimates were low. The authoritative defence magazine Jane's Defence Weekly reported last week that there were 1·7 million skilled weapons technologists in the former Soviet Union, of whom 30,000 were specialists in developing nuclear weapons.
Whatever the number, there are fears of a brain drain of scientists recruited by regional powers within the old Soviet Union or by other middle European powers. We know that Iran, helped by Pakistan and China, is recruiting individuals from the old Soviet Union, and that Algeria is building nuclear plants with Chinese help. One can add to that the probable nuclear bombing capacity of Israel, South Africa, China, India, and Pakistan. Other countries are close to possessing nuclear bombs, with North Korea, Libya and Algeria on the nuclear threshold. All that is deeply worrying.
The world has changed, but the principles on which we should base our approach to nuclear weapons remain the same. Nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented; it is a fact that they exist. As one of the original nuclear powers, we must maintain a minimum appropriate nuclear capacity as a deterrent—and, despite the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), as a stable democracy with a high worldwide standing, we must participate in the future dialogue on controls and limits on proliferation.
The way ahead must be to strengthen international controls. The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna is well respected, but it is acknowledged that its powers are severely limited. The 1970 non-proliferation treaty was signed by 142 nations, but it is widely thought that five of them subsequently developed a nuclear bomb capacity. With Iran and Iraq both signatories, and many other powers within the IAEA seeking to build up a

875
nuclear capacity, no reliance can be placed on present powers. The need for wider powers of inspection and verification is demonstrated by the fact that the IAEA took some six to eight months to discover the extent of Iraq's nuclear bombs.
I respect very much the way in which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs have been working to set a list of arms exports and to develop a dialogue in respect of non-proliferation. The Government's position is clear. They will maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent, and negotiate to prevent further proliferation and to reduce arms stocks.
Labour's position is transparently clear. We know that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) wants to be Prime Minister. The Opposition do not like us making a political point out of defence. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) gets very angry, saying that Labour voters are just as patriotic as Conservative voters and have fought with the same bravery and courage. That is absolutely true. Of course Labour supporters in the armed forces are as loyal and brave as those who support the Conservative party. I may add, however, that it appears that many Labour supporters in the constituency that I represent vote Conservative.
The point at issue is not the loyalty and bravery of Labour supporters but the leadership of the Labour party, and the leadership that Labour would provide if it ever formed a Government. It is a question of whether service men and women can have confidence in political leaders who have manifestly sacrificed their principles in pursuit of power and who in their heart of hearts lack conviction on the need to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrents.
Labour's present posture owes nothing to conviction and everything to expediency. Long may my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues maintain their responsibility for defence.
7.44 pm
Mr. John McAllion: One might assume that, in taking up a whole day of parliamentary business this close to a general election, the Government genuinely wanted a national debate about the usefulness or uselessness of nuclear weapons as a means of protecting our people and our country at a time of massive and rapid political change. The majority of right hon. and hon. Members might have done so—at least until they clapped eyes on the Government motion, whose nine lines reveal the Government's abject failure even to begin to understand the massive changes sweeping the world.
Those nine lines manifest the cold war mentality into which the Government are hopelessly and helplessly locked. They could well have been drafted in 1979 for all the notice that the motion takes of recent world events. All the cold war claptrap is to be found there. It asks the House to support
"unequivocally the concept of nuclear deterrence and the retention of a credible United Kingdom nuclear deterrent, while other countries have, or seek to acquire, nuclear weapons".
Against whom are those nuclear weapons to be directed? All the theories that surround the concept of nuclear
876
deterrence—mutually assured destruction, flexible response, nuclear wars, and first use of nuclear weapons—have a common denominator: the perceived threat from a known enemy capable of launching a nuclear attack on the United Kingdom and its allies.
That enemy was once perceived to be the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, but the Soviet Union no longer exists, and the Warsaw pact is no more. Who are we now threatening with nuclear assured destruction? Against whom are we to make a flexible response and to fight a limited nuclear war? On which territories are Trident's new missiles targeted?
We heard tonight that the perceived threat now is the new Soviet republics—perhaps the four that the Secretary of State for Defence said possess between them 13,000 nuclear warheads. However, the Secretary of State said that those same republics are experiencing a complete collapse of morale in their armed forces and are unable to pay their nuclear scientists—who are being poached not by other nuclear powers but by third-world countries.
It is now generally acknowledged that those republics are so broken that they cannot hope even to feed their own people in the immediate future—yet we are asked to believe that those same broken-backed economies can credibly maintain a huge strategic nuclear stockpile and target it efficiently and effectively on the United Kingdom and thousands of other targets in the west.
If the Secretary of State for Defence recognises the need for a credible nuclear deterrent in Trident, he must also acknowledge that the perceived threat to this country's security must be credible. In truth, the nuclear threat posed by the post-Soviet republics cannot and will not be taken seriously by anyone outside the ranks of the Government supporters.
We are asked to accept as credible also a Government policy that offers those republics food aid, technical know-how, a seat at the summit, friendship with the Prime Minister at least until the next general election, and western investment—while also threatening those same republics with annihilation. No one can say with any sincerity that that represents a credible defence and foreign policy.
However, the real trouble with the Government's defence policy is not its lack of credibility. After all, a Government who lack credibility in all their other policies cannot be expected to offer a credible defence policy.
The real trouble is the danger posed by the Government's policy to world peace in general, and to the country's security needs in particular. The Secretary of State himself described what he called a very grave and dangerous world situation. He said that the risk of nuclear proliferation had never been greater; he spoke of non-nuclear countries actively enlisting nuclear scientists from the former Soviet Union; he referred to at least nine third-world countries that were likely to acquire nuclear weapons in the near future, and said that that must be stopped at all costs.
Those are fine words—but what is to be done about the facts? What the Government obviously will not do is act on those words. We do not deter other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons by refusing to abandon such weapons ourselves. The fact is that, if nuclear weapons are essential for our defence in an uncertain and dangerous world, they must also be essential for the defence of every other sovereign nation that has the ability and the capacity to build them.

877
We cannot expect other countries not to acquire nuclear weapons while we are refusing to abandon them in exactly the same world circumstances—sometimes, indeed, in much less threatening circumstances. What credibility can the Foreign Secretary possess when he goes to the Ukraine and tries to persuade it to abandon nuclear weapons? The Ukraine sits next door to Russia; it has no conventional forces of its own, and it is threatened far more by Russia than are the people of this country. If Conservative Members cannot appreciate that, in such circumstances, the Foreign Secretary can have no credibility whatever, limited intelligence must be preventing them from doing so.
The real problem with the enforcement of the non-proliferation treaty is not so much the lack of special inspections, or the lax controls on nuclear supplies, as the blatant hypocrisy and inconsistency displayed by permanent Security Council members such as the United Kingdom, which are demanding one set of rules for themselves and a completely different set for every other country in the world. That is a recipe for proliferation, not for non-proliferation—a recipe that will lead the world into catastrophe if we allow the Government to get away with it.
Although the Foreign Secretary has not taken part in today's debate, he made a contribution earlier this week, via the press. He suggested that any weakening of our support for nuclear weapons would send the wrong message to the likes of Colonel Gadaffi. Where has the Foreign Secretary been for the past 40 years of so-called nuclear deterrence? Where is the evidence that the existence of nuclear weapons has had any effect in deterring those who have launched military adventures around the world, terrorist outrages and wars that have wasted millions of lives?
Why did a period of nuclear deterrence not prevent the wars in south-east Asia? Why is the middle east not now a beacon of security and stability? Why did the events in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cambodia and East Timor all occur? Why was Pol Pot not deterred? Why was Galtieri not deterred from invading the Falklands? Why was Saddam Hussein not deterred from invading Kuwait? Why do wars continue to rage, and millions continue to die, in an age of' so-called nuclear deterrence?
The answer is, because the Foreign Secretary and the Government simply do not know what they are talking about. Nuclear weapons have never prevented wars, and they never will. The Government's policy is completely bankrupt.
The argument is especially relevant to Britain's so-called independent deterrent. Trident is designed to have four submarines, each with a potential to hit its targets with the equivalent of 1,000 Hiroshimas. Some may think that that represents something of an overkill, if we are really trying to deal credibly with the threats posed by Colonel Gadaffi and those in other third-world states.
The truth is that Trident was designed to get through the Soviet anti-ballistic missile defences, and still inflict unacceptable damage on Soviet cities. It exists for that purpose; it has no other credible purpose. The end of the Soviet Union has rendered it completely redundant. It is a waste of money, effort and talent in this country; and, if we ever make the mistake of thinking that we can use it, it will represent potentially an even greater waste of human life
878
across the globe. If a peace dividend is to be obtained anywhere in our defence budget, surely it must be obtained through the scrapping of Trident.
The Government's motion is not only incompetent, inconsistent and irrelevant to Britain's real security needs; it is positively harmful. It threatens world peace, and, by undermining the concept of nuclear non-proliferation in the world today, it threatens Britain's genuine security needs. That is possibly the greatest threat that faces the world at present. The motion should be opposed, and, along with several of my hon. Friends, I shall oppose it in the Lobby.
7.54 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: We have heard a great deal tonight about the potentially awesome consequences of the break-up of the Soviet Union. We have heard much about not only the risk to individual weapon systems but the much more serious risk of widespread proliferation of Soviet nuclear technology. As we listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and a number of other speakers—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)—it was difficult not to gain a sense of the seriousness of the potential threat to us.
Most of the other speakers—with the solitary exception of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright)—have focused on Trident. I strongly believe that we should purchase Trident; indeed, I consider it essential that we do so. Rather than discussing Trident, however, I wish to deal with another nuclear issue: the sub-strategic air-launched system known as TASM—the tactical air-to-surface missile.
Incidentally, TASM is of crucial political importance. Whatever fussing or fudging we may hear from the Opposition about Trident, we know for certain that both the main Opposition parties are firmly against TASM, while the Government favour purchasing it and, indeed, will do so.
The hon. Member for Woolwich alluded to the various roles in which TASM could be used—mostly against heavy conventional threats of one kind or another. I wish to focus on its anti-nuclear role, in the light of the potential threat from the third world. An interesting parallel can be drawn with the 1950s, when there was considerable military debate about the respective merits of missiles and aeroplanes as platforms for nuclear weapons. Superficially, it appeared that we could get rid of manned aircraft altogether; but, for a political rather than a military reason, we decided that it was essential for us to maintain an aircraft-launched nuclear capability. Only in that way could we have the political flexibility that we required—a flexibility that can never be provided by missiles, especially submarine-launched missiles.
It is impossible to recall a missile; it is not always possible even to know whether communication can take place with the submarine on which it is based. When it comes to a showdown, the flexibility that is provided by air-launched systems is sometimes essential.
We are speaking of a world of nightmares when we speak of the possible use of a nuclear weapon in anger. Certainly, we are speaking of a much greater disaster—or, rather, of many more deaths—than occurred at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Any modern strategic nuclear weapon would kill far more people. We should not doubt, however, that

879
we live in a world in which nightmares can, and sadly do, happen. The world has seen the concentration camps, and the killing fields of Cambodia.
The most important duty of any British Government must be to make certain that such nightmares never happen in this country or, as far as possible, in the countries to which we are allied, and which we seek to protect.
Sir Antony Buck: Or in the world as a whole.
Mr. Brazier: Indeed.
The pattern of nuclear proliferation into third-world countries has, I fear, been set by Saddam Hussein. A number of features of his case illustrate our need for a flexible nuclear capability. First, there is the dispersal of sites, which would no doubt be further magnified with dummy sites. Secondly, there is the tendency to use underground sites—sites which, in some instances, would be very difficult to reach with conventional weaponry. Thirdly, there is the tendency to put such nuclear sites into civilian areas, where a civilised country would be very unwilling to strike at them.
Let us suppose that we are faced with a dictator—it does not matter whether he is in Iraq—who has developed a nuclear capability and is threatening the world with it. He need not even use missiles. Let us even suppose—it is by no means impossible—that he has already armed a number of terrorist groups with such weapons, and that one may even have been used. Our intelligence sources tell us where the bulk of his nuclear sites are. How should we respond? Western Europe could not possibly afford the level of conventional capability necessary to cope with such a threat. America might not be willing to help, or it might not be able to.
We might well face a situation within a few years where the only way to prevent a nuclear attack on Britain or some other country may be the threatened, or even actual use, of a number of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy such sites. In such circumstances, it is immediately obvious why Trident, although it is an essential cornerstone of our defence against the still strong Chinese and Russian capabilities, would not be suitable. It lacks the flexibility that I mentioned earlier and it is much more powerful than is necessary. If a site is in a civilian area, one would wish to use the smallest possible bomb to destroy the nuclear installation. Also, there would be the communication difficulty to which I referred earlier. One can send aircraft loaded with bombs or they may be seen on the edge of a dictator's radar screen, acting as a psychological pressure. However, once a missile has been launched, it cannot be recalled.
For all those reasons, it is essential that, as well as Trident, we retain an air-launched sub-strategic system within our armoury in the United Kingdom—it should be western Europe, but only Britain and France are involved now. That is essential for peace in the world.
Some people say—we have heard it again tonight—that, if we spent less money on weaponry, which we are trying to do, we could spend more on schools, hospitals and other services. No other aspect of Government expenditure compares with the importance of preventing a
880
nuclear attack on this country, and within a few years we may need such systems to prevent such an attack from the third world.
I want to make a political point. Whatever fussing and fudging there is on the Opposition Benches about Trident, there is a clear division of policy between the Conservative Government, who are committed to the NATO policy of developing this system, and both the major Opposition parties, which are determined to scrap it. The Liberal Democrats have put that in their amendment.
It is not only the system that matters, but the willingness, in the last resort, to use it. I believe firmly that there is no surer way to keep this world safe from the actual use of nuclear weapons by the ever-increasing number of countries that are acquiring them than western democracies such as Britain possessing a deterrent that is capable and is backed by a political willingness, in the last resort, to use it. Only the Conservative party, as the British Government, will provide that.
8.4 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I welcome this debate. In the last such debate, instigated by the Conservatives just before the recess, they managed to rustle up only seven Back Benchers, and some of those were critical of the Government. It required a three-line Whip to persuade hon. Members today to support the Government. I suspect that, despite the Government's endeavours to whip up feeling against the Labour party, defence will not be a major issue in the next election. The Government's record, contemporary and historically, is far from adequate and, although some Labour Members dislike it, the Labour party has changed its policy in many ways which will satisfy NATO and our allies and, most importantly, potential Labour voters.
We are living in an uncertain world. The euphoria of 1990 has dissipated and a greater sense of realism has emerged. Some people thought that the collapse of the Warsaw pact would bring peace and justice throughout the world. Those who are serious about security issues realise, as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has, that 30 wars are currently taking place and there have been about 150 wars since the second world war, although none was between nuclear states. For those who use the argument about why non-nuclear powers were not deterred by nuclear powers, the answer is simple: nuclear powers have said that they will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers. I believe that the possession of nuclear weaons has acted as a deterrent.
I do not like nuclear weapons and neither did Attlee, but he felt that Labour had to have them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) told us that Nye Bevan opposed nuclear weapons, but not that a decade later he was converted. The Labour party's policy is that, for as long as other countries have nuclear weapons, a Labour Government will have them. It is vital to get a handle on proliferation, but I suspect that, even if one buttressed any non-proliferation treaty, there would still be countries that would violate it and, regrettably, some will remain or become nuclear powers.
Over the past 10 years or so, the Tory party has benefited from the Labour party's defence policy. Students of the German language or congnoscenti of commercial television now know the word "schadenfreude", which we are told is the malicious enjoyment of other people's

881
discomfort. I suspect that the Conservative party wishes to see that continue on defence in the future. Having attended the last debate, I shall coin a more appropriate word—"gazzered" which means to intend to do grievous bodily harm to an adversary but to end up inflicting more harm upon oneself. I suspect that that is what will happen at the next election.
I want to discuss a number of issues, but because of the time constraints I shall discuss only one. Is it true that the Conservative party is the only party with which defence is safe? The Tories have published a scurrilous little document entitled, "Britain's Defence: unsafe in Labour's Hands". In the document they talk about the Labour party being historically in the grip of men such as Ramsay Macdonald. I should like to point out to Conservative central office that he was Prime Minister of a Conservative Government, a national Government, for far longer than he was Prime Minister of a Labour Government. His pacifism endeared him to his colleagues such as Baldwin and Chamberlain.
The so-called party of defence does not deserve that title. I am not saying that I fear for our defence when there is a Conservative Government, but each party has its lapses. We had ours in the 1980s, and it was matched only by the Conservative party's lapses. We are told in the Tory document that the Labour party has an inherent aversion to defence and contempt for it. That is wrong. Is it not ironic that when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister in 1951 he said that it was
"a curious commentary on British politics that it should fall to a Conservative Government"
to have to curtail a military budget to which a socialist Government had committed Britain?
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, whom I admire in many ways, lectured us on dissent. He has been involved in many rebellions, and is the Wat Tyler of the Conservative party. It is no wonder that, having gone through what he has, he stands with his back to the wall. He talked about how awful the Labour party has been and about the Liberal Democrats' intention to cut expenditure. In the Chairman's draft report, which became the Defence Select Committee report on the statement on the Defence Estimates, it said that defence expenditure under this Government had fallen from a peak of 5 per cent. of GDP to about 3·8 per cent. It said that defence expenditure in 1993–94 is estimated to acount for 3·4 per cent. of GDP, the same as or less than it was in 1978–79.
The Conservative party has thus maintained the fiction of improving British defence while expenditure has fallen to a level below that at which they took office in 1979. NATO figures show that the amount spent on defence in terms of GDP in 1974–79 was higher than under the Conservative Administration of 1979–92. Hon. Members can study the NATO figures if they disbelieve me. Conservative party policy has meant a smaller proportion of GDP spent on defence. Our Navy has been cut to its smallest size ever, our Army is about to be cut to its lowest levels since the Crimean war, and I have documents on the collapse of the merchant marine. They show that in 1981 United Kingdom registered shipping had 37·7 million deadweight tonnes but that it now has 3·7 million tonnes. That is a disaster.
I give a brief list of the Tories' record on defence. The reliance on nuclear weapons has been to the detriment of conventional defence. To cut the Army to 116,000 is to make it dangerously small. We now have the smallest
882
number of submarines ever; nor do we seem to build them very well, and as I said, there has been a dangerous decline in the merchant marine. There are inadequate airborne warning and communication system offset arrangements and a shared responsibility for the catastrophe of Nimrod.
We have seen procurement foul-ups by the score—the vertical-launch Sea Wolf followed by the Challenger, the seabed operational vessel. There was a delay in replacing Fearless and Intrepid, and a prodigious collapse of the defence industrial base. The checklist goes on and on. There was the messy path of regimental reorganisation. The Conservative party has not a clue what to do with decommissioned nuclear submarines, and morale in the forces is very low. We were lucky to get away with the Gulf in view of Government policies in the 1980s.
We have seen that the Conservative party has little credibility in saying that it is the party of defence, but perhaps it is better on nuclear weapons. Let us consider the record. When Attlee left office, we had an atomic programme which was almost exclusively British. Under the Tories, we saw reliance on the V-bomber force. That was a disaster, because it became obsolescent. The Conservative party then decided on Blue Streak and Blue Steel, all of which were abandoned.
A decade after his party took office, Harold Macmillan was reduced to going to Nassau to plead with Kennedy to be given an off-the-shelf purchase in the form of Polaris. Sorensen, the biographer of Kennedy, said that Macmillan told Kennedy that he was like a ship which looked buoyant but was apt to sink: did Kennedy want to live with the consequences of sinking him? He warned that the collapse of his Government on that issue would bring to power a more anti-American, more neutralist group from either party. That is what we were reduced to. Sorensen said that Kennedy asked whether Macmillan would like to share expenditure on Skybolt but was told, "No thank you, sir." He asked whether he would like Hound Dog but was told "No, we want Polaris." Subsequently, we got a nuclear system on which we are dependent.
We hear talk of the fourth Trident submarine, but let us remember the fifth Polaris submarine which, when the Tories left office, was only an option. When the Tories came to office again in 1970, they had the opportunity to build the fifth Polaris submarine that they are supposed to have wanted, but they declined to do so. It is possible to manage with three Tridents; I should prefer four but the Labour party has said that when it takes office it will consider how much has been spent and how much is contractually committed and then decide, bearing in mind the paramount importance of seeking to control proliferation. Our record——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
8.13 pm
Mr. Richard Alexander: Whether the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) which renounces the use of nuclear weapons and seeks to cancel Trident
"substituting it by a process of arms conversion"—
whatever that means—is the true position of the Labour party remains open to doubt even after this afternoon's debate. It is also a matter for political argument whether it makes common sense, and the electors will be called to judge, whatever the result in the Division this evening.

883
I have read the official Opposition's amendment several times. I am perhaps intellectually less astute than some hon. Members, but I cannot make head or tail of it. We heard very little about it from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but it might have helped us to understand his position if, in discussing it, he had mentioned nuclear defence. It would have helped to have those two words in the amendment so that we should know precisely what was the official Opposition's position.
I do not believe that now is the time to let down our guard; nor do I think that the electorate believe that it is time, and they will not be convinced by the Opposition's stance today. This is a vital issue. If we do not defend our country adequately at a time of international unrest, and if a madman obtains a weapon that we cannot counter with our own, the arguments about the economy, education and health are all for the birds. Defence must be the prime issue facing us at the general election. It is right that we should set out out not only for Members of Parliament but for the world outside where each party stands on the subject.
I and other hon. Members have referred to international uncertainty. Can anyone doubt that, if Saddam had not been stopped in his tracks, he would by now have had a nuclear capability which would have been a threat to us? Can anyone doubt that Libya takes no notice of what we in the west do or think? However, it will take note of how strong our guard is. Indeed, where would the threat from the rickety empires which were together formerly called the Soviet Union be if we had no nuclear arms?
The answer must lie in trying to prevent further proliferation of nuclear arms. The 1968 treaty was a start, but not all countries with nuclear arms have signed it, and many of those who have signed have their own nuclear capability in any case. Another problem is that the treaty does not cover nuclear missiles. It deals with technology, but there are no verifiable powers of inspection. There are now opportunities under the new world order to ensure that, together in friendship, countries can sign a new non-proliferation treaty covering nuclear missiles and verifiable powers of inspection.
We have been told today that there are about 27,000—or perhaps more—nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. They are in danger of being sold to other third world countries, so co-operation is absolutely vital. The building up of unnecessary arsenals by half the world should no longer be a part of international strategy.
This country has enormous good will towards other countries. We may disagree with their leaders, but there is hardly one country that we do not wish well. The problem is that many of those countries do not believe that we have that good will, and consequently, it is vital that we sit around the conference table and convince one another of our good will and of our peaceful intentions.
Since the breakdown of the east-west confrontation, there is an opportunity for a new reality among nations. In the meantime, our nuclear programme must continue, with, I believe, our first Trident to be launched later this year and a fourth boat available in the late 1990s. Trident must always be available and on patrol. An aggressor must know that a nuclear attack would produce unacceptable
884
retaliation. Polaris has kept the peace for us for 30 years and Trident will do so for the next 30 years. We have never used nuclear weapons in those 30 years.
Terrible conflicts have taken place in the Falklands, in Iraq and elsewhere, but we have never threatened to use nuclear weapons, although some Opposition Members thought at the time that there was a danger that we might use them. The weapons have been there in reserve, and that is the whole point. An aggressor has always known that even a limited attack would be met by unacceptable retaliation.
It has been nail-biting stuff over the years. I sat through the debates in the House on the Falklands, and we all sat throught the debates on the Gulf. We have lived through difficult times, yet we never had to use the weapons that we possess. Nuclear weapons have kept world peace, apart from conflagrations such as those I have mentioned, over almost the past 50 years. In turn, we must now reduce our nuclear weapons, and other countries must reduce theirs. It is right to propose that half the present arsenal will go in the next 10 years, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned. It is right that all sub-strategic nuclear weapons should soon be reduced to one tenth of what they are now.
Our policies are clear. We believe that we should reduce the number of warheads, and press for greater and more effective non-proliferation agreements, with verification. Above all, we should keep up our guard at a time of great and worrying uncertainty, because the future of our country depends on it.
8.21 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: This has been an interesting debate, because we have heard speeches from Conservative Members and especially from Labour Members which have illustrated the fact that parts of the Labour party which were threatened with extinction still exist. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made an interesting speech and the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is a member of the same party, made a speech that was diametrically opposed to it. There is no harm in that, especially if hon. Members accept what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said—that he would make it clear to his electorate where he stood on the issue. That is an honourable position.
I am concerned about the falsity of the debate. The real situation in the disintegrating Soviet Union has not been addressed. What was in place in the Soviet Union for 40 years? There was no threat then of a disintegrating command and control structure. There was clear subordination, by dictatorial means, to the political will of the communist party. As others have said, the army in the Soviet Union was loyal because the communist party permeated it. The army had to obey the political will. That system has suffered a severe shock and we are concerned about what is now in place.
Can the permissible action links be recreated? What are the controls over strategic nuclear weapons? More importantly, what are the controls over sub-strategic, especially battlefield, nuclear weapons? People who have studied the question know that, although there are permissible action links and coding, no sensible military command structure would allow the weaponry and the warheads, especially battlefield weapons, to be under

885
single control. There are extreme dangers in relation to strategic weapons, but time does not permit a discussion about that.
Surely no one suggests that, to make us feel safe in the west, we should go back to a recreation of the monolithic hegemony of the Soviet Union. We must deal with the situation that exists. What is the position on our own strategic deterrent? There has been little mention of the so-called "four-boat" Polaris submarine fleet. It is claimed that we need four boats, although there is some doubt about whether the Labour party means three or four. The current position of both the Tory party and the Labour party on the possession of a strategic deterrent is meaningless in relation to the real issues of defence.
All intelligent observers admit that the United Kingdom does not have a viable four-boat Polaris fleet. The expectation is that, later this year, SSBN Revenge will go into Rosyth—the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement may contradict me if he wishes—to be paid off and decommissioned. Everyone in Dunfermline says that that is the expectation. The other known fact is that SSBN Renown is in Rosyth at present and its refit cycle has been delayed. By the end of the year, there will be two boats out of the possible four-boat Polaris fleet. We all know that all four boats have severe problems with reactors. Whom are the Government kidding and whom are the Opposition kidding about the possession of a viable deterrent?
An incoming Labour Government could not put the Trident fleet into the bargaining because it does not exist, with either three or four boats. We are waiting for the launch of the first Vanguard class boat. A Labour Government would be able to put in only an obsolescent, if not obsolete, Polaris fleet. That may have some persuasive force in relation to Russia, the Ukraine or whoever is in possession of strategic weapons in the new Soviet system, but we cannot kid the people that there is a viable four-boat fleet.
On what are we embarking by continuing to give the impression that possession of nuclear weapons is a cheap military virility symbol? The United Kingdom invites copycat reactions from other states which will strive to become nuclear powers. The best example that the United Kingdom can give the world is to cancel the Trident programme and to devote the resources so saved to far more useful purposes. That is the policy of the Scottish National party which we will put forward in the coming general election campaign, when it will command the support of the people of Scotland. That policy has commanded the support not only of Scottish National party conferences but of repeated conferences of the Labour party in Scotland.
I have mentioned the command and control position that existed in the Soviet Union, although I have not described it in detail. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield mentioned the secrecy involved in nuclear weapons. We are concerned about the command and control structure that was in place in the Soviet Union. What is our own command and control structure? What is that of the United States? Do we have any real information about that? If we ask questions about what is happening to the Drell committee report, and about the investigations into the safety of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials in the United Kingdom, a great wall of secrecy engulfs us. If
886
we ask questions about the composition of certain committees and about the terms of reference, a great wall of secrecy comes up.
Would anyone try to kid us that in the United States, for example, President Bush, carrying his little box, is the sole repository of the power to release the United States strategic deterrent? Of course there are variations in the command and control structure.
Let us consider the "aid" that we are offering the Soviet Union. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, said that $400 million of aid was being offered by the United States Senate to the Soviet Union. And to do what? To go to the emerging republics and say, "We will assist you in dismantling your nuclear weapons as you do not know how to do it. Remove all your secrecy and we will come in and help you." That concept is to be put before NATO and the United Nations. The British are in effect saying to the republics, "You must dismantle your nuclear weapons while we modernise ours. Not only do we want a four-boat Trident fleet; we want a tactical air-to-surface missile as well." If the emerging republics in the disintegrating Soviet Union buy that, they are very naive, but I do not expect that they will.
I recognise that these serious matters must be dealt with in a serious way, and it is a serious proposition that we are putting forward. The best suggestion, in the interests of the United Kingdom, and of Scotland, in particular, is to renounce the deterrent now, and now is a good time to do it because Polaris is obsolescent—indeed, obsolete.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) is a very fair man. Last Friday, he and I attended a meeting in Edinburgh—I do not think that I am transgressing any rule of secrecy—at which Sir Robert Easton explained the parlous position in which Yarrow would be if it did not immediately get an order. Earlier, we were given a guarantee, as I interpreted it, by a Labour Front-Bench spokesman that Labour would secure employment at Barrow. May we have a similar guarantee that the Labour party, if elected, will secure employment at Yarrow by placing orders for type 23s or their equivalent there?
8.31 pm
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, albeit, as is often my habit, towards the tail end of the debate.
I begin by saying that I have a natural antipathy to the amount of expenditure that is necessary to maintain our independent nuclear deterrent. The reason for that is that I feel very strongly that Governments should never spend money on something that is not used—let alone something that is designed never to be used.
The prospect of spending 2 per cent., and perhaps 3 per cent., of our entire defence budget on a system that we all hope and pray will never be used sticks in my gullet. In other circumstances, the money could and should be spent on equipment and manpower that have a more serviceable purpose. Unfortunately, however, the circumstances in which that might be possible are not at hand.
Many hon. Members have referred to the dangers posed to this country and others by the break-up of the old world order with its monolithic bloc system, and particularly by the break-up of the Soviet Union. The danger of there being scientists and weapons for sale

887
makes Britain's possession of an independent nuclear deterrent more essential than ever. I regret that, because, as I said, I regret the element of expenditure that is necessary. I believe that these uncertain times dictate that we must continue to have an effective independent deterrent, and it has to be effective.
In one respect, that is more necessary now than ever before. In the past, in our adversary, the Soviet Union, we had an opponent who, as many of us were well aware, respected our ability to respond to nuclear attack. I believe that there is a possibility, in the not too distant future, of our facing potential opponents—tyrants, despots, fundamentalists perhaps—who are quite happy with the idea of using weapons of mass destruction in a way with which even the Soviet Union command structure would not have been happy.
Such Governments may have already used weapons of mass destruction on their own people. I refer, for example, to the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. Those hon. Members who saw Sunday night's BBC "Everyman" programme will realise just how horrific that regime has been in the past three years. We may have to respond to nuclear blackmail from a state which has no compunction about using a weapon of mass destruction and which has used it on its own people.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) made a very good point when he said that it was not simply a matter of there being one Islamic bomb: there might be several Islamic bombs, none of them in the hands of a particularly stable or peace-loving Government. I therefore agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend in justifying the level of nuclear deterrence which the Government have defended and paid for and which is to continue.
Let me say something about the position held by the Liberal Democrats, as outlined by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who questioned the necessity for Britain to have an independently credible nuclear force. I believe strongly that Britain needs to be part of an alternative centre of decision taking on nuclear matters. I can readily foresee a situation in which America withdraws sufficiently from Europe—or has other preoccupations—and no longer feels that it has to provide an intimate nuclear umbrella for Europe.
I should not be happy explaining to my constituents that we were prepared to leave that responsibility in the hands of the French, because I do not believe that their position outside NATO gives them that integration of command structure and that joint responsibilty that we have had in this country within the NATO structure. That argument alone puts to bed the comments made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East about the need for independence.
The Labour party's equivocation on the matter is transparent. It is not enough for Labour Front-Bench spokesmen simply to say that they differ on the number of boats or that they would never use the weapons but think we ought to have them if other people have them. My hon. Friends and I find it extremely worrying that, in times such as these, with such danger and division all over the world, the leader and deputy leader of the Labour party in their recent keynote policy speeches made not a single mention
888
either of Britain's defence and nuclear defence or of the larger threat posed by nuclear proliferation in the middle east and as a result of the break-up of the Soviet Union.
I hope that the Labour party's spokesman will reassure Conservative Members who feel that the two parties have common ground that this is an Opposition priority and not a political matter for point scoring. We should like to hear that, in spite of its omission from keynote speeches, this is very much a Labour party priority. Nobody doubts the Opposition's patriotism or its commitment; it is a question of priorities, and priorities have financial implications. In the past, there has been uncertainty about the Labour party's commitment to nuclear defence, so it is reasonable for us, in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, to expect reassurance on this matter.
I support the Government motion, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
8.40 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: The problem about the speech of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), like the speeches of many of his colleagues, is that it was made in the wrong decade. There has been reference to Sunday's programme about the dreadful massacre of the Kurds. At that time, the British Government had a presence in Baghdad, in the shape of the present Secretary of State for Social Security. His purpose in going there was to sell arms to Saddam Hussein, and he was very successful. As has been said, we have now discovered that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons programme. One Conservative Member said that we had stopped Saddam Hussein in his tracks. We did not stop him in his tracks; we stopped him in our tracks. The tank tracks that he was using were British, and he had a full range of other equipment.
There has been a move among Conservative Members to have the IAEA safeguards strengthened. Conservatives are slow learners. In April 1990, a question relating to precisely that matter was placed on the Order Paper. The reason for the desire to strengthen nuclear safeguards was that Iraq had a nuclear weapons programme. What was the Government's response to that suggestion from the Opposition? They said that they would not seek to have the IAEA safeguards strengthened, and they asked the Opposition whether they were aware that Iraq was a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty and, as such, had undertaken not to develop nuclear weapons. The Government said that they expected Iraq to abide by its international obligations. A few months later the Iraqis took part in the invasion.
When the Kurds were massacred, hon. Members were denied the chance to table questions about Saddam Hussein's programme, in exactly the same way as, in 1939, Members of Parliament were prevented from criticising Adolf Hitler because he was the head of a friendly state. A great many lessons emerged from the Gulf war, but many of them have not been learnt. One of them is that conventional arms, as used in the Gulf war, are as destructive as weapons of mass destruction.
On 30 January, there were 28 B52s over Iraq and Kuwait, and they dropped enough cluster bombs—small, three-pound bombs—to destroy an area one fifth the size of Wales. The main lesson of the Gulf war is that there has been an escalation in conventional weaponry. I refer, for

889
example, to cluster bombs and to multiple-launch rocket systems, where the escalation has given rise to as much danger as arises from weapons of mass destruction.
There is a link missing from the logic of the Government's case. They say that we must keep nuclear weapons, but they do not relate that assertion in any way to the present crisis. The most compelling metaphor about politics is that we live in a saucer-shaped world. We are obsessed by our own affairs. The rim of the saucer, over which no one can see, is the date of the next general election. This is all about general elections. But those who look over the rim of the saucer see a nuclear abyss more threatening than any we have ever known.
In the early 1980s, there was a strong case for British unilateral disarmament. At that time there were two men with their fingers on the nuclear button. One of them—Andropov—was on a life-support machine; the other was Ronald Reagan. One of them was dead from the neck down; the other was dead from the neck up. That was a great peril to the world.

We now have a worse threat. There are several problems that have not been addressed. No Conservative Member has attempted to put forward any practical ideas. None has mentioned the reasons for the likely escalation. Let me list the countries that possess ballistic missiles: Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Germany, Hungary, Italy, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, the Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Syria and Yemen. How many of those countries, knowing that Britain is having three or four votes on this matter, will be thinking tonight that they ought to make sure that they have nuclear weapons to go with their ballistic weapons?
The Government's case is irrelevant. Because of nationalism and fear, the countries which I just mentioned want nuclear weapons. If one starts at the Pacific coast and draws a line through Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea, the Gulf, Israel and north Africa, one goes through a number of countries, every one of which is frightened of its neighbours. Many of them, indeed, are frightened of all their neighbours.
In respect of disarmament one interesting thing has happened in the past few months. I refer to the attitude of the United States to the great threat of the emergence of North Korea as a new nuclear power. Next on the list is Algeria, and after that Iran. What did the United States do to discourage North Korea—a frightened country feeling threatened after the loss of all its friends in the communist bloc—from going full scale for nuclear weapons? It unilaterally disarmed South Korea.
The Government's argument has no logic, no meaning. Conservative Members are simply trying to score political points, as they attempted last week, futilely, to scare people about taxes. Next week they will probably use the racial card, and the week after that the trade union bogey. Among Government Members there is culpable ignorance of what is happening in the world. They have failed to provide answers to questions about the very serious threat of proliferation.
There are terrible problems in the old Soviet Union. That is a real issue that has broken through in the debate. What the Government are putting forward is false. Nuclear technology is now half a century old. There is no secret about the technology itself. It has been denied to many nations, but in that regard there has been only
890
partial success. We know that it is available. In the end, the only answer is political persuasion. In the long run, that will form the basis of international non-proliferation policy. We see on the Government side a group of confused, old cold war warriors without a clue about how to deal with the present situation, and no idea how to deal with the new threat. They are raking coals that are long dead.
8.49 pm
Sir Alan Glyn: These issues are certainly the most important that I have witnessed since I came to the House more than 30 years ago. They represent an unforeseen danger far greater than that of the Falklands or the Gulf war. I strongly support the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I regard four Tridents as essential in the new circumstances in which we find ourselves. I support my right hon. Friend's policy for two reasons—the first is history and the second is the present situation. After all, for 40 years peace in Europe has been kept because of the possession of Polaris by the allies. An enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons has been possessed by the Soviet Union. I fear that if those weapons were loosed, the whole world would be destroyed. That is the lesson that we must learn. Moreover, the Soviet Union was controlled by one man rather than 20 people as is the case now.
There was rightly jubilation when Mr. Gorbachev overthrew a regime which was thoroughly repugnant to us all, but he himself was overthrown by Yeltsin. How long will Yeltsin last? Already, the army is getting restless. As my right hon. Friend said, the Soviet army is in disarray, with a multitude of nations and with dissatisfaction at being disarmed, indeed demobilised, and discipline is undermined. There is an undisciplined force under Yeltsin. How can he control what happens not only in his own country but in the parts of the Soviet Union that have been split? The Soviet Union has broken up into component parts, all of which have atomic weapons. Those areas are also impoverished. Is it likely that those weapons will be used against or sold to other countries for grain and other food? We are up against a serious situation. There are bankrupt states, and they like to flog some of their atomic secrets to other countries.
There is a danger of the union of Muslim states in the former Soviet Union combining with states such as Libya, Algeria, and so on, as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, and forming a fundamentalist group or, alternatively, fighting among themselves and using atomic weapons. We are in a very dangerous position. If Muslim countries such as Iran and Iraq and Soviet Muslim countries formed a super-Muslim federation, rather than a commonwealth of independent states, we would again be in great difficulty. Who could possibly control such forces? Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous. There is also the matter of countries such as Israel, which also have nuclear weapons. The present uncertainties demand that we have a strong and united front.
It is a great sadness to me—I shall be leaving the House at the end of this Session—that, on this matter, we cannot have a bipartisan policy such as we had in the war. The dangers are so awful that they could affect our children. I am terrified that everything will go up in smoke.
We must remain a strong country. We must remain powerful and be able to resist any aggression. To do that,

891
we must do the things that were suggested by my right hon. Friend. But that is not enough. To protect ourselves, we must have force to resist. We must look further ahead. We owe an obligation not only to ourselves but to the rest of the world. We must be able to lead in the control and detection of missiles. How we do that I do not know, but do it we must. If we do not, at some time or other somebody will loose a nuclear weapon. Those are the real dangers that face this country.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to chair the forthcoming Security Council meeting. I do not know how far he will get. I do not know to what extent we can control other countries. Even the detection of missiles could be difficult. If they are deeply hidden, modern technology may not detect them. Those are the ghastly problems that we face. If the Security Council itself cannot do that, we have to use every method and organisation that we can to persuade the rest of the world that it is no use having atomic weapons, because they will destroy either themselves or the world. But it will be extremely difficult to persuade them.
It is most important to locate weapons and to have a system of international inspection and, eventually, international demobilisation. We cannot live in a world in which missiles are under no control. I do not believe that even Russia will be able to control enormous stocks of weapons. I was alarmed by the figures relating to the quantity of weapons floating about in the world. That is why I said that this is one of the most dangerous situations that I have seen for more than 30 years.
We have always known of the Russian danger. Thanks to American technology, we know roughly how many weapons Russia has. At least we knew that we had someone with whom we could negotiate, but now there is nobody. With perhaps 50 or 60 countries holding such weapons, we must find some way of making sure that those weapons are not loosed off by irresponsible people. I do not know how we can do that. The Security Council will try, but we must go further to ensure the security not only of this country, but of the world. It is a frightening situation.
Our primary duty is to be effective and to ensure that we are adequately defended. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State carefully outlined two issues. The first related to the dangers of proliferation and of the results of the break-up of the Soviet Union. He also laid down a firm defence policy, which included four Trident submarines. If that policy is followed, I am sure that we shall be able to defend ourselves. However, it is not enough simply to defend ourselves—we must defend the rest of the world, because if the rest of the world attacks us or if various countries attack one another, the effect would be——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to call the hon. Gentleman to order, but he has had the 10 minutes that he is allowed under the Standing Order.
8.59 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to be called, Madam Deputy Speaker, even so late in the debate. I understand that, by agreement, the two Front-Bench spokesmen intend to start their replies at 9.10 pm. I deeply regret that, because I should have thought that they could have allowed sufficient time to
892
enable my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and myself to speak for 10 minutes each. I shall have to shorten my speech to enable my hon. Friend to speak. Having been present throughout the debate and tabled an amendment to the motion, which my hon. Friend has supported, I believe that we should at least have an opportunity to put our point of view to the House.
I am the author of an amendment to the Government's motion. I tabled my amendment because I believe that the Government's attitude to nuclear weapons is, frankly, barking mad. When the Secretary of State made it clear earlier that he was refusing either to confirm or to deny that he is prepared to use nuclear weapons, I thought, "What sort of world does he live in? Has he visited Hiroshima to see the actual effects of using nuclear weapons?" The right hon. Gentleman should understand that, once a nuclear weapon is fired, it murders, kills, maims and destroys those on whom it is targeted, those under its flight path, and those who fired it. People are dying of cancers across northern Europe because of what was, in effect, a minor explosion at Chernobyl. That is an example of what happens when a nuclear explosion takes place. The idea that in 1992 we should be seriously contemplating the use of nuclear weapons is abhorrent.
Many people across the world have sought to oppose the use of nuclear weapons. Many brave people, including scientists, who developed nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered systems in the past now recognise their dangers. Just before Christmas, I took part in a demonstration in Kensington High street, opposite the Israeli embassy. We were there to protest about the continued imprisonment of Mordecai Vannunu, a man whom I believe to be very brave. He spoke out about the development of nuclear weapons in Israel. For his pains, he has been given a prison sentence of 18 years, of which he has served at least two years in solitary confinement with a bright light on in his cell all the time. That is a mind-bending experience, as it was intended to be. When our Government's observers attend the middle east peace talks, I hope that they will raise the question of Mordecai Vannunu, his bravery and the need for his release.
At the start of the new year, we have seen the new world order revealed for exactly what it is. The 5,000 nuclear warheads of the United States that used to be targeted on Moscow, Berlin, Belgrade and many other eastern European capitals have been swivelled round and are now targeted on unspecified cities and military installations in the third world. The new world order appears to be one in which the northern industrial nations are getting together to ensure that the world's economic inequalities continue.
We have come to the end of the cold war period, during which the Soviet Union and the United States were engaged in an arms race which wrecked the economy of the Soviet Union and brought it to its knees. It also impoverished the rest of the world, with the United States becoming the world's biggest debtor as it paid for its own arms race. Yet, since 1945, about 20 million people have died in wars around the world, so where is the deterrent in that?
The brutality of those wars is that they have been wars by proxy and about injustice. What was the Vietnam war about other than the Vietnamese people waging a war of national liberation? What was the war in central America about other than being against the oligarchies in El

893
Salvador and the Contra guerrillas seeking to overthrow the Government of Nicaragua? What are the other wars in the world about, other than instability and inequality?
Tomorrow we shall "celebrate"—if that is the right word—the start of the Gulf war. It ill becomes Conservative Members to talk about the brutality of Saddam Hussein and of the Baathist regime in Iraq when the Government have refused to reveal how much of the billions of pounds' worth of export credit guarantees given to Saddam Hussein and his regime have been lost to the British taxpayer. The Conservative Government armed Saddam Hussein to the teeth. I went to Iraq this August and I saw the destruction in Kurdistan. It did not all happen during the uprising or during the Gulf war. It happened when our Government were buddy-buddy with Saddam Hussein and the Secretary of State was there selling information and materials to him.
In this world, brutally divided between north and south and between rich and poor, in which a billion people are on the point of starvation and serious poverty, the British Government's solution is to spend £23 billion on the Trident missile system, which breaks the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and to continue an annual defence expenditure of about £24 billion. And what is NATO's solution? Instead of winding itself up, as it should, it turns itself into the political police force of the rest of the world—and the European Community seems to me to be trying to follow in the same direction.
Nuclear weapons are not a deterrent. They are inherently dangerous and unstable. We should say honestly that now is the time to get rid of all nuclear weapons and nuclear bases. Now is the time for massive nuclear disarmament. Now is the time to take stock of the situation in which the world finds itself. That situation is not a pretty sight. It is time for us to do something to redress the imbalance in the world. The imbalance between north and south, the plight of starving children in Africa and India, and the debt crisis that ravages Latin America cannot be solved so long as the west maintains its massive expenditure on arms and supports economic inequality in the world.
I hope that the issues that we have discussed today will feature in the general election campaign. I have been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament since I was 15 and I intend to continue being a member. I have never supported nuclear weapons, and I never will. I ask any of my hon. Friends who believe that there are electoral benefits in supporting the principle of maintaining nuclear weapons to look at the dole queues in Britain, the crumbling schools and hospitals and the inequalities in the world, and to see that there is a solution which involves arms conversion, turning swords into ploughshares and turning away from nuclear madness towards a saner, freer and more democratic world. That is impossible if we maintain nuclear weapons.
9.6 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), for giving me four minutes—now three minutes—to solve the problems of the world. I am sure that I can do a better job in three minutes than the Government have done in 12 years.
When Conservative Members describe weapons of death and destruction, they become positively orgasmic.
894
Looking at them, those are probably the only orgasms that they are ever likely to have. The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) used to tremble with excitement at the thought of being able to press the nuclear button. That frightened me, and it should have frightened every other sane person in the world. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear earlier that he was not prepared to press the nuclear button.
Conservative Members have made great play of the differences of opinion within the Labour party. I, too, am a supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I have been a member since the late 1960s, and I remain so to this day. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I shall make that clear in my election manifesto in Newham, North-West. I do not expect any difficulties when it comes to that election. I shall lay my cards honestly and openly before the electorate, and I shall make arguments in my election campaign that will convince people that my stance is worthy and worth voting for.
I listened to the Secretary of State for Defence, who never fails to fail to rise to the occasion. He had an opportunity to talk about the momentous events in the world and about how Britain could perhaps take a lead. After a few references to that, he reduced his arguments to petty party political mud slinging. The Conservative party knows that it is on a losing streak. It knows that it is done for, come the general election. So, of course, all the smears come out, supported by the fascist loonies on the Daily Mail,the Daily Express and The Sun.They will smear the Labour party, but I do not think that the people of this country will be deceived. They can see through the bankrupt arguments of a bankrupt Government.
If the Secretary of State really wanted to do something about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the crumbling eastern empire—and the real possibility, I accept that, of those leaking out and going to countries which are prepared to buy the hardware and the technology—instead of saying that we would give them advice on what to do, he should have said that we would help them by giving them hard currency in exchange for dismantling those nuclear weapons.
The Government should tell the 100,000 or so nuclear scientists in the former Soviet Union that we will give them jobs. Of course, we have to give jobs to a lot of ordinary people over here, but we could say that in Europe we will give them jobs; we will give them jobs in their own country by helping them to use their great skills in civilian production, so that the people of the east can get the advantages that they now want from democracy. Those are the arguments that the Secretary of State should have put before us, not the petty party squabbling that he has thrown at us in a squalid attempt to win a few votes.
The best defended country is a country which unites its people, a country which can deal with problems of unemployment and homelessness and poverty. A country which can deal with those things is a country well defended. This country, under the present Government, is not defended at all.
9.11 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: This is the fourth opportunity that we have had to discuss these matters since October. We had the defence estimates debate when

895
the House resumed, we had the Loyal Address, we had the nuclear defence debate on 22 November, and now we have today's debate.
The only justification for tonight's debate is the reality of the collapse of the USSR, although I suppose that another would be an attempt by the Government Whips Office to get a few more Conservative Members to stand up and defend the Government's nuclear policy. On 22 November, as I recall, only three Back Benchers were dragged into the Chamber to sit alongside the Secretary of State and his colleague. Certainly, the Secretary of State's remarks today are the same stale mixture of bluster and abuse that we have come to know as a substitute for any Government defence policy.
Today we have had the opportunity to reassess the significance of events since the House rose. We can see the emergence today of four independent states on the territory of the former Soviet Union—independent states with substantial strategic nuclear systems in their territories, as well as an unknown number of states with tactical nuclear weapons and chemical weapons on their soil. Each one of those states is different in its nuclear capability and in the political, social, cultural and geographical factors that might influence its intentions.
This is the argument and the rationale for recognition of the need for a diplomatic as well as a military response to this complex set of security problems. Just as the definition of threat implies not only the capability but the intent, so deterrence demands not only the ability to respond but the willingness to seek non-military solutions to apparently intractable security problems. Following the famous Hoftihouse meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, the United States and the then Soviet Union established that it was possible to construct an arms control and disarmament regime which could reduce and in some instances eliminate elements of the world's nuclear arsenal.
The debate so far over the break-up of the Soviet Union has tended to ignore the tactical nuclear and chemical weapons that were deployed widely throughout Soviet territory. The existence of those weapons, the uncertainty about their command and control system, the confusion over the political institutions and the authorities responsible for them, the attraction of selling off even small amounts of those nuclear and chemical arsenals, and the dangers of the brain drain of the technologists are all present today.
Those are some of the new risks which confront not only Britain and NATO but all states. Concerns about proliferation have been expressed by Members of all parties today. Proliferation is no longer the old problem of new weapons falling into the hands of old-established states with old-established problems and disputes. The reverse is now true. Old weapons are falling into the hands of newly established states with new and little-known problems and disputes.
In the face of all this, it is not enough for the Prime Minister to claim credit for inviting President Yeltsin for a comfort stop on his way to New York. There has to be a framework to incorporate all the CIS states which will permit the implementation of the conventional forces in Europe treaty and enable that treaty to be readjusted to take account of the new military districts which will have been created as a consequence of the military organization
896
within the former Soviet Union. Rapid steps must also be taken to ensure that the START reductions can be carried out.
The reduction in the nuclear arsenal could be carried out either by a suitably monitored central authority, probably Russia, or through the provision of facilities to the other states, such as the Ukraine, first to disable and then to dispose of unwanted weapons. There is a debate about whether the nuclear weapons in the Commonwealth of Independent States should be disabled immediately and then disposed of at a later date, or whether they should be disposed of without first disabling them. In that process we could make use of the skills of Ukrainian, Russian and other scientists.
In November last year we raised this question and put it on the agenda. So far, it has met with studied indifference on the part of the Government. Two months have passed. Anyone with any sense of history or of what was taking place in the former Soviet Union would have known and anticipated what the probabilities were—that the union would break up, that Pandora's box would be opened, and that myriad problems would emerge. The Government should have known that the countries with expertise, with the diplomatic, technical and political skills which because of its totalitarian character the Soviet Union suppressed for generations, would have to deal with the problem.
This is the complaint that we make about the Government: they come to the problem purely and simply in the interests of a general election, to try to divert attention from the horrendous economic and social problems that twelve and a half years of Thatcherism and Majorism have created in this country. They are more interested in trying to foment an artificial debate in the House about security matters than in dealing with the real problems of the economy and of the social fabric of this country.
The debate is artificial because speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House have reflected very similar concern about the problems. There has been little difference in the prescriptions for how to deal with the problem of proliferation, the uncertainties of nuclear control and our difficulties as a nuclear power in responding to those challenges.
We are not talking only about a massive strategic arsenal. In some respects, that is the easiest problem. That arsenal is well documented and reported. It has been discussed for a number of years, through the long days of the START process and before. We know the size of the arsenal, and we know roughly where the weapons are. What we are not sure about is the size and composition of the massive inventory of tactical nuclear weapons and warheads. Various estimates have been made today, and 16,000 is probably the agreed figure. We are concerned about the uncertainty on the size, the content and the location of the arsenals. Reciprocal agreements were made between the United States and the Soviet Union to reduce the arsenals. When they were announced at the end of September, it was explicit that there were to be no verification procedures because no one knew where all the weapons were or was confident that their removal and disposal could be adequately inspected and verified.
It was significant that the agreement was a product of the new trust which had grown up between the Soviet Union and the United States. It was an expression of that trust that they could take each other's word that they

897
would use their best endeavours to get rid of the tactical nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. The problem has been blown back on us because trust no longer exists, and we do not know where the weapons are, who is responsible for them and who eventually is capable of dismantling them.
We require an agreement of the Commonwealth of Independent States for the collection and disposal of the weapons. It is well known that, as yet, there are insufficient facilities for the storage in Russia prior to disposal. It is not too much to ask that the highest priority is given to the matter. If necessary, we could surely provide the means whereby the weapons could be stored, and enter into agreements to ensure that they would be protected. The military required to do that should be paid, with payment based on international agreement between the G7 states, the members of NATO and the members of the European Community. Those countries could afford to assist, and it is as much in their interest as in the interests of the people of the Commonwealth of Independent States that the weapons are taken care of properly.
The ability to deal with those weapons of mass destruction is completely unaffected by the existence or otherwise of British nuclear weapons. The self-satisfied breast beating of Tory Ministers is a matter of total indifference to those members of the Russian military and to the former Soviet scientists who now have nothing to sell but their nuclear materials and expertise, since their labour is no longer a marketable skill in post-Communist society.
Those are the problems which confront us. It is incumbent upon the remaining four original, permanent members of the Security Council—the United States, China, France and Britain—to assert the authority of the Security Council and the United Nations. That is where we can put items on the agenda soon. Because of the British chairmanship of the Security Council, and the leadership role which that affords us in the short term, we can ensure the support of countries which hitherto have not paid their dues to the United Nations and which have not supported institutions such as the International Atomic Energy Agency. We can ensure that such institutions get the financial support and political backing which will not only enable them to carry out their monitoring work and expand their activities but will provide staff to address the problems which lie at the heart of the new peace process.
If we have to work on the process of non-proliferation and also ensure that the sources of dispute between potential proliferators are diminished, we can do so only with a UN secretariat which is capable of handling the problems. If we want to give support to the new Secretary General of the United Nations, the first thing that we must do is to make sure that the organisation that he is inheriting has the appropriate funds and financial support to address the tasks of greatest importance.
We must set in place quickly a framework to stop the leakage of nuclear skills and equipment to the neo-nuclear powers. It is a far higher priority to prevent them from obtaining the means to blackmail us than to spend vast sums of money on as yet untried weaponry which might or might not deter a pre-emptive strike. Once agreement is reached on the implementation of the START treaty. the United States and Russia should be encouraged to go even further. People such as former Defence Secretary Robert
898
McNamara said that it would be possible to reduce levels to as low as 1,000 warheads in the United States and probably in Russia.
Those figures have not been plucked out of the air, but are within the capability of negotiators and the disposal process if we are prepared to give it the support and backing that it deserves. People of the distinction of Robert McNamara have stated time and again that we should seek the peaceful route towards a better world rather than continuing with needless and unnecessary stockpiling of nuclear weapons.
Much has been said today about the ability to deter mad dictators and fanatics. We must not forget that the war in the Gulf started almost 12 months ago. No one should be persuaded that the lethality and accuracy of conventional weapons will not be enough to deter conventional military action by third-world powers. The Government have first-hand evidence of the effectiveness of our troops and forces in the Gulf. We have seen the disastrous and dreadful consequences of conventional weapons. If anyone is in doubt about whether this or any other western country can be held to ransom by third world powers, he need only reflect on the war in the Gulf and the capability that we were able to bring to bear then.
Tonight I do not simply want to say that we should seek to reduce nuclear arsenals; we should also seek to bring about a comprehensive test ban agreement. 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. It can be argued that the complexity and sophistication of many simulations are such that, if other countries seek to test nuclear weapons in the open air and cease to do so in non-laboratory conditions, they will quickly and easily he spotted and could quickly become the targets of sanctions and other such punishments. A comprehensive test ban treaty would quickly expose those countries which do not have the sophistication and capability to carry out such tests. That would enable us to deal with them far more quickly than we can with the ear stroking which currently passes for diplomacy.
If we were able to show our willingness to sign a comprehensive test ban treaty and could persuade the other three permanent members, plus Russia, to sign as well, we would give a clear signal to all potential proliferators that we were sincere in our intent to reduce the increase and spread of nuclear weapons.
The agenda that I have outlined tonight could have been introduced by the Government and have enjoyed the unanimous support of all hon. Members. It could have provided the Prime Minister with the authority that he needs to assume the chair of the Security Council. Tonight the Government have thrown away that opportunity and betrayed the trust that the international community could have given this country, based on its position as a nuclear power which is not only a member of the permanent five, NATO and the EC, but has a unique link with the third world through its membership of the British Commonwealth.
Instead, we have been presented with a narrow, meaningless, and partisan Government motion. I urge all my right hon. and hon. Friends to join us in the Lobby in support of the official Opposition amendment to the Government motion, which shows the route that a Labour

899
Government will take after the general election in addressing the problems of the international situation and the realities of nuclear defence in the new world ahead.
9.29 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Defence policy is always about national security. Sometimes, it is about national survival. Its objectives must always include the deterrence of one's potential enemies and the reassurance of one's friends.
A Government defence policy thus defined will fail, be of no effect, and neither deter nor reassure unless the policies themselves carry public conviction and the politicians who articulate those policies command respect.
There can be neither conviction nor respect unless those who conduct an express defence policy are believed to mean what they say, and to be ready to do that which they say they will do. A defence policy must be founded on a solid basis of conviction. It must be the settled expression of belief. It must clearly reflect a unity of purpose around which a party will rally.
Defence policies that are but expressions of a draftsman's pen, employed to save a political party's fortunes, are contemptible in themselves, discreditable in their purpose, and unavailing in their implementation. As today's debate has made plain, Labour party's defence policy is all of those.
Labour's policy was expressed—if that is not too gracious a word—by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Obadiah Slope of the House of Commons. He made one of the most lacklustre and undistinguished speeches from Labour's Front Bench that I have heard these 12 years.
The right hon. Gentleman made three pledges, and only three. The first was an uncosted and previously undisclosed pledge to compensate the workers of Barrow against the loss of work caused by labour cuts. The right hon. Gentleman will be obliged to give a similar pledge to any other worker who may be affected by labour cuts. Indeed, he has already been asked to do so by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). I will place a small bet that pledge was never cleared with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), and I do not believe it.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. and learned Gentleman shows his utter illiteracy by those stupid comments. Anyone who has studied Labour party policy documents—as Mr. Julian Lewis, who briefs members of the Government Front Bench on such matters, surely—has will know that we made that announcement on 9 May 1989, and that it has been well known ever since. Of course, it is part of the costings on which the ludicrous tax fiction drafted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who cannot get his own Government's costings right, is based.
Mr. Hogg: We see how concerned the right hon. Gentleman is when yet another undisclosed pledge is brought to the electorate's attention. No wonder the taxpayer would face a bill of about £39 billion.
The second commitment or pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman was to subscribe to a test ban treaty. That would make it less easy for the United Kingdom to retain a safe and effective nuclear weapon system, and to that
900
extent it is wholly incompatible with the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that he wants a nuclear defence policy to operate. His third commitment was to embark on a course of further reductions in conventional armaments, which is clearly set out in the amendment to which he has attached his name and which, moreover, clearly represents the implementation of Labour's commitment to a reduction in conventional defence spending of £6 billion year on year.
What the right hon. Gentleman did not do was give any pledges about either Trident or, for that matter, our nuclear deterrent. Time and again, he was pressed to tell the House whether he proposed to order a fourth boat—if he was in a position to do so—or to cancel it if it had already been ordered. He declined to answer that question.
More extraordinary still, the right hon. Gentleman declined to say whether the Labour party intended to retain a nuclear weapon. I listened to his entire speech, and I know that he gave no assurances in that regard. If Labour believes in a defence policy based on nuclear weapons, Labour Members were very careful not to say so.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who said that never had a convert shown so little fervour. It is worth noting that the Opposition amendment proposes to strike out all the commitments to nuclear defence policy contained in the motion. It wholly rejects nuclear deterrence, and Britain's possession of a nuclear weapon. It suggests other things, such as disarmament, but it says nothing about a nuclear weapon.
That is all that I can sensibly say about the right hon. Member for Gorton—no, no; I am being unfair. The right hon. Gentleman made one sensible point, about proliferation. He was supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy)—who knows a great deal more about the subject than he does—and, indeed, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
The question of proliferation in eastern Europe is certainly a serious issue. So far, some encouraging steps have been taken. First, the republics have committed themselves to a single control of nuclear weapons. Secondly, they support the concept of the ratification of START—the strategic arms reduction treaty. Thirdly, they accept that nuclear weapons should be removed from the republics outside Russia; and, fourthly, they accept—or, at least, Byelorussia and the Ukraine accept—that they should join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty organisation as non-nuclear states.
I entirely agree with the concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford about the status of Kazakhstan. He feared that the republics might be less willing, as time went on, to surrender nuclear weapons that they currently possessed. I also agree that NATO has a prominent role to play in assisting the process of dismantling the nuclear systems in eastern Europe. That point was urged strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, and I agree with it.
That is partly what lies behind my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's decision to convene the Security Council at the end of January, and it is partly that which explains the invitation to President Yeltsin to visit London. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said, the United States has allocated $400 million to that matter, ande a in December last year NATO committed itself to helping in the dismantling process. That is highly desirable.

901
I agree with what the hon. Member for Attercliffe said about strengthening the IAEA. That point received support from his right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton. There is a powerful case for reinforcing its powers in terms of inspection and an obligation imposed upon suppliers to furnish more information than they do at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden spoke powerfully about the need for Britain to possess a nuclear weapon. He was right to stress, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) that, in eastern Europe and elsewhere, nuclear weapons may be possessed by national Governments who are enthused by nationalism, religious bigotry or just plain tyrants. However, I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden that the circumstances are more dangerous than they have been in the past. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), I believe that circumstances were more dangerous 10, 20 and 30 years ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden drew attention, rightly, to the dangers of chemical and biological warfare. He is correct to focus on the requirement For an effective verification regime. The absence of such a regime makes the prevention of the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons so difficult. We hope that, in the 1992 chemical warfare convention, there will be a much more effective verification procedure than we have previously contemplated. In April this year, experts will be further exploring how we could introduce an effective verification procedure for biological warfare.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) expressed the defence policy of the Liberal Democrats. He skilfully shrugged off the reminder of my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has shared platforms with CND and has, in the past, committed himself to withdrawing cruise missiles and cancelling Trident.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East tried to reconcile his defence policy with what he described as his aspiration to reduce defence expenditure by 50 per cent. He cannot have it both ways. It is not achievable in any foreseeable defence position, and it is disingenuous of him to call for it. He said—I strongly agree—that it is wrong for anybody to define with exactitude the circumstances in which a nuclear weapon would be used. It is equally foolish for the Leader of the Opposition to say that he would never use a nuclear weapon. That destroys the principle of deterrence. The statement that he would never use such a weapon has never been withdrawn.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East also expressed his doubts about a sub-strategic weapon. There is a logical gap in his argument. He concedes—it is part of his policy—that Britain should have a nuclear deterrent. He must accept that there are certain circumstances in which the threat of the use of a strategic weapon would not be credible whereas the threat of the use of a sub-strategic weapon might be credible. If one did away with the latter, one would leave a gap in Britain's defence policy which I would regard as a very substantial one.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hogg: I shall not give way. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) made a point of considerable importance about the European dimension. It is a sensible point, and we entirely agree that we need to develop a European element in our defence arrangements. We foresee that role being adopted by the Western European Union. It is not a role which is subordinate to the Twelve—the hon. Gentleman was mistaken in that—but nor is it a function which will be prejudicial to NATO, which is at the core of our defence arrangements. However, it is certainly a role which will add to Europe's capacity in area and out of area.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made the type of speech that the House enjoys hearing. Indeed, it was a pleasure for us to hear him champion the cause of unilateralism. He said in terms that he did not think that the Soviets posed a threat to western Europe. I fancy that he would not have cared to make that argument in Budapest or in Prague, and I find it difficult to make a distinction between the two.
Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman said in terms that neither Iraq nor Argentina was in any way deterred from attacking British interests by reason of our possession of a nuclear weapon. That is not surprising, because it is inconceivable that we would have used a nuclear weapon in those circumstances, not least because of the negative security assurances which positively precluded their use in such circumstances.
Dr. John Reid: In what circumstances would we use them?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is asking a question which he knows will receive no answer, because the nature of a deterrent is that it remains uncertain—the nation that has it might be prepared to use it.
I return to the language of the motion.
Dr. Reid: As far as I can make out, the hon. and learned Gentleman has just created a precedent by telling the House that, in the two wars in which we have been involved, it was to—use his word—"inconceivable" that the Government would have used nuclear weapons. In what other circumstances would it be inconceivable for us to use nuclear weapons? Will he elaborate and tell us in what circumstances we would have used them?
Mr. Hogg: I am surprised to hear a defence spokesman ask that question, because he knows that the two cases to which I referred are covered by the negative security assurances which made the use of nuclear weapons in such circumstances inconceivable. If he did not know that, I do not mind him admitting it, but it is extraordinary ignorance on his part.
I deal now with the motion on which the House is shortly to vote. It endorses the long-standing commitment of the Conservative party to the concept of nuclear deterrence, to a nuclear-armed NATO, to Britain's own nuclear deterrent, to disarmament through negotiation on strength and to updating where necessary the weapon systems that the United Kingdom possesses.
All those commitments, which are broadly supported by the country, are expressly denied and excluded by the Labour party's amendment. In every one of those commitments, the Conservative party and Conservative Government have led and reflected public opinion and the

903
national interest. The same cannot be said for the Labour party which fought the previous two elections on a programme that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said was disastrous and should have been consigned to the rubbish heap.
I have already said that the success of a Government's defence policies depends on the conviction that those policies and their spokesmen carry in the eyes both of prospective opponents and of present friends. It is therefore right that, when analysing Labour's current declared policy, we should look well at what, until a few months ago, that declared policy manifestly was.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), when presenting Labour's nuclear policy in the House on 22 November, said:
"Throughout the 1980s the Labour party was committed to a defence policy which, with regard to nuclear weapons, required the Labour Government to renounce ownership of Polaris and to abandon the Trident programme."—[Official Report, 22 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 550.]
The hon. Gentleman was somewhat less than full in his description of Labour party policy. In addition to the unilateral measures which I have just described, the Labour party's 1983 manifesto called for the rejection of any fresh nuclear bases or weapons on British soil or in British waters, and the removal of all existing nuclear bases and weapons. The same manifesto committed a Labour Government to preventing the siting of cruise missiles in Britain and to the removal of any that were then in place. Broadly similar commitments were repeated in the 1987 manifesto.
Seldom has the passage of time so swiftly, effectively and comprehensively destroyed the intellectual foundations of the main plank of a party's defence policy. The truth is that, for the past 12 years, Labour has espoused a defence policy which never had intellectual validity and which, if implemented, would have exposed Britain to grave security risks.
Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hogg: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
The House must now look with great caution at the policies that Labour now purports to espouse. They have been most recently espoused by the hon. Member for Clackmannan, who is not even a member of the shadow Cabinet. That caution is reinforced when one considers the close connection that exists between the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the cause of unilateralism, and the Labour party.
The constitution of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has one merit: it is clear. The policies are silly and dangerous, but at least they are clear. I quote from the declared aims and policies of CND:
"CND believes that British independent nuclear weapons and American nuclear bases and weapons in Britain do nothing to increase the security of Britain…and should be unilaterally and unconditionally rejected and removed."
The key elements of the Labour party manifestos of 1983 and of 1987 are to be found in the CND constitution.
It is not at all surprising that there should be a close identity of interest between the policy and constitution of CND and those of the Labour party, because many Labour Members have been or now are members of CND.
904
Let us begin with the Leader of the Opposition. He joined CND 31 years ago. For 30 years, he was a paid-up and apparently loyal supporter of its policies. Until very recently, his public statements were unreservedly unilateralist. In 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989—in seven of the past nine years—the right hon. Gentleman publicly and enthusiastically endorsed key demands and policies of CND. Unilateral disarmament for Britain was the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. The closure of nuclear bases, the decommissioning of Polaris and the cancellation of Trident were all his policies.
Then followed what was, for the right hon. Gentleman, a period of unaccustomed silence—until, in July last year,The Guardian reported that the right hon. Gentleman and Mrs. Kinnock had allowed their 30-year membership of CND to lapse. What a way to disclose a change of strategic policy. What had happened during the previous 30 months to cause the right hon. Gentleman to change his apparent convictions of 30 years? Was it that he suddenly realised that his convictions of the past 30 years were false, or did he simply realise that the electorate could not stomach them?
What about the right hon. Member for Gorton? Where did he stand in the past? We certainly do not know where he stands today. I can tell the House something about the right hon. Gentleman: he opposed the deployment of the cruise missile, and of Trident—something that he now says he supports. As recently as 1987, he sacked his adviser, Mr. Richard Heller, for writing an article that stated in precise terms the Labour party's policy of today. With what I can only describe as a cavalier disregard for the obligations of a good employer, the right hon. Gentleman issued a statement which said:
"Mr. Kaufman completely disagrees with the article"—
which, as I said, stated in every respect the Labour party's policy, in so far as it is comprehensible, as now stated.
What about the rest of the Labour Front Bench? There are 18 elected members of the shadow Cabinet, 14 of whom have been members of CND and a number of whom still are. One of them is a vice-president of CND. As late as 1989, three members of the shadow Cabinet signed Tribune's appeal in support of British unilateral nuclear disarmament and the removal of the United States bases from Britain. According to Ms. Marjorie Thompson, the chairman of CND, there are now between 100 and 130 Labour Members who support CND and are its members.
There is nothing immoral about being a member of CND, but we must understand that the principles and policies of that organisation are wholly different from the principles and policies set out in the motion. They are completely incompatible with the defence policies of NATO, and cannot be reconciled with Labour's policy as currently declared. I therefore approach Labour's declared commitment to a nuclear-based defence policy with great scepticism. I do not believe that what we have heard today represents a settled statement of policy, or that it is founded upon solid conviction.
My scepticism is reinforced by a reading of the words of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who wound up the debate in November last year. Seeking to explain Labour's defence policies in the 1980s, he said:
"I make no apologies for supporting that policy six or seven years ago. It was a tactic, not a principle—and not an end in itself."—[Official Report,22 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 597.]

905
I find that an extraordinary statement of policy, because I had always believed that, in so far as it had any justification at all, the Labour party's commitment to unilateralism, to the closure of bases, to the withdrawal from NATO, was based on a principle—on a deeply held conviction that those things were wrong.
That was, and appears still to be, the view of Labour Members; it is not the view, however, of those who shape policy on the Labour Front Bench. For them the commitments which, as they now admit, would have destroyed our security were never issues of principle but bargaining ploys, chips on the table, mere tactics.
That brings me to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. We shall remember words that he used in an interview with The Independent:
"If we have changed our mind to win we can change our mind when we have won. What is wrong with that?"
Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question,That the Question be now put,put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 345

Division No. 35]

[10 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs lrene (Paisley, N.)

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

Allen, Graham

Dewar, Donald

Anderson, Donald

Dixon, Don

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dobson, Frank

Armstrong, Hilary

Doran, Frank

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

Ashton, Joe

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Eadie, Alexander

Barron, Kevin

Eastham, Ken

Battle, John

Enright, Derek

Beckett, Margaret

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Bell, Stuart

Fatchett, Derek

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

Faulds, Andrew

Bermingham, Gerald

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bidwell, Sydney

Fisher, Mark

Blair, Tony

Flannery, Martin

Blunkett, David

Flynn, Paul

Boateng, Paul

Foster, Derek

Boyes, Roland

Fraser, John

Bradley, Keith

Fyfe, Maria

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Caborn, Richard

George, Bruce

Callaghan, Jim

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Canavan, Dennis

Gould, Bryan

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clelland, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Grocott, Bruce

Cohen, Harry

Hain, Peter

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hardy, Peter

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Corbett, Robin

Haynes, Frank

Corbyn, Jeremy

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Cousins, Jim

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Cox, Tom

Henderson, Doug

Crowther, Stan

Hinchliffe, David

Cryer, Bob

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cunningham, Dr John

Home Robertson, John

Dalyell, Tarn

Hood, Jimmy

Darling, Alistair

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Hoyle, Doug

906

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Prescott, John

lngram, Adam

Quin, Ms Joyce

Janner, Greville

Radice, Giles

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Randall, Stuart

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Redmond, Martin

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Kilfoyle, Peter

Reid, Dr John

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Robertson, George

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Robinson, Geoffrey

Lamond, James

Rogers, Allan

Leadbitter, Ted

Rooker, Jeff

Leighton, Ron

Rooney, Terence

Lewis, Terry

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Livingstone, Ken

Rowlands, Ted

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Ruddock, Joan

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Sedgemore, Brian

Loyden, Eddie

Sheerman, Barry

McAllion, John

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McCartney, lan

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Macdonald, Calum A.

Short, Clare

McFall, John

Skinner, Dennis

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McKelvey, William

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

McLeish, Henry

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

McMaster, Gordon

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

McWilliam, John

Snape, Peter

Madden, Max

Soley, Clive

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Spearing, Nigel

Marek, Dr John

Steinberg, Gerry

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Stott, Roger

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Strang, Gavin

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Straw, Jack

Martlew, Eric

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Maxton, John

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Meacher, Michael

Turner, Dennis

Meale, Alan

Vaz, Keith

Michael, Alun

Walley, Joan

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wareing, Robert N.

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Morgan, Rhodri

Wigley, Dafydd

Morley, Elliot

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wilson, Brian

Mowlam, Marjorie

Winnick, David

Mullin, Chris

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Murphy, Paul

Worthington, Tony

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Wray, Jimmy

O'Brien, William

Young, David (Bolton SE)

O'Hara, Edward

O'Neill, Martin

Tellers for the Ayes:

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

Parry, Robert

Pendry, Tom

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bellingham, Henry

Alexander, Richard

Bellotti, David

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bendall, Vivian

Allason, Rupert

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Alton, David

Benyon, W.

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bevan, David Gilroy

Amos, Alan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Arbuthnot, James

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Body, Sir Richard

Ashby, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Aspinwall, Jack

Boswell, Tim

Atkins, Robert

Bottomley, Peter

Atkinson, David

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bowis, John

Baldry, Tony

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Batiste, Spencer

Brazier, Julian

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Bright, Graham

Beith, A. J.

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

907

Browne, John (Winchester)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hague, William

Buck, Sir Antony

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Budgen, Nicholas

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Burns, Simon

Hampson, Dr Keith

Burt, Alistair

Hanley, Jeremy

Butler, Chris

Hannam, Sir John

Butterfill, John

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

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Harris, David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Haselhurst, Alan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hawkins, Christopher

Carrington, Matthew

Hayes, Jerry

Carttiss, Michael

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Cartwright, John

Hayward, Robert

Cash, William

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)

Chapman, Sydney

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Chope, Christopher

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Churchill, Mr

Hill, James

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Hind, Kenneth

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Hordern, Sir Peter

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Colvin, Michael

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

Conway, Derek

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Howells, Geraint

Cormack, Patrick

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Couchman, James

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Cran, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

Hunter, Andrew

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Irvine, Michael

Day, Stephen

Jack, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Jackson, Robert

Dickens, Geoffrey

Janman, Tim

Dicks, Terry

Jessel, Toby

Dorrell, Stephen

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Johnston, Sir Russell

Dunn, Bob

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Dykes, Hugh

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Eggar, Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Key, Robert

Evennett, David

Kilfedder, James

Fallon, Michael

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Farr, Sir John

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Fearn, Ronald

Kirkhope, Timothy

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Kirkwood, Archy

Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)

Knapman, Roger

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Knowles, Michael

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Knox, David

Forth, Eric

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lang, Rt Hon lan

Fox, Sir Marcus

Latham, Michael

Franks, Cecil

Lawrence, lvan

Freeman, Roger

Lee, John (Pendle)

French, Douglas

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fry, Peter

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Gale, Roger

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Gardiner, Sir George

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Livsey, Richard

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Lloyd, Sir lan (Havant)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Lord, Michael

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Gorst, John

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Maclennan, Robert

Gregory, Conal

McLoughlin, Patrick

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Grist, Ian

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Ground, Patrick

Madel, David

908

Major, Rt Hon John

Shelton, Sir William

Malins, Humfrey

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Mans, Keith

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Maples, John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Marlow, Tony

Shersby, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Sims, Roger

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mates, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maude, Hon Francis

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Speed, Keith

Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

Speller, Tony

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Squire, Robin

Miller, Sir Hal

Stanbrook, lvor

Mills, Iain

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Miscampbell, Norman

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stephen, Nicol

Moate, Roger

Stern, Michael

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Stevens, Lewis

Monro, Sir Hector

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Morrison, Sir Charles

Stokes, Sir John

Moss, Malcolm

Sumberg, David

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Summerson, Hugo

Mudd, David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Taylor, lan (Esher)

Nelson, Anthony

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Nicholls, Patrick

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Valley)

Norris, Steve

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Thorne, Neil

Oppenheim, Phillip

Thurnham, Peter

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Page, Richard

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Paice, James

Tracey, Richard

Patnick, lrvine

Tredinnick, David

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Trippier, David

Patten, Rt Hon John

Trotter, Neville

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Twinn, Dr lan

Pawsey, James

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Viggers, Peter

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Portillo, Michael

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Powell, William (Corby)

Wallace, James

Price, Sir David

Waller, Gary

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Walters, Sir Dennis

Rathbone, Tim

Ward, John

Redwood, John

Wardle. Charles (Bexhill)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Warren. Kenneth

Rhodes James, Sir Robert

Watts, John

Riddick, Graham

Wells, Bowen

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wheeler, Sir John

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Whitney, Ray

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Widdecombe, Ann

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wiggin, Jerry

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wilshire, David

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Rost, Peter

Winterton, Nicholas

Rowe, Andrew

Wolfson, Mark

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Wood, Timothy

Sackville, Hon Tom

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Yeo, Tim

Sayeed, Jonathan

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Tellers for the Noes:

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Mr. David Lightbown and

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided:Ayes 320, Noes 49.

Division No. 36]

[10.16 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Dorrell, Stephen

Alexander, Richard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Dunn, Bob

Allason, Rupert

Durant, Sir Anthony

Amery. Rt Hon Julian

Dykes, Hugh

Amos, Alan

Eggar, Tim

Arbuthnot, James

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Evennett, David

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Farr, Sir John

Ashby, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Aspinwall, Jack

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Atkins, Robert

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Atkinson, David

Fishburn, John Dudley

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Baldry, Tony

Forth, Eric

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Batiste, Spencer

Franks, Cecil

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Freeman, Roger

Bellingham, Henry

French, Douglas

Bendall, Vivian

Fry, Peter

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Gale, Roger

Benyon, W.

Gardiner, Sir George

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bitten, Rt Hon John

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Body, Sir Richard

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gorst, John

Boswell, Tim

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Bottomley, Peter

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gregory, Conal

Bowis, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Grist, Ian

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Ground, Patrick

Brazier, Julian

Grylls, Sir Michael

Bright, Graham

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

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

Hague, William

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Buck, Sir Antony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Budgen, Nicholas

Hanley, Jeremy

Burns, Simon

Hannam, Sir John

Burt, Alistair

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

Butler, Chris

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Butterfill, John

Harris, David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Haselhurst, Alan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hawkins, Christopher

Carrington, Matthew

Hayes, Jerry

Carttiss, Michael

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Cartwright, John

Hayward, Robert

Cash, William

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Chapman, Sydney

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Chope, Christopher

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Churchill, Mr

Hill, James

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Hind, Kenneth

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Hordern, Sir Peter

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Colvin, Michael

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

Conway, Derek

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Couchman, James

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Cran, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

Hunter, Andrew

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Irvine, Michael

Day, Stephen

Jack, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Jackson, Robert

Dickens, Geoffrey

Janman, Tim

Dicks. Terry

Jessel, Toby

910

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Portillo, Michael

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Powell, William (Corby)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Price, Sir David

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rathbone, Tim

Key, Robert

Redwood, John

Kilfedder, James

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rhodes James, Sir Robert

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Riddick, Graham

Kirkhope, Timothy

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knapman, Roger

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Knowles, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Knox, David

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Rost, Peter

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Rowe, Andrew

Latham, Michael

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Lawrence, Ivan

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lee, John (Pendle)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shelton, Sir William

Lord, Michael

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Shersby, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sims, Roger

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

McLoughlin, Patrick

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Soames, Hon Nicholas

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Speed, Keith

Madel, David

Speller, Tony

Major, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Malins, Humfrey

Squire, Robin

Mans, Keith

Stanbrook, Ivor

Maples, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stern, Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stevens, Lewis

Mates, Michael

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Maude, Hon Francis

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

Stokes, Sir John

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Sumberg, David

Miller, Sir Hal

Summerson, Hugo

Mills, Iain

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Miscampbell, Norman

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Moate, Roger

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Monro, Sir Hector

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Valley)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Thorne, Neil

Moss, Malcolm

Thurnham, Peter

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Nelson, Anthony

Tracey, Richard

Neubert, Sir Michael

Tredinnick, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Trippier, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Trotter, Neville

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Norris, Steve

Viggers, Peter

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Waller, Gary

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Walters, Sir Dennis

Page, Richard

Ward, John

Paice, James

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Patnick, Irvine

Warren, Kenneth

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Watts, John

Patten, Rt Hon John

Wells, Bowen

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wheeler, Sir John

Pawsey, James

Whitney, Ray

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Widdecombe, Ann

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Wiggin, Jerry

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wilshire, David

911

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Winterton, Nicholas

Wolfson, Mark

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wood, Timothy

Mr. David Lightbown and

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Mr. John M. Taylor.

Yeo, Tim

NOES

Alton, David

Kirkwood, Archy

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Lamond, James

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Livingstone, Ken

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Livsey, Richard

Beith, A. J.

Loyden, Eddie

Bellotti, David

McAllion, John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

McKelvey, William

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

Maclennan, Robert

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Madden, Max

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Canavan, Dennis

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Carlile, Alex (Monfg)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Cohen, Harry

Mullin, Chris

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Salmond, Alex

Corbyn, Jeremy

Skinner, Dennis

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

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Douglas, Dick

Stephen, Nicol

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Strang, Gavin

Fearn, Ronald

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Fyfe, Maria

Wallace, James

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Hinchliffe, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Howells, Geraint

Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Bob Cryer.

Johnston, Sir Russell

Kennedy, Charles

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House supports unequivocally the concept of nuclear deterrence and the retention of a credible United Kingdom nuclear deterrent, while other countries have, or seek to acquire, nuclear weapons; notes the great dangers apparent in the increase in the number of countries gaining, or seeking to gain, access to nuclear weapons; understands that the country's nuclear deterrent remains essential for the defence of the United Kingdom and NATO; recognises the vital contribution to world peace which the United Kingdom's nuclear forces have made, and will continue to make, through deterrence; and supports NATO's policy of also maintaining an up-to-date, sub-strategic nuclear capability based in Europe.

Ports (Disposal of Land)
10.30 pm
The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move,
That the draft Ports Act 1991 (Levy on Disposals of Land, etc.) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.
The draft order makes provisions under sections 17 and 18 of the Ports Act 1991. Its purpose is to enable a levy to be applied to gains arising from disposals of land or of an interest in land carried out by the new owners of trust ports privatised under the Act, in the years following privatisation.
It may assist hon. Members if I make clear the relationship between the order and the sale of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. In reply to a question in the House from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said on 18 December that he was minded to give his formal consent to the sale of the authority's undertaking to Teesside Holdings Ltd., but that this would be possible only after the scheme of transfer submitted by the authority under section 9(1) of the Ports Act and the order which we are debating this evening had come into effect.
The scheme of transfer came into effect on 30 December. The order relates to the whole of the ports privatisation programme, and no sales of trust ports can take place under the 1991 Act until the order is in place. Hon. Members will be aware that, since my right hon. and learned Friend made his statement on 18 December, representations have been put to him concerning the Tees and Hartlepool sale by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South and other hon. Members. My right hon. and learned Friend is looking into those representations carefully and he will not take a final decision on the sale until that process is complete. I do not believe that it would be right for me to add anything further on that subject during the debate in anticipation of the conclusion of the process which my right hon. and learned Friend has put in hand.
Mr. Roger Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that he is saying that the decision on Tees and Hartlepool cannot be taken until the order has been passed? Is not that a strong argument for those of us who are concerned about what has happened in Tees and Hartlepool not to allow the order to go through until such time as the matter has been re-examined?
Mr. McLoughlin: The order is general to the whole ports privatisation programme. It is not the case that the sale could not go ahead without the order. The sale could go ahead, but it would be without the clawback provisions which I think the whole House finds desirable. This is a short debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and many hon. Members wish to catch your eye. I think that it would be right for me to describe the outlines of the order and then try to catch your eye later to respond to questions which are put in the debate.
The Government take the view that the sale of ports under the Act should be carried out so as to ensure that the price that is paid for them is the best open market price, subject to whatever other objectives of sale a port agrees with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of

913
State. Nevertheless, it is still possible that land that some ports hold will turn out to have a significantly higher value than was expected at the time of sale——
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McLoughlin: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall not be able to respond to all the criticisms as the amount of time for this debate will have been reduced.
Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy.
Does the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the sale of the English port authority hold for the privatisation of the Clyde port authority? Since that authority announced its intention to privatise itself, British Steel's director announced the closure of Ravenscraig which, together with the attendant closure of the Hunterston terminal, will have a direct bearing on the earning power of the Clyde port authority. Will the Minister give me a list later this evening of the parties that have formally declared an interest in acquiring the Clyde port authority?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I think that the Minister may find it somewhat difficult to respond to that intervention without widening the debate beyond the scope of the order.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to describe the order. The hon. Gentleman's comments may be the subject of legitimate debate on a wider issue and if he cares to write to me I shall try to answer his questions. I feel that I should now make some progress on the order, as I know that several hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
If land held by some ports turns out to have a significantly higher value than was expected at the time of the sale, that will result in an excessive windfall gain for the new owner which was not foreseeable at the time of privatisation, and therefore not properly reflected in the price paid for the undertaking. The subsequent sale of such land would, of course, be subject to capital gains tax, but We consider that there should be a further levy on the enhanced value of such property to prevent the excessive windfall gains that would otherwise result.
Of course, as was made clear in the extensive debates on the Ports Act last year, one of our objectives in seeking the privatisation of major trust ports is to make it easier for them to realise the value of their property holdings, so we need to strike a careful balance between preventing excessive windfall gains and deterring the port companies from turning their property to best account. That is why the Act provides for the levy to be time-limited to 10 years after privatisation, and why it will amount to a relatively small proportion of the gains. For example, for the first five years it will be 25 per cent., and taper down to 20 per cent. in years six and seven, and to 10 per cent. thereafter—on top of the capital gains tax.
Parliament agreed to the Act providing for the limited period levy on land disposals made after privatisation. Sections 17 and 18 of the Act therefore set out the basic framework within which the levy is to operate, and the order, the draft of which is now before the House, will fill in the details.
The draft order makes provision in the following main areas. Article 6 provides that all disposals of relevant land
914
or interest in land are chargeable disposals. They include freehold disposals, leasehold disposals and the granting of options to acquire land. There are, however, significant instances in which no gain is deemed to arise, and in which therefore no levy is chargeable.
Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 provides that the base data for the valuation of land for the purposes of levy will be the date of privatisation. That will also be the commencement date of the levy period. The base value for the land will be the market value on an existing use basis. The base value will be index-linked.
It is not intended that the levy should apply to all disposals irrespective of size, and paragraph 8 makes provision for exemptions below certain limits. First, the levy is payable on any disposal only when the aggregate value of all disposals over the whole 10-year period exceeds "an overall threshold" of £500,000, or 10 per cent. of the port sale proceeds if that is less. Secondly, individual disposals below a threshold limit of £200,000, or 2 per cent. of the port sale proceeds if that is less, are referred to in the draft order as "small disposals" and do not give rise to a levy, although they do count against the overall threshold.
Finally, individual disposals of less than £4,000, up to a maximum of 20 per year, are referred to as "disregarded disposals" and are exempted from the levy itself, do not count against the overall threshold and do not need even to be recorded. All those limits are index-linked.
Articles 18 to 26 deal with leases. Under article 25, leases of operational land used for operational purposes are also disregarded for levy purposes, since those are considered to form part of a port's normal business activities and could not on that basis be seen as giving rise to windfall gains.
Leases for non-operational purposes are not exempted, but, where they are for rent, they are subject to special provisions reflecting the fact that any gain arising is spread over a period of years. They are treated as if granted for a single premium equal to their market value, but any levy arising from them can be paid in annual instalments. In addition, article 18 effectively provides relief from corporation tax on rental income by reducing the amount of gain on which levy is payable.
Mr. Tim Janman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. McLoughlin: I would rather not, for the simple reason that a number of hon. Members want to speak. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] However, as Opposition Members seem intent on my giving way, I am happy to do so, even thought that will give them less time.
Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend briefly mentioned leases for non-operational purposes. I am intrigued as to why any operational lease taken out later than six months before the start of the clawback provision will be included. It means that, if a port wants to utilise land for operational purposes and increasing the entrepreneurial and useful activity that takes place in the port, it will, in effect, have to pay extra tax to the Treasury for the privilege of doing so. That strikes me as counter-productive to the aims and objectives of the Conservative party, which are to encourage initiative and risk taking.
Mr. McLoughlin: I do not believe that my hon. Friend's assumption is correct. We needed to strike a fair balance in terms of any windfall gain that might occur.
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, you kindly and helpfully guided the House on the scope of the order. A question was put to the Minister relating specifically to whether or not the order's contents conformed with Conservative party policies. Is that not without the scope of the order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the Minister will remain in order when he responds.
Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) was perhaps arguing that we had drawn the clawback provision for any windfall gains too tightly. Throughout the whole process, we were keen to achieve a balance in the treatment of windfall gains.
Mr. Janman: I was talking not about windfall gains or land leased out for non-operational purposes but about leases entered into by a port post-privatisation that are for the purposes of allowing other companies to use the port's land on a leasehold basis for the importation, storage, or manufacture of products. Those are the purposes for which a port should be used. That the order does not exclude all operational leases is counter-productive to my party's aim of encouraging entrepreneurial and risk-taking activities.
Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend and I will just have to agree to disagree on that point. We felt that it was right to achieve an overall balance between what might and might not be a windfall gain, which is why we excluded operational leases after consulting a number of the ports directly affected by the order.
The draft order contains a number of provisions intended as counter-avoidance measures, particularly where there are disposals of land or interests in land within a group of companies.
Article 33 ensures that a transfer between members of a group gives rise to chargeable gains where the holding of the parent company in its subsidiaries is anything less than 100 per cent. Article 34 enables levy to be charged on the full increase in value of assets that have been transferred to a company which subsequently leaves the 75 per cent. group, and article 35 provides for the recalculation of the gain on an intra-group transfer if, following the transfer, there is a decrease in the equity of that company held by the parent company.
Schedule 1 sets out rules for determining when disposals are to be treated as "associated". If a small disposal can be shown to be "associated" with one or more other disposals, it is their aggregate value that is taken into account in determining whether levy should be charged on the small disposal. This is intended to counter attempts to avoid clawback through the small disposals exemption by, for instance, fragmenting one large disposal into many smaller ones to the same purchaser.
In terms of the administration of the levy, provisions are made in articles 13 to 16 for payment, including the payment of interest after certain dates. Where interest is payable, the rate is reduced by an amount equivalent to the effect of tax relief. Article 17 provides for repayment by a Minister of any sums found to have been paid in error or following a recalculation. Repayment by the Minister will also carry interest from certain dates, and will apply to levy, to interest on unpaid levy or both, as appropriate.
916
Finally, detailed provisions are made in articles 36 to 41 for the recording of disposals, and for the provision of the information to the appropriate Minister; for assessment of levy in certain circumstances by the Minister; for the settlement of certain disputes that might arise by a referee; and for penalties in line with those already in the Ports Act 1991 in respect of the levy on the proceeds of port sales.
An earlier version of the draft order was circulated during the autumn to the trust ports that are seeking privatisation. The process proved extremely valuable in helping us to achieve a proper balance in the draft order in such important areas as the treatment of leases and the provisions for associated disposals—and I am grateful for the constructive comments made by the ports and by Conservative Members who made representations.
I am now confident that the draft order makes arrangements for the levy that adequately safeguard the interests of the taxpayer, without being unduly onerous or restrictive in regard to the operations of the privatised ports. The order is a crucial element in the ports privatisation programme. As many hon. Members will be aware, a number of the largest ports have already taken advantage of the provisions of the Act to begin the process of privatisation. Once the draft order has been approved, it will help to ensure that the interests of the taxpayer are properly safeguarded, and ports will be less attractive to those whose only interest is in realising the property value of the port in the short term.
Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments reported that the order was a drafting mess and was likely to lead to a good many legal actions. Are we considering the report at the same time as the order? The Minister did not refer to the report, but I have just read a carefully argued case to the effect that the order is a bit of a mess. Is that relevant to tonight's debate, or is it not?
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, may I point out that the basic part of the order relating to the type of land that was subject to the levy was dealt with by the report because of its defective drafting? Like the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), I was very disappointed by the Minister's failure to make any relevant comment—indeed, any comment at all—on the Committee's report. That is particularly disappointing in view of the fact that the House gives the Committee the task of reporting defects, of which the order provides a prime example.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can confirm to both hon. Members that the Select Committee's report is relevant, and can be referred to.
10.49 pm
Ms. Joan Walley: I agree wholeheartedly that the whole order is a mess. It is as much a mess as the Government's entire policy on trust port privatisation. What we have just heard about the Select Committee report may well provide a further opportunity for the House to debate the implications of that policy in detail.
It is a measure of our success in Committee that we forced the Government to make the order subject to the affirmative resolution of the House. An hour and a half is not long enough to debate this controversial issue.

917
Although we would like to amend the order, it is procedurally impossible. We cannot even throw it out, because I am sure that the Government Whips will have learnt from their experience in Committee and will make sure that they do not lose the vote today as they lost the vote on disposal and levies on clawback and land.
We make no apology for the debate on this order as it is the only mechanism available to the Opposition to expose the sheer blinding incompetence, which we have just seen demonstrated, of the Government's handling of ports policy.
When we sat in Committee last year, I do not think that even we could have anticipated the mess into which the Government have got themselves over their handling of ports policy.
Mr. John Prescott: It was a mess in Committee.
Ms. Walley: Yes, it was.
It is not just the Opposition who are expressing concern about the Government's mishandling of ports policy: it is also the press and media. We need look no further than today's editorial in the Financial Times. The work forces in trust ports up and down the country are also saying that the Government have got themselves into a mess as well as local authority leaders of whatever political persuasion. They can spot a bad egg when they see one, and this legislation and the badly drafted order are a clear example.
There is general despair at the Government's wholesale mishandling of trust ports privatisation. That extends, surprisingly, to those who have supported the Government throughout in their bid to sell off trust ports lock, stock and barrel, including land and assets that the Government do not even own. It is reminiscent of the commercial television franchise sell-off fiasco a short time ago.
Transport Ministers have got it wrong. When they got it wrong earlier this week, they went out and bought chocolates and flowers to try to put things right. I do not know whether the Minister is responsible for this fiasco. I could be generous and say that perhaps he is just a scapegoat—I will give him the benefit of the doubt—but he cannot buy himself out of this mess with chocolates and flowers.
Mr. Cryer: He signed the order.
Ms. Walley: There is more involved. The Government have got the ports industry into a mess. The order has given us three weeks grace to hammer home a message which fell on deaf ears this time last year. It has given my hon. Friends, particularly those representing Cleveland, time to alert the local community in Tees and Hartlepool to what Cleveland county council and Labour Members warned would happen. It has given other hon. Friends—and friends who I hope will soon be honourable—time to alert Tilbury to the threat hanging over that port. It has given my hon. Friends who are concerned about Scotland time to assess the implications for the local economy of the lethal cocktail of Ravenscraig closure and trust port privatisation, should the management buy-out bid be unsuccessful.
Mr. Janman: The hon. Lady has mentioned the best port in Britain—Tilbury, which is in my constituency. The
918
biggest threat hanging over that port was the dock labour scheme, which we abolished and the Labour party would bring back.
Ms. Walley: I shall cover that point if I am allowed to continue. I do not intend to give way again because time is limited.
But for the order, the Tees and Hartlepool ports authority would have been signed, sealed and delivered by now. The only reason it is not is because the Secretary of State has not been able to proceed because the order is necessary for the affirmative procedure of the House.
We want to examine the Government's mismanagement and incompetence in their handling of the order. What we have seen in this instance is surpassed only by the Government's mishandling of the entire 1991 legislation. When we were discussing the Levy on Disposals of Land, etc. Order and the 50 per cent. clawback on the net proceeds of the sale, one issue on which we pressed the Government repeatedly in Committee was how the order, once introduced, should take account of the Government's professed commitment to management and employee buy-outs.
We said that such an order must be fair and must not allow huge speculative developments—we are talking about the time before the recession, or before it was admitted that the recession was upon us—and we pressed the Government on the fact that, if there was to be a commitment to management and employee buy-outs, it should be reflected in the order, and that management-employee bids should not be precluded because some companies could make a quick profit.
The order reveals a serious questioning of what I believe to be the Government's lip service to management-employee buy-outs. It shows that the Government's commitment was not real and is not real now. We know that because of the way in which events have unfolded in the Tees and Hartlepool bid. What is the point of writing into the Bill supplementary clauses relating to financial assistance to proposals to maximise employee participation in the equity of successor companies and of setting the trigger mechanisms for clawback, as we have just heard from the Minister, on land and lease disposals, which ostensibly encourage management-employee buy-outs if, by the same token, the Secretary of State is not immediately mindful to go ahead and approve the bids outstanding in Cleveland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on reading."] I shall not accept any further interventions. The order raises questions that the Minister must answer. Hon. Members talk about reading—they should have asked the Minister why he did not depart from his brief.
There are serious allegations of fraud, bribery and corruption in the Tees and Hartlepool bidding. They have been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) in Cleveland. The Minister should comment on that. He must also say why, when I asked on 19 December if he would undertake a full investigation of the circumstances of the sale of the Tees and Hartlepool trust board, he replied that there was no need for such an investigation.
What has happened in the meantime? Was it the representations made by my hon. Friends? How has it been possible to move the goal posts halfway through selling off Tees and Hartlepool? Should there not be an inquiry? Are we not in an even worse position now than

919
yesterday, since we have learnt, courtesy of the Financial Times,that the Government now propose to prevent any information from coming into the public domain? What does it say about the state of our democracy if hon. Members are not allowed information about other bids to consider the implications of what has happened with regard to Tees and Hartlepool?
Mr. Janman: What has that to do with the order?
Ms. Walley: It has everything to do with the order, because the order has so far prevented the sale from being signed, sealed and delivered.
Mr. McLoughlin indicated dissent.
Ms. Walley: The Minister shakes his head, but he knows that that is so.
There are further issues. We are told that the Government are concerned that the bid should have gone ahead, yet on Teesside the company that the Minister has thought until now to accept told the work force that, if the proposal went ahead, staff could subscribe up to a maximum of £2,500 in £1 shares. Does the Minister not understand that, although the solicitors admitted that the statement was legally factual, it would be the case only if approximately one in seven of the work force took up the offer? In discussing the issue within the terms of the order, we are raising questions about the Government's approach to Teesside and to Teesside Holdings, whether companies which make such false promises are fit to run our ports and whether a Government who support such behaviour are fit to handle our transport policy.
We hear about ways in which assurances have been given by Teesside Holdings on trade union recognition. To my knowledge, no consultation has taken place. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that issue.
The order raises other issues, not least the port of London and Tilbury. As promised, I come to that aspect now. Before you rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must say that the matter is relevant because the Minister needs to explain to the House how the order is relevant to Tilbury. Tilbury is not covered within the terms and references of the legislation, but what happens in Tilbury will depend very much on and will be guided by the order.
The Port of London paid extensive amounts in compensation under the dock labour scheme. It is important that the Minister should say whether it is in respect of that debt that the port of Tilbury is being treated differently as regards the order and the clawback arrangements for land and lease disposals.
There are other relevant issues. The Minister should tell us how the order affects Tilbury and he should clarify whether the debenture arrangements will be based on the clawback order. Will he clarify the basis for the debenture arrangements? What will happen to the revenue generated by the sale of land and leases relating to the port of Tilbury?
The order gives us the opportunity to ask whether the Minister has approved the scheme to transfer the assets of the port of Tilbury to the Port of Tilbury London Ltd
920
Was not the deadline supposed to be 31 December 1991? Has the Minister delayed the transfer scheme and, if so, why? Is it because of the comments made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) about his concerns about the way in which the leases have been dealt with under the clawback scheme and about the implications for the viability of the port of the operations being excluded——
Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Walley: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise his concerns.
Mr. Janman rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she will not give way.
Ms. Walley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Janman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to put words into the mouth of another hon. Member and then not to have the courtesy to give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate; it is not a point of order.
Ms. Walley: I was simply referring to the hon. Gentleman's earlier points in relation to my comments about Tilbury. He will no doubt have an opportunity in the debate to raise the issues of concern to him.
Mr. Janman rose——
Ms. Walley: I do not intend to give way.
Mr.Janman rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman hopes to catch my eye, he is not improving his chances.
Ms. Walley: It is also important that the Minister should tell the House whether the reason for the delay is that the bidder is seeking to avoid meeting the legal costs incurred as a result of the industrial tribunal's unanimous decision to recommend that the 12 sacked shop stewards should be re-engaged and that a further seven sacked shop stewards should be entitled to full compensation. I have before me the report of what must have been the longest industrial tribunal hearing in history. We need to know whether the delay since 31 December has been solely the result of the new owner trying to avoid having to meet the legal costs. I remind the Minister that the Department and the Secretary of State are responsible for overseeing the board. How can a Minister or Secretary of State ignore the ruling of an industrial tribunal in this way? All those matters are relevant to the present order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Has there been full consultation on the operational issues, which need to be taken on board?
The order deals with finance. It is complicated and badly drafted, and shows the Government's incompetence. As a result of the Government's complete mishandling of trust ports policy, none of us can have any confidence in the way in which they are running their ports and their transport policy. Opposition Members will vote against the order when the time comes.
11.6 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin: I rise to speak this evening because, as the House may be aware, on 18 December I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State a question about the disposal of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. In the last paragraph of his reply, my right hon. and learned Friend wrote:
"I am minded to give my formal consent to the sale of the authority's undertaking to Teesside Holdings Limited as soon as I am able to do so. This will be possible only after the scheme of transfer submitted by the authority under section 9(1) of the Ports Act 1991 and the order providing for a levy on disposals of land to be made under section 17 of the Act have come into effect. The latter is subject to an affirmative resolution of the House and is expected to be debated immediately after the Christmas recess."—[Official Report,18 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 164]
That is the order before us.
The present levy comes on top of a 50 per cent. levy on the disposal proceeds of the port. The combination of the levy on the land and the levy on the disposal assets of the port has already created some confusion among those involved in the bidding for the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. One of the bidders—indeed, the successful bidder—apparently had to have the sales proceeds provision explained to him twice to enable him to advance a bid which was acceptable as a final bid and which, in fact, became the successful bid.
As Conservative Members have argued on many occasions, there were three reasons for privatisation: first, to widen the powers of the port authority; secondly, to widen the share ownership by giving a substantial block of shares—I lay heavy emphasis on the word "substantial"—to the management and employees of the port; and, thirdly, to raise proceeds of sale revenue for the Government. Those three objectives were set out clearly in the sale of undertaking notices placed by the board's advisers in the national newspapers and magazines. The first stated quite clearly that the authority was prepared to consider
"financially competitive offers from parties who can satisfy the privatisation objectives",
the first of which was
"to have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal to managers and staff of the whole or a substantial part of the equity share capital of its privatized undertaking".
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) was quite right in his assertion that without the order that disposal could not take place, but it appears that in the case of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority the key objective has not been the one followed by the port. I was interested to hear that the Minister was minded to accept the board's recommendation, but it came as a considerable surprise to the management and employees of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, and as a considerable shock to Conservative supporters of privatisation, who had close liaison with the management-employee buy-out team at every stage of the process.
Indeed, this management were the first in the country to put forward a privatisation measure in the form of a private Bill. It will be remembered that it was Opposition Members who opposed that Bill at every stage and that it was the Labour-controlled Cleveland county council that felled it when it was being considered in another place. When the Government introduced their own Bill for the disposal of all the ports, Labour Members voted against it, just as the attractiveness of these undertakings, which was
922
underpinned by the Dock Work Act 1989, is ignored by all Opposition Members. Therefore, it ill behoves those hon. Members to present themselves now as the champions of the management-employee buy-out team.
During this privatisation the objectives seem to have altered. Originally, there were three; now there are eight, and they are more complicated. It appears that, during the privatisation, the indicative bidders were under the impression—having been so advised—that the price was only one of the criteria. When it came to final bids, however, it was taken to be the leading criterion. Each of the indicative bidders was advised by KPMG Peat Marwick, the advisers to the port authority, as to the deficiencies of their bids. In the case of the management-employee buy-out team, there were very few deficiencies. In fact, a very small increment was applied to the price that had been offered. Apart from that, the team's bid, which was the highest indicative bid, was to all intents and purposes nearly perfect.
As I pointed out, one of the other indicative bidders had to have the matter of the proceeds of sale explained again. That bidder then put forward a revised bid considerably bigger than that of the management-employee buy-out team. Had the price been signified to the management-employee buy-out team as the most significant criterion, it would have been open to the team to introduce equity partners, as the other bidders did. Together with those partners, the team could have submitted a very much larger bid. Indeed, I have been told by the leader of the team that it would have been able to submit a bid of about £190 million—in excess of the apparently winning bid.
I wish to confine my remarks to the bidding process that was followed. I do not want to become involved in mud-slinging against any of the bidders—something that has been done in the regional press—nor do I want to become involved in the records of individuals, against some of whose names are marks that have been flagged up by Opposition Members. I am sure that Opposition Members agree that, after a very long time, any person should be given the benefit of bygones being allowed to be bygones.
It is ironic that those who held up the torch of enterprise in the north-east of England should have it snatched from them as a reward for their endeavours. It is a source of great regret to me that that should have happened. The effect on the other port authorities which are now seeking to privatise themselves—for example, Medway, Clyde and others—is that they will be considerably more reluctant to go down the path of privatisation because they have seen what has happened to Tees and Hartlepool. After all, as we all know, turkeys are hardly likely to vote for Christmas. In the words of my constituent, Mr. Hutchinson, "If that is not cheating, what is?"
Mr. Frank Cook: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that, perhaps, Opposition Members who voted against the original legislation were wiser on that occasion than he has been on this occasion?
Mr. Devlin: No. I do not think that there is any wisdom in allowing a port to build up a huge cash balance which it cannot spend on benefits to a local community simply because its powers are curtailed. That is exactly what was resisted by all Opposition Members.

923
If I may briefly sum up before any votes are cast on this important order, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his opening comments. He said that he would look again at the process by which the Tees and Hartlepool port authority bids have been received and dealt with by the board. Of course, everyone on Teesside will accept that, if there is a preferred bidder and the board is very much behind that bidder, it would be very difficult for the Government to go against that bid.
Everyone understands that, if the Government picked the lowest bidder, Opposition Members would accuse us of giving the port to our friends. That simply cannot be the case. If there has been some irregularity in the mode by which the bids have been received and if unfair opportunities or, perhaps, not fair opportunities have been given to particular bidders, I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to look at the matter again and to give all those bidders a fair chance once more.
11.16 pm
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I want to reiterate the stand that I have taken for a number of years. I am totally opposed to the privatisation of the ports that are affected by the Ports Act 1991. I make it abundantly clear also that the order is a mish-mash of incompetence. It is typical of the arguments that have been used by the privateers for many months. The privatisation supporters have found, even at this time, great embarrassment arising from the fact that, in respect of other legislation in recent months, there has been a need to rush through the processes of the House in such a manner that there has not been a proper in-depth examination of the consequences of the relevant policies.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who will no longer be with us fairly shortly, referred to the loss of a Bill which was part of this argument and which related, of course, to the order, as I shall show, in a way that suggested that he wants to avoid the truth of what actually happened. The hon. Member for Hartlepool prefers to use the record. The Tees and Hartlepool port authority, the promoters of the private Bill, or the hon. Gentleman, even after my request to that authority, have not published the findings of the House of Lords Select Committee. Under a special heading, "Opinion of the Committee", the Committee stated:
"The Committee does not believe that the promoters have proved their need for this Bill…the promoters have not convinced the Committee that the reconstruction of the Port Authority as a Companies Act company in the way proposed is the right way to achieve this end. Nor have they persuaded us that it would be right to give them the very wide powers they seek."
Those powers are not dissimilar to the wide powers under the Ports Act.
The Select Committee report continued:
"It would thus be possible for the privatised Authority"—
the promoters—
"to undertake commercial activities of which it has no experience … such risks"—
that is, inviting predators—
"could have a detrimental impact on local industry and on the local economy…For the reasons set out in this report the Committee do not consider that it is expedient for the bill to proceed."
924
That deals with the case of the hon. Member for Stockton, South. The arguments that I have just outlined are not my opinions, but those of the House of Lords Select Committee, on which there is a Conservative majority, as there is in this Chamber. The THPA even refused to publish those significant details.
On 18 December, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Stockton, South, the Secretary of State rightly published a precise and clear statement, which read:
"the Department and its advisers kept closely in touch with the THPA board as it carried out the sale process. I am satisfied that the board discharged its responsibilities in a fair and in a proper manner and, in particular, I am satisfied that it considered carefully each of the bids in relation to the agreed objectives of sale."
The Secretary of State concluded that letter by saying that the transfer scheme and this order are the preliminaries which are necessary before he can make a formal statement of consent. Therefore, the order is relevant to his emphatic declaration that he was satisfied that everything was carried out "in a proper manner".
As has been said, on the following day, in answering a question about the complaints that had been received, the Secretary of State made it quite clear that there was no reason to carry out any further investigation. In my view, he was right then, and he was convinced then. Since then, however, after the complaint had been deposited, the chairman of the THPA has issued a letter to every employee, making clear the reasons why the board decided to recommend the bid that was put to the Secretary of State. The wording of that letter shows his concern about the way in which some of the complaints have been dealt with.
After the tabling of those complaints, in the full knowledge that the Secretary of State was aware of them, and bearing in mind the statements of 18 and 19 December 1991, I wish to make it abundantly clear to the Minister that I shall not make any comments on those complaints, because I recognise from his statement that, as a matter of courtesy, he will consider them, although he will not necessarily agree with the recommendation that was put to him. However, I advise him that John Peart, the chairman of the port authority board and of the reconstruction committee, remains adamant that the proper procedures, laid down in agreement with the Department, were carried out. In addition, Peat Marwick McLintock, the port authority's auditors for many years and responsible for handling the day-to-day administration of the sale, have made it clear in writing that the proper objectives and conditions of sale were met. Furthermore, Mr. K. Fletcher, a partner of Jacksons, the board's legal advisers, is adamant that the proper procedures were carried out.
Indeed, the Minister for Shipping has confirmed in writing his satisfaction about the way in which the sale procedure was carried out. That letter is dated 9 January, which is after the complaints were deposited. He made that point clear to me because I had been concerned to ensure that the proper procedures were carried out. He said:
"both officials of this Department and Price Waterhouse, our advisors on the sale, monitored the process closely. The Department issued clear guidelines to the trust ports on the conduct of such sales, including the release of information. Price Waterhouse tell me"—
that is, the Minister for Shipping—
"that the complaints made to them were satisfactorily resolved."

925
In that case, the Minister has a problem on his hands. He has rightly gone no further than to say that he will consider the complaints. He has not said one word about reviewing the recommendation made to him. Therefore, I accept that position.
The Minister has many advisors and gave a commitment in writing that he was satisfied with their advice. He knows full well that he has said to the House and to the country that he is satisfied that there was a continuing close working relationship between his advisors and the port authority. In that circumstance, and as others supported the view that the procedures were followed, if on considering the complaints the Secretary of State had doubts for one moment, he was virtually telling people with years of integrity and a good reputation of serving his Department and the board that they were not telling the truth. That is a serious matter.
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight): Following the hon. Gentleman's argument, does he agree that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority was very much the architect and engine of this legislation? It was the first of the trust ports to go for privatisation under the Bill. It is worth commenting that perhaps the procedures and the way in which the privatisation has developed did not conform to the original objectives of the private Bill that the authority promoted. The authority's Bill was for a management-employee buy-out. Does he agree that in those circumstances, and given my hon. Friend the Minister's statement, the Minister is wholly justified in looking one more time at the parameters of the bids to see whether, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) mentioned, they cannot be fitted into the philosophy of privatisation so that employees can share in the wealth that they create?
Mr. Leadbitter: It would be difficult to have a re-run, knowing full well not only the statutory requirements but the obligations in any tendering process followed by any utility and especially by the Government in this form of privatisation in which bidders are invited. Having been satisfied that the procedures were followed properly, it would be wrong to have a re-run on the basis of complaints that have already been rebutted in writing by the Department, the Minister, the board and everyone who gave financial and legal advice.
Mr. Barry Field rose——
Mr. Leadbitter: I shall not give way—I will simply respond to the question.
As for the Tees and Hartlepool port authority being the architect, I am sorry to say that the promoters of the private Bill made up their minds in June 1988, but they did not tell anyone until November, three or four days before depositing the Bill on the closing day. They did not consult anyone. They did not consult the county council or Members of Parliament. They simply introduced the Bill. In my experience, it is the only Bill on which the promoters had no independent professional witness. I read out to the House the findings of the House of Lords. If the authority was the architect, it was the architect of its own failure. It was reticent in seeking advice on a Bill which was proven to be ill drafted from the beginning to the end.
Mr. Barry Field: It is extraordinary that such a long-established and respected Member of Parliament should tell Conservative Members that there is no way in
926
which the employees of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority should share in the flotation of their company. I chaired the Committee that considered the private Bill which I believe was the architect of this legislation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that many expert witnesses came before us, not least from the Department of the Transport. There were serious question marks about the true legal status of trust ports. That is why there is good reason for re-examining the position in which we find ourselves.
Mr. Leadbitter: I merely say that the port is in desperate need of an early decision. The uncertainty has gone on long enough, and it is doing harm to the port. If the Government find that objectives have been met, a re-run will do more harm than good.
It is unfortunate that debates of this sort are so short. It is not fair to those who occupy the Government and Opposition Front Benches. The matters under discussion have wide implications. I shall continue my correspondence with the Department in a reasonable way on the basis of fact and not of innuendo and suggestion. I shall seek to promote the interests of the port. I made it abundantly clear that, following privatisation legislation, I would work with the successor company to try to ensure success. Perhaps that was going too far for a good socialist, but I meant what I said. I want to see a decision made and silly complaints put aside. Let us get on with implementing decisions which were deemed to have been arrived at properly.
11.31 pm
Mr. Tim Janman: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government on taking the opportunity, when considering the Ports Bill on Report, to change the clawback provisions as set out when the proposed legislation was first published. I refer specifically to removing deemed disposals from the clawback provisions and taking up the idea, which I and my hon. Friends introduced in Committee, of a sliding scale of percentages for the clawback levy over 10 years. On behalf of the port of Tilbury, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for pushing through the idea that I and my hon. Friends advanced.
It is important that anything that is done for the ports is undertaken in the spirit of encouraging initiative, risk-taking and entrepreneurial activity. It is important, of course, that we do nothing to reduce the chances of such activity taking place. I wish to correct the implication of the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms. Walley) that I have been suggesting that the slight imperfections that I detect in the order will undermine the viability of the port of Tilbury. That is nonsense. The viability of the port would be undermined by a continuation of the dock labour scheme. That would be a continuation of the counter-productive and cynically negative activities that the shop stewards at the port used to get up to. That is what would undermine the port's viability.
Mr. Moate: And the election of a Labour Government.
Mr. Janman: Indeed—my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
I am concerned about some parts of the order. When the consultative draft order was published, I think that it is fair to say that it took everyone by surprise in the industry. That was because it included a clawback

927
provision for not just the sale of land where there would be a windfall profit, but also a provision for the leasing of land.
My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that I wrote on 20 November 1991 to the effect that I was very concerned about what seemed to be the inclusion of leases where land was to be used for operational purposes—not for property development or the like, but directly related to normal, traditional port activities, or for the manufacture of goods and services within the confines of the port.
I wrote to my hon. Friend on 20 November expressing my concern; my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) did likewise. In his reply, the Minister implied that operational leases would not be included in the provisions of this order. He said:
"leases of land which have been used for operational purposes during the six months immediately before the levy period are to be exempted from clawback."
That is welcome, but since the abolition of the dock labour scheme—there is an ever-increasing amount of empirical evidence that abolition was right for the British ports industry—a great deal of new business has been coming to ports such as Tilbury in each quarter.
It is all well and good excluding operational leases in existence up until the six-month period before the port becomes a plc and therefore up until the six months before the levy period starts, but what about operational leases entered into in the following six months? And what about operational leases entered into after privatisation, once the port has become a plc and the clawback levy period has started?
If my hon. Friend suggests that there is a problem with defining operational and non-operational leases, that is invalid. He had no difficulty in his letter in defining an operational lease for the period up to six months before the levy period starts. He stated:
"The definition of land used for operational purposes used in the draft order follows the definition of port operational purposes used in the Town and Country Planning Act General Development Order 1988."
So we have a good definition of a lease for operational purposes. If that definition can be used for the period up to six months before the levy period begins, it can equally be used for leases within the six-month period and after the levy commences.
There are good grounds for my hon. Friend to re-examine this matter. Including such leases under the clawback provision is not fair to the port and is counter-productive to our aims and objectives.
The wonderful extrapolation by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North—that I suggest that the order will undermine the viability of the ports—is of course quite wrong. Compared with the positive aspects of the Ports Act and of the abolition of the dock labour scheme, the negative aspects of this order are small indeed, but if we are to help our ports into a far more entrepreneurial environment, we should take every opportunity to maximise such development.
Earlier today, I had a debate on the telephone with one of my hon. Friend's officials about this subject. The first argument put to me to defend the inclusion of operational leases is that, after the port is sold and if there is wasteland in the port that it wants to develop for operational purposes, the price of that wasteland will reflect its value when the port is sold.
928
That is rather like saying that, if I buy a house from someone and use my money and initiative to improve that house, or if I lease out a wing of the house and someone else spends money on improving that wing, I should then pay a tax to the person from whom I bought the house. Yet that is what the order stipulates.
Nor is it reasonable to say that, because the port will get relief on the costs of doing whatever has to be done to that land to turn it into whatever it is to be used for, it will neutralise the extra clawback levy that the port will pay. If the port is to retain the freehold and is only leasing the land to somebody for operational purposes, it is often not the port itself that will incur the costs of what has to be done on the land to turn it into whatever it has to be turned into: it will be the person who is leasing the land who will bear those costs. Therefore, the benefit of the relief will not accrue to the port, yet the port will still have to pay a levy because it has leased the land for operational purposes.
Time is short and other hon. Members wish to speak; I hope that the debate will not be hijacked for the purpose of a debate about Tees and Hartlepool. The order is important. I do not wish to oppose the order, because it is only one facet of the overriding objective, which is to get ports like Tilbury into the private sector quickly so that they can be run efficiently in a spirit of enterprise and risk-taking, but unless my hon. Friend has the opportunity at the end of the debate to reassure me on my concerns about the order, equally I do not think that I can go into the Aye Lobby either.
It is important to take measures to make sure that windfall gains are properly taxed, but equally it is important not to put through the House an order which in some way, however small, will create an unnecessary barrier to the risk-taking and entrepreneurial activity that we wish to see in our ports.
11.41 pm
Mr. James Wallace: I will try to be brief because other hon. Members, some with constituency interests, wish to speak. When the section under which the order is being made came before the House on Report, it did so after a defeat in Committee. At that time my right hon. and hon. Friends supported the clause. We felt that, if a port had been transferred into the private sector, and there were windfall gains, it was not unreasonable, in order perhaps to discourage land speculation, that some of the gains should be taxed.
We would argue again that, if there were a windfall gain to be taxed, it should not necessarily be the Government who would benefit from the windfall. It is not unreasonable that some of the revenue from the levy should be reinvested in the community of the port where the tax was raised, not least given the amount of investment which the community would often have to make—for example, in the road infrastructure to support the port. Therefore, when we have an order implementing detailed parts of the section, it might be perverse to oppose it in principle.
That said, I think that the Minister owed it to the House to respond to three points made in the report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. First, there is the failure in article 25(2) to define a precise time when land use for non-operational purposes begins. Secondly, there was no understanding among those who gave evidence to the Committee about what was meant by a tested telex.

929
Thirdly, the Committee was concerned about the loose drafting of article 36. Is there or is there not a requirement to furnish documents under that provision? As the Committee pointed out, there are penal provisions attached to the failure to provide such documents. Therefore, the circumstances in which they ought to be provided should be clear. I hope that the Minister will respond to the serious points raised by the Committee.
There are hon. Members from the Tees and Hartlepool district who wish to make important constituency points. I shall make two related observations. First, on a number of occasions in Committee and on Report the Minister said that one of the Government's objectives in supporting the privatisation of ports was to encourage employee and management buy-outs.
In Committee on 12 February, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), the Minister said:
"The ports would have objectives that would need to be agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. They would need to include obtaining the best price for the port, taking into account other considerations such as future plans for the port, and employee-management participation levels."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 12 February 1991; c. 45]
That was embodied in section 5(3) of the Act, which states that the Minister
"shall have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal of the whole or a substantial part of equity share capital"
to management-employee consortia.
Mr. Barry Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wallace: I wish to be brief, so I will proceed.
Clearly, the Secretary of State is minded to approve the scheme for a port with only a 5 per cent. equity holding for employees or management, which is not what any of us understood by the substantial encouragement of which the Minister spoke when the Bill was being discussed.
I am sure that, if the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has a chance to speak, he will wish to comment on the proposals for the movement to the private sector of the Clyde port authority, where those who have been the driving force behind the privatisation measure have placed considerable emphasis on encouraging an employee-management buy out. What price is to be paid for their encouragement for that option now, and for the other factors that they are said to have agreed with the Government in relation to the need to maintain substantial control of that company in west central Scotland?
Yesterday's Financial Times reported that, to avoid future embarrassment, the Department of Transport has put a blackout on any information on the bids tendered for further privatisations. In a document that I received yesterday, the Secretary of State for Transport said that he was once a supporter of freedom of information. That claim looks pretty hollow when we hear that a blackout has been placed on information for no other reason than to cover up future embarrassment caused to the Department of Transport. That is no reason for the secrecy. I hope that when the Minister replies he will say that the Financial Times report is incorrect and that openness will be the hallmark of future privatisations of ports wishing to take that option.
11.47 pm
Mr. Roger Moate: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was right to remind the House that the order comes before us partly as as result of a vote in Committee on an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), which inflicted a defeat on the Government. As a result of that vote, the proposals are much less harsh than they might have been, in relation both to the period in which the clawback provisions apply and to the rate of levy that applies. On that occasion, we were supported by the Opposition, but it is a mark of their confusion that, having secured that excellent result, they are now going to vote against it.
However, we should not be surprised at that, because the Labour party was confused on the major issue of the ports levy, which was set at 50 per cent. Its members tabled an amendment to increase that level to 100 per cent. and then voted in support of an amendment that successfully reduced it to 10 per cent. That shows their total confusion on the matter, so nothing should surprise us this evening.
I warmly welcome the principles of the order, but I am tempted by the Minister's express statement—I think that the record will show that I am right—that the Tees and Hartlepool bid could not be finally consummated until the order was passed. If that is so, it is proper to say that we should perhaps defer the decision until there has been ample time to review it, as it might well prove an unfortunate one.
I understand and respect the point made by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), that indecision must be unhelpful to the port, but we are entitled to be worried, for the reasons so properly expressed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. We incorporated through amendments supported by both sides of the House provisions for substantial management-employee participation. We were assured again and again that that was a primary objective. In fact, I understand that the criteria used in the management-employee buy-out bid were guided largely by the views expressed by the House.
I understand also that the employee bid was for 100 per cent. of the equity, but that the successful bidder is offering only 5 per cent. participation to management and employees. The order is part of a whole package of measures designed to help the management-employee buy-out.
The House went further. A specific provision giving some advantage to management and employees was incorporated, but I understand that that has been interpreted as just a 5 per cent. price advantage, which I do not believe accurately reflects the intentions of the House or the assurances given by Ministers.
It is hard for right hon. and hon. Members to judge whether the bidding process was totally fair, unfettered, and proper in every respect, Perhaps it was. However, I believe that other ports and the public are entitled to be worried.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will carefully examine the whole process—the first in the chain—to determine whether it should not be thoroughly reviewed, perhaps even with a view to going through the bidding process once again or moving to the alternative of flotation. It is vital that the ports industry should get it right, and many of us feel at this moment that it has not done so.
11.52 pm
Mr. McLoughli rose——
Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice, because my genuine view is that the House has been given insufficient time to debate this important issue.
I refer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to Standing Order No. 14(1)(b), which states inter alia:
"Mr. Speaker shall put any questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings not later than half-past eleven o'clock or one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later: Provided that, if Mr. Speaker shall be of the opinion that, because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion, the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question as aforesaid, interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting".
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in all conscience to adhere to that Standing Order and to adjourn the debate at midnight.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raises an important point. I accept that there is a serious problem in the Tees and Hartlepool port authority area. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) and others of my hon. Friends were unsuccessful in catching your eye tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but not because you did not want to call them. The Minister rose to reply, and my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh, who could have made a major contribution to the debate, was prevented from doing so. No reference has been made to two major port authorities in Scotland—Forth, located in my constituency, and Clydebank. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is right to submit that, under the Standing Orders, you should exercise the power vested in you to adjourn this debate until tomorrow or the next convenient sitting.
The Minister is laughing, but this is no laughing matter. It is a very serious matter when my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh and the interests of two important Scottish port authorities are excluded from the debate—not at the will of the Chair but because only a restricted amount of time had been allocated to debate the issue.
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to exercise the power vested in you and to adjourn the debate.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have here the report of a Select Committee which sat for a full day and which concluded that the order was defectively drafted in three respects. If we are to end the debate with no reference to that conclusion being made by the Government, are we not failing to do our job?
Do you think that Standing Orders should be treated seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Do you think that they are more than just a load of codswallop? If so, I suggest that you take account of the fact that, in a debate lasting an hour and a half, not one reference has been made to the conclusion reached by a Committee consisting of four hon. Members—who had considered the order for a full morning—that it had been defectively drafted.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now raising a point for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.
Let me respond to the two earlier points of order. Unfortunately, it is often impossible to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak in debates on orders lasting for an hour and a half. Tonight's circumstances are therefore not unusual. I must tell the hon. Members concerned that I am not prepared to grant their requests.
Ms. Walley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to what you have said. However, given the number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who wished to speak, and whose constituencies contain trust ports—hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) who have spent a long time preparing for tonight's debate—and given the points that have been raised, will you at least tell us whether you will discuss the matter with Mr. Speaker and give a further consideration, if you cannot give a ruling now?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a matter for the discretion of the Chair, and I have given the House my decision.
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlebrough): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on an entirely different point? We should like some guidance on the principle of ministerial statements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) read out the response given to a private notice question asked by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). In his response on 18 December, the Secretary of State said that he was minded to accept the recommendations of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. The Ports Act 1991 was perfected on 31 December.
The Minister is right to say that tonight's proceedings are not relevant to the Act or to the decision in relation to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. However, tonight he made a statement to the House that conflicted with his response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Stockton, South. He said then that he would look carefully at all the representations that had been made and that until he had completed the process he would not endorse the recommendations. He therefore made a ministerial statement to the House without the application of the normal convention that Opposition Members can put questions to him. We, as Back-Bench Members, have been deprived of our right to demand a ministerial statement and the normal cut and thrust of debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is making a speech in the guise of a point of order. I call the Minister.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in assuming that the Minister must seek the leave of the House to address the House a second time?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not on this occasion.
Mr. McLoughlin: What we are witnessing is Labour's total opposition to the privatisation of trust ports. Labour Members hide behind the mask of support for management-employee buy-outs; yet, whenever we have debated this question, they have used every possible

933
opportunity to obstruct the process of the sale of trust ports. Now they are shedding crocodile tears because they have not received some of the answers that they wanted.
As made clear, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is looking into the representations carefully and he will not make a final decision on the sale until that process is complete. I do not believe that it would be right to add anything further to that subject now.
It has become clear from the debate that the Opposition are determined to oppose the privatisation of trust ports. They are now trying to hide behind that by saying that on every occasion we should provide an option for a management-employee buy-out, irrespective of the price. If we had considered doing that, the labour party would have accused us of selling off assets on the cheap as it has on many occasions in the past.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 136.

Division No. 37]

[12.00

AYES

Adley, Robert

Couchman, James

Alexander, Richard

Cran, James

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

Allason, Rupert

Davis, David (Boothlerry)

Amos, Alan

Day, Stephen

Arbuthnot, James

Devlin, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Dunn, Bob

Ashby, David

Durant, Sir Anthony

Atkinson, David

Dykes, Hugh

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Baldry, Tony

Evennett, David

Batiste, Spencer

Fallon, Michael

Beith, A. J.

Fearn, Ronald

Bellingham, Henry

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bendall, Vivian

Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Benyon, W.

Fookes, Dame Janet

Bevan, David Gilroy

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fox, Sir Marcus

Boswell, Tim

Franks, Cecil

Bottomley, Peter

Freeman, Roger

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

French, Douglas

Bowis, John

Gale, Roger

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gardiner, Sir George

Brazier, Julian

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Bright, Graham

Goodhart, Sir Philip

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

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Buck, Sir Antony

Gorst, John

Budgen, Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burns, Simon

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Burt, Alistair

Gregory, Conal

Butler, Chris

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Butterfill, John

Grist, Ian

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hague, William

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Cash, William

Hampson, Dr Keith

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hanley, Jeremy

Chapman, Sydney

Hannam, Sir John

Chope, Christopher

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

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Harris, David

Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)

Haselhurst, Alan

Colvin, Michael

Hayes, Jerry

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hayward, Robert

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

934

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)

Portillo, Michael

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Powell, William (Corby)

Hill, James

Price, Sir David

Hind, Kenneth

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Hordern, Sir Peter

Rathbone, Tim

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Redwood, John

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

Rhodes James, Sir Robert

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Riddick, Graham

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Howells, Geraint

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Irvine, Michael

Rowe, Andrew

Jack, Michael

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Jackson, Robert

Sackville, Hon Tom

Jessel, Toby

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Key, Robert

Sims, Roger

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Knapman, Roger

Speed, Keith

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Speller, Tony

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Knowles, Michael

Squire, Robin

Knox, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Latham, Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lawrence, Ivan

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Stephen, Nicol

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Stern, Michael

Lightbown, David

Stevens, Lewis

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Livsey, Richard

Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Summerson, Hugo

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lord, Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Thompson, Sir D.(Calder Valley)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Thorne, Neil

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Thurnham, Peter

Madel, David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Malins, Humfrey

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Mans, Keith

Tredinnick, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Trotter, Neville

Maude, Hon Francis

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Viggers, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Miller, Sir Hal

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Mills, Iain

Wallace, James

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Waller, Gary

Moate, Roger

Ward, John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Warren, Kenneth

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Watts, John

Morrison, Sir Charles

Wells, Bowen

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Wheeler, Sir John

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Whitney, Ray

Nelson, Anthony

Widdecombe, Ann

Neubert, Sir Michael

Wiggin, Jerry

Nicholls, Patrick

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Winterton, Nicholas

Norris, Steve

Wolfson, Mark

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Wood, Timothy

Oppenheim, Phillip

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Page, Richard

Yeo, Tim

Paice, James

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Patnick, Irvine

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Pawsey, James

Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Neil Hamilton.

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Porter, David (Waveney)

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Ashton, Joe

Anderson, Donald

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

935

Barron, Kevin

McAllion, John

Battle, John

McAvoy, Thomas

Beckett, Margaret

Macdonald, Calum A.

Bell, Stuart

McFall, John

Boyes, Roland

McKelvey, William

Bradley, Keith

McMaster, Gordon

Bray, Dr Jeremy

McNamara, Kevin

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

McWilliam, John

Caborn, Richard

Madden, Max

Callaghan, Jim

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Canavan, Dennis

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Martlew, Eric

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Maxton, John

Clelland, David

Meale, Alan

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Michael, Alun

Cohen, Harry

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Morgan, Rhodri

Corbett, Robin

Morley, Elliot

Cousins, Jim

Mowlam, Marjorie

Cox, Tom

Mullin, Chris

Crowther, Stan

Murphy, Paul

Cryer, Bob

O'Brien, William

Cunliffe, Lawrence

O'Hara, Edward

Dalyell, Tam

O'Neill, Martin

Darling, Alistair

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Parry, Robert

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

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dewar, Donald

Prescott, John

Dixon, Don

Quin, Ms Joyce

Dobson, Frank

Redmond, Martin

Doran, Frank

Reid, Dr John

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Rogers, Allan

Eastham, Ken

Rooney, Terence

Enright, Derek

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Ruddock, Joan

Flynn, Paul

Short, Clare

Foster, Derek

Skinner, Dennis

Fraser, John

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

George, Bruce

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

Godman, Dr Norman A.

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

Golding, Mrs Llin

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Snape, Peter

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Soley, Clive

Grocott, Bruce

Spearing, Nigel

Hardy, Peter

Steinberg, Gerry

Haynes, Frank

Strang, Gavin

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Henderson, Doug

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Hinchliffe, David

Turner, Dennis

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Walley, Joan

Home Robertson, John

Wareing, Robert N.

Hood, Jimmy

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Hoyle, Doug

Wilson, Brian

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Winnick, David

Illsley, Eric

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Ingram, Adam

Worthington, Tony

Kilfoyle, Peter

Wray, Jimmy

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Lamond, James

Lewis, Terry

Tellers for the Noes:

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Mr. Allen McKay and

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Mr. Martyn Jones.

Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Ports Act 1991 (Levy on Disposals of Land, etc.) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 15th January, the Ways and Means Motions in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to Stamp Duty may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[ Mr. Boswell.]

Health Services (Mid-Glamorgan)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
12.12 am
Mr. Allan Rogers: I express my appreciation for the opportunity to address the House on the important matter of the planning and development of health services in Mid-Glamorgan. Due to time constraints, I must confine my remarks to the Rhondda and Taff-Ely district, served by the East Glamorgan general hospital. That area is covered by my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), and I know that they hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a little later in the debate. To enable them to participate, I shall have to be rather cryptic. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to provide fuller answers in writing if he cannot get in at the end of the debate.
I am very concerned about the level of health service provided for my constituents. In voicing my concerns, I make it abundantly clear at the beginning that there is no criticism from any of us of staff in all sectors of the health service in Mid-Glamorgan. All the staff labour mightily, often in difficult circumstances, to provide health care for my constituents. All my complaints and criticisms arise from points that have been brought to my attention by people who work in the health service.
The catchment area of the district general hospital and of the Rhondda valley is, by any socio-economic indicator, a poor region of Wales and of the United Kingdom. That is not the fault of the people who live there. It is part of our inheritance, as is our radicalism and our peculiar and particular valley culture.
The area is one of high morbidity, demanding an equally high standard of medical input if that morbidity is to be effectively treated. Even after allowing for differences in the age and sex structure of the population, Mid-Glamorgan has a standardised mortality rate 13 per cent. above that for England and Wales as a whole. The rate is higher than in any other county in England and Wales except Cleveland and Durham. Let us consider the childhood morality figures. The infant mortality rate in mid-Glamorgan is 9·4 per cent. higher than the average, whereas in Wales as a whole it is 8 per cent. higher. The perinatal morality rate in Mid-Glamorgan is 10·1 per cent. higher than the average; in Wales as a whole, it is 8·3 per cent. higher.
My first question to the Minister is this: what account is taken of social deprivation factors in calculating the moneys available to Mid-Glamorgan for health care? I understand that social deprivation is not taken into the calculation, and I am absolutely amazed at that. As I understand it, it is taken into account in some English regions. If that is the case, why cannot it be taken into account in the allocation of resources to health authorities in Wales? Social deprivation creates greater health demands, and extra resources are needed if only to introduce some equity into the health care provided across the whole of Wales.
The crucial problem facing us in Mid-Glamorgan is the underfunding of the service, which has culminated in the deterioration of the fabric of the buildings, although successive managements have tried hard to patch them up. The underfunding is also apparent in the waits for new and

937
replacement equipment, and in the fact that consultant staff have to spend much of their time in argument—sometimes quite bitter argument—about equipment priorities.
Underfunding also means that proper staffing levels cannot be reached, and inadequate remuneration is available for those who are employed—particularly ancillary and domestic staff. Highly skilled medical secretaries are paid at levels way below those paid in outside industry.
Competent managers have struggled hard to balance the books to keep departments open but have sometimes failed. The high dependency unit in the district general hospital is a classic example. It has been completed for six months but it cannot be opened because of the lack of staff to operate it.
In the district general hospital, there are insufficient medical beds. I should have thought that, in this day and age, every patient with an acute medical illness ought to have the right to be admitted to a medical bed in a district general hospital. That is often not the case.
There are insufficient cardiac care beds. For a number of years, the health authority has admitted that the coronary care unit, which at present has only four beds, is half the size that it should he according to NHS norms. It is ironic that, in an area with a high incidence of coronary heart disease, many patients cannot be admitted to the specialist high care area to which they deserve to be admitted. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and I have been most concerned about the admissions policy of the health authority, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to refer to that a little later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In Taff Ely and Rhondda, there is a shortage of medical consultant staff. There are almost twice as many medical consultants per head of population in Merthyr and Cynon valley as in Taff Ely and Rhondda. Underfunding has had a devastating effect on the morale of the staff in the service. It has led to the resignation of three of the nine medical consultants appointed to Taff Ely and Rhondda in the past 20 years. The fact that one third of those medical consultants have voted with their feet—something unheard of in other hospitals—clearly indicates the poor working conditions in the area and the demoralisation of the consultant work force. It cannot be said that these are the underpaid members of the health service. These are not problems of the past. The last consultant to resign left work only last week, and it has been disclosed to me that, because of the conditions in which they have to work, others are contemplating leaving.
The resources coming into the area as a whole are inadequate. We all suffer from this problem, but there is additional inequity in Mid-Glamorgan. Health resources are not distributed equitably, and once again the valleys are losing out. I emphasise that this maldistribution must be seen in the context of a total lack of resources. This reinforces my argument for the provision of more resources for the area as a whole. Reasons for the maldistribution have been put forward. For example, it has been said that the area of Bridgend has more representatives on the health authority than other parts of the county have. It is a question either of better lobbiers or of better voters. In any case, it seems to us that the traffic is one way—from the valleys to the south.
With regard to membership of the health authority, all Mid-Glamorgan Members of Parliament are appalled at the Secretary of State's appointment in the past year or so
938
of authority members who do not even live in the authority's area. Those friends of the Tory party and friends of the Minister have not been appointed because of their involvement in the community. That is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) will rectify as soon as we win the election, which will be shortly.
The Rhondda valley, which represents one half of the district, is obviously of particular concern to me. My constituents are extremely worried about the delay in the construction of a second community hospital in the lower part of the Rhondda. The Minister was present at the opening of the new community hospital in the upper Rhondda. That is a splendid facility, but the Minister will acknowledge that, with the closure of two older but perfectly adequate hospitals, there has been a decrease in the number of beds. Almost all the beds available in the community hospital are for geriatric or psycho-geriatric patients. There are no extra acute facilities.
If we get a new district general hospital, it will lead to the closure of the Llwynypia hospital in the southern part of the constituency, and the hospital service in the Rhondda will become a geriatric ghetto with no acute facilities at all. My constituents in the top part of the Rhondda will have a 20-mile journey for the most mundane examinations and treatment. Why are maternity services being transferred from Llwynypia hospital? Hospital births are not now possible in the Rhondda. When I have raised the matter, I have been told that there is no demand for those facilities and that the existing facilities are under-used. Yes, they are under-used, but that is because mothers are not encouraged to use them. It is a pretty old trick to run down a facility to such an extent that people do not or cannot use it and then to use that as an excuse for closing it down.
There is no 24-hour accident and emergency service, and out-patient facilities are appalling and cramped. Morale among staff working in such conditions is at an all-time low. I could quote from an unsolicited letter received on 20 December, but shortage of time prevents my doing so. The writer did not want to have his name divulged as he felt that if it were known that he had given the information he would be victimised.
The rundown in services has caused a substantial problem in the Rhondda. Communities such as mine have depended on heavy industry. If we are to keep our population, which is declining, and if we are to keep our young people in modern houses, which are being built in some sectors, they must have the facilities to keep them there. Otherwise, they will leave. The valley communities, with their special culture and special background, will end up empty—like wild west towns which have served their purpose and closed down. I recently visited an old friend with whom I worked in Montana, and I went to him to an old mining town that had been closed. Only two or three people live in the town, whereas about 4,000 people once lived and worked there. I do not want my communities to end up like that. That is why I am anxious that we get facilities back into the Rhondda.
I can remember when bad mistakes were made by the Welsh Office. I am not being political—I do not know when the original decision was made. When it was decided to build the University hospital in Cardiff and the so-called Cardiff plan was introduced, it was decided to have one centre of excellence in south Wales or in the eastern part of south Wales. The valleys were drained of services in

939
Caerphilly, Aberbargoed, Llwynypia and Porth hospitals, to which the miners had contributed out of their own pockets. All the facilities and staff were drained out of Cardiff.
Fortunately, when the Mid-Glamorgan health authority was set up—I sat on the authority when it was set up in 1973—we stopped the Cardiff plan dead. We stopped the closure of those community hospitals. Medical opinion—or bureaucratic opinion. I should say—which runs the health service within our structures has now caught up with us. It now realises that the development of community hospitals is needed in our valleys.
We also have the problem of the district general hospital. By odd coincidence, although it serves primarily the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and myself, it is situated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, who therefore has a very strong vested interest in it.
I wish that the Minister would listen rather than talk to the Government Whip. Perhaps the Whip could leave the Minister alone for a moment so that I could address him. Is the construction of that district general hospital to go ahead? In a private conversation—he will not mind my repeating it—the Minister said, "We have given authority and approval." I went back to the health authority and said, "Why do you not go ahead and build it?" It said, "We have had approval for the design, but we have not had the money approved." I will gladly give way to the Minister. Will he give the assurance that he gave in answer to me during a radio programme as well as in a telephone conversation? Will he say that Mid-Glamorgan can have the money to proceed immediately with the district general hospital?
It is no good the Minister saying that it is up to the health authority. Under the new financial arrangements, it being an item worth more than £4 million capital expenditure, the decision is now to be made by the Welsh Office. The decision does not now lie with the health authority. Will the Minister give the assurance that he gave me, that the health authority can now proceed with the new district general hospital?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): I shall do so when I reply.
Mr. Rogers: I thank the Minister. While he is at it, could he also say what size it will be? The Percy Thomas Partnership did a survey on the need for hospital beds in the Rhondda some years ago. It said that, in order to meet health needs, a hospital of 800 beds was required. There is a huge population in that area. I now understand that there is a proposal to construct a hospital of 530 beds. That is just not adequate. It is smaller than the present hospital in Church Village. In 10 years, we shall have the same problems and, as a consequence, the service will operate on a split site.
There is enormous concern about the fact that psychiatric services will not be provided at the new hospital. A consultant has written to me, stating:
"I am writing to you to express my own very deep concern, and that of my colleagues working in psychiatry…that the new District General Hospital planned at Ynys Y Plwm will have no provision for the treatment of psychiatric patients as part of its first phase…The Mid Glamorgan strategy for the development of Mental Health Services has been based on belief in the idea of the devolution of psychiatric services from
940
hospitals which are isolated from other parts of the medical and social services, instead of linking them with the mainstream of these services, as near as possible to the patients' homes…It is particularly ironic that the closure of one psychiatric ghetto, Parc Hospital, in 1993 will now be closely followed by the establishment of another, more so at a time when a new District General Hospital Psychiatric Unit is being built at Bridgend."
Will the Minister give us an assurance that psychiatric services will be included at the new district general hospital? We grew up with our mentally ill friends, families and neighbours being committed to vast institutions which depersonalised them. We moved from that Victorian concept of care for the mentally ill to the point where we look after them in the community on a decent, caring basis. It would be utterly wrong to exclude psychiatric services from the main stream of hospital services. We do not want another psychiatric ghetto in Mid-Glamorgan.
I shall conclude because several of my hon. Friends wish to speak. I plead with the Minister to look carefully at Mid-Glamorgan's case. We need extra money and decisions to be taken soon in the interests of serving the people of that area.
12.31 am
Dr. Kim Howells: I hope that the Minister will realise that I, too, have a great deal to say, but no time in which to say it. I also hope that he will give us the straight answers that he often has in the past, although we might not have agreed with them.
I should like to amplify a couple of points that have already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). We should like to know whether we are to have a new district general hospital at the Ynys-y-Plwm site, and how large it will be. Is the Minister aware of the concerns that have been expressed to us by consultants, staff, auxiliaries and everyone else who is concerned with health care about what they perceive to be a lack of adequate planned space and facilities at the new hospital? They are afraid that the new facility will be smaller than the existing one and that many of the units, many of which were named by my hon. Friend, will not be adequately replaced in terms of space and facilities at the new hospital.
They are especially worried about the departments of paediatrics and physiotherapy. There is a famous physiotherapy centre at Talygarn, which Mid-Glamorgan health authority proposes to close. We have been told that it will be all right and that "space will be found at the new hospital to replace it". But that is not the perception of those who have seen the plans, who are extremely worried that those important functions will not be catered for in the new hospital. I should like to know whether that will be the case.
The Minister will know that there is a spending crisis at East Glamorgan hospital. The funding crisis involves a current overspend of about £900,000. What will the Minister do to ensure that that does not involve the closure of wards or the non-reopening of certain wards that have been closed for refurbishment? I am sure that he agrees that in an area of social deprivation, such as Mid-Glamorgan, there are great inadequacies in the provision of speech therapy, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy for children. What will be those areas' future health provision under the new hospital provision plans that are being hatched in the Welsh Office and Mid-Glamorgan?

941
We are talking not simply about community services but about combined services by both hospitals and communities, in just the same way as is required for mental health services under the new legislation. Many of us are worried that ambulance services are greatly stretched in Mid-Glamorgan and especially in the Rhondda and Taff-Ely areas. We are worried that there may be instances in which adequate ambulance cover is not provided.
I ask the Under-Secretary to ensure that never again will an admissions policy such as that operated by Mid-Glamorgan for so long be pursued. The over-70s were treated almost as if they were the walking dead. They did not qualify for the cardiac facilities and treatments offered to people under that arbitrary age. I hope that the Minister has something to say about that.
The staff of Mid-Glamorgan and especially East Glamorgan hospitals are doing a magnificent job. They deserve much better facilities. The fabric of East Glamorgan is falling apart. I hope that the Minister will tell us that we shall get a new hospital.
12.35 am
Mr. Ray Powell: I shall be brief because of the time factor. We want a response from the Minister to all the questions that have been put to him. We hope to see a hospital established one (lay. It will not be in the lifetime of the Government, because they have only a few months to go. There is no doubt that it will need a Labour Government to establish a hospital in Ynys-y-Plwm to cater for the population in the area, and especially in Taff-Ely, the Rhondda and the part of the Ogmore constituency that stretches to Ynys-y-Plwm.
Promises have been made in the past. My hon. Friend for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) referred to the Princess of Wales hospital and the facilities in the Bridgend area. It took 25 years of campaigning in that area to establish the hospital in the Bridgend area. The services do not fulfil the promises made by the area health authority when it closed the small hospitals in the Ogwr borough area. The authority said that the Princess of Wales hospital phase I would be developed to replace the services. Indeed, the Minister of State, Welsh Office promised me in 1983 that he would have phase 2 established immediately following the completion of phase I. We are still waiting for phase 2 to be developed in Bridgend. We are well under-provided for in the Bridgend area.
Therefore, it is more necessary now for Ynys-y-Plwm hospital to be established. I eagerly await the Minister's reply, and promises not only from him but from the area health authority. I endorse what my hon. Friends have said about the disturbed condition of hospital services, especially in East Glamorgan. East Glamorgan is in a terrible state of repair, decoration and equipment. The staff are becoming frustrated daily and leaving the service. We cannot afford to allow that to continue.
I would like to speak for much longer, because the hospital will be established in part of my constituency. I hope that the area health authority will read in Hansard the speeches made tonight and take note of them. I hope that, in future discussions about Ynys-y-Plwm, it will include me among those whom it invites to discuss the problems of some 15,000 to 20,000 of my constituents who will be in the catchment area. I hope that the Minister will have sufficient time to reply to the questions that we have put to him.
12.38 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is a little optimistic if he thinks that in four minutes I can reply adequately to the debate. I assure the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that I will look through everything that they have said and write to them.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on obtaining this debate. It is an achievement to obtain an Adjournment debate. However—the hon. Gentleman knows that I am going to say this—most of the matters that he has raised are for the district health authority. I am sure that the chairman of the authority and his colleagues will look carefully at the remarks made in the debate.
I have visited seven facilities in Mid-Glamorgan during the past year. At five of them, I was opening new facilities; at one I was attending the opening of a new facility by Lord Tonypandy, which was named after him—ysbyty George Thomas. The hon. Member for Rhondda was present when Lord Tonypandy opened that facility. There have been considerable achievements in Mid-Glamorgan during the past year, one of which was the opening of a new regional treatment centre. Mid-Glamorgan now has two of the four centres.
I acknowledge that the Rhondda area is one of great social deprivation. Of the 11 wards, four are in the top five of the index and nine are in the top 50. That has been recognised in our urban programme. We have given £2 million to the Rhondda this year, a higher amount than to any other district in Wales. The health authority has received £16·5 million in total under the programme for the valleys initiative for 17 schemes, one of which was the new community hospital in the Rhondda, ysbyty George Thomas. The know-your-midwife scheme received £120,000 under the programme of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for the valleys initiative. A further £36,000 is being made available during the current financial year to complete the pattern of service in the Rhondda valleys.
The hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned the new formula. It helps health authorities because it weights the population of an area according to the social problems in terms of the age of the population and of ill health. It will be of great importance to the health authority.
The hon. Member for Rhondda asserted that the health authority was underfunded. We are spending about £204 million this year, which is a cash increase of 11·3 per cent. Expenditure in Mid-Glamorgan, after inflation, has risen by 34 per cent. since 1979. During the same period, there has been capital investment of £127 million. I am glad to say that, as a result, activity in Mid-Glamorgan has increased considerably. Between 1974 and 1979, in-patient numbers rose by 9 per cent., and they have risen by 40 per cent. since then. Day case surgery decreased by 29 per cent. under the Labour Government, but since then it has increased by 840 per cent. As for new out-patients, it was minus 2 per cent. during 1974–79; it has increased by 29 per cent. under the Conservative Government. I congratulate the Mid-Glamorgan health authority on its excellent work.
As the hon. Member for Rhondda said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave approval for a new district general hospital at Ynys-y-Plwm only last April. It will cost about £70 million, and it will have about 529 beds.

943
It will be a brand new health facility for the Rhondda area by the end of the century, and I believe that it will be the best in Europe. Far from criticism, we can see an excellent record of achievement by the Mid-Glamorgan health authority—new facilities, high expenditure and many
944
improvements in the health service. I am committed, as the Minister who is responsible for health in Wales, to continue that.
I am sorry that I have had only four minutes to reply to the debate. I shall respond in writing to the detailed questions of hon. Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to One o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Peter Botomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the European Commission added speed limits to the draft directive on speed limiters.

  Mr. Chope
  The proposal for fitment of speed limiters to certain vehicles (Document 8046/91), including the speeds at which the limiters should be set, was sent by the Commission to the Council on 31 July 1991 and to member states on 11 September 1991.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on what date the European Commission's speed limit proposal was communicated to(a) the Economic and Social Committee, (b) trade unions and (c) employers for their comments and advice;

  (2) when, and by what procedure, the European Parliament considered the European Commission's speed limit proposal.

  Mr. Chope
  The proposed EC directive on the fitment of speed limiters (Document 8046/91) was communicated to the European Parliament and to the Economic and Social Committee on 22 August 1991. My hon. Friend will note that this was about three weeks earlier than the communication to member states. The European Parliament gave its opinion on 13 December, and the Economic and Social Committee gave its opinion on 27 November. Both supported the principle of the proposal. The proposal was not formally communicated by the Commission to trade unions for comment, but both employers and employees interests are represented in the membership of the Economic and Social Committee.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate has been provided by the European Commission of the benefit in reduced numbers of crashes or reduced severity of injuries of the draft directive involving speed limiters.

  Mr. Chope
  The Commission proposal on the fitment of speed limiters (Document 8046/91) did not provide estimates of reduced numbers of accidents or severity of injuries.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the environmental benefits of reducing speed limits.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 13 January 1992]: A reduction in speed limits would produce benefits only if it resulted in lower vehicle speeds. The principal environmental benefit of lower speed is a reduction in emissions. This is true of both motor vehicles and trains.

  CrossRail
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when it is proposed to commence construction of Cross Rail.

  Mr. Ritkind
  As announced by the joint London Underground/British Rail CrossRail project team on 23 December, a review carried out by the Department of Transport and the operators recently concluded that the Private parliamentary Bill deposited last November would probably not he passed until late 1994. Construction might then be expected to begin in the financial year 1995–96, subject of course to the provision of resources.

  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what developments have occurred in the former scheme ports since the abolition of the national dock labour scheme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Since abolition, there has been 50 per cent. net reduction in the number of dockworkers in ex-scheme ports. Non-scheme ports, too, have had to review their working arrangements. Flexible working agreements, and the end of restrictive practices, are reported to have led, in some places, to 50 to 100 per cent. improvement in productivity. Management effort is no longer absorbed in industrial relations problems and it can concentrate on giving a better, cheaper service to customers. The competition among ports to provide faster turnround, at lower rates, benefits the whole economy as it prepares to enter the single European market. Trade has revived in major ports. For example. Bull has reopened its container terminal and the Alexandra dock. Prospects for attracting private capital and new industrial developments have improved, now that ports are free from the restrictions of the scheme. This investment will bring further benefits to the economy.

  Ivanhoe Railway Service
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the proposed Ivanhoe passenger railway service from Leicester through South Derbyshire to Burton-on-Trent and Derby.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 20 December 1991]: I am delighted that we are able to give the go-ahead to the Ivanhoe line project, which will mean the restoration of local train services over the lines between Loughborough, Leicester, Burton-on-Trent and Derby, and will involve the opening or reopening of 16 stations.

  It will provide an economic boost to the Leicestershire and Derbyshire communities through which the line passes and at the same time it should help ease peak traffic congestion in Leicester.

  The resources we are making available to this £16 million project (including a £5 million grant) will allow work to commence in 1992–93, and it is expected to take about three years to complete.

  This project is another demonstration of the Government's faith in rail as a means of local transport and is part of a continuing trend in railway development in the United Kingdom.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will seek powers to challenge the ruling of the courts that any local authority seeking to enforce United Kingdom legislation on Sunday trading will have to give an undertaking to pay the losses of the defendant in the event of that legislation being found to be in contravention of the treaty of Rome.

  The Attorney-General
  I have no plans to seek the powers referred to by the hon. Member. I assume that he is referring to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Kirklees borough council v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd in which it was held that the Council was required to give a cross-undertaking in damages when seeking, by means of an interlocutory injunction, to enforce the Shops Act 1950. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on this decision because it is shortly to be appealed to the House of Lords.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Fund Manual
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to review the format of the social fund manual.

  Mr. Hanley
  A revised social fund manual has just been published. The new manual consists of a series of smaller, easier to use guides and booklets which distinguish clearly between directions-guidance to social fund officers and procedural-administrative instructions. The opportunity has been taken to amend social fund direction 16 in line with Government policy that, as a general rule, students should not be funded through social security benefits. During term-time or vacations full-time students will be eligible for crisis loans in future only to alleviate the consequences of a disaster. Copies of the revised social fund manual have been placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Business Rates, Southend
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that all outstanding appeals against business rate valuations in Southend will be heard by the end of June 1992.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Responsibility for business rate appeals rests with valuation and community charge tribunals, which are independent bodies. The Essex (South) tribunal had 8,500 appeals outstanding against the 1990 list as at 30 November. Some 2,000 of these were in respect of properties in Southend. The prioritisation and timing of cases is a matter for the tribunal and I have no formal power to intervene. My Department nevertheless wrote to tribunals in England last June urging them to progress 1990 list appeals as quickly as possible.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he now proposes to revise the guidance given in circular 8/87 regarding demolition of industrial buildings in conservation areas.

  Mr. Yeo
  Yes. My Department will be consulting local authority associations and other interested parties about a revised version of the circular in the spring.

  Coventry Council (Finances)
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage change in the total external support for Coventry city council between financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Portillo
  On the basis of the proposals put before the House on 26 November Coventry city council would have an increase in total external support of 6·9 per cent. between 1991–92 and 1992–93. It is intended that the final details for 1992–93 will be announced later this month.

  "Age File The Facts"
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain a copy of Anchor's report, "Age File The Facts" for his departmental library.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The departmental library already has a copy.

  Sheltered Housing
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the role of sheltered housing in community care.

  Mr. Yeo
  Social services authorities will be responsible for community care assessments and are required to consult other agencies, including housing authorities, when drawing up their community care plans to meet the needs of their area. Similarly, housing authorities should consult social services authorities in preparing their own housing investment strategies each year. When making individual assessments for community care, social services authorities will be expected to involve the housing authority whenever an individual's assessment indicates a possible housing need.

  Not everyone who is assessed under the new community care arrangements will be in need of housing, there will be a majority who will be able to go on living in their existing homes with suitable domiciliary care or, perhaps, custom adaptations. Indeed the aim of community care is to allow people to stay in their existing homes wherever possible. Local authorities are able to award mandatory disabled facilities grants for essential adaptations where an applicant qualifies for help under the test of resources. Discretionary grants may also be available for other adaptations, including minor works assistance for the elderly.

  Where it is not possible for a person to stay in their own home it will be for social services in consultation with housing authorities to decide on the best way of meeting that person's needs. That may be in some form of sheltered housing. Sheltered housing will therefore be one of a range of housing options available.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department intends to issue regulations limiting the size of performance bonds that local authorities can require of contractors, with regard to compulsory competitive tendering; and whether he intends to consult with local authorities before issuing such regulations.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend will consider, in the light of responses to paragraphs 1.21 and 1.29 of the consultation paper "Competing for Quality—Competition in the Provision of Local Services", whether, and if so, how, he should use his powers in clause 9 of the Local Government Bill, in relation to performance bonds. He will consult the local authority associations before using these powers.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) for how many services which his Department is currently considering as candidates for compulsory competitive tendering he intends to introduce de minimis provisions; what levels of de minimis will be set; and whether he intends to consult local authorities on this matter;

  (2) What advice his Department received with regard to the extension of compulsory competitive tendering on the issue of de minimis from PA Consulting Group; and what criteria will be used to determine de minimis levels.

  Mr. Portillo
  PA Consulting Group reported to my Department, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office last year on the feasibility of extending compulsory competitive tendering. That report is not being published.

  The question of whether there should be a level of activity below which the requirements for compulsory competitive tendering should not apply, and if so how that level will be defined, will be considered in the light of responses to the consultation document "Competing for Quality—Competition in the Provision of Local Services". I would expect to consult the local authority associations before defining any such level.

  City of Birmingham (Bankers)
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the tendering procedures adopted by the city of Birmingham in appointing its bankers.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 13 January 1992]: The tendering procedure adopted by an authority in appointing its bankers is a matter for it and for its auditor. Questions as to compliance with such procedures, which would be contained in the authority's standing orders and financial regulations, are for the authority's monitoring officer, appointed under section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and may be referred to the authority's auditor. Both the monitoring officer and the auditor have statutory responsibilities in relation to the legality and propriety of an authority's decisions.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Remand Prisoners, Durham
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average period of time remand prisoners are held in Durham prison before being brought to trial in the last two years for which figures are available;

  (2) how many people are currently held on remand in police cells in the county of Durham.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On Friday 10 January, two unconvicted prisoners, both under the age of 21, were held in police cells in the Durham constabulary area.

  Information on the average length of time served by prisoners in Durham prison who are remanded in custody is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Prosecution of Juveniles
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was, for each year since 1980, the percentage of cases brought against juveniles in which a conviction was secured;

  (2) what has been the number of cases in each year since 1980 in which police identified a juvenile or juveniles as having committed offences but in which (a) the case was not brought to court or (b) the prosecution withdrew the case or offered no evidence or (c) the case was dismissed by the court.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of juvenile offenders identified by the police, for whom no court proceedings were taken. Information in the following tables show (A) the percentage of cases brought against juveniles where a conviction was secured; and (B) the number of juveniles proceeded against at magistrates courts where the case was either dismissed or withdrawn. 1990 data is not yet available.

  Table A

  Number and percentage of juveniles (persons aged 10 to under 17) prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts of indictable offences 1980–89

  England and Wales

  Year

  Total proceeded against (= 100 per cent.)

  Total found guilty (number)

  Total found guilty 1(per cent.)

  1980

  98,000

  90,000

  92

  1981

  95,000

  87,000

  91

  1982

  90,000

  82,000

  91

  1983

  82,000

  73,000

  90

  1984

  78,000

  70,000

  89

  1985

  71,000

  63,000

  88

  1986

  57,000

  48,000

  84

  1987

  53,000

  42,000

  79

  1988

  48,000

  36,000

  77

  1989

  37,000

  26,000

  72

  1 Percentages based on actual figures.

  541

  Table B

  Number of juveniles (persons aged 10 to under 17) proceeded against at magistrates' courts for indictable offences where the charges were withdrawn or dismissed 1980–1989

  England and Wales

  Year

  Total proceeded against

  Charge withdrawn

  Charge dismissed

  1980

  98,000

  2,000

  4,000

  1981

  95,000

  3,000

  4,000

  1982

  90,000

  3,000

  4,000

  1983

  82,000

  3,000

  3,000

  1984

  78,000

  4,000

  3,000

  1985

  71,000

  4,000

  3,000

  1986

  57,000

  5,000

  2,000

  1987

  53,000

  6,000

  2,000

  1988

  48,000

  6,000

  2,000

  1989

  37,000

  5,000

  2,000

  Magistrates Courts (Delays)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what measures he is taking to reduce delays in proceedings in magistrates courts.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The problem of delays is a complex one which needs to be tackled in a variety of ways and which requires the active co-operation of all criminal justice agencies. Amonst the measures recently taken or now in hand to bring about reduction in delays are

  the introduction of powers to enable magistrates courts to remand for up to 28 days, which should reduce unnecessary court hearings and encourage effective case management; a major programme of training, arranged by the Home Office in conjunction with the magistrates courts service, directed to helping court clerks to develop practical clerking skills and a proactive approach to the management of court business;

  the issue in July 1991 of best practice guidance on listing of cases, supplementing earlier guidance on the best use of court clerk time;

  the encouragement and monitoring of pre-trial reviews on an experimental basis in selected magistrates' courts;

  action to follow up the report of the working group on pre-trial issues, as announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General on 11 November, in which the magistrates courts service will be asked to play its full part;

  the start of direct data exchange between magistrates courts and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to be extended in due course to all magistrates courts, which should reduce the time needed to obtain licensing information as well as reducing handling costs;

  the development of national targets for improvements in performance, as part of the development of the magistrates courts management information system.

  These are all important initiatives which we hope will contribute to speedier and more effective local justice.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to make an announcement on the RETEX scheme to help areas hit by decline of the textile industries.

  Mr. Leigh
  On 20 December the European Commission agreed a draft proposal for a RETEX scheme on which it will invite comments from member states and the European Parliament in the coming weeks. I have not yet 542
  received the draft proposal. The Government will naturally seek to ensure the maximum effective coverage of United Kingdom textile areas.

  National Telephone Codes
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 5 December 1991,Official Report, column 205, if he will list those organisations which have expressed concern about the time allowed for the 1994 changes in national telephone codes.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Director General of Telecommunications, who is responsible for numbering, has not taken a final decision on the transitional period for implementation of the national code change in 1994. I have asked the Director General to write to the hon. Member giving further information concerning the transitional arrangements and any representations he may have received.

  Plugs
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce regulations to require the fitting of plugs to all electrical equipment before the point of sale.

  Mr. Leigh
  As part of a review of the Plugs and Sockets Etc (Safety) Regulations 1987, my Department is currently considering whether legislative controls should be introduced requiring the fitting of plugs to domestic electrical appliances before they are supplied to the consumer.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will institute an inquiry into the profit margins of hearing aid manufacturers; and if he will discuss the prices of non-national health service hearing aids with the organisations of and for disabled people.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 13 January 1992]: No. It is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading to monitor commercial activities affecting consumers. He may conduct an inquiry to establish whether there are sufficient grounds for formal investigation under competition legislation. If the right hon. Member has information that suggests there are anti-competitive practices, he should bring it to the attention of the Director General.

PRIME MINISTER

  Constituencies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards equalising the size of parliamentary constituencies; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  When conducting a review of parliamentary constituencies, the parliamentary boundary commissions are required to give effect to the rules set out in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which include a requirement that constituency electorates should be as close as practicable to the electoral quota for that part of the United Kingdom.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Bank of England
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the relevant primary and secondary legislation governing relations with the Bank of England.

  Mr. Maples
  Principal legislation governing relations between the Treasury and Bank of England includes the Bank Charter Act 1844, the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866, the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1928, the Bank of England Act 1946, the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1954, the National Loans Act 1968, the Currency Act 1983 and the Banking Act 1987. The Bank of England Charter of 1946 is also of relevance.

  I regret that to compile a comprehensive list of relevant legislation in all fields would involve a disproportionate expenditure of time and resources.

  'Trade Deficit
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the United Kingdom's current trade deficit.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information may be found in table I of the monthly press notice on the current account of the balance of payments, published on 23 December 1991, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  British Telecommunications plc
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the outcome of the Government's sale of part of its residual shareholding in British Telecommunications plc.

  Mr. Maude
  As I announced on 9 December at column 299, Her Majesty's Treasury made a total of 1,050 million shares available to applicants in the United Kingdom public offer and 525 million shares to bidders in the international tender offer. In addition, S G Warburg Securities had the option to acquire further shares from Her Majesty's Treasury, up to a maximum of 118·125 million shares, for the purpose of meeting overallotments in the international tender offer.

  On 7 January, S G Warburg Securities, as global co-ordinator for the sale, acquired a further 22·5 million shares from Her Majesty's Treasury, pursuant to this option. This brings to 547·5 million the total number of shares sold by Her Majesty's Treasury in the international tender offer and to 1,597·5 million the total size of the BT share sale.

  The shares sold in the international tender offer were distributed across the 10 regional syndicates in the following proportions:
  544

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  63·6

  United States

  17·6

  Japan

  5·3

  Switzerland

  4·9

  Rest of the World

  2·6

  France

  1·5

  Germany

  1·4

  Italy

  1·4

  Canada

  1·1

  Benelux

  0·6

  100·0

  Following the exercise of the option granted to the global co-ordinator, the Government will hold some 1,343·5 million shares in British Telecommunications plc (approximately 22 per cent. of the total currently in issue), before deducting any shares which may he needed to meet share bonus entitlements under the United Kingdom public offer.

  Total gross proceeds from the sale of the offered shares amount to £5·43 billion, of which some £1·84 billion are received in this financial year.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has any proposals to raise the advisory cost limit of £250 for answering parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Maples
  Yes. The advisory limit was last increased in 1988 Official Report 14 March 1988 col. 429. Its purpose is to act as a threshold for disproportionate cost PQs. Any written PQ where the marginal cost of preparing the answer is considered likely to exceed the threshold may be referred to the appropriate Minister and an answer may be refused in whole or in part on the ground of disproportionate cost. Alternatively the Minister may decide that the PQ is to be answered irrespective of cost.

  This threshold applies to the marginal cost and not the full cost of a written PQ. For the marginal cost, the divisional costs of preparing the answer are estimated—i.e. the costs in divisions (without taking account of the standing cost of parliamentary branches). The fixed cost of staff accommodation is also excluded from this marginal cost calculation and this also contributes to ease of calculation in Departments.

  When the threshold was last increased in 1988, the average marginal cost was £33 and the £250 threshold was a multiple of nearly eight times the average. A survey of costs in 1991 has shown that the average marginal cost of a written PQ is now £50. To reflect this the advisory limit is being raised today to £400 so that the same multiple of eight times the average will apply. There is no advisory cost limit for oral parliamentary questions.

  Government Deficit and Debt
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the ratio, expressed as a percentage of(a) the actual Government deficit and (b) Government debt to the gross domestic product at then market prices in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 13 January 1992]:There are a number of different ways of measuring the Government deficit and Government debt.

  545
  Presentation of the public sector finances in the United Kingdom is generally in terms of the public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR) and net public sector debt.

  PSBR statistics on the basis requested were given in reply to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) on 2 December 1991, Official Report. column 38. Figures for net public sector debt, which are available only from end-March 1975 onwards, are given in the table.

  Net public sector debt as percentage of GDP1

  Per cent.

  1975

  61·00

  1976

  59·00

  1977

  57·75

  1978

  54·00

  1979

  50·75

  1980

  46·25

  1981

  47·75

  1982

  47·25

  1983

  46·25

  1984

  46·75

  1985

  47·00

  1986

  45·25

  1987

  42·75

  1988

  38·25

  1989

  32·00

  1990

  27·75

  1991

  27·25

  1 Stock of debt as at 31 March expressed as a percentage of GDP adjusted for the abolition of domestic rates in the year centred on that date.

  Mortgage Rescue Proposals
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will specify the basis of his calculation that his mortgage rescue proposals will protect 40,000 households next year; and what information he has of the number of households facing repossession next year.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 13 January 1992]: Lenders themselves have estimated that the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 19 December will prevent about 40,000 repossessions this year. They were previously expecting about 80,000 repossessions in 1992.

WALES

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to amalgamate the district health authorities in Wales to enable them to exercise greater purchasing power.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No.

  Third Dee Crossing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will meet the Deeside Enterprise Trust to discuss traffic congestion, as it affects Deeside industrial park, and the need for a third Dee crossing;

  (2) if he will meet the North Wales Confederation of British Industry to discuss the need for a third Dee crossing;

  (3) if he will meet the North Wales Confederation of Engineering and other unions to discuss the need for a third Dee crossing.
  546
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 20 December at column 361. The meeting arranged for 28 January will provide an opportunity to discuss all issues associated with the third Dee crossing scheme.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the figures offered or given by his Department to each hospital, unit or combination of units in Wales towards the cost of drawing up any application for trust status or any other ways of promoting a move to trust status.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  A contribution of £50,000 was provided to Pembrokeshire health authority. As to elsewhere in Wales, those units recently invited to prepare applications to become NHS trusts in April 1993 are aware that financial assistance is available to help with the process. Any bids received will be considered on their individual merits.

  Child Care
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his target for next year and for each of the next five years as to the percentage of children between the age of three and school age in(a) Wales and (b) each county in Wales for whom he wishes to see child care provision from public funds.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Section 19 of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on local social services authorities to review day care services for young children in their areas, including the level of public provision. Each local authority is required to conduct a review and to publish its results within a year of the Act's implementation (14 October 1991). Further reviews are to be undertaken at three-yearly intervals. Guidance to the authorities on the exercise of this review duty is contained in chapter 9 of volume 2 of "The Children Act: Guidance and Regulations—Family Support, Day Care and Educational Provision for Young Children."

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates he has made of the likely effects on Welsh sheep producers of the MacSharry proposals to reform the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The European Commission's CAP reform proposals would, if implemented as they stand, discriminate against producers in Wales. The proposed headage limits for the sheep annual premium would affect 15 per cent. of sheep in Wales compared with 3 per cent. in the European Community as a whole. I welcome the Commission's acceptance that reform is necessary but this must be on the basis of non-discrimination, budget discipline, control of surpluses and policies which are sensitive to the environment.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet Mr. MacSharry, the EC Agricultural Commissioner, to discuss reform of the common agricultural policy and its effects on Welsh farming; and if he will make a statement.
  547
  Mr. David Hunt
  I met Commissioner MacSharry on 22 November when I explained very clearly how the Commission's CAP reform proposals would discriminate against producers in Wales. Mr. MacSharry fully understands my view of the impact of the Commission's proposals.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many prescriptions have been issued in each of the last five years in each(a) county and (b) family practitioner committee area in Wales;

  FHSA/County

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Clwyd

  3,568,306

  3,732,356

  3,895,369

  4,051,926

  4,139,001

  Dyfed

  2,889,105

  3,002,168

  3,160,223

  3,312,823

  3,428,631

  Gwent

  4,264,573

  4,428,795

  4,599,406

  4,731,033

  4,832,110

  Gwynedd

  2,179,284

  2,274,807

  2,366,711

  2,445,512

  2,514,387

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,755,127

  5,969,138

  6,183,330

  6,293,534

  6,409,798

  Powys

  871,922

  912,978

  963,371

  1,005,597

  1,039,585

  South Glamorgan

  3,434,925

  3,584,344

  3,725,450

  3,822,914

  3,939,695

  West Glamorgan

  3,667,264

  3,792,900

  3,943,493

  4,014,707

  4,072,873

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what proportion of prescriptions in each(a) county and (b) family practitioner area in Wales the patient has been liable to make full payment in each of the last five years.

  Percentage of prescriptions bearing full charge

  FHSA/County

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Clwyd

  13·0

  12·7

  12·4

  12·2

  11·5

  Dyfed

  14·7

  13·8

  13·4

  13·1

  12·5

  Gwent

  13·3

  12·7

  12·5

  12·2

  11·5

  Gwynedd

  11·8

  11·6

  11·2

  11·1

  10·5

  Mid Glamorgan

  11·2

  10·7

  10·5

  10·3

  9·6

  Powys

  11·7

  11·3

  11·1

  10·8

  10·3

  South Glamorgan

  14·3

  13·6

  13·2

  12·9

  12·3

  West Glamorgan

  12·6

  12·0

  11·5

  11·3

  10·7

  BBC Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes there will be in the pay and terms and conditions of employment of Dr. Gwyn Jones as chairman of the Welsh Development Agency subsequent to his appointment as chairman-elect of the BBC Wales board of governors.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 December 1991, col 360.]: I have considered with Dr. Jones what changes should be made to the terms and conditions of his employment in his capacity of chairman of the Welsh Development Agency (WDA).

  Dr. Jones was originally appointed as chairrman of the WDA on the basis of a commitment of two and a half days a week. In June 1989 this was increased to four days a week so that he would be able to oversee the establishment of Welsh Development International and personally lead the drive for inward investment into Wales. Under his leadership, the last two and a half years has been a period of considerable achievement for Wales in inward investment and I congratulate Dr. Jones and his team on this. Dr. Jones has suggested that, as the foundations for continued success arc now secure the time is now right for his commitment to the WDA to revert to the original basis of two and a half days a week and for his remuneration to
  548
  (2) what proportion of prescriptions issued in each county in Wales has been presented and made up in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on the number of prescriptions issued is not held centrally. However, the available information, which relates to the number of prescription items dispensed, is given in the following table:

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is given in the following table:

  revert from the current level of f64,975 pa to £40,610 pa. I have agreed. Other terms and conditions oil appointment will remain as at present.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Palace of Westminster (Visitors)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what initiatives he intends to introduce to improve facilities for hon. Members' parties visiting Westminster.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 13 January 1992]: As I advised the hon. Member on 16 December, Official Report column 18, the Catering Sub-Committee is shortly to consider the results of a feasibility study to determine whether reasonable catering facilities for visitors can be provided in accommodation conveniently close to the Palace.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Missions
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley of
  549
  6 December, Official Report, column 261, what is the reason in each case for the closure of diplomatic posts; what is the total financial saving; what representations he has received regarding the closure of any of the posts; whether any further consideration has been given to decisions in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All the posts listed in the reply to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley were closed in order to release resources for redeployment to meet new priorities.

  I cannot give a figure for the total financial saving over the 10 years in question. But it would have cost in the region of £12·4 million this year to maintain these posts were they all still open. The savings realised have significantly helped us to maintain a global diplomatic presence, and to open some 10 new posts, despite the significant public expenditure pressures on the diplomatic service over the period. Closing any post is inevitably difficult and is never decided lightly. But it is right that resources should be redeployed to meet new challenges and priorities.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he has offered to the new Soviet commonwealth and to individual-republics in their programmes of dismantling nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our NATO allies have made it clear that we are ready to respond as fully as possible to requests for practical assistance in ensuring the safe, responsible and reliable control of nuclear weapons and preventing their proliferation.

  Belize
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the Government of Belize and (b) other interested parties regarding the policy surrounding the future of the British military garrison in Belize.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We keep the position of the British garrison in Belize under review and maintain a dialogue with the Government of Belize.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what entitlement to invalid care allowance currently exists for the claimant who provides regular and substantial care to two or more disabled people which does not extend to more than 35 hours for one individual; what proposals he has to review this entitlement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Caring that extends to less than 35 hours a week for one individual does not give entitlement to invalid care allowance. We shall continue to keep in mind the position of those who care for more than one person, each for less than 35 hours, when considering how available resources can best be used to meet the needs of carers.

  Pension Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of current gross average earnings is represented in the United Kingdom and each European Community country by(a) the basic pension, (b) the earnings-related supplement and (c) the total state pension, for (i) a single pensioner and (ii) a pensioner with a dependent spouse of pension age, where the pensioner had been on average earnings during his working life.

  Mr. Jack
  There are no comparable statistics available on gross average earnings in the member states of the European Community. As a consequence. it is not possible to provide the pension comparisons requested. Information on the different EC pension schemes can he found in "Social Protection in The Member States of The Community" published by the European Commission, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, on 10 December 1991 at column 377, he will state whether the entitlement to indefinite payment of mobility allowance, attendance allowance or severe disablement allowance during residence in another member state of the European Community extends to(a) children, (b) adults who have never been able to work and (c) adults who have never been part of the work force; and if he will make a further statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The recent European Court of Justice decision in the case of Newton. which related to the exportability of benefits, does not extend to children or to people who have never worked in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, pursuant to the reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, on 10 December 1991 at column 377, he will introduce regulations to enable people to retain entitlement to invalid care allowance during residence in another member state of the European Community for so long as the person they are caring for is entitled to attendance allowance; and if he will make a further statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Ex-drug Users
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines he has issued to the Benefits Agency regarding the priority to be given to rehabilitating ex-drug users in the allocation of community care grants to the homeless who are allocated unfurnished accommodation.

  Mr. Scott
  The Secretary of State issues general guidance to social fund officers in the form of the social fund officer's guide, which replaced the social fund manual in December 1991. A copy of this guidance is available in the Library. Area social fund officers (the managers of district DSS offices) also issue guidance which complements that in the social fund officer's guide taking account of local factors.
  551
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to the Benefits Agency to ensure that rehabilitated drug users who have been treated at a rehabilitation unit are not excluded from community care grants for the homeless who are offered unfurnished accommodation.

  Mr. Scott
  The circumstances and priority of each individual application to the fund are carefully considered by social fund officers. No group of people who satisfy the basic community care grant conditions are excluded from the consideration of an award.

  Since April 1991 we have allocated additional funds of over £43 million to the discretionary social fund budget. This flexible response shows the Government's commitment to ensuring that the social fund will meet the highest priority needs wherever and whenever they occur.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will issue guidelines to the Benefits Agency to ensure that no changes are made to the priority given to rehabilitating ex-drug offenders in the allocation of community care grants for the homeless when they are offered unfurnished accommodation without prior consultation with the relevant county drug advisory committee and other appropriate agencies.

  Mr. Scott
  We have already issued guidance to social fund officers on the continuing need for constructive and close liaison with Social Services Departments and other interested bodies. The guidance is contained in the social fund officer's guide, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Family practitioner committee name

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Cleveland

  4,144,965

  4,366,605

  4,471,993

  4,575,148

  4,704,310

  Cumbria

  3,124,046

  3,239,886

  3,331,027

  3,416,102

  3,537,853

  Durham

  4,454,260

  4,632,051

  4,746,262

  4,825,238

  4,950,368

  Northumberland

  1,866,466

  1,938,669

  1,993,478

  2,053,546

  2,110,955

  Gateshead

  1,650,998

  1,702,112

  1,723,024

  1,755,997

  1,775,934

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,341,646

  2,435,168

  2,484,027

  2,523,352

  2,559,600

  North Tynosidc

  1,673,447

  1,739,095

  1,793,380

  1,821,089

  1,841,808

  South Tyncsidc

  1,279,588

  1,334,917

  1,381,145

  1,416,477

  1,465,888

  Sundcrland

  2,608,302

  2,702,284

  2,815,888

  2,861,047

  2,911,109

  Northern

  23,143,718

  24,090,787

  24,740,224

  25,247,996

  25,857,825

  Humbersidc

  6,059,425

  6,312,869

  6,563,681

  6,684,722

  6,799,647

  North Yorkshire

  3,754,594

  3,911,370

  4,070,883

  4,206,866

  4,356,739

  Bradford

  3,757,392

  3,915,035

  4,136,673

  4,218,947

  4,306,996

  Caldcrdale

  1,504,550

  1,555,321

  1,589,495

  1,610,379

  1,684,172

  Kirklecs

  2,564,626

  2,659,268

  2,757,984

  2,811,905

  2,877,835

  Leeds

  5,493,001

  5,643,799

  5,844,592

  5,966,984

  6,046,207

  Wakeficld

  2,456,374

  2,557,010

  2,659,749

  2,719,922

  2,805,009

  Yorkshire

  25,589,962

  26,554,672

  27,623,057

  28,219,725

  28,876,605

  Derbyshire

  5,783,182

  6,009,061

  6,244,914

  6,406,607

  6,560,412

  Leicestershire

  5,583,361

  5,824,715

  6,017,427

  6,085,089

  6,207,181

  Lincolnshire

  3,065,055

  3,258,471

  3,480,062

  3,597,810

  3,727,628

  Nottinghamshire

  6,408,451

  6,688,956

  6,974,726

  7,151,658

  7,381,564

  Barnsley

  1,949,879

  2,036,776

  2,127,791

  2,158,541

  2,182,234

  Doncaster

  2,412,430

  2,543,866

  2,671,283

  2,730,239

  2,802,967

  Rotherham

  1,843,577

  1,939,676

  1,993,761

  2,052,225

  2,094,630

  Sheffield

  4,351,066

  4,511,854

  4,670,973

  4,750,335

  4,854,146

  Trent

  31,397,001

  32,813,375

  34,180,937

  34,932,504

  35,810,762

  Cambridgeshire

  3,045,686

  3,219,613

  3,336,487

  3,408,342

  3,583,858

  Norfolk

  3,511,032

  3,687,163

  3,870,614

  3,983,078

  4,178,908

  Suffolk

  3,116,392

  3,255,325

  3,377,443

  3,419,706

  3,553,306

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the success rate of(a) applications for community care grants by those leaving homelessness hostels or care and going into unfurnished accommodation and (b) subsequent appeals against refusals in each United Kingdom Benefits Agency region.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many prescriptions have been issued in each of the last five years in each(a) region, (b) district and (c) family practitioner committee area;

  (2) what proportion of prescriptions issued in each (a) region, (b) district and (c) family practitioner committee area has been presented and made up in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the number of prescriptions issued is not collected centrally. However, the available information, which relates to the number of prescription items dispensed in each family practitioner committee area, is given in the table:
  553

  Family practitioner committee name

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  East Anglia

  9,673,110

  10,162,101

  10,584,544

  10,811,126

  11,316,072

  Bedfordshire

  3,158,106

  3,241,140

  3,338,690

  3,307,595

  3,362,846

  Hertfordshire

  5,796,340

  6,001,601

  6,138,657

  6,223,554

  6,416,418

  Barnct

  1,922,566

  1,977,652

  2,018,795

  2,020,507

  2,070,656

  Brent and Harrow

  3,064,042

  3,138,898

  3,211,786

  3,211,897

  3,272,865

  Ealing. Hammersmith and Houslow

  4,428,364

  4,551,380

  4,666,220

  4,636,206

  4,724,122

  Hillingdon

  1,575,618

  1,632,454

  1,683,697

  1,678,978

  1,714,124

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  2,289,088

  2,326,057

  2,332,331

  2,328,157

  2,367,833

  North West Thames

  22,234,124

  22,869,182

  23,390,176

  23,406,894

  23,928,864

  Essex

  8,922,179

  9,301,235

  9,648,183

  9,729,639

  10,059,813

  Barking and Havering

  2,672,009

  2,743,040

  2,810,380

  2,780,453

  2,801,046

  Camdcn and Islington

  2,383,359

  2,432,223

  2,500,214

  2,533,761

  2,562,905

  City and East London

  4,740,107

  4,882,194

  5,028,925

  5,046,904

  5,197,875

  Enficld and Haringey

  2,942,757

  3,030,488

  3,122,151

  3,115,785

  3,220,649

  Redbridgc and Waltham Forest

  3,329,448

  3,416,349

  3,517,436

  3,526,107

  3,592,268

  North East Thames

  24,989,858

  25,805,529

  26,627,289

  26,732,649

  27,434,556

  East Sussex

  5,190,738

  5,370,258

  5,539,846

  5,647,059

  5,787,777

  Kent

  9,749,436

  10,112,607

  10,473,361

  10,571,318

  10,845,489

  Bexley and Greenwich

  2,798,125

  2,908,591

  3,021,368

  3,055,823

  3,115,813

  Bromley

  1,826,401

  1,867,369

  1,921,494

  1,947,332

  2,002,312

  Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark

  4,812,242

  4,976,931

  5,117,628

  5,134,866

  5,240,558

  South East Thames

  24,376,942

  25,235,758

  26,073,697

  26,356,398

  26,991,949

  Surrey

  5,875,861

  6,001,672

  6,148,999

  6,217,406

  6,348,610

  West Sussex

  4,590,848

  4,726,252

  4,877,523

  4,936,130

  5,048,700

  Croydon

  2,034,796

  2,055,621

  2,091,985

  2,090,451

  2,127,793

  Kingston and Richmond

  1,968,008

  2,015,418

  2,053,251

  2,057,472

  2,078,266

  Mcrton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  4,009,349

  4,065,819

  4,117,266

  4,107,280

  4,202,733

  South West Thames

  18,478,862

  18,864,782

  19,289,024

  19,408,739

  19,806,102

  Dorset

  4,525,155

  4,685,446

  4,868,645

  4,992,297

  5,170,818

  Hampshire

  9,499,014

  9,872,078

  10,290,118

  10,466,262

  10,799,074

  Wiltshire

  3,008,272

  3,141,942

  3,267,030

  3,328,863

  3,415,938

  Isle of Wight

  916,002

  945,087

  987,895

  997,319

  1,019,820

  Wessex

  17,948,443

  18,644,553

  19,413,688

  19,784,741

  20,405,650

  Berkshire

  4,181,480

  4,265,453

  4,410,176

  4,444,494

  4,594,558

  Buckinghamshire

  3,302,241

  3,454,410

  3,558,450

  3,614,297

  3,713,468

  Northamptonshire

  3,223,831

  3,368,337

  3,491,114

  3,551,395

  3,631,358

  Oxfordshire

  2,463,031

  2,577,342

  2,681,741

  2,711,636

  2,801,954

  Oxford

  13,170,583

  13,665,542

  14,141,481

  14,321,822

  14,741,338

  Avon

  5,847,051

  6,028,367

  6,237,886

  6,309,468

  6,466,380

  Cornwall

  2,690,005

  2,799,921

  2,939,187

  3,035,050

  3,151,895

  Devon

  6,822,875

  7,064,588

  7,314,134

  7,512,263

  7,792,928

  Gloucestershire

  2,760,546

  2,868,145

  2,977,509

  3,043,634

  3,135,574

  Somerset

  2,604,560

  2,712,661

  2,830,933

  2,910,176

  2,978,335

  South Western

  20,725,037

  21,473,682

  22,299,649

  22,810,591

  23,525,112

  Hereford and Worcester

  3,717,999

  3,892,642

  4,020,928

  4,071,426

  4,174,223

  Shropshire

  2,334,642

  2,449,139

  2,554,580

  2,573,840

  2,608,489

  Staffordshire

  6,766,596

  7,109,289

  7,368,040

  7,464,050

  7,656,453

  Warwickshire

  2,914,718

  3,040,840

  3,164,912

  3,196,001

  3,260,316

  Birmingham

  8,675,699

  9,021,127

  9,169,069

  9,184,294

  9,349,830

  Coventry

  2,492,283

  2,623,554

  2,698,367

  2,703,646

  2,712,591

  Dudley

  2,048,786

  2,140,744

  2,228,303

  2,294,169

  2,330,390

  Sandwell

  2,658,880

  2,783,957

  2,824,966

  2,835,700

  2,845,582

  Solihull

  1,339,612

  1,416,652

  1,470,484

  1,489,509

  1,516,948

  Walsall

  2,282,791

  2,411,855

  2,474,375

  2,508,838

  2,530,159

  Wolvcrhampton

  2,105,762

  2,199,871

  2,271,975

  2,252,872

  2,260,337

  West Midlands

  37,337,768

  39,069,670

  40,245,969

  40,574,345

  41,245,318

  554 555

  Family practitioner committee name

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Cheshire

  6,647,036

  6,963,275

  7,181,824

  7,347,467

  7,550,720

  Liverpool

  4,713,287

  4,950,361

  5,062,609

  5,176,887

  5,237,237

  St, Helens and Knowsley

  2,940,148

  3,127,422

  3,273,044

  3,459,262

  3,565,418

  Sefton

  2,476,341

  2,619,761

  2,728,506

  2,856,470

  2,931,784

  Wirrall

  2,828,674

  2,989,933

  3,108,948

  3,214,740

  3,306,170

  Mersey

  19,605,486

  20,650,752

  21,354,931

  22,054,826

  22,583,329

  Lancashire

  11,679,710

  12,252,861

  12,598,874

  12,903,812

  13,146,694

  Bolton

  2,051,459

  2,107,670

  2,189,25!

  2,244,321

  2,308,317

  Bury

  1,556,523

  1,607,813

  1,666,628

  1,691,638

  1,730,962

  Manchester

  4,137,871

  4,286,833

  4,397,116

  4,425,770

  4,469,847

  Oldham

  1,850,941

  1,941,125

  2,009,543

  2,065,234

  2,124,595

  Rochdale

  1,764,038

  1,844,374

  1,946,469

  1,978,637

  2,058,036

  Salford

  2,320,124

  2,389,446

  2,464,433

  2,477,094

  2,513,219

  Stockport

  2,191,910

  2,296,053

  2,380,888

  2,404,459

  2,462,905

  Tamesidc

  1,733,619

  1,826,836

  1,921,474

  1,980,517

  2,016,614

  Traflbrd

  1,982,803

  2,072,155

  2,136,444

  2,166,003

  2,217,819

  Wigan

  2,609,950

  2,737,135

  2,860,696

  2,885,454

  2,918,058

  North Western

  33,878,948

  35,362,301

  36,571,816

  37,222,939

  37,967,068

  England

  322,550,836

  335,282,684

  346,536,502

  351,885,295

  360,500,548

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what proportion of prescriptions in each(a) county and (b) family practitioner committee area the patient has been liable to make full payment in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information relating to England is retained only for three years. The available data, which relates to the percentage of prescription items in each regional health authority for which the patient has been liable to make full payment, is given in the table.

  Regional Health Authority

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Northern

  14·8

  14·4

  13·8

  Yorkshire

  15·7

  15·4

  14·7

  Trent

  16·5

  16·1

  15·3

  East Anglia

  19·4

  19·2

  18·2

  North West Thames

  21·4

  20·9

  19·9

  North East Thames

  18·5

  18·0

  16·9

  South East Thames

  17·9

  17·6

  16·8

  South West Thames

  21·1

  20·7

  19·9

  Wcssex

  18·9

  18·7

  17·9

  Oxford

  23·2

  23·0

  22·0

  South Western

  17·7

  17·5

  16·7

  West Midlands

  16·1

  15·9

  15·2

  Mersey

  13·3

  13·0

  12·2

  North Western

  14·4

  14·2

  13·4

  England

  17·3

  17·0

  16·1

  Consultants (Job Description)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he intends to evaluate the success of the introduction of job descriptions for all consultants from 1 April 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Hospital consultants are required to have job plans (formerly referred to as job descriptions) setting out their main duties and work programmes, including their fixed commitments, in the NHS, in order to make clear what is expected of them. General managers arc responsible for ensuring that job plans are agreed, reviewed annually, and implemented.

  Medical Audit
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria his Department will use to determine the success of its investment in medical audit.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Investment in medical audit was initially to ensure that the necessary infrastructure would be in place to enable all doctors in the hospital and community health service to participate in medical audit from I April 1991 and all general practitioners from 1 April 1992.

  All regions and districts have established medical audit committees and all family health services authorities have set up medical audit advisory groups as required by the Department.

  The NHS management executive has a duty to ensure that the special funds for medical audit are being spent for the intended purpose. It is discharging this duty by requiring annual reports from the regions, supplemented by visits to all regions by senior management executive staff specifically to review expenditure and progress in medical audit in the primary and secondary care sectors. As far as evaluating value for money is concerned, the Department is examining this complex issue as part of its developing strategy. The criteria have been set out in health circulars and executive letters to the service.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the sharing of the results of medical audit between clinicians and managers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Medical audit committees are required to provide regular reports to both medical staff and management on the general results of audit which have been carried out. These may, for example, include:

  a broad outline of the aggregate results together with any national, regional or other comparison available;

  an account of any problems encountered in data retrieval or analysis;

  an indication of what action is being taken or is recommended.

  557
  With the separation of the purchaser-provider functions medical audit has become a provider unit based activity and it is to unit managers that regular reports of the general result of audit are addressed.

  GPs' Contracts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what discussions his Department is undertaking with the General Medical Service Committee concerning the contract for general practitioners; what is the timetable for these discussions; and which issues are being discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is a continuing programme of discussions between the Department and the General Medical Services Committee dealing, as necessary, with the possible development of aspects of the GPs' contract. Current issues include the further development of the health promotion elements of the contract in the context of the Department's health strategy. The Department and the GMSC are also

  London ambulance service

  Average response limes for emergency vehicles

  North West

  North East

  South East

  South West

  Training

  LAS total

  Per cent, within

  Per cent, within

  Per cent, within

  Per cent, within

  Per cent, within

  Per cent, within

  7 min.

  14 min.

  7 min.

  14 min.

  7 min.

  14 min.

  7 min.

  14 min.

  7 min.

  14 min.

  7 min.

  14 min.

  April—December 1990

  April—June 1990

  13

  77

  9

  72

  15

  78

  15

  80

  15

  85

  13

  77

  July—September 1990

  12

  77

  9

  71

  12

  76

  16

  81

  19

  80

  12

  76

  October—December 1990

  12

  76

  8

  74

  12

  74

  14

  81

  20

  76

  12

  76

  January—April 1991 (Changed basis for calculating response limes)1 2

  January—March 1991

  8

  66

  5

  64

  6

  61

  11

  70

  14

  76

  8

  66

  April 1991

  7

  63

  5

  64

  8

  69

  8

  79

  6

  66

  7

  68

  1 Up to January 1991, response times were measured from the end of the initial telephone call. Since February they have been calculated from the moment the telephone is answered in accordance with national standards.

  2 Response times were based upon a sample 3 per cent, up to April 1991 compared with 100 per cent, from May, when the sampling was changed to comply with national standards.

  London ambulance service

  Average response times for emergency vehicles

  North West

  North East

  South

  LAS total

  Per cent, within

  Per cent, within

  Per cent, within

  Per cent, within

  8 min.

  14 min.

  8 min.

  14 min.

  8 min.

  14 min.

  8 min.

  14 min.

  May—September 19913 4

  May—June 1991

  18

  73

  14

  66

  23

  78

  19

  72

  July—September 1991

  15

  67

  13

  61

  21

  75

  17

  68

  3 From May 1991 the Orcon standard based on 50 per cent, within 7 minutes changed to 50 per cent, within 8 minutes. (The Orcon report was published in November 1990 and this contained the suggested response times quoted above).

  4 In April 1991 the southern and the training division were combined.

DEFENCE

  Live Ammunition Dumping
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make it his policy to discontinue the dumping of live ammunition at sea;

  (2) if he has made any estimate of the environmental consequences of the dumping of live ammunition at sea;

  (3) if he has made any estimate of the difference in cost between dumping live ammunition at sea and decommissioning it with the resultant opportunity to recycle scrap metals;

  (4) what deadline he has set for the discontinuance of the practice of dumping live ammunition at sea.
  558
  committed to discussions on the way the GP remuneration arrangements support the contract with a view to submitting evidence to the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body in autumn 1992.

  London Ambulance Service
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) for each division of the London ambulance service and (b) for each financial quarter of 1990–91 and for the first three quarters of 1991–92 (i) the percentage of emergencies reached within seven minutes of calls and (ii) the percentage of emergencies reached within 14 minutes of calls.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 13 January 1992]: The available information is given in the table. From 8 January 1991 new technology installed at a cost of £1·5 million has been available to improve the average response times of emergency ambulance vehicles in London.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  MOD will terminate all sea dumping of redundant ammunition and explosive stocks by 1 January 1993 in line with the Government's general policy, as agreed internationally, that waste should be disposed of on land, where this is safe and practicable, in preference to dumping at sea. Sea dumping of live ammunition is undertaken when demilitarisation on land is impracticable, either because it would pose unacceptable safety risks because of capacity constraints on alternative, environmentally acceptable, Iand based disposal methods, rather than for reasons of cost. Dumping is carried out in a strictly controlled manner to ensure that it does not cause damage to the marine environment, or interfere with fishing, or other legitimate uses of the sea. Detonators and explosives which contain toxic chemicals are not disposed
  559
  of in this way and all material is packaged to ensure that it sinks to the sea bed. There is no evidence to suggest that controlled dumping of conventional ammunition and explosives in this manner constitutes a risk to the marine environment.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Schools (Parental Involvement)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much Government aid is specifically targeted to increase the involvement of parents in school work and promote teachers' consultation with parents.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are working actively to increase parental involvement in school education. The parents charter makes proposals for improving information for parents, and a new guide for parents—"Your Child and the National Curriculum"—urges parents to take an active interest in their children's education and talk to teachers about their children's progress.

  It is not possible to give figures on financial aid from central Government for the generality of school education
  Government assistance for the provision of local authority services is channelled through revenue support grant, which is not hypothecated to individual services. In relation to specific Government grants, there are particular initiatives within inner cities programmes that are designed to strengthen home-school links and stimulate parental involvement.

  Student Teachers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what numbers of student teachers(a) were in the course of and (b) completed their professional training, respectively, in training institutions in each of the last five years; what ratio of student teachers to nominated practising teachers he expects to require, authorise and pay for when students are on school practice, in accordance with his recent proposals; and by what means he expects to provide experienced replacement teachers for the time spent by the nominated teachers in their additional responsibilities.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information about the numbers of students enrolled on and completing courses of initial teacher training in each of the last five years is not immediately available. I shall send this information to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  The proposals so far announced by my right hon. and learned Friend relate to secondary postgraduate (PGCE) courses. The ratio of student teachers on such courses to teacher tutors in schools will be determined locally by higher education institutions and their partner schools.

  Higher education institutions will be expected to reimburse their partner schools for extra costs resulting from their enhanced role in initial teacher training. The resources available to initial teacher training should increase as the number of student teachers rises and there will have to be a significant shift of funds to schools, within these rising resources, as the changes take effect. Meanwhile, the higher education funding councils have agreed to make extra funds available, from within the resources already allocated to them, to those institutions
  560
  which provide secondary PGCE courses. My right hon. and learned Friend will be making an extra £3 million available to the funding councils to supplement their allocations to these institutions. The funding councils have been invited to issue guidance to institutions on the procedure for bidding and the basis on which bids will he considered.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Matthew Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to make available a further evaluation report on aid and trade provision projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Evaluation Department of the Overseas Development Administration has carried out a study which synthesises the experience of eight evaluations of ATP projects, approved between 1978 and 1985, and evaluated between 1986 and 1990. It draws most from three evaluations conducted as a series in 1990. I have placed copies of the report "ATP Synthesis Evaluation Study" (November 1991) in the Library of the House.

  While ATP procedures have been strengthened since the projects were approved, the findings and lessons of the study will he an important input to the inter-departmental review of ATP which is currently taking place.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by local authority area in Scotland the proportions of local authority finance derived from central Government, business rates and poll tax from 1991–92.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The proportion of total income derived from central Government grants, non-domestic rates income and community charge income for each local authority for 1991–92 are given in the table.

  Percentage

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  Central Government grams 1991–92

  Non-domestic rate income 1991–92

  Community charge income 1991–92

  Borders

  77·4

  I2·I

  10·5

  Central

  60·8

  23·8

  15·4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  75·5

  13·3

  11·2

  Fife

  58·1

  25·6

  16·3

  Grampian

  66·5

  21·9

  11·6

  Highland

  70·7

  19·4

  9·9

  Lothian

  50·0

  26·5

  23·5

  Strathclyde

  65·7

  21·1

  13·3

  Tayside

  67·5

  17·5

  15·0

  Berwickshire

  72·2

  19·4

  8·4

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  56·9

  27·4

  15·8

  Roxburgh

  64·8

  21·5

  13·6

  Tweeddale

  68·7

  19·1

  12·2

  Clackmannan

  34·5

  32·7

  32·8

  Falkirk

  35·6

  51·6

  12·8

  Stirling

  25·3

  44·9

  29·8

  Annandale and Eskdale

  49·9

  23·6

  26·5

  561

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  Central Government grants 1991–92

  Non-domestic rate income 1991–92

  Community charge income 1991–92

  Nithsdale

  45·9

  29·8

  24·3

  Stewartry

  63·8

  19·0

  17·2

  Wigtown

  65·2

  14·3

  20·4

  Dunfermline

  30·1

  45·8

  24·1

  Kirkcaldy

  30·6

  43·6

  25·9

  North East Fife

  49·6

  23·1

  27·2

  Aberdeen City

  28·2

  41·3

  30·5

  Banff and Buchan

  41·2

  36·6

  22·1

  Gordon

  68·0

  16·7

  15·3

  Kincardine and Deeside

  72·8

  22·2

  4·9

  Moray

  58·2

  30·5

  11·2

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  57·0

  33·8

  9·2

  Caithness

  65·7

  29·2

  5·0

  Inverness

  44·5

  50·2

  5·3

  Lochaber

  43·2

  39·4

  17·4

  Nairn

  76·3

  16·2

  7·5

  Ross and Cromarty

  54·4

  30·2

  15·3

  Skye and Lochalsh

  77·6

  15·1

  7·2

  Sutherland

  74·9

  14·2

  10·9

  East Lothian

  32·7

  40·0

  27·3

  Edinburgh City

  31·3

  35·8

  32·9

  Midlothian

  52·2

  21·7

  26·1

  West Lothian

  49·4

  32·7

  17·9

  Argyll and Bute

  50·8

  26·2

  23·0

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  57·4

  15·3

  27·2

  Clydebank

  43·7

  27·2

  29·1

  Clydesdale

  49·0

  21·3

  29·8

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  43·5

  35·4

  21·1

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  56·8

  22·3

  20·9

  Cunninghame

  19·6

  49·0

  31·5

  Dumbarton

  27·5

  30·8

  41·7

  East Kilbride

  26·8

  31·2

  42·0

  Eastwood

  71·2

  14·1

  14·6

  Glasgow City

  33·7

  43·9

  22·4

  Hamilton

  42·8

  26·5

  30·7

  Inverclyde

  52·5

  23·8

  23·7

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  45·2

  29·4

  25·4

  Kyle and Carrick

  33·1

  30·1

  36·8

  Monklands

  50·1

  22·6

  27·3

  Motherwell

  47·5

  29·9

  22·6

  Renfrew

  37·9

  29·7

  32·3

  Strathkelvin

  52·3

  17·0

  30·7

  Angus

  56·8

  25·5

  17·7

  Dundee City

  40·7

  33·3

  26·0

  Perth and Kinross

  48·9

  31·5

  19·6

  Orkney

  77·9

  21·2

  0·9

  Shetland

  64·7

  34·9

  0·4

  Western Isles

  90·6

  7·8

  1·5

  Notes

  1. Central Government grants shown in column 1 consist of revenue support grant, specific grants and community charge grant.

  2. The community charge income proportions arc calculated from provisional outturn amounts taken from the provisional outturn/budget estimate returns made to the Scottish Office by local authorities, less an assumed reduction in charge income as a result of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991.

  3. The non-domestic rate income proportions arc calculated from estimates made by the Scottish Office in November 1990.

  5. Home Insulation
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on home insulation in Scotland.
  562
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Full details of the extent of home insulation in Scotland are not at present available but as part of the national house condition survey at present underway information is being gathered on whether walls, tanks, pipes and lofts in property of all tenures are satisfactorily insulated. The results of the survey are due for publication in the summer of 1993.

EMPLOYMENT

  Minimum Wages
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he made of the job implications of a statutory minimum wages policy prior to the Maastricht summit.

  Mr. Forth
  A minimum wage set at the final level proposed by the Labour party of two thirds male median earnings could destroy over a million jobs if pay differentials were half restored. If differentials were fully restored up to two million jobs could be lost.

  EC Social Charter
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what regulations he proposes to introduce to implement the employment provisions of the EC social charter.

  Mr. Howard
  The social charter, signed by the 11 other member states. was a political declaration and has no legal effect. Where legislation is required to implement directives agreed under the social action programme, this will be introduced within the timetable for implementation set out in each proposal.

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the discussions on the social charter in Maastricht on 10 December.

  Mr. Howard
  The Maastricht treaty on European union confirms that the social provisions chapter within the existing treaty of Rome will be retained. There will be no extensions of the Community's present powers in employment and social affairs, and no increase in the use within the Council of Ministers of qualified majority voting.

  That is the outcome for which the Government argued throughout the negotiations. It leaves the leading responsibility for employment and social policies where it belongs, firmly in the hands of national Parliaments, and is good news for British jobs and for the competitiveness of our industry.

  Should other member states wish to go further than provided for in the treaty, they can do so by way of the separate protocol and agreement on social affairs.

  Trade Union Training Centres
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next meet the TUC to discuss trade union unemployed workers' training centres.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the TUC on 18 December last year. He has no plans at present to meet the TUC to discuss the matter in question.

  EC Working Time Directive
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from British industry concerning the proposed European working time directive.

  Mr. Howard
  British industry is virtually unanimous in its opposition to the proposals. I fully agree with the Confederation of British Industry that the directive would be a needless strain on our competitiveness, and a threat to jobs and earnings.

  Training
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to improve the provision of training for people with disabilities and/or learning difficulties.

  Mr. Jackson
  Training and enterprise council and local enterprise company operating agreements require"suitable high quality training to be made available for all trainees who have disabilities or other significant personal disadvantages which give rise to special training needs."

  Each TEC and LEC must show in its corporate and business plans how it intends to meet the training needs of individuals and the local labour market. These plans form the basis of TEC contracts with the Department, and LECs with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he plans next to meet the CBI to discuss its members' contribution to training.

  Mr. Howard
  I have regular contact with representatives of the CBI on a range of issues. I have at present no plans for a meeting on the particular subject mentioned by my hon. Friend.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost due to industrial action in(a) January 1979, (b) 1990 and (c) the latest 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Howard
  There were 0·8 million working days lost in the 12 months to October 1991, the latest available period, and 1·9 million working days lost in 1990 as a whole. These compare with 3 million working days lost in the single month of January 1979.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what additional action he plans to take to assist those who are unemployed and aged over 50 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have already announced plans to offer help back to work for nearly a million unemployed people in 1992–93 through our employment and training programmes. This includes increased opportunities through employment action, our new temporary work programme, and extra support for jobclubs and the job interview guarantee. All these programmes are open to people aged over 50.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next intends to meet the TUC to discuss unemployment.
  564
  Mr. Howard
  I have discussed various matters with the TUC on a number of occasions including at the National Economic Development Council. The next meeting of the Council will be on 1 April.

  Manufacturing Industry, Sheffield
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest estimates of the prospects for full-time jobs, involving at least a 35-hour week, for both male and female in manufacturing industry in Sheffield for the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department, as was the practice under previous Governments, does not publish detailed forecasts of employment nor comment on the forecasts of others.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had on the subject of age discrimination by employers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I have met many of the voluntary sector organisations which speak out against age discrimination by employers, and have received representations from others. We continue to urge employers to abandon arbitrary age limits in recruitment as inefficient and wasteful, and to treat everyone on their merits.

  Tourism
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in tourism in(a) 1981 and (b)

  Mr. Forth
  There were an estimated 1·2 million employees in employment in tourism-related industries in June 1981, and 1·4 million in June 1991. In addition, there were around 163,000 self employed in tourism-related industries in 1981 and around 190,000 in 1991.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to visit Southport to discuss the tourist industry.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans. However, my noble Friend Viscount Ullswater, who has ministerial responsibility for tourism matters, hopes to be visiting Southport next March.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently undertaking a youth training course in the Greater London area; at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Figures are not available for the Greater London area. In November, the latest date for which information is available, there were 15,800 young people in youth training in the London region (of which Greater London is a part).

  The programme budget for youth training in the London region for 1991–92 is £492,000.

  Unemployment, Greater London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of people registered as unemployed in the Greater London area and the number of job vacancies for the area at jobcentres on 7 January 1992.

  Mr. Jackson
  The latest available data relate to 14 November 1991 for unemployed claimants and 6 November 1991 for unfilled vacancies at jobcentres. On these respective dates there were on a seasonally adjusted basis, 378,000 unemployed claimants and 6,200 unfilled jobcentre vacancies, in the Greater London region.

  Figures for January will be released on 13 February.

  Maastricht
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what implications the outcome of the negotiations over the social chapter at Maastricht have for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Forth
  The treaty on European union agreed at the European Council at Maastricht confirms that the existing social provisions chapter within the present treaty (articles 117–122) will be retained without change. The outcome of the negotiations on the social chapter provides the necessary basis for the development of a sensible Community social dimension and the United Kingdom will continue to participate fully in all relevant discussions.

  That is the outcome for which the Government argued throughout the negotiations. It leaves the leading responsibility for employment and social policies where it belongs, firmly in the hands of national Parliaments, and is good news for British jobs and for the competitiveness of our industry.
  566
  Should other member states wish to go further than provided for in the treaty, they can do so by way of the separate protocol and agreement on social affairs.

  Job Release Scheme
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will announce the results of the review of the rates of allowance payable under the job release scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  Although the job release scheme closed to new applicants on 31 January 1988, the allowance will continue to be paid to participants for up to five years. Following our annual review, the allowances payable from 6 April 1992 under the job release scheme will be as follows:Those who are married with a dependent wife whose net income from all sources does not exceed £17 a week: £94·45 taxable. Those who do not have a dependent wife or whose wife's income exceeds £17 a week: £77·80 taxable. The spouses earnings limit which affects whether the higher or lower rate is paid has been raised to £17 from £16.

  Employee Participation
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to seek the views of business on the new European Commission proposal for a recommendation concerning the promotion of employee participation in profits and enterprise results including equity participation.

  Mr. Forth
  Yes. A public consultation document on this subject has recently been issued by the Department. A copy has been placed in the Library.

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

The Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich
John, Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Ripon and the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Sri Lanka
2.44 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What role they favour for the Commonwealth in helping to resolve the civil conflict in Sri Lanka.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we welcome any efforts to resolve the conflict in Sri Lanka. We understand that an Australian offer to help promote Commonwealth mediation, first made in 1990, has recently been renewed. However, the Sri Lankan Government have said that they consider it unnecessary to seek international mediation at this stage. Efforts to seek a political solution are at present being made within Sri Lanka by a parliamentary Select Committee and in an initiative by the Tourism Minister, Mr. Thondaman.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the situation remains grim, with more than a million people displaced by the fighting, more than a million people trapped in the peninsular in the north, acute food and medical shortages, alarming numbers of displaced people and escalating military expenditure? Is not the time now ripe for the Government to launch a new initiative, either in the UN Security Council or at the forthcoming aid consortium meeting in Paris on 7th February, with a view to resolving this terrible crisis?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord's description of the conditions in that country is correct. His description of the situation as grim is apt. However, there are limits to what any mediator can do unless the parties to the dispute are willing to accept mediation.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, have the Government considered co-operation with other countries which are major donors of aid to Sri Lanka to bring some pressure to bear on the government of Sri Lanka in order to achieve the aim suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Judd? Does the replacement of our High Commissioner, who was a consistent champion
108
of human rights in Sri Lanka, at the request of the Sri Lankan Government indicate any weakening of our interest in the field of human rights?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, regarding the noble Lord's first question, we still believe that there could be a role for the Commonwealth in principle. At the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Harare last October the Commonwealth agreed to place emphasis on good government, including human rights, in its future programme of work. The details are still being worked out. Regarding the second question, we feel on balance that it has been best to appoint a new High Commissioner. We feel that he will be just as robust as his predecessor.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of our significant historical relationship with Sri Lanka and that part of the world, and bearing in mind the feelings of the Australian people regarding the crisis, are the Government prepared to discuss the proposals put forward by the Australians, who feel strongly about the matter, and to ensure that the British contribution is a real one?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we would speak to anybody if we thought that it would provide a solution. However, I cannot avoid repeating that until the parties to the dispute—and this goes for both sides—are willing to accept mediation I cannot express very much hope.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not only the erosion of human rights and the violence in Sri Lanka which are causing concern but also the erosion of the democratic principle? In the light of that fact will he say what is the Government's attitude towards aid to Sri Lanka?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, British gross bilateral aid to Sri Lanka amounted to £23.6 million in 1989 and £17.1 million in 1990, the reduction being due to the difficulty of disbursement owing to hostilities. Since human rights have long been an important consideration in our aid programme I can tell the right reverend Prelate that in July we withdrew a conditional offer of £3 million in balance of payments aid because of Sri Lanka's human rights record. Such a policy will persist until the situation improves.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the second question raised by my noble friend Lord Judd about the possible role of the United Nations? Do Her Majesty's Government believe that the United Nations has a role in this particular instance and, if so, what should it be?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we do not believe that the United Nations or anyone else can have a role as mediator until the parties to the dispute accept such a role.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, as Britain has the chairmanship of the Security Council this month would this not be a good moment for us to try to bring

109
the greater authority of the United Nations to the problem in the hope of bringing the two parties together?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am certainly prepared to pass on that suggestion to my right honourable friend for consideration.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does not the noble Lord feel that on reflection his remarks in the House this afternoon have been rather fatalistic? In view of the initiative shown by the Government in Afghanistan, for example, and that shown by Secretary Baker in the Middle East, would it not be good to hear that the Government were vigorously and tirelessly pursuing the task of bringing the parties together in order to achieve a settlement?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I should dearly love to be more optimistic about the situation in Sri Lanka. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that we shall do anything that is in our power to improve the situation in Sri Lanka.

East Timor
2.51 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken over the assault on a British citizen in Dili, East Timor, on 12th November.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, Her Majesty's ambassador in Jakarta made immediate representations to the Indonesian authorities on 12th November following reports that two British journalists had been detained. He later received assurances that they were not being held. My noble friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs also raised the matter with the Indonesian ambassador on 13th November.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a British photographer, Stephen Cox, was not only arrested but beaten by the Indonesian police on 12th November? Is this not a case in which Her Majesty's Government should take action to protect a British citizen? Furthermore, is the noble Lord aware that, according to first-hand eye witness accounts by journalists on the spot, British machines were being used by the police and army during that massacre on 12th November? Does the noble Lord agree that the British Government should not supply any military equipment to a state that was declared an aggressor by the United Nations 15 years ago?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we became aware that Mr. Cox had been detained and beaten by Indonesian soldiers when the matter was reported by a colleague, by which time Mr. Cox had already left East Timor. We are deeply disturbed by those events, although a commission of inquiry has been set up by the Indonesian Government to look into the matter and we have evidence that it has a fairly earnest intent.
110
As regards the question of arms, I believe that the machines to which the noble Lord referred may have been Land Rovers which are about 23 years old. I do not think that that amounts to us aiding the arms situation in that part of the world.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the current inquiry—I gather that it has not as yet been concluded—has been supported by the United States Secretary of State's department, the Australian ambassador and the European Commission as an inquiry which is being held with integrity and that they do not regard it as a whitewash?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my noble friend is well-informed on this matter. The commission of inquiry appears to be a serious body with integrity. I believe that two officers involved in the incident at Dili have already been dismissed, as have others, and there is evidence of charges outstanding.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the instance that we are discussing—the shooting of unarmed civilians in East Timor—is only one of a series of such incidents in East Timor and elsewhere in Indonesia since 1965 when there were truly grotesque events in Indonesia in which 500,000 people died and from which the present government emerged? Is it defensible to continue to provide aid and particularly to sell arms to such a regime, given that aid to newly emergent nations—for instance, the republics of the former Soviet Union—is dependent on their progress towards democracy and their reputation for human rights?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's view about the situation over a period of years and the violence and deterioration of human rights. Of course, there is a political dimension to the matter. We do what we can with our friends and partners to influence the Indonesian authorities. Our paramount concern is that those incidents are not repeated and we are currently in discussion with our European partners in the hope of trying to move the issue forward. With regard to arms, all countries have a sovereign right under the United Nations charter to secure the means of their own defence and this country is no exception.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is it possible to take stronger action at the United Nations to halt the mass genocide carried out by the Indonesian authorities in East Timor? It is far worse than what is happening to the Kurds.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not think that I can add to what I have said on the matter. We are doing all we can with our partners and I do not believe that there is a further role for the United Nations.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may return to that point. Bearing in mind that Her Majesty's Government have never recognised the right of Indonesia to occupy East Timor, is it not precisely to

111
the United Nations Security Council that the issue should now be referred? Secondly, on the noble Lord's reply on arms, he will recall that on 25th November when the issue was raised in the House, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, at col. 1149:
"we do not allow the export of arms and equipment likely to be used for repressive purposes against civil populations".
Now that we know that British arms have been used for that purpose, will the noble Lord review the point that I made in that debate; namely, that we should now consider stopping the supply of arms to Indonesia altogether while that situation continues?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, we must pursue the line that we are taking at present with our European partners, because a European partner is involved here. On the noble Lord's second point, I do not accept that arms are being used for the purpose of repressing the local population. Arms sales are selected on the basis that they cannot be used for those purposes.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that there is profound misgiving about the danger of British arms being used in the repressive massacres that repeatedly occur in Indonesia? Is it not high time that there was a new drive for a settlement on the basis of UN Resolutions 384 and 389? Do not the Government feel able to raise the matter as one of profound urgency at the special summit meeting of the Security Council on 31st January? There is a difficulty here because the Government are winning support for their stand on democracy and human rights in their aid relationships, but they appear to be being rather selective by not including Indonesia in that thrust.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the resolutions to which the noble Lord referred are not included under Chapter 7 and are therefore not mandatory. We continue to take an interest and we believe that the course that we are taking will be the best possible way in which to advance the issue.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord said that those resolutions are not mandatory. In the light of what has happened and what is now known throughout the world to have happened, is it not the task of the British Government to go to the Security Council and make them mandatory, or at least to give a lead in making them mandatory? Does he agree with the new Secretary-General of the United Nations that the United Nations should now set up an international investigation into the massacre?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, as I said, there has been an investigation into the massacre. However, as regards our attitude to the resolutions, we went along with the majority of members of the European Community and abstained on all the UN resolutions passed in subsequent debates because we felt that that would help the process of reconciliation in the search for a diplomatic solution between Indonesia and Portugal. That point should not be underestimated.

Coal Industry: Future
3 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to preserve the British coal industry.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Government's aim is to secure the largest economic coal industry that the market can support. The best way of achieving that is to give the industry and its workforce the chance to develop its full potential outside the constraints of the public sector.
Lord Jay: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one of this country's greatest national assets is the possession of 200 years' supply of high quality coal? Are the Government content to let the industry wither away without adequate support as seems to be happening now?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord can hardly say that it is withering away for lack of support. I should point out that at today's prices the last Labour Administration spent £1.49 billion in five years, compared with £22.7 billion under the present Administration.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this country now imports 15 million tonnes of cheap coal each year? Is he further aware that recently, as a result of the Coal Industry Act enacted by this Government, opencast coal mining has been expanded to the extent that there are now 64 sites working? Does he agree that the Rothschild Report to the Government suggested a cut of 30,000 jobs, with only 14 coal mines to remain viable? Does not the Government's Coal Industry Bill herald a pit closure programme of another 30 pits on top of the 158 pits that have closed since they came to office? Will he admit that this is a policy of decimation and not preservation of the deep mine coal industry? Finally, why are the Government so cruel to the coal mining community, denying it £109 million of RECHAR money from the European Regional Development Fund, which was described by the Secretary of State for the Environment as an untenable position and which cannot be defended?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the future size of the British coal industry will depend on its ability to secure contracts with electricity generators. That will be critically dependent on its ability to improve productivity and reduce its unit costs. I believe that the industry has the technology, the investment and above all the workforce to face up successfully to the challenges of the future. The industry has already made considerable progress in productivity, which has more than doubled compared with pre-strike levels and is now the highest in Europe.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, intimated, coal represents the major energy reserves that this country possesses? Does he further agree that, in order to make sure that we use those reserves efficiently and in

113
conformity with new environmental requirements, we should put every possible effort into developing clean coal technologies? Will he indicate the Government's attitude to that view?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord has forgotten more about coal than I shall ever learn. Certainly, there are enormous reserves of coal. We want to produce coal efficiently and effectively because that is the best way to preserve that long-term asset. The noble Lord is right; research and development is important. We attach enormous importance to clean coal technology in the United Kingdom and acknowledge its role, alongside that of industry, in ensuring that research and development takes place. Careful consideration will be given to the future of clean coal technology and its long-term funding in the context of British Coal privatisation. In a recent initiative we announced new projects with a contract value of £20 million and we plan to introduce a number of other collaborative research projects over the next year.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that recently the Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Wakeham, protested to the European Commission about the German Government funding their own uneconomic pits when it would be more competitive for them to use the cheaper, British coal? Why, then, do the Government persist in allowing imported coal into this country in increasing amounts? Why do they not follow the course suggested earlier by my noble friend Lord Mason?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we have no intention of controlling coal imports. I know that it is part of the policy of the party opposite to effect such controls. It remains to be seen, presumably in the run-up to the election, whether it will take account of the fact that that is probably outside the law and certainly outside the spirit of the law. Meanwhile, such as one can tell about Labour Party policy on energy—phasing out nuclear energy, control of imports and so on—together with its environmental aspirations, it would be bad for industry, bad for the consumer, bad for the environment and bad for the nation.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it is true that the Frances Colliery in Scotland is about to be reopened and that it produces cleaner coal than most?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lady's question, but I shall certainly inquire into the matter and let her know.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government have no power to compel the generators to renew with British Coal the contracts which expire in March next year? If the generators do not renew those contracts, which, incidentally, account for 80 per cent. of the production of British Coal, will it not mean the wholesale closure of pits and the loss of thousands of jobs? Even more important, will there not be a lack of security in the
114
provision of coal and will not the coal industry disappear for ever? Does he not agree that the Government should intervene immediately?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we have every confidence that British Coal will be capable of obtaining a sufficient volume of business from the generators. We believe in diversity and so, I believe, does British Coal. We are confident that it will move forward, as it has done since this Government have been in power.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the deficit on Britain's fuel trade was around £700 million last year compared with a surplus of over £6 billion a few years ago? Does he agree that that arises primarily from record imports of coal and the highest imports of oil since 1980? Does he further agree that that is indefensible in a country which has the largest natural resources of coal, oil and gas in the EC? Is there not needed a policy for the sensible use and depletion of our energy supplies that does not contain the massacre of the coal industry?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: It is not indefensible at all, my Lords. I shall proceed to defend it. The deficit arose largely from the massive programme of safety and maintenance work in the North Sea following the Piper Alpha disaster. Full figures for 1991 are not yet available, but for the first nine months of the year net imports of fuels amounted to 13 million tonnes of oil equivalent. For the third quarter of 1991 there was a trading surplus of £70 million and that is likely to be repeated in the final quarter. So the overall deficit for the year is unlikely to exceed £100 million. Future production looks like being up and will soon restore the fuel trade balance.
Lord Jay: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider it sensible that the Government subsidise our nuclear power industry and the German Government heavily subsidise their coal industry, yet we give no similar support to our coal industry?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not see why we need follow the example of Germany.

GATT: Uruguay Round
3.8 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current position in respect of negotiations in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, the Director General of the GATT, Mr. Dunkel, issued a draft final agreement for the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations on 20th December. Following a meeting in Geneva yesterday at which parties gave their initial response to the text, there will now be further intensive negotiations. We hope that these will enable the round to be concluded very shortly. We believe that the final

115
agreement must be on terms close to Mr. Dunkel's text. Such an agreement would bring considerable benefits to the United Kingdom and to the world economy.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people who have studied what has been happening on this round are deeply depressed by the unwillingness of some of our European friends to compromise in respect of agricultural support? Is he further aware of the fact that a failure of the round would have disastrous consequences for the economy of the world and almost certainly lead to another world recession?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree indeed that a successful conclusion would provide a substantial stimulus to the economy and that a failure would be disastrous for the world economy. It would risk a loss of faith in GATT and a slide back into protectionism and inward-looking trade blocs.
With regard to my noble friend's first question, it is only fair to say that most member states have difficulties with the agricultural text, including ourselves.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on these Benches most strongly support the determination to bring the Uruguay discussions to a successful conclusion? We entirely agree with the Government that few things could be more fatal for the future prosperity of the world, including this country, than the failure of the Uruguay Round.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her support.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the principal item in dispute, in particular between the United States and the European Community, relates to the quite unconscionable level of export subsidies, which are now a great burden on the United Kingdom population both in terms of price and of taxation? Will the noble Lord ensure that a message is sent to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the country expects a more heavyweight participation in those discussions in order to ensure that this ridiculous common agricultural provision is abolished in order that there can be agreement for the wider interest to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the European Community will be seeking changes to redress imbalance in proposed reductions in different areas of agricultural support. Cuts in domestic support and in import protection and export subsidies need to be better balanced than they are in the Dunkel text. How that should be done is a matter for the negotiators. We do not think that the problems are insurmountable and they should not be allowed to stand in the way of an agreement.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it takes two to tango and that we should regard the remarks on agriculture made by President
116
Bush in Kansas City in the context of his domestic political problems? We should not allow contemplation of the failure of the Uruguay Round purely in order to support European or American farmers. The real issues are much closer to those which President Bush went to Tokyo to discuss with the Japanese. We must move away from the narrow consideration of agriculture alone as regards the success or failure of the round.
Lord Reay: My Lords, President Bush's reported remarks in his speech in Kansas yesterday were made in the context of a strong plea for free and fair trade. He emphasised the need for a GATT agreement. As the President acknowledged, the United States too will have to make cuts in agricultural subsidies.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not clear that intervention at the highest level is now required to get the Uruguay Round passed? As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, it is essential that the discussions should be brought to a successful conclusion. Did not the Prime Minister say recently that he would be prepared to convene a meeting of the G7 countries in order to make sure that the Uruguay Round was passed? Has that request been made? When will the meeting take place?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we agree that an agreement should be reached. The European Commission is negotiating on behalf of the Community. However, we have been arguing strongly for an agreement close to the terms of Mr. Dunkel's text and have consistently urged the European Community to adopt a constructive attitude. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has continued to take a close personal interest in the progress of negotiations and has remained in contact with a number of other heads of government on the matter.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, despite the universal enthusiasm for the conclusion of a successful GATT Round, I trust and hope that the Government are aware that the projected agreement initiated by Mr. MacSharry is grossly unfair to British agriculture and would result in penalising the most efficient sector of British agriculture. Will he say what progress has been made to modulate this unfortunate modulation?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are trying to impress on all member states the importance of a GATT agreement covering all areas of the negotiations.

Business
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Further and Higher Education Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill will be taken.

Business of the House: Debates, 20th January
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to enable the Motions standing in the names of the Lord Molloy and the Lord Jenkins of Putney to be taken before the Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.] on Monday 20th January.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Bill [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill consolidates the enactment relating to taxation and chargeable gains presently found in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 and in annual Finance Acts from 1970 onwards. This consolidation Bill, which re-enacts legislation providing for the taxation of the chargeable gains accruing both to individuals and to companies, will therefore serve the useful purpose of restating the current law but in a readily accessible form.
The Bill has been drafted by a former parliamentary counsel engaged by the Law Commission and is another example of the outstanding efforts of the Commission in keeping the statute book in good order.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Lord Chancellor one question. He says that the Bill will restate the law in a more accessible form. May we also be assured that it will also be in a more understandable form?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the principle of consolidation is to restate the existing law. That is what the Bill does. The form in which it is stated, and the structure of the Bill, help understanding. Therefore I believe that I can fairly claim that it is a move towards a more understandable form of legislation also.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may at once from these Benches re-echo the compliment that the noble and learned Lord most properly paid to the Law Commission. However, I believe that a Bill which has six parts, 12 schedules and 291 clauses and consists of 320 pages ought at least to be debated for a few minutes in your Lordships' House. I confess at once
118
that I have not read every single clause, although I am absolutely sure that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has.
It is interesting to note that we have a good custom, especially in complicated legislation, which provides that derivation clauses are set out in a table. The Bill has a derivation table. The Bill deals with matters of taxation. Those who are engaged professionally in regard to taxation matters—I refer in particular to lawyers and accountants—are a little worried, to say the least, that while there is a derivation table there is no destination table. Those who practise in taxation law have become accustomed over the years to quoting sections as covering principles in our legislation in regard to taxation. If one has no destination table, and having become accustomed over the years to talk about a Section x case, one has to undertake a tremendous amount of work to find out what has happened to that section to which one has become accustomed over the years.
The joint committee which deals with this matter with great patience and ability consists of Members of both Houses. I wish to make a plea to the joint committee for consideration to be given to providing a destination table in addition to the derivation table. That is no new concept; there are Bills dealing with similar matters which have destination tables.
I have already mentioned the Law Commission, as did the noble and learned Lord. From these Benches I wish to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has seen under his reign a great deal of consolidation. That has helped a great deal in ensuring that understanding of the statute law is simplified by the need to look at only one statute. However, the noble and learned Lord's good work is not recognised sufficiently only because not enough advanced publicity is given to the fact of these consolidation statutes coming before Parliament. That is true in particular of this consolidation Bill. I have talked to many accountants and representatives of the institute. Until I told them about the Bill they did not even realise that it was about to come before your Lordships' House. I urge that in future more advanced publicity should be given to consolidation Bills, especially when they affect the whole of the profession dealing with the subject.
I make my next point with some temerity. It relates to the title of the Bill, which the Committee may consider. Technically it is correct but I suggest that it is slightly cumbersome. To my simple mind and to the much less simple minds of others, the title "Capital Gains Tax Act 1992" might be more readily acceptable.
Finally, I plead for a little more consolidation. The House may know that the law relating to stamp duty dates back to a statute of 1891. Since then so much has happened in relation to stamp duty that it cries out for consolidation—I hope not in the wilderness but in the ears of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for ready acceptance.
I make those comments in regard to a Bill which will be tremendously useful. One hopes that various other fields of taxation, if not a whole comprehensive

119
consolidation Bill dealing with taxation, will be readily acceptable before your Lordships' House as this Bill undoubtedly is.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I broadly agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but wish to add one or two comments. First, I heartily congratulate the noble and learned Lord and the Law Commission on the work done in this consolidation. It was a mammoth task. Unlike other noble Lords, I believe, I have here the two volumes of 319 pages which have resulted from the work. This admirable production is a remarkable job and uses many modern techniques. However, there is a price to be paid.
I follow to some extent what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in pointing out the effect on practitioners. They must use textbooks and digests. All those relating to the law on capital gains must be rewritten, revised and republished at considerable expense to the practitioners. One must bear in mind that that is the price one pays for simplification. The repeals of existing legislation occupy only some three pages of the Bill, so in that respect one is not gaining a great deal. On the other hand, practitioners must buy new books of considerable length which will contain the new legislation. No doubt in the end we shall be glad that the job has been done, but that is the price that must be paid.
Again I follow to some extent what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in pointing out that the other consequence of the consolidation is beneficial. It enables your Lordships and Members of the other place to see for the first time what the capital gains legislation amounts to. There are two volumes consisting of 319 pages. It is legislation of unimaginable complexity. It is absolutely impossible for the ordinary citizen to understand. It is impossible for many accountants to understand. Indeed, as I know from personal experience, it is also impossible for the officials of the Inland Revenue to understand. I know that that is not the fault of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; it is not his responsibility. However, perhaps I may enter a plea that he should use his great influence on his colleagues to ascertain whether the legislation can be simplified.
When one imposes a draconian tax—and this is the most draconian tax of its kind in the Western world—one becomes involved in complications. Sections are piled upon sections and schedules are piled upon schedules in order to deal with supposed cases of evasion. No doubt that is to some extent unavoidable. However, we now have a monster tax which in 25 years of its 26-year existence has outgrown the possibility of being handled. The noble and learned Lord would render a great service by persuading his colleagues in the Inland Revenue and in the Treasury to produce a simpler, more comprehensible and more compact tax.
I welcome the production of these volumes. At the same time one must recognise that one must pay a price and that the unfortunate taxpayer and his advisers are landed with a Frankenstein's monster that they must use.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may first deal with the last point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. I agree that it is a desirable aim to simplify the tax system. Early in the 1970s I had the honour of being appointed to a committee set up under the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Iain Macleod. Its task was to simplify the tax system. It laboured for a while, subsequently without my membership, and the current tax system is the result. Simplification is not easy but I understand the plea that is made. In so far as I have influence in such matters I have always sought to aim for simplification in the taxation field. The decisions of the courts can sometimes help in that direction and can also indicate other areas of possible complexity.
I acknowledge that any consolidation will have an effect on the textbooks. That is unavoidable, but it is a question of balance. Obviously one wishes to opt for consolidation when the result is likely to be sufficiently beneficial to justify that price.
I shall keep in mind the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about a table of destination. It is always a sign that a practitioner is ageing a little when he has to refer to an old section that has been replaced. However, I well understand the need for a table. I am also grateful for the point that the noble Lord made about advanced publicity. I shall consider whether we should do more in that connection. In the preparation of consolidations the professional bodies are consulted. When consulting with the various committees of the membership not all professional bodies are equally good at telling their members what is going on.
As regards the title of the Act, I suspect that that has to do with a distinction between the capital gains of companies and individuals but I shall certainly look at that point as, no doubt, will the Committee.
Finally, I should welcome a consolidation and, possibly, a simplification of stamp duty legislation as part of the process. I am grateful for the general reception which the Bill has received and I commend it to the House.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if a layman may have a consolidated point of view, it is that it is about time that we scrapped the tax on capital gains and replaced it with relief on capital losses.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Lord, with all his experience of the taxation system, make that point. I am glad to think that such a point of view may be feasible.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is the practice of both Houses of Parliament on the Second Reading of a consolidation Bill to discuss nothing except the desirability of consolidation and, at later stages, nothing except whether the consolidation represents the pre-existing law subject to any modifications permissible under the statute setting up the Law Commission.
I agree with most of what has been said today but a good deal has strayed rather beyond the line which has been laid down in the past. The reason that it has been laid down is that experience has shown that when

121
the merits and substance of what is consolidated are under discussion, the whole process of consolidation comes to an end. I venture to suggest that we should all be very careful not to stray beyond the line set by our predecessors.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill consolidates the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 as subsequently amended. The 1960 Act was heavily amended by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and, although these amendments were textual amendments, they did not fit easily into the original structure of the 1960 Act. In the result, it has become difficult for the reader to find his way around the amended text of the 1960 Act. This consolidation is therefore greatly to be welcomed and I should like to express my appreciation, and I trust that of your Lordships also, for the work of the Law Commission and of the parliamentary draftsman in producing this Bill.
The Bill contains a number of corrections and minor improvements to the existing law which are needed in order to facilitate the consolidation. These are contained in a memorandum which I laid before Parliament on 16th December last pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. This memorandum, which will be considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, is similar in purpose to the reports of the Law Commissions which often recommend minor amendments to the existing law in order to achieve a satisfactory consolidation. However, since some of the matters covered are "transferred" matters for the purposes of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the minor improvements have to be dealt with by memorandum under the 1949 Act rather than by inclusion in a Law Commission report.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, because of my respect and, indeed, affection for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and in view of his remarks, I shall say nothing.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Further Education Funding Councils]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("for the purposes of exercising functions in respect of further education including the funding of adult education which does not fall to be incorporated within the calculation made by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 11(2A) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 70. There has been a great deal of anxiety about many aspects of the Bill, notably the proposals which allow the Secretary of State to interfere in the work of individual institutions in higher education. There has been more widespread anxiety in the country about the potentially damaging effects on adult education than about any other part of the Bill, including those courses relating to higher education.
The great value of adult education to the community is undoubted. It is central to the creation of a learning society, to the notion of lifelong education, which is something which we all wish to create. It is particularly important for those adults who did not have opportunities for post-school education—opportunities which are now available to many more young people than was true 25 or 30 years ago. Surely we should do all we can to encourage older people to return to study, to embrace the values of self improvement, to continue to be curious and to want to learn well into old age.
Adult education is particularly important for unemployed people. For some of them it is important as a way of keeping sane. For others, it is important as a method in the longer term of improving their qualifications and thereby their chance of obtaining a job. It is particularly important for the growing population of elderly and retired people in this country, many of whom may be bored, lonely, or both. It provides an opportunity for older people to keep in touch with other people, including younger members of the community, in a positive way. Indeed, it is vital to the quality of their lives and their own self images. Over more than a century we have built up opportunities for adult education and it would be a tragedy for our education system and, indeed, for the country if this Bill led to its long-term decline.
In September the Secretary of State announced, after many protests, that the Government had decided that the local education authorities would retain the duty to provide so-called leisure courses. I say as an aside that the division between leisure and vocational or academic courses is both impractical and arbitrary. As many other commentators on the Bill have said, students, not providers, decide the purpose of a course. Students on the same course may have very different aims. Moreover, their aims may change during the time in which they are undertaking the course.
Ministers have given assurances on several occasions that adult education fees need not rise because local education authorities will be left with

123
adequate financial support to maintain an equivalent level of provision within the reduced scope of their duties. However, anxiety remains among LEAs and those running and teaching in adult education institutions as to whether the funding will prove adequate, bearing in mind the current financial constraints and restrictions which LEAs are suffering.
The main justification for the amendment is that it gives legislative force to the undertakings given by Ministers. Therefore, the Government should have little difficulty in accepting it in principle.
There are two main reasons why the promise of the continuation of funding at present levels will not protect adult education if the Bill goes through in its present form. First, splitting responsibility for managing further education provision as a whole and allowing both schools and incorporated institutions the freedom to offer leisure services will remove the LEAs' scope for cross subsidy and economies of scale.
Schools and incorporated colleges will be able to improve their fee income by offering popular and cheap courses. By way of illustration, keep fit classes come into that category at marginal cost to the institution. On the other hand, LEAs will be left with a duty to provide the more expensive courses and to cater for those sections of the population without the ability to pay higher fees; for example, the elderly, the unemployed and single parents for whom, as I have already said, such courses serve a vital role. However, those courses will be at much higher unit costs. Current funding, which will be split according to the balance of provision that existed in 1989, will not cover those higher unit costs and, therefore, either fees will rise or provision will be lost.
The second point is that the standard spending assessment which is used to distribute government grants is currently based on data that does not include account of how much adult education is actually being provided. The expenditure blocks that include funding for adult education are taken partly by account of students on courses that fall within Schedule 2 to the Bill, and are thus to transfer to the new funding council, and partly according to the total adult population. Neither of those relate closely to the real needs of individual authorities.
The Department of Education and Science recently carried out a survey of LEAs to establish the current level of funding by local authorities on adult education. That has run into considerable difficulties which are being discussed by the DES and the local authority associations. Since LEAs currently do not divide the adult education provision that they make in the way that the Bill proposes, it is difficult for them to assess the level of spending according to those categories.
The amendment will require the Department of the Environment to modify the standard spending assessment system so that support of each local authority reflects the provision that they actually make. The issue of securing adequate funding for adult education is of great importance. It is obvious that it causes strong feeling among the general population. Eight major organisations representing the planners, providers and users of adult education
124
presented a petition on adult education to Parliament just before Christmas. It contained half a million signatures. It urged the Government to ensure a secure future for adult education.
I, and I am sure many other Members of your Lordships' House, received many letters and copies of hundreds of other letters sent to the Prime Minister, other Ministers and MPs protesting about the Government's plans in the Bill for adult education. However, by accepting the amendment the Government can demonstrate their commitment to adult education and thus reassure the many thousands of people who are anxious, and rightly anxious, that adult education will be seriously damaged when the Bill is enacted. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, many of us on this side of the House greatly sympathise with some of the intentions of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. Provision of adult education is of the greatest value. I know anxieties have been expressed in discussions in relation to the Bill that adult education may not be provided at an appropriate level. We therefore have every sympathy with the point.
Unfortunately, the amendment may not in every way be a prudent one. Amendment No. 70, which I believe we are also discussing, states:
"In respect of further education for which provision is made by local education authorities … the Secretary of State shall incorporate in any calculation of revenue support in relation to further education … the full amount of such provision".
I believe that amounts to the Secretary of State being obliged to sign a blank cheque; in other words, one group of people provides the provision in question and, if I do not misunderstand the amendment, a blank cheque is then picked up through the agency of the Secretary of State.
There clearly needs to be an adequate level of provision in the field of adult education. But it is not prudent to allow one providing authority to provide such provision as it sees fit and then expect another funding authority to foot the entire bill. In other words, one may find inappropriate, excessive, even profligate provision—though I accept that is not likely in every case—and the bill would still need to be picked up without there being any way of moderating it.
Although many of us feel considerable sympathy for he intentions of the amendment of the noble Baroness, one must doubt the prudence of allowing one agency to lay down what will happen and make the provision and inviting somebody else to foot the Bill. That may be the road to profligacy and does not seem to be appropriate.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to express my strong support for the amendment. At the risk of repeating what has been said before on the matter in your Lordships' House I should like to point out the tremendous importance of adult education in this country, particularly for older people, pensioners and the unemployed. The opportunity it offers for people in unfortunate situations to get out of the home

125
one morning or one evening a week, to escape from the kitchen, from the TV or loneliness, is important. That is the social therapy of many courses run throughout the country. There is also the creative therapy; that is, the ability that it gives to people to discover talents and abilities which they perhaps never knew they had. A combination of social and creative therapy is of tremendous importance.
The other point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was that no outsider, least of all Her Majesty's Government, can possibly tell what is the intention of each student on any given course. Anne Risman of the Richmond Adult and Community College cites a number of instances of a Minister going round and being surprised at what he found. She mentioned a student of cookery, a student of voice production, another of French and one of sewing. When those people were questioned the student of cookery was found to be a chef who had been made redundant who was studying for his Cordon Bleu qualification. The student of voice production was found to be a resting actor. One knows that most actors spend most of their time resting, but he was studying for his next lucky break. The student of French was a retired army major turned tour guide who wanted to improve his French. The student of sewing was a seamstress from the Royal Opera House who was taking extra lessons because she had an especially difficult task on hand. Those people were not simply enjoying leisure activities. One never knows at what they may be aiming until they are questioned in detail.
I have first-hand experience of adult education and perhaps I may be allowed to be anecdotal for a moment. In my home town of Rye we have a flourishing adult education centre. It gave rise to a society of amateur artists called The Tuesday Painters. They are called The Tuesday Painters because they first studied in an adult education class on Tuesdays. In the summer they held a large exhibition and around 400 pictures were exhibited, of which 99 were sold and just short of £6,000 made. That is an enjoyable leisure activity but it is also profitable. I can say that because two of the pictures were my own, and I say that in all modesty.
The adult education centre in Rye is entirely self-supporting. However, for the current year, the fees have had to be nearly doubled. As a result, regrettably, there has been a marked drop in the number of students. In the Hastings area as a whole the drop has been as much as 10 per cent. Rye is a rural area which has been particularly hit by the recession. The drop in the number of students there has been as great as 17 per cent.
The fear is that the funds will no longer be available for this very important aspect of the health and happiness of our retired and unemployed people. The trouble is that those most in need are those who are least able to afford the fees. A statutory commitment such as that proposed in the amendment would be a reassurance to many thousands of people who feel
126
very strongly about this matter and from whom, as the noble Baroness said, we have heard. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose this amendment. Apart from the blank cheque consideration to which reference has been made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, surely this amendment creates a kind of disparity of provision. As regards Amendment No. 70, one has the blank cheque provision for the LEA and the full cost of the provision, whereas control by the Secretary of State of the finances of the funding councils, as I understand it, lies within his remit. Does the amendment not run against the grain of the Bill? Surely the intention of the Government is for the Bill to establish the funding councils within their province and to leave the LEAs with some of what was their province. The effect of the amendment is to reverse—that may be right or wrong—the intendment of the Bill.
Although I share every single aspiration so eloquently and beautifully expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the point made about creative therapy, and understand all that, surely what is proposed is contrary to one of the principles of the Bill, which, as I understand it, is to bring training within the funding councils. That is a very important asset of social and economic life today.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may take a moment to clarify what the amendment is about, since there appears to be some misunderstanding. I would like to take noble Lords back to the origins of this matter. The Government published a discussion paper on the subject in which they said in terms that leisure courses not leading to a qualification would be charged at full cost. I asked a question of the Minister and I was assured that that was the case. There was a great uproar and the Government said that that was not what they meant at all, although that is what they had said. They went on to say that local authorities could subsidise leisure courses not leading to qualification because everyone saw that that was one of the more successful parts of the British education system.
In her amendment, my noble friend Lady Blackstone does not ask for a blank cheque but for support for this provision. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the further education funding councils do not have within their remit the subsidy of adult leisure courses, so that this amendment has nothing to do with that part of the Bill nor with the FEFCs' freedom and independence. This amendment is concerned with something which is quite specific and something to which the noble Lord said that he was sympathetic.
Perhaps I may give noble Lords an example of what the Bill does. If the Bill is passed as it stands, I can envisage a noble Lord rising at Question Time and asking about the ending of a particularly valuable course within some local authority. It might be an adult leisure course of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has referred. The Minister would reply by saying that the matter had nothing to do with the Government. He would say that councils had the

127
power to spend the money, but, if they did not have the money or did not choose to spend it, that was up to them. Those of us who have had experience of your Lordships' House in recent years would expect that to be exactly the answer that the Government would give.
The point of my noble friend's amendment is to say, "No, what is reasonable is for the funds to be provided by the Secretary of State". It does not, I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, provide for a blank cheque because it does not remotely give local authorities the opportunity to spend what they like. However, it obliges the Secretary of State to find funds to support a course where a case for it has been made. That is what the amendment seeks to do within the current levels of provision. It is a reasonable amendment and one that has not yet been rebutted.
The amendment calls the Government's bluff. It says to the Government, "You say that you favour these leisure courses, and that you were misunderstood in your earlier discussion paper. Now let it be made clear beyond peradventure that you really do believe in these leisure courses and you are not saying that they have to be provided only at full cost—which can be enormously expensive—and that the Secretary of State will recognise that fact in setting the level of support for local authorities". That is all the amendment is about. It is not a major issue in terms of public finance but it is a major issue in terms of adult education.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, we are at the Report stage and I appreciate that the noble Lord cannot reply to me but I really think he has made a rather strange point coming from a party which we understand aspires to government in suggesting that Amendment No. 70 is a suitable one to move when it provides that:
"the Secretary of State shall incorporate in any calculation of revenue support … the full amount of such provision".
The blank cheque to which my noble friend referred is, as I understood it, not a blank cheque provided by the local authorities but one written on to the face of the Bill to oblige the Secretary of State to pay out revenue support for everything deemed to be required. That seems to be a most extraordinary way to legislate.
The noble Lord is shaking his head. I may be misunderstanding, but that is how I read the provision. I go along with most of what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said about adult education. I have had a great deal to do with it, although not in England. I am an enormously strong believer in it. I believe that the funding of adult education should remain with local authorities. I am very glad that it is because local authorities are well placed to provide it and to work out what is required. I repeat: whatever the noble Lord says, Amendment No. 70 states that,
"the Secretary of State shall incorporate in any calculation of revenue support … the full amount of such provision".
Earl Russell: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lady Seear, whose name is added to the amendment, perhaps I may add a word or two. My noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee and I speak on behalf of a party which has a commitment to the
128
ideal of education for life. That was reaffirmed by my right honourable friend Mr. Ashdown as recently as last week. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, have said. I see why they are concerned about the providers deciding the amount to be spent. The difficulty is that the providers are the only ones who know the actual costs.
I believe that in the next Parliament all of us on all sides of the House will have to think again about methods of financing the public services. What I am not convinced about is that we yet have an adequate substitute in place for the matters about which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness complain. The alternative that we have before us is the funding council method of finance. Having personal experience of that, about which I have declared an interest, I am not convinced that that system is a success. The essence of that method is that the Secretary of State not merely decides how much is to be spent, but also what the purchasing power of that money shall be. He decides how many units shall be supplied for it.
That is the command economy system of funding. If there are defects in blank cheques there are even greater defects in the command economy. In fact, I have come to think of the funding council system in recent weeks as the Aeroflot system of funding. It seems to me to be producing very much the same effect. So I think the system proposed by the amendment should be left in place for the time being because at least it does not destroy the service, unlike any other model yet in place. But more thinking is needed, as I shall be the first to say, and to repeat, and to attempt to join in whenever possible.
I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said about the amount of correspondence on this subject. I have received more correspondence on this part of the Bill than anything else which has been, before your Lordships' House since the restrictions on political activity by employees of local authorities. Your Lordships may remember that this House defeated the Government on that issue and another place, in its wisdom, decided to accept the defeat. I hope we may take that as a precedent.
I entirely agree with what everyone has said about the impossibility of the Government's distinction between leisure and educational courses. Last time I taught an adult education course most of the people there I thought regarded it as a leisure course. I came out of it with a new Ph.D student of the very highest quality.
We must think again, with an ageing population, about the ages at which people start jobs. I recall a Bill moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, about age discrimination in employment. Regrettably that did not reach the statute book, but the questions addressed by the noble Baroness will have to be addressed again. We shall have to think again about the age at which people may start on a new career. We may find then that some subjects which appear to be purely leisure activities could lead to new careers. I think the Exchequer, of all bodies, might find a great deal of reason to welcome that.

129
One should also mention the qualification of informed citizenship for a democracy. Only this morning there is correspondence in the paper about the immense percentage of people—I think it is 65 per cent., though I quote from memory—who do not know what the letters RPI stand for. That is going to make life difficult for all of us in a little while. It is a good idea to have a system in place which helps to ameliorate that sort of ignorance.
The problem of standard spending assessments is one that needs a great deal of attention. I do not think that the present methods of calculating them are entirely satisfactory. A reinforcement in this area would be of value. The final argument I want to put is this: in a democracy is it wise to ignore a petition with half a million signatures?
4 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, let me say that I look forward to the day when provision for education in this country is excessive or profligate—a consummation devoutly to be wished yet extremely unlikely to happen while the Treasury exists. We are debating the consequence of a change in the institutions and arrangements for funding adult education by which, until very recently, people were not feeling threatened. It was not profligate, but what was there, say, two or three years ago, was felt by people to be valuable and adequate. It was not costing us the earth and it was not costing us infinite amounts of money. Therefore, even if cheques are blank they are not going to be for infinite amounts of money when they are finally written in.
We are talking about an arrangement to take care of one part of adult education which is causing great and unintended consequences for another part of adult education. We are saying through this amendment that it would be good if we could, as it were, get back to a sort of status quo ante, which people used to find satisfactory. That would give the local authorities the money to meet such demands from adult education as may arise from their point of view. It would be false—and I will not make the point—to say that a great deal of education is going to be profitable. Leisure education is good for itself. Our citizens want it, so let them have it. What is wrong with it? It is very valuable to be able to spend one's spare time—lots of spare time—learning about whatever one wants to learn about. If anything, our problem is that there is too little education, not too much. Therefore, I believe that to raise the spectre of blank cheques is quite false. We are not talking about large sums of money but about a muddled change which, if supplemented by this amendment, will at least restore such inadequate provision for adult education as we have.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we are discussing in this amendment an area of the Bill which, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is very important. Adult education provides opportunities for people of different ages and in different circumstances but they are always
130
opportunities. They may be for the young or they may be for the old; they may be for those who need some form of basic numeracy or literacy which can in itself bring them satisfaction and happiness in their lives or lead on, through progression, to other courses. They can be simply courses of a vocational nature which, in turn, can also lead to academic courses.
The noble Baroness was quite right in introducing this amendment to speak for a few minutes about the importance of adult education. It is because we recognise the importance of adult education that we are ensuring in this Bill that the full scope of the duty to provide further education in law is maintained and is placed upon the funding councils and the local education authorities. Incidentally, it is also the reason why we have given an assurance that the local education authorities will retain adequate financial support to carry out their duties.
I do not agree that fewer people are likely to attend courses in local education authority institutions as a result of the Bill. We would expect that the overall numbers of people undertaking further education will rise and we are in favour of adult education of all kinds. Incidentally, it is worth mentioning that I think I am right in saying that the numbers of young people who are taking A-Levels in further education colleges have continued to rise. As we all know, there are different reasons why young people between the ages of 16 and 19 feel that a moment has come in their lives when they would prefer to go into further education, and that applies so far as adult education is concerned.
The Department of Education and Science has not just relied upon words but has actually tried to do something about this in the context of the Bill. The department has been carrying out a survey of spending by local education authorities and will be conducting follow-up work and discussions with the LEA associations. Most local authorities, I am told, have successfully completed the survey forms and we are confident that it is a survey which will help us to ensure that the local education authorities are adequately funded for the future.
Despite that, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, who I know is very well informed on these matters, expressed the fear that nonetheless funds would not be available for the future. I give an assurance that in setting the overall level of revenue support grants for each financial year the Government will continue to take into account the level of LEA spending on further education just as the Government do now. I have to say, however, that the Government must also retain discretion to take account of the overall level of spending on local authority services every year which the nation can afford. However, it will be, as now, for local education authorities to determine the level of their expenditure on further education within the limits implied by annual RSG settlements and taking account of their clear statutory duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for further education.
It was in that context that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has made it clear that local education authorities will not have to raise fees for further education as a result of the reforms contained in this

131
Bill. He quite clearly announced the intention that we shall leave within standard spending the resources attributable to the kinds of further education for which LEAs will continue to be responsible—an undertaking given towards the end of September by my right honourable friend and which I am very glad to repeat now.
I must not make it sound as if I did not listen to the detail of what the noble Baroness said about the problems of identifying exactly how much money there is and the way in which the standard spending assessments work. She feels that the amendment is necessary. I believe, however, that the amendment is fairly fatal on three grounds. First, it would place on the Government an entirely open-ended commitment to support, through RSG, expenditure on further education up to any level which local education authorities collectively chose to spend in any one year. If that is not a blank cheque, certainly it is a close cousin to one. My noble friends Lord Renfrew and Lord Campbell of Alloway were both justified in at least referring to that expression.
Secondly, the amendment would mean that the level of grant which an individual authority received for further education expenditure would be directly related to its overall spending on further education. In anyone's book that would undoubtedly reflect a clear disincentive to authorities to exercise their functions in the most cost-effective manner. Thirdly, it is a fundamental principle of our system of local government finance that revenue support grant is paid as a block without special protection for any particular service or part of a service. The principle is that local authorities make their own decisions about priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances, and they stand accountable to their electorates for the decisions they take. This principle would be completely breached if we legislated for special rules to apply to the payment of rate support grant for further education only.
The two sides of the House do not differ on the importance of adult education in the future. However, before I sit down I must underline again the important undertaking given by my right honourable friend. In leaving within standard spending the resources attributable to the kinds of further education for which LEAs will continue to be responsible he was quite clear that local education authorities would not have to raise fees for further education as a result of the reforms contained in the Bill. For that reason I believe that the amendment is not necessary. However, if the agreement were made, for the three reasons I gave a few moments ago I believe that it would have some very unfortunate consequences indeed.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. I apologise for the fact that, for reasons over which I had little control, I was not present at the beginning of the debate. The noble Lord referred to the duty of local authorities to provide leisure activities. That is what I thought he said. The recognition that it is a duty on local authorities is of great importance. Am I right in
132
thinking that the noble Lord said that it is a duty and not merely that local authorities are permitted to provide for leisure activities?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I wrote to the noble Baroness on 28th November. I owe her an apology. When originally the letter was sent it did not fall into her hands.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I ask for belt and braces on this matter. I want to be absolutely certain.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as a result of that unfortunate incident I sent the noble Baroness a copy of the letter. She may remember that embedded in the mid le of page 2 were the words:
"Taken together these provisions impose on local education authorities a statutory duty to secure an adequate supply of those kinds of further education for adults not listed in Schedule 2, including most of what has traditionally been known as adult education".
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the Minister for reading those words. It is worth while getting the point into Hansard again, which was why I raised it.
Lord Desai: My Lords, may I ask a further question for clarification? Is that allowed?
Noble Lords: No.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, although I have to admit that I am somewhat disappointed by it. The purpose of the amendments is to secure the financial future of adult education and to reassure the many people involved in adult education, including those who provide it, that the necessary funds will be available to make it possible for adult education, including so-called leisure courses, to go on being provided at current levels.
As my noble friend Lord Desai has already said, the sums involved are relatively small in relation to the total education budget. All the remarks about profligacy are out of place. I cannot believe that it is in the interests of any local education authority to be profligate in its spending in an area such as this. That would lead the Government to want to take action to ensure that it did not happen. It seems to noble Lords on this side of the House that only through this pair of amendments can we ensure that adult education will be maintained at its current levels.
I was pleased to hear that the Minister expects overall numbers in adult education to rise. They certainly ought to rise because of the enormous value of this form of educational provision. However, it is the view of those who operate the system that not only will levels fail to rise but they will actually decline under present financial arrangements.
The amendment is not an open-ended commitment to alow huge sums of money to be spent. It is a commitment to support the levels of provision being made available by local education authorities to adults. It is perfectly possible within the amendment for the Government to have a ceiling on per capita spending on a specific course or range of courses being provided by local authorities. In that sense again there should be no disincentive in these amendments to

133
cost-effectiveness. Nor can I accept that local authorities, which have to determine their own priorities, and want to determine their own priorities, will do anything other than welcome an amendment of this kind. In the light of what the Minister said in his rather disappointing reply, I feel I have no option but to test the opinion of the House.
4.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 137.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Annan, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Judd, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kagan, L.

Banks, L.

Kennet, L.

Barnett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mulley, L.

Combermere, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

[Teller.]

Soper, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Underhill, L.

Hollick, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hooson, L.

Whaddon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Jacques, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jay, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Astor, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Auckland, L.

Ampthill, L.

Balfour, E.

Arran, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

134

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Birdwood, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blake, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Blyth, L.

Manton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mersey, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Monson, L.

Brookes, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nelson, E.

Chalfont, L.

Newall, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Norfolk, D.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Onslow, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cross, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elibank, L.

Quinton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Richardson, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Flather, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Savile, L.

Gainford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Geddes, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Greenway, L.

Stockton, E.

Gridley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strange, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Henley, L.

L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hives, L.

[Teller.]

Hood, V.

Strathspey, L.

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Terrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Teviot, L.

Ironside, L.

Teynham, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Joseph, L.

Trumpington, B.

Killearn, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Vivian, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Waddington, L.

Knollys, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wharton, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wise, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Young, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, after ("corporate") insert ("with a regional structure as determined by the body corporate in consultation with persons and organisations it considers appropriate").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 134. The amendments would achieve two purposes. The regional structure of the funding councils is mentioned

135
only in the schedule. If brought into the main body of the Bill the structure would have greater emphasis which we believe is highly appropriate, given that a great deal of the real work of the funding councils will have to be undertaken at that level. There are, after all, over 500 colleges. It will be impossible to determine their funding and the structure of their work entirely from the centre. The amendments seek to give the councils a greater say over their own affairs which would enhance their status and effectiveness.
The debate in Committee indicated that the delineation of the regions will be a rather complex and sensitive exercise and one to which the councils themselves ought to be able to make a contribution. The proposed amendments therefore allow the funding councils to make the decisions about the regional structure rather than having them laid down in the statute.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the Education Reform Act 1988, and in particular Schedule 8, paragraph 9, gives the Universities Funding Council the power to establish committees for any purpose. The UFC has been making use of that power to establish regional committees. Therefore the amendments give the further education funding councils similar powers to those of the Universities Funding Council.
I anticipate the objection that the Government may put forward that the regional structure is of such significance that it cannot be left to the councils. However, if it is of such significance it surely merits mention in the body of the Bill and fuller treatment in the schedule so that its significance can be properly appreciated by Parliament.
Secondly, the proposed requirement to be placed upon the councils to consult about the regional structure obviously gives the Secretary of State a strong voice in the process. If his proposals for the regions are at all sensible and appropriate, then there must surely be a good chance that the councils—all of whose members will be appointed by the Secretary of State—will be persuaded to adopt them. So there is no need for him to be worried that proposals which are highly unacceptable to him will be put forward by the councils. It is unclear why he would want more powers rather than giving the councils more control over this aspect of the new structure.
We must avoid a regional structure designed by officials and imposed upon the system without a proper examination of its merits. Above all, it is the funding councils that will have to work the system. Surely they, in consultation with the Secretary of state, should devise a system in which they believe and which is workable. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendment to which my name is attached. I give also the support of these Benches. I reiterate what the noble Baroness said: if the councils have to work through a regional structure they should at least have a strong, if not dominant, voice in how it is set up. The Secretary of State will be involved virtually from the word go because of the consultations. Surely the
136
funding councils should construct the regional levels because they will then be able to have an influence on the problems with which they will be dealing.
Lord Renton: My Lords, from the clear exposition given by the noble Baroness, it seems that the short point here is whether the regional structure, which we all agree must exist, shall be laid down by the Secretary of State, as the Bill says, or by the funding councils, as she proposes. We have regional structures for various purposes. Admittedly, under the 1988 Act that was not done by the Secretary of State but in other ways provided by the Act. I should have thought that we want a bit of consistency and cohesion with regional structures.
If we are to have specialists in each subject establishing their own regional structures, we may well find that there is not that cohesion which might be an advantage. If we are to have some such consistency, surely it would be better if it were laid down at the centre, the Secretary of State having had the opportunity of consulting Cabinet colleagues who may be responsible for other regional structures. Perhaps I may say in passing—I hope that it is not irrelevant—that in local government and other matters there may be a tendency in future, whichever party is in power, towards regional structures.
I remember when there was virtually no regional structure for Wales. That, thank goodness, came in. Although I am sure that the noble Baroness has, with great sincerity, done a service to your Lordships' House by putting forward her view—it is a view worth considering—on balance, this is the type of matter which is best kept under the control of central government.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we had a considerable discussion in Committee on this subject. It was finally left that the council's regional structure should not be specified in legislation. The amendments do something different. Their effect would be to give the funding council, rather than the Secretary of State, responsibility for determining the regional structure and therefore in England the regional committees. In the case of the first amendment, the council in reaching its decisions would also be required to consult such persons and organisations as it considered appropriate.
I unhesitatingly reaffirm the importance the Government attach to the regional structure of the council and to the role of the regional committees. Those committees will be the council's main source of advise on local needs. Their members will be appointed by the Secretary of State in recognition of the important role that they will be expected to play.
Against that background, it is reasonable that my right honourable friend should wish to retain the responsibility to determine the regional structure and the option of altering the size and number of regions to suit the future needs of the sector. A point I endeavoured to make in Committee is that there are changes in population and therefore in further education provision. The power which exists in the schedule to alter the size and number of regions might be necessary in the future.

137
The noble Baroness sought to pre-empt me by saying that the Government might say that the regional structure is of such great significance that decisions on it should be in the hands of the Secretary of State. I have referred to the importance we attach to the regional structure and the regional committees, and I do not want to add to that.
The Secretary of State is anxious to ensure that the regional structure is put in place as soon as possible and for that reason too he wishes to retain responsibility for decisions on what the structure should be. It is in that context that we are reluctant to hand over the strategic decision on the regional structure to the funding council, which is not yet established. It will have to take off from a standing start. I can only add that my right honourable friend will of course take account of the views of interested bodies. He is bound to do that, and I give an undertaking that that is his intention.
There is not a great deal between us on this point, although I disagree with the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, we agree that a regional structure, in the context of the Bill, is necessary. The noble Baroness said that the structure should be decided by the funding council itself. For the Government, I say that the Secretary of State should decide. I stick to that view. The whole regional overview is better given from the department. For the future, it is better to have that overview if it is necessary to make changes to the structure. It is on those grounds that I disagree with the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I accept that there is not an enormous amount between us. It is a matter of judgment as to what is the best way of determining the regional structure. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that there is a case for setting this down from the centre. The funding councils are central bodies. If they were to be given these powers they would be setting down something from the centre. It is the funding councils which will have to work the system. That is why it seemed to us on this side of the House more appropriate that they should determine their own regional structures. There is a strong case for devolving such decisions in any system of government, but of course in consultation with the Secretary of State.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving the assurance that the Government and the Secretary of State will take into account the views of all organisations and bodies with an interest in this matter. In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, after ("exercise") insert ("in consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to them to be concerned").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the arguments in favour of a requirement to consult LEAs were covered at some length in Committee; but I regret to say we did not get as far as some of us would have
138
liked with respect to the Government's response on the question. In the course of his reply in Committee, among other things the Minister said:
"The short answer is that under the Bill they"—
the LEAs—
"do not have a role for providing further education of the kind that will be funded by the new funding councils. They will continue to have an important role but not in Schedule 2 course funding".—[Official Report, 9/12/91; col. 490.]
I regret to say that that is factually incorrect. While under the Bill local education authorities no longer have the duty to secure courses of the kind listed in Schedule 2, they still retain the power to provide them. The council will not have a monopoly of this kind of work, so the need for coherence and for careful co-ordination is still there. It is surely hard to deny that there is a close relationship in practice between work falling inside and outside Schedule 2 provision.
Another problem in the Minister's reply was the lack of differentiation he made between the request for consultation and requests for stronger forms of LEA involvement. It is perhaps conceivable that the latter—in other words stronger forms of LEA involvement—might have fettered the council's discretion or confused the locus of accountability. However, that surely cannot be true of mere consultation.
The Government have included duties to consult in countless pieces of legislation covering a wide variety of aspects of national life for the simple reason that it ensures that those who take decisions are more likely to have in front of them the relevant and necessary information. Why has a statutory duty to consult suddenly become a problem as regards this Bill? Perhaps the Minister can say whether this signals some shift in policy which will be applied to other areas.
A further area of difficulty concerns the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that while he expected there to be no lack of opportunity to co-operate with LEAs, the amendment would be a quantum leap beyond that. We believe that is incorrect. The reverse is more likely to be true. It is possible to consult, in other words to invite views, without that leading to co-operation. However, it is not possible to co-operate without consultation having first occurred. If the Government expect co-operation to occur, this makes it even more perverse to resist the bare minimum of formal communication which is all that is implied by a statutory duty to consult.
The Minister also claimed that direct consultation between the national body and individual LEAs was self-evidently impractical because of the number of LEAs and the multiplicity of their funding arrangements. In the education service direct consultation with individual LEAs is conducted by the Government many times every year on a whole range of issues. It would be extraordinary if that were not the case. Does this provision signal another general change in government policy whereby that activity will now come to an end? The Minister's comment also seemed to ignore the role of the local authority associations. The proposed amendments take account of the problems of a national body consulting with all LEAs by referring to local authority associations at national level as being the appropriate bodies and

139
allowing the funding councils to decide which LEAs they consider appropriate to consult at local level. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support these amendments. Once again we are simply asking that those directly involved in this matter should consult those involved at another level. We are not asking for any great change to be made to the overall thrust of the Bill. We are merely asking for consultation. We should all wish to ensure that consultation occurs. Such a provision would not affect the Bill in any way. I see no reason why consultation should not occur. The functioning of the Bill would be greatly improved if consultation were to take place.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has clearly explained, these amendments would require the Further Education Funding Council for England to exercise all of its functions in consultation with such local authority associations as appeared to it to be concerned. The amendments would also require the funding councils for England and Wales to exercise their principal duties to secure the provision of education in consultation with such local education authorities as they considered appropriate. The amendments are very similar to ones which the noble Baroness tabled in Committee and which were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
I should apologise for the fact that I related various inaccuracies to the Chamber in Committee. On that ground the noble Baroness has felt it right to re-table the amendment despite the fact that a vote was taken on it and the matter was therefore decided at that stage of the Bill. I repeat, however, that the Government consider that it would unnecessarily constrain the funding councils if, by statute, they were required to consult local education authorities about everything they did.
The amendment the Government have the greatest difficulty with is Amendment No. 3, which has the effect I have just described. I say that as it is self-evident that the funding councils and the regional committees of the funding council for England will need to talk to local authorities regularly if they are to do their job properly, particularly in respect to Clauses 2 and 3. As my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out in Committee on 9th December, there is absolutely nothing to prevent local authorities making their views known, publicly or otherwise. I accept that I have been inaccurate in not talking about the power of local authorities in matters covered by Clauses 2 and 3. The funding councils need to keep their eyes open as regards what is being done by local education authorities. One has only to look at Clause 2 to appreciate that. Clause 2(6) lays a duty upon a funding council to have regard,
"to any education to which subsection (1) above applies provided by schools maintained by local education authorities, grant-maintained schools, special schools not maintained by local education authorities, city technology colleges or city colleges for the technology of the arts".
Exactly the same remit is laid upon the shoulders of a funding council in Clause 3(5). I accept absolutely
140
that in providing education under Clauses 2 and 3 then will have to be a perfectly sensible requirement for co-operation and communication between the parties concerned. For the reasons I have given, I repeat that the Government do not like these amendments. However, as I have said, we are well aware that the success of our proposals will depend upon successful co-operation.
I pin my case upon the first amendment of the group. I simply do not believe it is appropriate to enshrine in statute a formal consultation process as regards all the functions of the funding councils. That would tie up the funding councils in red tape and would not be in the interests of making the new arrangements work well.
The noble Baroness looks perplexed. I was going to say that I hoped to have dispelled any idea on the Benches opposite that the Government, or I, are in some way opposed to talking to local education authorities on these matters. It is just the bureaucratic nature of the first amendment in the group that I do not like.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I looked a little perplexed as there are countless pieces of legislation that enshrine in statute duties to consult as regards the functions of a whole range of national bodies. Therefore, I am a little puzz ed as to why it should be thought inappropriate in this case, particularly given the Government's conviction that it is important that there should be close co-operation between local education authorities and the funding councils. So much of what each side of the duopoly does will be a matter of balancing different kinds of provision and ensuring that there is not duplication. If there were no such co-operation there would be something of a mess and there could be chaos in some places. As I said in moving the amendment, consultation is surely needed in order to secure co-operation. Therefore I am a little disappointed by the Minister's reply.
I should also like to comment on one further point. Although the Minister is right in pointing to Clause 2(6) and Clause 3(5), to ask the funding council to have regard to the education provided in various other types of institution is not the same as asking it to consult those institutions. It is quite different. Although it has some relevance to the amendments I do not believe that those subsections satisfy the intention behind my amendment.
However, we have already had a long debate on the subject in Committee and the Minister has reminded us that we have already divided on the matter. I regret that I am unable to persuade the Government to be more responsive but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("to undertake the funding of further education in England and Wales as specified in this Part, and nothing in this Part shall relate to the provision of full-time education suitable for the requirements of persons over compulsory school age who have not attained the age of nineteen years.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 17, 20, 22, 23 and 26, which are purely technical and consequential on Amendment No. 4 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
I have some difficulty with the matter because, as often happens to me in your Lordships' House, I have begun to understand the legislation I am dealing with only towards the end of the legislative process. It may be that when the Minister replies he will be able to educate me and tell me that I still do not understand this aspect of the Bill, but I shall do the best I can.
First, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 2(1), which defines the duty of each of the funding councils in relation to education for 16 to 19 year-olds. The subsection states, as strongly as possible, that:
"It shall be the duty of each council to secure the provision for the population of their area of … full-time education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age who have not attained the age of nineteen years".
That refers to the whole of the group of 16 to 19 year-olds.
Then one comes to Clause 2(2). I do not understand why that is there. One of my questions to the noble Lord is what Clause 2(2) adds to Clause 2(1). Subsection (2) states that:
"That duty extends to all persons among that population".
Having defined it as applying to all persons I do not see how subsection (2) can then extend that duty to all persons. It may be that lawyers like to include an additional sentence for a purpose which I do not understand, but as a matter of formal logic Clause 2(2) adds nothing to Clause 2(1).
My main point is that the funding council has a duty in respect of the whole of that population of 16 to 19 year-olds. Turning to page 8, Clause 10(2), referring to local education authorities, states that they:
"shall have the power to secure the provision for their area of full-time education",
suitable to the same age group. If the further education councils have that duty, it is not clear why that power for the local education authorities has been included. What is it doing there?
Then I come to a further matter. Clause 11 amends Section 41 of the Education Act 1944. It states that we should now substitute the following statement:
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education".
Since the 16 to 19 year-old age group falls within that provision there seem to be two sets of duties, which conflict. I find it all extremely puzzling.
That leads me to the substantive matter, having asked my questions in the hope of clarification. I agree that we have been over the matter before. It is only because I am more worried about it now than I was earlier that I return to it. The substantive matter is that the 16 to 19 year-old age group—and for the moment I shall concentrate on those who are in full-time education—can attend full-time education in three places. They can be in full-time education in a further education college, as has been defined hitherto. They
142
can be in full-time education in a sixth form college, which will be in the FE sector once the Bill is passed into legislation, when such sixth-form colleges will come under the aegis of the funding councils rather than the local authorities. Or they can be in school sixth forms.
As I understand it—and this is another problem in relation to my understanding of the Bill—under the definition in Clause 14, members of that 16 to 19 year-old age group who attend either a sixth form college or an FE college will be deemed to be engaged in further education. However, if I understand the matter correctly (and notice all the conditional statements, and I am looking forward to the Minister saying that I do not understand the matter) 16 to 19 year-olds in that same age group who are in the sixth form will be deemed to be receiving school education. As a matter of pure logic I am puzzled as to why they are deemed to be at school and receiving school education when they take a particular course at school but in the FE sector when they follow exactly the same course at an FE college. I should have thought that we could have written the legislation rather better. I raise that point in order to make sure that I understand what is happening.
What really concerns me is the point that was raised by a number of noble Lords, including noble Lords on the Government side of the House, as to whether ultimately that means the end of school sixth forms. I do not mean that the Bill abolishes school sixth forms. I mean that, given the nature of the duties and responsibilities, bearing in mind the question of finance and taking a slightly longer view, it is questionable whether a local education authority, having lost the jewels of the FE colleges and sixth form colleges, will regard it as desirable to give much priority to the preservation of school sixth forms.
That point was raised and it is the one to which I return this afternoon. I return to it in a form which I know the Government will find unattractive because, essentially, I am saying that there is another solution to the problem, which is to leave the matter more strongly within the local authorities. If local authorities have greater responsibility for that age group, they will not have any incentive to give up school sixth forms because they will be part of the same planned package. That is why I draw the matter to your Lordships' attention, for the last time.
Of course, as always, I accept the bona fides of the Government's intentions. I do not for a moment suggest that there is a hidden agenda and that the Government want to abolish school sixth forms. I cannot believe that this Government would want to do so or that there could be a hidden agenda. However, we know enough about the way the world works to be aware that one can bring forces into play so that, even if it were not the intention to abolish school sixth forms, that would be the ultimate result.
I do not apologise for repeating a point which I have made to your Lordships before. We know that school sixth forms are more expensive. There are often very good reasons why that should be so. Therefore, given the trend of this Bill, one of the forces at work will be that of finance, which will cause sixth forms to

143
go out of existence. This is my last attempt to persuade the Government at least to consider that they might be wrong in moving this far from the local authorities. I accept that the Government are not doing so in order to abolish the poll tax but because they consider it educationally desirable. They may end up with what the great Professor Popper called the unforeseen consequences of actions, but in this case, as I am drawing them to your Lordships' attention, they will be the foreseen consequences of actions. As a result of possibly quite sensible rationalisations, we shall achieve an outcome which, quite independent of politics, many noble Lords would regard as unattractive. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I want briefly but decidedly to support the amendment. We are all agreed that the education of 16 to 18 year-olds is a seriously neglected area and a priority in getting our education system right. It is therefore plainly important that we make the best possible provision that we can.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, from the initiation of the Bill we on these Benches have not understood why it seemed appropriate to the Government to take sixth form education in any form out of the hands of local authorities. Sixth form colleges undoubtedly have a valuable part to play. There are no doubt many youngsters, but by no means all, who wish to leave school and go to what they regard as the more adult environment of a sixth form college. We go along with the Government on that, although I have a marked preference for a tertiary college rather than a sixth form college as such. But that is another issue.
That does not mean that the sixth form college must be taken out of the control of the local authority. If we say that this is the priority education group—I think that the House is agreed on that—we must get the administration, handling and finance of it absolutely right. Does it make sense that the local authority is responsible for sixth forms in schools but not for sixth form colleges? That is the difficulty as I see it. I therefore hope that the Government will reconsider the matter.
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said. There is a strong case for sixth forms in schools. If I were teaching in secondary education, I would want to have a sixth form. I fear that the quality of teaching that we must have throughout schools could be badly affected if there were not sixth forms in schools. I do not see people who are keen on their subject being willing to teach in schools if they have no sixth forms. The teaching throughout the school will be damaged if there are not the people with the scholarly interest—an old-fashioned word but very important in connection with education—teaching throughout the school. You will not attract them if they do not have the stimulus and interest of the sixth form.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, there is much common ground in the House on this matter. I am sure that we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord
144
Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that sixth form colleges should continue to be as outstandingly successful as they have been. I am sure that we also agree with the point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston; namely, that we are anxious to see sixth forms in schools continue to flourish. However, I believe that the noble Lord is correct in saying that many people on this side of the House will find the amendment unattractive. It is unattractive because it would radically and profoundly transform the entire structure of the Bill to the extent that, had it not been for the constructive manner in which the noble Lord put his observations, one would be tempted to regard it as a wrecking amendment. It would certainly be a demolition amendment because it would completely transform the further education sector.
The noble Lord had difficulty with the logic that those who follow a course at school are deemed to be at school and those who follow a course in a sixth form college within the further education sector are deemed to be undergoing further education. I do not find the same difficulty with that concept. Let us assume that many pupils or students between the years of 16 and 18 will be in the further education sector but that the majority will remain at the school in the sixth form. In that case, it would clearly be a strange anomaly to say that persons who are in a given school until the age of 16 and then continue at that school until the age of 18 have changed the area in which they receive their education. Likewise, it would be an anomaly to modify the funding in that sense.
The interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is that, if the sixth form colleges are funded by the further education sector and school sixth forms are funded by local authorities, as they are now, there might be a tendency towards attrition in the sixth forms of those schools. However, I am not sure why that should arise. I agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that it would be most unfortunate if that were so. The matters was discussed in considerable detail in Committee in December on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The noble Baroness put her name to that amendment and spoke to it. It was substantively the same issue: where should sixth form colleges be within the organisation? It was emphasised that many pupils or students prefer to remain in school in the structured environment that they know. However, there are other pupils or students who begin to become dissident towards sixth-form years and prefer to up sticks and go to a new environment which is much more suited to them.
There are perhaps other distinctions between school sixth forms and sixth form colleges, but there is a real distinction and choice being exercised. It seems perfectly appropriate that pupils or students, however we define them, should be able to decide for themselves at the age of 16 whether they intend to remain in the structured environment of a school sixth form and thereby be pupils in the school sector, or whether they elect to transfer to a sixth form college and be students in the further education sector. I see no difficulty with that.
Another interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was that if local education authorities

145
did not have the jewels of the sixth form colleges under their organisational purview, they might lose heart as regards the sixth forms in their schools. I do not see why that should be. If I felt that to be so, I would be anxious. I am sure that the noble Lord is right to raise the matter. If you are the headmaster or headmistress of a successful school with a significant sixth form, I am sure that it is a source of pride and that you wish it to be so. You also wish pupils to remain in the school throughout the sixth form. If they choose to do so, I assume that the mechanism to be used is one of enrolment. If the pupils remained enrolled for the sixth form of the school, there would be an obligation on the local education authority to continue to fund the sixth form. If pupils or students elect to go to a sixth form college, they move to the further education sector funded through the further education funding council. I am anxious that there might be some attrition in sixth forms— that would be a serious matter—but I see no reason why there should be. To accept the amendment would be to demolish much of the Bill. I imagine that for that reason many noble Lords on this side of the House will wish to oppose it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have no difficulty at all with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that it should be possible for people at the age of 16 to chose whether they wish to remain in the sixth form of their own school or go to a sixth form college so long as we look at the matter from a purely educational point of view. However, when we start to look at it from an administrative point of view and particularly form the point of view of cost, however desirable it is—and I agree that it is desirable—it becomes a little more difficult because, from the point of view of those who provide education for 16 to 19 year-olds, there is inevitably a degree of alternativity between providing a school sixth form and providing a sixth form college. Obviously it will be appropriate to provide a sixth form college where most individual schools can support only a very small sixth form of perhaps three or four people. But where there is a large sixth form or a lively one, it may be appropriate to let it continue. If the noble Lord is not writing a blank cheque, he risks writing a double one and bringing in a great deal more cost than is perhaps necessary.
That brings me to the nub of the amendment. In many areas provision of a sixth form in an individual school and provision of a sixth form college are alternatives. Because they are alternatives, the one affects the need for the other. Therefore, I believe that there is a strong case for the decision as to which of them should be provided—that is precisely the form in which the decision will usually come—to be taken by one single authority. The issue arose in the school attended by both my sons. There was a proposal to provide a sixth form college. The school reacted in precisely the way described by my noble friend Lady Seear. It was a matter of pride to the school to retain its sixth form. The argument of economies of scale was put about. There emerged a working compromise whereby a joint sixth form was put together between four closely neighbouring schools. That is precisely
146
the kind of sensible political solution which, so far as I can see, could not be reached if the axe of this Bill were to fall between the two forms of provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, thought that the amendment could be seen as a wrecking amendment. I suggest that the Bill, by trying to put a division where there can in practice be no such division, has wrecked itself. In that rather nice 17th century phrase, the Bill is felo de se. I hope that passing the amendment may restore the Bill to life.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I wish to supplement the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. At present in Islington there is a sixth form centre. It took a long time to build up the centre which is independent of continuing provision within schools beyond 16. Putting together the centre was very important in order to deal with falling rolls in Islington's secondary schools and considerably improve Islington's very bad staying-on rate.
There is a distinction to be made between leaving school at 16 for either a sixth form college or a further education college. We may not perceive it but the students and their parents see the difference. There is a difference between a 16 to 19 sixth form college and a 16 to 96 further education college. It is very important that the three-way choice should be seen: continuing education in the sixth form of a school, a school consortium (as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out) and a 16 to 19 sixth form college. These arrangements could be dealt with at the local level. Then there may be a further education college, which is a different matter altogether.
We ought to be able to provide for a variety of institutions and not close down options, which will be the likely effect of the Bill if the amendment is not accepted.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment but what has been said brings me to my feet. It comes back to one of the fundamental principles of the Bill. I am not happy with the amendment. It seems to me extremely close to being a wrecking amendment.
We come back to a vitally important issue on which I spoke at Committee stage and which still deeply troubles me. It is important to recognise the common ground. We all understand the importance of the 16 to 18 year-old age range and how provision for that age range must be improved. We all recognise the value of having further education colleges, sixth form colleges, tertiary colleges and sixth forms in schools. Variety of choice is important and should be retained. That is common ground among us.
We begin to divide over the issue of who should have responsibility for strategic planning. Here, matters of administrative responsibility and finance come into play. I accept entirely the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who said that it was important that young people should have the option of going to whichever of those educational institutions met their individual needs. So far so good. But what happens when a local education authority comes

147
under financial pressure and feels that it cannot, will not, or should not, continue to provide sixth form education in some schools and the FE funding council either begins to exert pressure to have more sixth form colleges or does not have money available? There is then the danger of being pushed into a position in which those essentially educational decisions are made on administrative and financial grounds.
A more fundamental question returns to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised so provocatively and importantly. At the end of the day, who takes the financial decision? That must be clear. Is it the FE funding council or the local education authority? Or are we to become lost in a terrible wrangle? We must be clear. It is a vital issue.
It is not only that issue that needs to be established and clarified. We must also be clear that the choice ought to be retained. To that extent we should keep under control, if I may put it that way, the financial and administrative pressures, in order to ensure that the educational issues are retained in the forefront of our minds.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the speeches that we have heard so far against the amendment have been so clear that I can be very brief. I am surprised by the amendment. I had always assumed that noble Lords opposite were just as keen as those on this side of the House to ensure that our education system should create the maximum opportunities and be as flexible as possible. Unless I have misread or misunderstood the amendment, it seems to me that bright young people whose compulsory school education is over but who, for some reason of their own or perhaps for family reasons, do not want to go to a sixth form college or into a sixth form at all but want some kind of specialist further education as soon as possible and avoid having to wait until the age of 19 could be deprived of that chance. For those reasons I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is no question but that this is a very serious amendment. Its purpose is to leave with local education authorities the duty to secure the provision of sufficient facilities for the full-time education of 16 to 18 year-olds, thus effectively preserving the existing statutory provision in relation to such education and going wholly against Clause 2 of the Bill.
However, there is more to the amendment than that. The duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for part-time education for the same age group would still be transferred to the funding councils under Clause 3 of the Bill. The amendments would thus introduce a new and in the Government's view damaging dividing line between full-time and part-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds.
The main purpose of Part I of the Bill is to provide more and better education for 16 to 18 year-olds, and indeed for adults, and to ensure increased participation and higher levels of attainment by young people and throughout the population. We believe that those aims can most effectively be met by transferring the duty to secure provision of further education for those aged 16 to 18 from local education authorities to the
148
new further education funding councils and by giving further education and indeed sixth form colleges an independence they have not had previously.
It seems a long time ago now, but perhaps I may just go back to the beginnings of the Bill. I recall making the point at Second Reading that this was a move widely welcomed among those involved in running the colleges. I know that there are different views about the desirability of what is proposed so far as it affects sixth form colleges—the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was absolutely right to raise the point —but the Association of Principals of Sixth Form Colleges is in favour of the move. The reason that those who run colleges are in favour of the move is that it will give them much greater flexibility to manage their own affairs. We believe that the new funding methodology will give them a powerful incentive to expand participation.
The amendments would prevent that happening. They would leave with the local education authorities the duty to provide for further full-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds and there would be no real independence, as is planned in the Bill, for the further education colleges.
The Bill is also designed to eradicate what we see as a damaging dividing line between academic and vocational education. If the amendments were made, full-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds, which is predominantly of an academic nature, would be the responsibility of the local authorities and part-time education for the same group—which is largely, although not wholly, vocational—would fall to the further education funding councils. We believe that that would be a damaging split. I observe noble Lords opposite shaking their heads. I realise that the position is not as black and white as that, but there is a great deal of truth in what I said.
Let us go back to first principles. One of the reasons that has motivated the Government to bring the Bill forward is to try to eliminate the divide between academic and vocational education. It is a reasonable argument that one of the faults that has dogged our attitudes to education in this country over the past 45 years has been—dare I say it? —looking on vocational education as in some way second class compared with academic education. It is because of the desire to ensure that there is no damaging dividing line between academic and vocational education that the Bill has been brought forward.
In addition, your Lordships have listened carefully to the argument that there may be a danger of erosion of full-time education of 16 to 18 year-olds in local authority sixth forms in schools. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear his intention that the sixth forms in good schools should continue to thrive. In discharging their duty, the funding councils will be required to have regard to full-time education provided for 16 to 18 year-olds in institutions that they will not fund. That appears in Clause 2(6). It is important that it is put that way round: that the funding councils have to have regard for what is being provided in other institutions. That will include sixth forms in schools.

149
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said that that is not quite the end of the argument. There is also the question of who is to take the decisions for strategic changes, in particular with regard to the sixth form sector. I speak now without a brief. With regard to the case that the right reverend Prelate put forward, there might be pressure put on a sixth form college to close and some alternative provision in the further education sector to open. Who will take the final decision? That factor is surely embedded in the law as we have it. The closure procedures would need to be gone through and the final decision would need to be taken by the Secretary of State.
On the desirability of the amendment, the Government believe that the duty to secure the provision of full-time education for young people should lie with the funding councils. Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord's technical points. That is why Clause 10(2) makes it clear that local education authorities still have the power to provide sixth forms for education in schools but Clause 11 prevents both LEAs and the councils from being under a duty to secure the provision of the same type of education. If the councils have the duty under Clause 2(1) or Clause 3(1) then the local education authorities cannot also have a duty. But they have a power.
In order exhaustively to clear up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised, Clause 2(2) makes it clear that the duty under Clause 2(1) does not extend to persons aged 19 years or over.
I apologise for being rather long-winded in answering. However, it is an important amendment. Before I sit down perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what I believe is damaging. I have used the word and I shall use it again. If the amendment were accepted, we should have an artificial divide—almost a further education binary line—between the academic and vocational. I believe that the Bill will go a long way towards eliminating that. I do not believe that such a divide would be right.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and I thank all other noble Lords who have taken the trouble to debate the amendment. I do not see it as a wrecking amendment. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that in this Chamber we do not divide on Second Reading. If we wish to argue that something basic is wrong with the Bill we have to proceed some way into the Bill in order to damage it without wrecking it, if I may put it that way. The amendment changes the Bill significantly. However, if we are unable ever to seek to change a Bill significantly because we are accused of putting down wrecking amendments, I do not see why we bother with deliberations in your Lordships' House. But I do not believe that it is a wrecking amendment.
Noble Lords will appreciate that I did not put the amendment down in order to divide the House on the matter. I have no intention of doing so. I put it down because I wanted to clarify certain differences between us which I should like to take two or three minutes to emphasise.
150
I agree entirely with the Minister that the fundamental aim is the education of 16 to 19 year-olds. The councils are the means. My amendment is not a wrecking amendment; my argument is that there are better means. The Government do not agree with me, but it seems reasonable to place my view on record that we agree entirely with the aims but that there are alternative means which we ought to consider.
I accept the logical point that the Minister makes: that in the Bill we have a distinction between schools for 16 to 19 year-olds and an FE sector. The means that I suggest would produce a different distinction between full and part-time education. I accept logically that one will have an artificial distinction whatever one does. I seek to argue as cogently as I can that one would still have a part-time sector in FE and that my method is more sensible. I fully accept that the Government are entitled to hold a different view. But I do not regard the amendment as wrecking. I am trying to clarify the nature of the decision that we are taking.
I take strong issue with the Government on two matters. The distinction between full and part time is not the distinction between academic and vocational; a fortiori it ought not to be the distinction. I believe that the Government mislead if they argue that the distinction between full and part-time education relates to vocational versus academic. I stand second to no one in my desire to see a strong vocational element in all our education, including higher education. I have no difficulty with that. I believe that the Government are mistaken if that is the way they wish to argue.
My second point relates to diversity of choice, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others. The danger is that we shall end up with less diversity and less choice. I am trying to point out the danger that the school sixth forms will disappear. As I understand it, there is no obligation on the part of local authorities to provide sixth forms. The Secretary of State cannot make a local authority have a sixth form. Therefore the danger must be one way: that those sixth forms will go. I do not express that as a certainty because there are no certainties. I should like to believe that I am mistaken. However, if the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the danger is that school sixth forms would go on financial grounds, if on no other.
I have had my day on this amendment. I assure noble Lords that I shall not come back to the matter again within this Bill. We have heard the issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 23, leave out from ("State") to ("persons") in line 25 and insert:
("(a) shall have regard to the desirability of including").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is agreed that Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 133 will be taken with this amendment.
The amendments would require the Secretary of State, in making appointments to a further education funding council, to have regard to the desirability of

151
including persons who were currently engaged in the provision of further education or in carrying responsibility for such provision.
A number of points were made in Committee about the desirability of ensuring that practitioners in further education were considered for membership of the funding councils. We have considered the issue carefully and your Lordships' arguments have prevailed. Hence the reference in the amendment to,
"being currently engaged in the provision of further education"
as a desirable attribute for membership of a funding council.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has tabled amendments which cover the same ground as the amendment I am moving. Her Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 would require my right honourable friend in making appointments to a further education funding council to have regard to the desirability of including members who have experience or have shown a capacity in the provision of further education. Her Amendments Nos. 7 and 12 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of including members who had acquired educational expertise by virtue of their membership of a local education authority.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will agree that in our reference to the desirability of including on the council persons who are currently engaged in the provision of further education the Government have fully recognised the points made in Committee. We have sought to achieve her aim slightly more effectively than, on this occasion, have her amendments. The great majority of members of local education authorities will fall squarely into the category of those who have experience of the provision of education or who have experience of industrial, commercial or financial matters. Many, indeed most, will probably fall into more than one of those categories or will be a member of one of the professions. If a member of a local education authority did not fall into one of those categories it would not be desirable to select such a person statutorily for appointment to a funding council.
In moving the government amendments I hope that the noble Baroness will consider that I have gone a long way in seeking to meet the points made. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am pleased that the Government have recognised the points that were made by Members on this side of the Committee and have accepted some of our arguments, including the desirability that the funding councils should include members with knowledge and experience not only of education generally but of further education specifically. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward an amendment.
There is one aspect of the Government's amendments which causes me a little anxiety and in that respect I believe that the amendments tabled in my name are preferable. The amendments tabled by the Government use the phrases "currently engaged"
152
and "carrying responsibility". They would restrict the Secretary of State's choice to people working in the sector. When the Committee dealt with the higher education funding councils I tabled an amendment referring to people who were currently engaged in higher education. At that time the Minister reminded me that it could exclude people who had retired, perhaps recently, but who had a great deal of relevant experience. However, they could not be included in the provision because of the use of the term "currently engaged".
Therefore, although it is desirable that the knowledge and experience of members of the funding council should be up to date, many of the individuals currently engaged in the provision of further education will be personally involved in a particular institution. As a result, some questions might be raised about their independence. The more general wording in Amendment No. 11 is therefore to be preferred. It can bring in people outside a particular institution because they no longer work in the sector; for example, retired HMIs with considerable experience of inspecting further education colleges, retired local authority officials or ex-chairmen of education committees.
I turn to the Minister's comments about local education authorities and to the amendments that refer specifically to the inclusion of a person with experience as a member of a local education authority. As LEAs currently have the responsibility for providing further education, and will continue to have some responsibility for future provision, the experience of an LEA would be particularly valuable for the funding council. For that reason we felt it right to table an additional amendment which makes specific reference to the inclusion of a person with experience as a member of a local education authority. I hope that in reply the Minister will respond to my slight worry about the wording of his amendments compared with those tabled in my name.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for the concession embodied in Amendment No. 10. I welcome it unreservedly. On the other hand, on behalf of my alter ego whose name appears on the Marshalled List, I wish to say a few words about Amendment No. 7 relating to a representative of a local education authority. Since the debate in respect of Amendment No. 4 relating to sixth forms the provision has become more necessary.
I listened with care to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I believe that if we are splitting the provision for school sixth forms and the provision for sixth form colleges we are creating a need for consultation between the funding council and local education authorities, which is a great deal more acute than before. For that reason Amendment No. 7 is not trifling and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to think again about it.
Baroness David: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 9, 14 and 133 are tabled in my name. I am trying to achieve a slightly different aim from that which I had in Committee in order to meet the Minister's anxiety. I then suggested that a member of the funding council

153
should be a person with experience of the type of education listed in Schedule 2. The Minister appeared to be worried that the provision would exclude many other people. He said that it would reduce the breadth of education experience on the funding councils by excluding any type of education not listed.
On this occasion I have framed my amendments to insert the words:
"including education of the types listed in Schedule 2".
That would not exclude those with educational experience outside those particular courses.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 14 are to Clause 1 and Amendment No. 133 is to Schedule 1, dealing with the make-up of the committees set up by the funding councils. I believe that my amendments have a point to make. I agree that the Minister has gone a considerable way towards meeting the anxieties expressed, but I am pleased with my amendments. Perhaps he would like to comment upon them.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships including the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for saying that they are pleased that the government amendments have been brought forward. However, the noble Baroness made the point that we may be excluding people who have retired such as, for example, a recently retired member of Her Majesty's Inspectorate or a teacher. That point is covered by the wording in Clause 1, which refers to those who "have experience of" the provision of education, and so on.
The noble Baroness made the point also that I had used the argument previously, relying on a Latin tag, which comes from my noble friend Lord Renton, that if you include one, you exclude the rest. The rather tentative, but necessarily tentative, wording of Amendment No. 10 probably gets us out of that difficulty. Amendment No. 10 states that, in making appointments to the council, the Secretary of State:
"shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of further education or in carrying responsibility for such provision".
It will be a duty to have regard to that desirability when making appointments of that kind. I hope that I have not fallen foul of the invariable rule which my noble friend Lord Renton has often quoted helpfully to me in our debates.
That leaves the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David. This matter was discussed within the department as regards the amendments which the noble Baroness, Lady David, brought forward in Committee. Their aim was to bring those involved in Schedule 2 courses into the reckoning as desirable candidates for membership of the funding councils. I hope that we have gone more widely than the noble Baroness suggested. We have included those who are involved in Schedule 2 courses because the reference to education and, indeed, those who are currently involved in providing further education could, many times over, include those who are involved in Schedule 2 courses. I realise that saying that means that we do not specifically include the point raised by the noble
154
Baroness, but that is because it is covered by the Bill as drafted and by the government amendments which we now propose.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 26, after ("education") insert ("(including experience as a member of a Training and Enterprise Council)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. If I understand government Amendment No. 10 correctly, it makes more explicit what the Minister and other noble Lords have said is desirable; that is, it will make clear the desirability of appointing as members of a training and enterprise council persons who have experience.
I am not entirely certain about that because I do not know whether members of a training and enterprise council can be said to be engaged in the provision of further education. I am not certain that those people have a responsibility for such provision although they are closely connected with it.
I have accepted before and I still accept fully the Government's view that it is highly likely that members of training and enterprise councils will be appointed to the councils. I wish to make that explicit in order to emphasise the important role of the TECs. I should like to see them mentioned in this part of the Bill more to underline their importance than for any other reason. As I say, I do not doubt that such people will be appointed to the councils. That is why I press the point now; I seek a sign of the Government's earnestness in this regard. That is why I propose the two amendments standing in my name. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord divines my reaction correctly. I said that it will be desirable to have members of local education authorities as members of the new funding councils. That point is much the same as regards the TECs. Those who have experience of, or have shown capacity in the provision of, education, despite the cautionary words delivered by the noble Lord about that, or those who have experience of, or have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession are almost certain to be members of training and enterprise councils. Most TEC members will fall into more than one of those slots. If that is not so, I question whether it is desirable to select such a member statutorily as being desirable for the funding councils. I do not mean that such a person would not be suitable but it is questionable whether, if he does not fall into those slots, he should be selected statutorily.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that, in addition to believing that the amendment of itself has merit, the purpose which lies behind it was to show confidence in the importance of the TECs in this context. I suggest gently that perhaps legislation is not the place in which to show that confidence. The noble Lord is quite right that we share his confidence in the TECs. The Government have made clear several times their view

155
that local authorities and TECs will continue to play an important role in post-16 education. Indeed, we have already given a commitment in the education and training White Paper that the Secretary of State will invite two representatives of local TEC interests to sit on each regional committee. The success of the new sector will depend upon effective co-operation between LEAs, TECs and colleges and funding councils. I do not believe that to write this matter upon the face of the Bill as a message of confidence is the right course for the Government to take. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that I am being deliberately obstructive, because I do not intend to be so.
Lord Peston: My Lords, of course I do not regard the noble Lord as being obstructive. His answer came within about 1 per cent. of convincing me. Essentially, on matters of substance, there is nothing between us. I should prefer to see training and enterprise councils written on to the face of the Bill. However, I agree that it is a matter of taste and we do not need to fight about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 28, after ("education") insert ("and, in appointing such persons, he shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of further education or in carrying responsibility for such provision").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 1, line 28, after ("education") insert ("including the provision of further education for students with learning difficulties").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48A, 66, 130 and 154. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that there will be someone on the funding councils and quality assessment committees experienced in the provision of education for students with learning difficulties.
In Committee on 9th December I withdrew a bunch of amendments which had the same purpose because the Government felt that they referred to representatives, although that was not our intention. The current wording stems from a suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, at col. 546 of Hansard. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that he had the same idea but needed to consult and consider. I hope therefore that the new amendments will find favour with him.
Amendment No. 48A to Clause 6 is unchanged from Committee stage as it does not concern membership but aims to safeguard the interests of students with learning difficulties by imposing on councils a duty to consult bodies with experience of their special needs before allocating grants, loans and so on.
In Committee the aim of this bunch of amendments received a great deal of support on all sides of the Chamber. The disability organisations see them as important; the RNIB is anxious that without them the
156
planning of educational provision and subsequent progression into employment will not be adequate for the needs of students with learning difficulties. The Spastics Society believes that without the amendments present provision for students with learning difficulties will be weakened, which is something that the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, indicated at col. 544 the Government did not want.
The Spastics Society says that many disabled people and disability organisations have developed effective working relationships with their LEAs, often based on the slow build-up of trust and expertise on both sides. It is important that the new councils ensure not only that existing good practice is protected but also that the opportunity to develop good practice is not lost. The centralised nature of the councils may ensure that access to expertise is more consistent than at present. That would lead to a more effective use of resources, with money being spent in the most appropriate way, and ensuring the best possible provision for students with learning difficulties.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response in regard to the amendments. I hope that he feels we have overcome his objections and that he will be able to accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I rise merely to support the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). There are good exceptions to every rule and this is a justifiable exception to the rule to which my noble friend Lord Belstead referred a short while ago about not being selective in drafting. However, if we are to get the provisions fully and satisfactorily applied for people with learning difficulties, then the funding bodies need the advantage of the advice of people with experience in giving that specialised education. On this occasion therefore I wish to support the noble Baroness.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness and I should like to support it. It is a matter of providing somebody who can contribute expertise and understanding on these matters. If that appropriate expertise is not available within the membership of the funding councils, the awareness of the requirements of students with learning difficulties of all kinds will, at worst, be absent and at best be based indirectly on consultation. I hope therefore that the Minister will see his way to accepting the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to reiterate many of the opinions already stated. Those with special educational requirements need people who understand them to put their cases forward when it comes to funding and any other needs relating to the new councils. People often do not understand the problems involved, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that he found difficulty following the situation. The area is complicated and there were many new facets introduced in discussions at Committee stage. That is a normal reaction for people who step into a pool which does not appear quite as deep as it is. People often find themselves sinking to

157
the top of their boots and beyond when they step into this specific bit of water. I hope therefore that the amendments will be accepted.
6 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, these are the first of a number of amendments relating to students with disabilities. We debated the arrangements for these students extensively in Committee, when I undertook that the Government would consider further some of the points that were advanced. Before I turn to these amendments, I hope it will be helpful if I take a minute or two to outline the conclusions that the Government reached on those points in the light of the useful further discussions that I have been able to have with some of your Lordships who spoke about students with disabilities in our previous debates.
One issue that arose a number of times in our previous debates was the nature of the duty towards students with disabilities. Your Lordships will have seen on the Marshalled List government Amendment No. 36 that would, if your Lordships approve it, extend the duty on the further education funding councils in relation to students with disabilities. I hope that will be welcomed as showing that we listened to the anxieties expressed earlier.
A second point to which previous speakers attached importance was the availability of expertise on the education of students with disabilities to the new funding councils. Here the Government's intention is to make it a condition of grant that the funding councils should obtain such specialist advice where it is not available internally. That condition of grant will be applied to both the further education and the higher education funding councils. The powers to attach conditions to the grants paid to the funding councils are contained in Clauses 7 and 64. In previous debates some mistrust was expressed over the way those powers may be used: this illustrates the beneficial value of the power to attach conditions to the grant.
In our previous debates about students with disabilities, some questions were also raised about the assessment of their educational needs. Assessment is of course a matter of the greatest importance, and I made it clear that we did not dispute its value to both students and lecturers but that we doubted the wisdom of prescribing it on the face of the Bill. Our conclusion is that the importance of assessing students' educational needs should be reiterated in guidance issued to the new further education system and also the local education authorities to cover their continuing responsibility for some students with disabilities. That will ensure that assessment is given proper attention, without introducing undesirable inflexibility.
Another question that arose previously concerned the interpretation of the phrase "disproportionate expenditure" where students with disabilities are concerned. I believe that I satisfied your Lordships in the course of the debate on the meaning of the phrase. Our view is that for the purposes of legislation it is clear as it stands. However, we intend to issue
158
guidance to the funding councils to establish that the prohibition on disproportionate expenditure is in no way intended to rule out provision which is necessarily expensive, such as that for students with disabilities.
Our previous debates also raised the question of transport for students with disabilities. Our view, which I believe is shared, is that the present law is adequate as it stands, but there may be a question over the enthusiasm with which the duties it contains are carried out. Our intention is to issue guidance to the local education authorities so as to ensure that there is no doubt as to the extent of the existing duties. As your Lordships know, the Bill ensures that the existing duties apply in the new further education sector: this is secured in Schedule 8. However, we noticed a gap in Schedule 8 as drafted in relation to students placed by the FEFCs in independent-sector colleges. Government Amendment No. 175 was tabled to ensure that LEAs' responsibility extends to placements made in the independent sector.
To summarise, for students with disabilities we are proposing two government amendments relating to the duty to secure placements in the independent sector and to transport. We are proposing to attach a condition to the funding councils' grant to ensure the availability of specialist knowledge about the education of those students. We are proposing to issue guidance on assessment of their educational needs, on the interpretation of "disproportionate expenditure" and on transport. In preparing guidance, we shall of course be glad to tap the knowledge of the bodies with special expertise in these areas. I can give more detail on each point as we debate later amendments.
In our forthcoming debates I expect to be pressed again to do more. There is a limit. I hope that the series of measures that I have outlined demonstrates that we do take seriously our responsibilities towards students with disabilities and that we have listened attentively to the points that have been made on their behalf. For all our sympathy for that group and for all our admiration of the body that advances its cause in your Lordships' House, as a Government we must also remember our responsibilities towards other groups. The resources at our disposal are not infinite. It is not just a matter of money. There is also no infinite supply of human resources nor of the time and energy of lecturers and other highly skilled staff. What we attempt to provide for any particular group must be kept in proportion so that the interests of other groups, equally deserving and perhaps equally vulnerable, are not harmed. There can be no question of making unlimited provision for students with disabilities at the expense of other groups. The measures that I have outlined will ensure that the interests of students with disabilities are appropriately secured in the new further education structures. At the same time they maintain the balance between their interests and those of other groups in our diverse society.
I thought it would be useful to set in context the comments that I shall now offer on this particular group of amendments by way of background. I hope that I have not spoken at too great length. Perhaps I may start with Amendments Nos. 15 and 130. These

159
would require the Secretary of State, in making appointments to the further education and higher education funding councils, to have regard to the desirability of including persons who have experience or knowledge of the requirements of students with learning difficulties. The Government listened carefully to the arguments made when this issue was debated during the Committee stage of the Bill, and we undertook to consider the matter further. As I have said, we are not persuaded that specialist advice on the education of students with learning difficulties is best secured in the way proposed by these amendments; but we do accept that it is needed.
The Government share the concern that specialist advice on the requirements of students with learning difficulties should be available to the councils. They will be responsible for a broad range of educational provision, including provision for students with learning difficulties, and it is clearly important that these responsibilities should be reflected in the councils' membership. The Bill is designed to ensure that. It requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of appointing members of the councils from a range of backgrounds, including, of course, people with a background in education. No category of educational experience is excluded. We see no need to go further and refer to one particular area of educational experience.
Nevertheless, we appreciate the concern of the promoters of the amendments to see some further assurance that the councils will be in a position to take proper account of the requirements of students with learning difficulties. The Government intend to make it a condition of the Secretary of State's grant to the funding councils that they seek specialist advice on matters relating to provision for these students where specialist knowledge on these matters is not available to them internally. The same requirement will apply both to the further education and to the higher education funding councils. The effect will be the same as that sought by noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendments, though by a different route.
The councils' decisions as they discharge their responsibilities will be informed by specialist knowledge of the education of students with disabilities. Moreover, that effect is guaranteed by the Government's approach. That would not be the case with the proposed amendments. They would require the Secretary of State to consider appointing a special needs expert, but leave him free to decide not to do so. By making it a condition of grant that specialist advice is obtained, the Government's approach avoids that element of uncertainty.
Amendment No. 48A would add bodies with experience or knowledge of students with learning difficulties to the parties which the further education funding councils are required to consult about the terms and conditions applicable to the payment of funds by the councils. While I recognise the concern behind the amendments, I have to say that the Government do not believe that that is appropriate.
It may be helpful if I explain the purpose of Clause 6. It ensures that the councils consult institutional
160
representatives and governing bodies about the terms of the financial memorandum which will set out the principal conditions governing the financial relationship between the councils and individual colleges. It is clearly right that the councils should consult those directly concerned as and when they set conditions on grant. This clause provides a safeguard that the interests of colleges will be taken into account.
I appreciate that the amendment is intended to ensure that the interests of students with learning difficulties are not ignored. But, as I have explained, the Government believe that the best method of securing that is through the condition of grant that I have described. That will ensure that, when the FE funding councils are contemplating conditions to be attached to the grant they pay to colleges, their decisions are informed by specialist knowledge of the education of students with disabilities.
Amendments Nos. 66 and 154 would require the quality assessment committees to be established by the further and higher education funding councils to include persons who have experience of, and have shown capacity in, further or higher education provision for students with learning difficulties.
We believe that these amendments are unnecessary. The Bill provides for the majority of the members of the councils' quality assessment committees to have experience of, or have shown capacity in, the provision of further and higher education. That of course includes further and higher education provision for students with learning difficulties. Thus, the amendments would do no more than make explicit that which is already provided for in the Bill.
I can reassure your Lordships that the condition of grant we are proposing would apply here too. It will run through all the activities of the funding councils. It will apply to their quality assessment function. It will require them either to maintain an internal source of specialist advice or to seek that advice externally, for the purposes of discharging all their functions, including their responsibility for quality assessment.
The condition of grant that I have described has the effect that is sought by the promoters of these amendments of ensuring that the interests of students with learning difficulties are properly considered throughout all the many and various activities of the higher and further education funding councils. It has the advantage of securing that effect without requiring the representation of that group on the councils' main committees. As the House knows, we do not intend to make these appointments on a representative basis, while we do want concern with the interests of students with disabilities to suffuse all the councils' activities, not just the top layer of committees. The condition of grant is a better method of achieving that result. I hope that, having spoken at very great length, I have reassured the House and the amendments can be withdrawn.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we should be very grateful to my noble friend. Can he explain in what form the guidelines are to be given?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I need notice of that question. It will be guidance and not circulars, if that is the distinction which my noble friend is making.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support, which once again came from all sides of the House. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I thank the Minister very much for his reply, which was so detailed and wide ranging that I shall need to study it a great deal. I am very relieved that he said that we shall go into more detail as we come to each of the amendments.
I am extremely glad that the Government accept that specialist advice is needed, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, this is such a complicated field. This is a subject about which an exception has to be made. As the Minister said, the condition of grant seems to be a much better method and to make more sense. I am extremely grateful for that. I am not absolutely certain that I understood what he was saying in reply to Amendment No. 48A, which is an amendment to Clause 6. I shall read what he said about that. Meanwhile, I am extremely grateful for the idea of the condition of grant, which he said will apply to Amendments Nos. 15, 66, 130 and 154. Therefore, I have no hesitation in withdrawing my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 1, at beginning insert ("shall have regard to the desirability of including").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was considered with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Full-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds]:
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("sufficient") and insert ("adequate").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I should first point out that there is a mistake in Amendment No. 21 to which I shall be speaking with Amendment No. 19. The words "to be" should not be included in the words to be left out. The amendment should read,
"leave out 'sufficient' and insert 'adequate"'.
These are probing amendments which seek to discover any differences in the use of the words "sufficient" and "adequate" in different parts of the Bill: why the Government use one in one place and one in another. I looked up "sufficient" in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. The definition is:
"of a quantity, extent or scope adequate to a certain purpose or object"
"Adequate" is defined in the same dictionary as:
"Commensurate in fitness, sufficient, suitable".
"Sufficient" is used twice in Clause 2 and "adequate" is used in Clauses 3, 4 and 11. The word "inadequate" is used in Clause 6. In particular, the new local authority duties in Clause 11 are to be concerned with the provision of "adequate" facilities compared with the "sufficient" facilities mentioned in the council's
162
Clause 2 duties. The basis under which students with learning difficulties may have provision outside the FEFC institutions is the lack of "adequate" facilities. That is in Clause 4(2). If students did not have learning difficulties and were full time and under 19 years of age Clause 2's "sufficient" facilities would apply.
"Sufficient" in the second line of Clause 2 is replaced by "adequate" in the second line of Clause 3 and the words "to be sufficient" in the middle of Clause 2(3) (a) are not repeated in the middle of Clause 3(2) (a). Inadequacy of provision is the main reason for requiring an FEFC institution to act as a sponsoring body in applying to a council for financial support for an external institution—that is, in Clause 6(5). I am rather mystified, as other people have been, by the use of those words. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's explanation. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the duty placed on the councils by Clause 2 carries over to the funding councils the duty imposed on local education authorities under Section 8 of the Education Act 1944. In Section 8 of the 1944 Act local education authorities are under a duty,
"to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools … for providing secondary education".
That includes, at present, full-time education for young people aged 16 to 18 years.
The duty placed on the councils by Clause 3 carries over to the councils the duty imposed on LEAs under Section 41 of the 1944 Act. That places LEAs under a duty to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education. The Government's intention is quite simply to try to carry forward both provisions in the same terms to the new funding councils.
We could debate at some length the meaning of the words "sufficient" and "adequate" but my understanding is that for the purposes of the duties on local education authorities it has always been accepted that the term "sufficient" in Section 8 of the 1944 Act imposed a stronger power than the term "adequate" in Section 41. The effect of the amendment would be taken to reduce the strength of the duty on the funding councils. That is an objective which I should not have thought was the intention of the noble Baroness.
I hope that explanation will persuade the noble Baroness that the amendment has achieved its objective of probing what the Government understand is the reason for the use of the two different words and the effect of the two different words. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that it would not be right to "level down" by getting this amendment agreed to—because that would be the effect of it—and that in fact the status quo of the 1944 Education Act is about right.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am very glad to have had that explanation and I think I understand it. I shall read it again with care and look up the references in the Bill, but I see that the Bill is following the 1944 Act. I am very grateful to the Minister for that

163
explanation and, as I said, I shall look forward to reading it again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert ("taking into account the higher unit costs of sixth form colleges").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again we find ourselves dealing with sixth form colleges. The basic thrust of this amendment is to ensure that the funding councils do not discriminate against sixth form colleges due to their higher costs.
We had a long and fairly full debate on this issue at Committee stage and the basic thrust of that discussion seemed to revolve around the problem that it was not quite clear what sixth form colleges were. The basic point that we were debating throughout was whether they were colleges or schools. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said at one point:
"It would be open to the funding councils to take into account the special aspects of the provision offered by sixth form colleges and denominational colleges, and to consider how they should be reflected in the funding methodology".
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, then pointed out that sixth form college provision is not in any sense special case provision, merely different and just more expensive. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, then said:
"It will be for the further education councils to judge how to make the most effective use of their resources and how to avoid provision that might give rise to disproportionate expenditure. We should not forget that in the Bill that is tied, following the example of the 1944 Act, to meeting the reasonable needs of the young people of the age group of the area. There is no question of imposing an inflexible funding framework on the new sector. The funding reforms are intended to allow institutions to make the most of their differences and not to obliterate them".—[Official Report, 9/12/91; col. 505.]
If we are trying to make the most of those differences and have finite resources in trying to meet the demands for educational places, funding is ultimately going to be a very important part of the whole question. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that it is appreciated that sixth form colleges are designed for people who want a more structured sixth form type approach but do not have sixth forms available to them.
Much argument took place concerning the differences between colleges and sixth forms and how people sometimes preferred colleges. Sixth form colleges, and indeed sixth forms, are not actually identical to the school process until that point. They merely provide more of a structure and often more of a sense of identity. That is why they are very valuable. Colleges can be very impersonal places which impose new disciplines on certain pupils—perhaps "students", would be a better term to use at this point. Therefore, the sixth form college is a type of school. Indeed, it is closer to a school due to the fact that everybody is doing similar types of courses, as opposed to the tertiary colleges which are going to have a far wider cross-section of courses and students and thus less of a sense of community about them. That is something I found when I was a student and
164
from speaking to people attending these colleges in more recent times. Unless we address the fact that this sector is providing a very important service and thus requires some form of consideration in providing this service, economics may well mean that they are about to die as the courses themselves can be offered at colleges. But the way in which teaching takes place and the atmosphere in which the students are taking part in the courses will be very different. That is what we are aiming at in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is bound to be the case that the funding councils will be subject to economic pressures at all times. Given that the cost of sixth form colleges is 50 to 100 per cent. higher than the cost of further education colleges, I do not see how one can avoid the statement that sixth form colleges may not survive. I cannot believe that either this Government or the likely successor from this side of the House will suddenly find a great pot of gold with which to finance FE colleges. Therefore I cannot see the FE colleges receiving a great deal of extra money. What I can see is almost everyone being tempted to bring down the costs in sixth form colleges, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, to get rid of them. That cannot be the Government's intention. I do not believe for one moment that that is their intention. Therefore, the reason for having this explicitly on the face of the Bill is to provide a minimum safeguard in that respect.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the amendment would require a further education funding council, in fulfilling its duty to avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure, to take into account the unit costs of sixth form colleges which it is implied would invariably be higher than those of other colleges in the new sector. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for explaining in some detail why apprehensions in this respect arise.
The amendment touches on two issues which are of great interest to us. The first is the interpretation of "disproportionate expenditure" in Clause 2 and the second is the future funding of sixth form colleges, which is what the discussion so far has been mainly about. My noble friend Lord Cavendish gave a definition of "disproportionate" during the Committee stage. I shall not go over that ground again except to stress that the avoidance of disproportionate expenditure should not be taken to mean the avoidance of expensive provision. Subsection (5) of Clause 2 simply provides that the funding councils' expenditure must be proportionate to the purpose for which the expenditure is applied. The councils will not therefore be prevented from making provision at a particular institution in a particular area or for a particular subject but they will have to consider the purpose for which the expenditure is being provided. The purpose must of course include meeting the reasonable needs of all persons to whom the duty to secure education facilities extends. Those words are to be found in Clause 2(3) (a).
I hope your Lordships will agree that this provision is a sensible one. There is a read across from disproportionate to what is reasonable. It is certainly in line with what exists at present in the Education Act

165
1944, which requires local education authorities to discharge their functions in a way which avoids unreasonable public expenditure. The wording is slightly different but there is exactly the same intention and effect.
Against that background I believe the amendment to be unnecessary. In considering whether or not the funds that they make available to sixth form colleges are disproportionate to their purpose, the funding councils will need to take account of both the cost of the education provided by the colleges and the purpose for which that cost is being applied. If the cost of such provision is indeed higher but this can be justified in the council's opinion by reference to the purpose, then Clause 2 most certainly would not prevent such provision being made.
Costs in the new sector will vary. The White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century made clear that the funding councils would be able to apply weightings to student numbers and to take account of differential costs of certain types of study and additional costs arising from such factors as special educational needs. As I said in Committee when we debated this very point, there is no question of imposing an inflexible funding framework on the new sector. The funding reforms are intended to allow different institutions to make the most of their differences.
I hope that what I have said will reassure the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Addington. I am making a substantive point. I am not just, as a matter of rote, saying that we do not agree with an amendment. I am saying that we believe that in Clause 2 we are tackling in a different way the same problem identified by the noble Lords. We are saying that the funding councils must consider the reasonable needs of all the persons to whom their duty to provide education extends and then see whether those needs are by any chance disproportionate to the expenditure. That is the meaning of "disproportionate" in Clause 2. It does not mean that because particular provision is expensive that must be wrong. It may mean sometimes that expensive provision is right and needs to be met.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is always good at sounding reasonable. He has come a long way towards meeting me. Unfortunately, he always makes me a little wary because from the impression he has given I am not quite sure how far he has come. I should like to read what the noble Lord has said and see whether he has indeed come as far as I think he has. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert ("This subsection shall not preclude expenditure made under section 4.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 31. The amendment has certain
166
similarities to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. In both Clauses 2 and 3 we wish to add the words,
"This subsection shall not preclude expenditure made under section 4",
in order to qualify this difficult word "disproportionate". It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has dealt with my point in answering Amendment No. 24. However, I should like to explain very briefly why we consider these amendments to be necessary.
We are concerned to define "disproportionate expenditure" so that the term cannot be used in respect of spending on students under Clause 4. I wish first to establish that the kind of students I am talking about are those who need expensive equipment or expensive human help to enable them to engage in their studies in higher or further education. Naturally enough the provision of additional buildings or the modification of buildings is expensive. The computers used by blind people cost more than £5,000. Someone who is expert in helping a deaf student may be required at a cost of perhaps £10 or £15 an hour. That is expenditure very much in excess of that which would be required by any student who does not have learning difficulties. However disproportionate that may seem, it is not disproportionate in relation to the need of the blind student. The expenditure is very much in proportion.
It is certainly not our view that the expenditure necessary for a blind or deaf student can be determined in regard to numbers when comparing what is the average that is necessary for students. The student who needs these extra aids will always appear to be in need of disproportionate expenditure. For that reason we are trying to clarify the expression in the Bill.
When we ran over this ground in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, was helpful. At one stage he gave a definition of "disproportionate" which I shall now quote. Disproportionate expenditure,
"is expenditure which is out of proportion to what is being provided for".—[Official Report, 9/12/91; col. 570.]
He then referred to the "reasonable needs" in Clause 2(3)(a). When I questioned him—thinking that that definition was very useful—as to whether he would consider including it in the text of the Bill, he said that he saw no reason why it should not be included, subject to taking advice. Since that time I have noted that he has not put down that definition. I do not blame him for it, but I also see that there is some impairment, if I may put it that way, in the definition. It is not watertight.
I do not believe that I need to go into the matter in detail. I merely say that if I had been the Minister, I should not have put down the amendment, but he kindly said he would consider it. However, I am not clear whether or not this amendment is necessary so I move it in a spirit of inquiry. I feel that my amendments to the two clauses make it clear beyond peradventure that disproportionate expenditure shall not apply to expenditure under Clause 4. If the amendment is necessary, I very much hope that Ministers will accept it. If it is not, I hope that they will explain why. In that spirit, I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, he frankly stated that he wondered whether the amendment was truly requisite. I do not believe that it is, when taken with the clause. I understand the concern but do not think it should be taken into the statute. If the amendment is not necessary, it can only be either otiose or confusing.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, these amendments are important for the interests about which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, spoke. They would qualify the requirement on the further education funding councils to avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure by specifying that the requirement does not preclude expenditure on provision for students with learning difficulties. While the Government accept the sentiment behind the amendments, it ought to be achieved in the way that I believe it is achieved in the text of the Bill.
First, perhaps I may say that I fully understand the concern which has given rise to the amendments; it is that the requirement to avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure might at the same time restrict the funding councils in making provision for students with disabilities. However, this is neither the intention nor is it, I believe, the effect of the requirement in the Bill.
As I mentioned at the previous stage and repeated this evening, the reference to disproportionate expenditure is intended to exclude expenditure which is out of proportion to the need being met, not to rule out provision which is necessarily expensive, such as provision for students with disabilities. That intention is set out on the face of the Bill. Clause 2(3)(a) provides that a funding council shall provide sufficient educational facilities,
"to meet the reasonable needs of all persons to whom the duty extends".
But, under subsection (5), a funding council must avoid disproportionate expenditure, meaning disproportionate to meeting the reasonable needs under Clause 2(3)(a). This is very much in line with the present law where the Education Act 1944 talks in Section 76 about avoiding unreasonable public expenditure in providing educational facilities.
The noble Lord suggested at the Committee stage that the Bill might define the word "disproportionate". He has referred to that this evening. For the reasons I have just explained, we have concluded that for the purposes of this legislation the meaning of the phrase "disproportionate expenditure" in the present text is clear as it stands. Furthermore, we intend to spell out in guidance to the funding councils that precluding disproportionate expenditure does not, as I said, rule out provision which is necessarily expensive, such as that for students with disabilities. This will be guidance from the Secretary of State to the funding councils making clear the uses to which they can put the grant which he gives them. There need be no fear that such guidance would be ineffective or would not be attended to.
168
I hope that that additional assurance may make the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, feel that I have given a reasonable reply to an important amendment. Put bluntly and shortly, I believe that the text of Clause 2 is clear that "disproportionate expenditure" means out of proportion to the purpose for which the expenditure is applied—namely, meeting the reasonable needs of the people for whom the expenditure is incurred. The noble Lord gave the example of expensive facilities which are necessary for students with disabilities. That is the right way to go about it.
At the same time, behind what the noble Lord said lies an apprehension. I hope that the assurance I have given about guidance to the funding councils may be useful in that respect.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I have seldom received such a welcome reply to an amendment which I had put down but which the Minister was not able to accept. He has been able to give me not just one assurance but two assurances that what we seek to achieve through the amendment will be fulfilled. This makes assurance doubly sure, because he said, and of course I accept, first, that what we seek to achieve is already accomplished by the drafting of the Bill—obscure though it is to some of us who have been worrying about "disproportionate expenditure". Secondly, it is a magnificent plus to have the assurance that this difficulty which we have found will be spelt out in guidance. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for that double assurance. My amendment is therefore otiose and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert:
("(7) In discharging those functions a council shall make it a condition of any grant paid to an institution for the provision of full time education for persons who have not attained the age of 19 years that a charge may only be made for such provision in circumstances where a comparable charge may be made in respect of a registered pupil at a school under sections 106 to 111 of the Education Reform Act 1988.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I make no apologies for returning to this subject: I regard it as absolutely fundamental. Although other noble Lords and I had a few points to make about charging at the Committee stage, I believe that we need to go over a little of the ground again.
One of the great merits of the Education Reform Act 1988 was that it endeavoured to make clear what was meant by free education within the maintained schools. There have been some technical difficulties with it which I appreciate we have still not quite been able to solve. However, it is much to the Government's credit that they tried to deal with the matter and we strongly supported them on it.
As we move into the subject of charging, difficulties arise. There is no difficulty about pupils who will still be at school in the range of 16 to 18 or 19 years. There is some difficulty in agreeing whether we mean 16 to 18 years or 16 to less than, or equal to 19. However, we

169
all know the group we are talking about. Those pupils in schools cannot be charged for their education. There is a question about charging for extras; that is one of the technicalities of the 1988 Act which has not quite been solved.
When we debated this in Committee, the Minister pointed out something to me which I must admit I did not know. It was that it is a matter of custom and practice that other people in the same age group engaged in the same or similar courses full-time in further education colleges would not pay fees. It is purely a matter of custom and practice that they do not do so, not a matter of law. As the sixth form colleges move into the FE sector, the Government have taken the view, as I see it, as a matter of logical consistency, that fee paying—I am concentrating on full-time students, although there are matters to do with part-time students that I should like to have debated but we have no time for it—could apply to students, as we have to call them, in sixth form colleges, but, again, we are reassured that custom and practice—habit if one likes—will prevent that happening.
However, that is not good enough. A point on consistency that I missed making in Committee I can make now. If it is consistency that we are looking for, then consistency can move in either direction. I am talking about the principle for the moment. We can allow fee paying in the new sixth form colleges within the FE sector or, logically, we could remove from the FE sector the right to charge fees. I should have made that point in Committee. If consistency is what matters, the obvious amendment to the law is the reverse of the one the Government have chosen; namely, they should not rely on custom and practice but should make it a matter of law that all 16 to 19 year-olds in full-time education receive their education free of charge.
I am not concerned with the minutiae of extras for flour, equipment and other matters. We all know what we are talking about. If there are minutiae that my amendment does not cover, I shall not find acceptable from the Government a reply that says that there are details that have not been dealt with. What matters here is the principle. The principle is that full-time education for 16 to 19 year-olds should be free as a matter of law. I do not understand why the Government, having gone to so much trouble over the 1988 Act—I repeat that I am aware of how difficult it was—have not taken the opportunity to make that clear for the whole of that age group in the FE sector, if that is where they are going to be.
The only reason that the Government could have is that fee paying may one day become a possibility. I hope that the Government will say that they, or successors from their party—if we have to suffer that in the future—do not have the slightest intention of introducing fee paying for 16 to 19 year-olds. If that is their view, they should accept the amendment. If they do not like its drafting, they have time to put forward their own amendment. This is not a minor matter. It lies at the heart of our education system. It is vital that there should be no fee paying. As it turned out, I did
170
not understand that it is a matter of custom and practice for that age group in the FE sector, but it should now become a matter of law. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord for clarification. My first question is: is it suggested that there is any fee paying at the moment? Secondly, is it supposed that the Government that I support will impose a fee-paying regime? Is it on the cards that the party opposite, or either of the parties opposite, would impose such a regime? If it is not, why is this a matter of such burning importance?
6.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I might be able to answer the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is not suggested that fees are being charged at present in the FE sector; it is not suggested that the Government have any present plans for introducing charging. We accept the assurances that the Minister gave in Committee on that subject. On the other hand, when one puts something on the statute book, one puts it there for all governments until it is repealed.
We are aware of the acute financial pressure that there is on educational institutions of all sorts and in all places. If we have custom and practice only preventing the charging of fees in one place and statute preventing it in another, and if those two places will be in competition one with the other, we do not believe that we have a level playing field.
Under the Bill, we shall have many institutions being moved from the local authority schools sector into the further education sector—being transferred out of an area where fee charging is restricted by statute into one where it is restricted by custom and practice only. As we have already heard in the important debate on sixth forms, there is the possibility of school sixth forms in one sector, in effect, competing with sixth form colleges in the other sector. If one of those in that competition is subject to a financial restriction which does not apply in the other, we do not have a level playing field. We should have a level playing field.
For avoidance of anomaly and significant doubt and because we should be much safer if the Government were to see their way to accepting the amendment, they should place it on the statute book and complete the helpful work of clarification that they began in 1988.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, replies, perhaps he will justify why he has again made the division between full-time and part-time education. That is an antiquated approach. It may be convenient for the amendment, but, were it to be accepted by the House, we should have that division.
My noble friend may be in a better position than the noble Lord to reply to my next point. The noble Lord made lighthearted references to the fact that he was not talking about cooking ingredients and that type of thing. Will my noble friend tell the House the extent to which it is at present possible to charge in schools and sixth form colleges, because there is a

171
difference between basic tuition, which, I understand, is, as in Scotland, free, and the various additional provisions for which a charge may be made?
I remember spending many hours on the education committee in which I was involved, identifying what within the law those additions to the basic provision might be. I do not believe that the situation in that respect is any different south of the Border. Will my noble friend confirm clearly that school education is free except for one or two little things like the flour we put into the cakes? People take the flour and then return home with the cake in recompense, as it were. A similar thing happens with woodwork. I suspect that there are other parts of education for which charges can in law be made. That will apply likewise to further education. It is an important point. I ask my noble friend to clarify it and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to clarify the earlier query.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to preclude colleges in the new sector from charging for all tuition and associated costs for full-time education for those under 19 years of age. The only exceptions would be those in the limited circumstances in which schools are permitted to charge under the Education Reform Act 1988 in respect of individual tuition in the playing of a musical instrument.
As I emphasised in the debate on a similar amendment in Committee, young people aged 16 to 18 in full-time further education are not charged for the tuition they receive. There is no legislative basis for that; it is entirely a matter of practice. I gave an undertaking that it is not the intention to change the practice. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for saying that is accepted. I know it is accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but the noble Lord makes the point that what is needed is a change in the law. However, it is also a matter of practice in many further education colleges to make charges for materials, books and other requirements.
The provisions in the Education Reform Act relate to schools. Education provided by colleges is often very different from that in schools. In many areas it involves greater use of materials. It must be left to colleges to decide whether to provide those materials free of charge or whether to make a charge to students. If they were obliged to provide them free of charge in all circumstances, they would lose an element of the existing freedom they have over the distribution of their resources.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked me to what extent it is possible in schools and colleges to charge for ingredients, materials and things of that kind. I believe I have now answered that point. I refer to the limited circumstances in which schools are permitted to charge under the Education Reform Act 1988. However, I wish to verify that. I shall write to my noble friend if I have been inaccurate.
I wish to reiterate the point I have just made. We are talking about a difference of scale here. There is undoubtedly, particularly for students on certain courses, a far greater use of materials of various kinds in college courses than is the case in schools. In this regard it is important to allow for flexibility. That
172
flexibility would not occur if this amendment were accepted. I am sure your Lordships would not wish to introduce an amendment which would inhibit colleges from offering particular types of course—for example, craft courses, catering courses and other courses of a vocational nature much in demand—because with the cost of materials they consume a disproportionate share of the college's resources.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me for making a point that often riles the House. Given that many further education colleges already charge for materials, this amendment by precluding them from doing so in future would lead to an increase in public expenditure and to a need for a shift in resources from other parts of the education system.
I repeat that the Government regard this amendment as one that is liable to deny colleges the freedom we are anxious to give them. I am not referring to the payment of fees for tuition. I have given an undertaking on that matter and I know that undertaking has been accepted by noble Lords. There is no intention to change the practice as regards that matter. However, other charges made by the further education sector—irrespective of whether one applauds them or not—provide a freedom which colleges have at the present time. By accepting this amendment we would preclude that freedom. That is why I cannot accept it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I must say first of all to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that I was unable to reply to his three questions because of the rules of procedure on Report stage. I do not wish the noble Lord to think I was unable to say anything on those matters. Indeed I realise the noble Earl, Lord Russell, dealt with them.
I am extremely unhappy with the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. He did exactly what I asked him not to do in concentrating on the minutiae and the trivia of this matter rather than on the fundamental principles involved. This issue has nothing to do with ingredients required for certain courses although I should say that such ingredients have posed difficulties in schools. This issue concerns the fundamental principle that education in the compulsory sector and in the full-time post-16 sector should be and must be guaranteed to be free. I always accept the noble Lord's bona fides, but that is not what this amendment is about. It is not about the Government pledging in their dying days not to introduce this kind of measure. It concerns what we regard as the provision of free education in our country.
I should refer to an anomaly here. When sixth form colleges enter the further education sector under the terms of this Bill, textbooks that were provided free when sixth form colleges were classed as schools will have to be provided by the students themselves. I wonder whether the Government will widely publicise the fact that from now on a considerable number of students will bear the cost of providing materials that were hitherto provided by the state. Of course I accept that there is a public expenditure aspect to this matter. As someone who used to regard himself as being knowledgeable about public expenditure, I should point out that we are discussing small sums here. We

173
are not discussing massive sums of money. If the Minister wishes to protect the ingredient cost aspect, I would be happy to see him table an amendment to that effect. However, he has not given the remotest indication that the Government take this matter as seriously as they should. I wish to divide your Lordships' House.
6.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Airedale, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Avebury, L.

Judd, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Parry, L.

Cobbold, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

[Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Guildford, Bp.

Underhill, L.

Hampton, L.

White, B.

Hamwee, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ampthill, L.

Denham, L.

Arran, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Astor, V.

Elibank, L.

Auckland, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Balfour, E.

Elton, L.

Belstead, L.

Erne, E.

Blake, L.

Ferrers, E.

Blatch, B.

Flather, B.

Blyth, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Gridley, L.

Brookes, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Byron, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Henley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Carnock, L.

Hives, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hooper, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Howe, E.

Coleraine, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Craigavon, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kenilworth, L.

174

Kimball, L.

Reay, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Renton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Renwick, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Liverpool, E.

Savile, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lyell, L.

Selsdon, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Shannon, E.

Macfarlane of Beardsden, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Marlesford, L.

Stockton, E.

Merrivale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mersey, V.

Strange, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Morris, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mottistone, L.

[Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Sudeley, L.

Munster, E.

Teviot, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nelson, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Norfolk, D.

Trumpington, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Ullswater, V.

Orkney, E.

Vivian, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Waddington, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wharton, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

Quinton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.4 p.m.
Clause 3 [Part-time education, and full-time education for those over 18]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 28A:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert:
("(c) long term and short term residential educational opportunities for mature adults at both further and higher education levels.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 28A I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 30. Both amendments are concerned with long- and short-term residential education but Amendment No. 30 is rather wider than Amendment No. 28A.
In Committee we spoke in some detail about long-term residential colleges and their future. I want to return to that subject. There was consensus in Committee about the value of the work of the long-term residential colleges. Those of us involved with the earlier amendment were grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government recognise the unique place which those colleges hold in the education system. We were also grateful to him for underlining the Government's firm belief that the colleges have a role to play in the new sectors of further and higher education. Nevertheless, as I said when I withdrew my earlier amendment, despite the Minister's assurances, there was still doubt as to whether or not the colleges would be able to fulfil all the functions which they currently undertake.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy spoke with great conviction about the special role which the colleges perform in higher education, not just in providing access to higher education but in higher education itself through their ability to recognise and directly develop academic potential without regard to

175
previous academic qualifications. He also spoke of their preference for students involved in community work.
Amendment No. 28A attempts to ensure that the residential colleges will be able to continue with all the aspects of education with which they are presently concerned. I have in mind in particular the work of Ruskin College and its two-year diploma course.
In Committee the Minister promised that guidance would be given to the funding councils that the distinctive characteristics of those institutions must be fully taken into account. We welcomed that. It will be most helpful. Nevertheless it does not tell us now, nor does the Bill, what the mechanics for carrying that out will be. Amendment No. 28A is intended to make clear that both the further and the higher education aspects of residential education will be continued.
The amendment also refers to short-term residential opportunities. That is a function which the long-term residential colleges also perform and perform very effectively, as do the short-term residential colleges, which were not mentioned during the Committee stage. I should like to refer briefly to their work, which is also covered by Amendment No. 30.
There is an association of adult residential colleges which represents 24 colleges offering short-term courses of between two and seven days' duration in a wide variety of vocational and non-vocational subjects. The association has indicated that that programme is one of intensive study away from the distractions of home and family commitments in a supportive and caring environment. It is particularly suited to women and those who are approaching or who have reached the age of retirement and who are often unable to attend weekly day or evening classes. That applies particularly in the case of women because of their family or other commitments. The association is concerned that the current provision of both vocational and non-vocational courses in the residential colleges will not be protected under the Bill. That is largely because, by their very nature, the short-term colleges attract students from all parts of the country. Most of the courses attract over 50 per cent. of their students from other parts of the country in addition to the students coming from within the local authority area in which the short-term residential college is based. They therefore perform an important function in adult education and it is proper that we should take account of their needs. They are included under both Amendments Nos. 28A and 30.
In Committee the Minister said that it was not appropriate to refer to the long-term residential colleges because we were singling out a particular type of institution which, as he said, important though they are, are only a small part of the FE sector. Amendment No. 30 refers to four aspects of adult education: the long-term residential courses, the short-term residential courses, the WEA and the four London colleges. In that respect, when one takes account of the colleges of further education and the range of voluntary adult education, we more or less encompass in the Bill the whole range of education for
176
adults. It is therefore appropriate that the amendments should be included in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will accept them. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name is to these amendments and I should very much like to support my noble friend.
We said a great deal about residential colleges at the last stage and they were pleased with the vote of confidence that they received in the debate in Committee, but they are still extremely anxious about certain aspects. I should like to ask again about student numbers. I mentioned last time that Coleg Harlech had more or less been informed by the Welsh Office that it would not be allowed to increase its numbers. There was some reassurance from the Minister, but I should like to ask again about that.
All the colleges are still anxious about whether they will be properly funded to enable them to continue all the different work that they do. I gather that they would like a guarantee that the funding councils will continue to fund all core aspects of their work at both further and higher education levels, including training for citizenship and participation, in line with their missions. That would be in parallel with the reply that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, gave to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on 21st November last year offering a similar guarantee in relation to the WEA. He said at cols. 1124–5;
"There is therefore no question of the Government's proposals reducing the WEA's public subsidy. I can give the noble Earl an assurance that the funding council will be able to fund all aspects of the WEA's work, not just those courses listed in Schedule 2".
I understand that that is the assurance that the residential colleges would like from the Minister tonight.
I should like to say a word more about short-term residential colleges which have been mentioned by my noble friend because we did not say very much about those in Committee. I have received a communication which shows that there is a good deal of anxiety, particularly because the colleges supply short courses for people outside their own area, which means that people must attend on a residential basis in order to take the courses. They want the work of the short-term colleges to be protected by inserting into the Bill a requirement for local education authorities to maintain the current provision of residential adult education courses in short-term residential colleges. Alternatively, they would like to seek direct financing of short-term residential colleges from the FEFC, but it is critical that that funding should be for the whole range of activities carried out in the colleges and not merely for those areas of work covered by Schedule 2 to the Bill.
I hope that, although the amendments may not be ideally drafted to cover the colleges, the spirit in which they have been tabled might be accepted by the Government and we may therefore have a little more guarantee and reassurance than we had last time.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, perhaps I may rise briefly to support, at the very least, the spirit of the amendments for the simple reason that anything that ensures a wide variety of educational opportunity should be supported. That is especially so with regard to the provision of a residential college for mature students so that they may undertake what are in many cases non-structured and non-conventional courses. That is surely a great contribution to the educational opportunities available to the whole of our community and it should therefore be supported.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am most grateful to my two noble friends who have spoken to these amendments. For obvious reasons, looking at the clock, I do not want to detain the House, but I should like strongly to support the arguments that they have put forward.
As some of your Lordships know, I have had almost a lifelong association with the Welsh residential college, Coleg Harlech. We are still anxious about how far we shall be controlled in what we are supposed to be doing. For example, many of us believe that it would be far better to allow us to continue with certain two-year academic courses in the residential college. We have made arrangements with various universities—not every one in the United Kingdom, but with a number of them—whereby anyone who takes the university-controlled diploma and reaches a sufficient standard will be accepted by the university as a second-year student. In other words, he or she will spend two years in the residential college and only two years obtaining a degree.
The proportion of our students who go on to higher education is very high. It is foolish to expect many of them to spend their first year with a lot of young people who have just left the sixth form and are trying to manage their bank accounts. It is far better for such people to have the extra person-to-person, or at any rate fairly small group, education in the residential college and to have the two years there and the two years in the university than to do it the other way round and say, "You can do it for one year, but not for two. That is extravagant". If you know the kind of people who come to the long-term residential colleges, you know perfectly well that for the majority of them two years at college and two years at university is a much better bet.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, both the amendments concern the long-term residential colleges and the short-term residential colleges which, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and other noble Lords, we did not discuss quite so much last time. The second amendment—Amendment No. 30—also concerns the Workers' Educational Association and the four specialist adult colleges in London.
The long-term residential colleges, the WEA and the four London colleges are all to be designated for funding by the further education councils under Clause 28. The short-term residential colleges will either continue under the auspices of their local education authority or, if they offer the kind of
178
provision that would come under Schedule 2, they may apply for funding by the councils under Clause 6(5).
At the risk of repetition, perhaps I may say a few words of amplification in that respect. The six long-term residential colleges—Ruskin, Plater, Hillcroft, Fircroft, Co-operative and Northern—were reviewed earlier this year by the Department of Education and Science. In the light of the review, Ministers recognised the unique place that those colleges hold in providing residential education for adults who have missed out during their school years. The Government decided that it would be appropriate for the colleges to enter the new further education sector. That will happen under Clause 28. It will enable their needs for capital funding, for example, to be considered alongside those of other colleges. Similar decisions were reached in respect of Coleg Harlech in Wales.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, made a point about whether the funding council will support all kinds of courses in the long-term residential colleges. When looking at the results of the review, my colleagues in the department believed that there was some scope for sharpening the focus of the colleges' work. After all, things have changed as the years have gone by. There are now many routes into education for adults. There are many opportunities to undertake study in vocational or academic areas and if necessary in basic skills before that. Entry to higher education for adults has become easier. Ministers therefore believed that the long-term residential colleges needed to make the best use of their specialist strengths. That is why the colleges were asked to concentrate on assisting access to higher education for students without conventional academic qualifications who are most in need of residential education. The colleges were also asked to provide courses in which the residential element generally lasts no more than a year and a greater number of short courses so as to increase the number of students who benefit from their facilities.
Noble Lords will forgive me repeating it but this should all be seen as a vote of confidence in the long-term residential colleges. The Government firmly believe that they have an important role to play in the new sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, repeated, we shall make clear in guidance to the funding councils that the distinctive characteristics of those institutions is to be taken fully into account.
The noble Baroness specifically mentioned the apprehensions of Ruskin College over the future of its courses. My understanding is that the college is ready to accept the idea that its residential facilities should be used for only one year by each student as a means of increasing throughput. We welcome that. However, the Government remain firmly of the view that the business of the long-term residential colleges in general and Ruskin in particular should be the provision of courses aimed at people with no or few formal qualifications. Consequently, we have some difficulty with Ruskin's proposals for a one-year course at a level equivalent to the second year of its

179
existing course, with progression routes from other forms of further education and for diplomas which rely on a high entry standard.
On the other hand, it will be for Ruskin to negotiate with the Further Education Funding Council for England over its role in the new sector. It will also be open to the college to apply to the higher education funding council for funding certain courses. In short, the Bill allows Ruskin and indeed the other colleges a considerable degree of flexibility.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, specifically mentioned Coleg Harlech. Among the many points which the noble Baroness made was one about the level of student numbers for the future and the amount of control that it seemed there was to be over it. I am advised that Coleg Harlech will be free to negotiate over student numbers with the Welsh funding council in exactly the same way as the English colleges. I understand that the Welsh Office has asked the college to plan on the basis that student numbers will be held at a certain level. I believe that the figure is 140 full-time equivalent students. Bearing in mind the present level of numbers, we believe that that sounds entirely sensible but the figure should certainly not be regarded as being set in stone.
Perhaps I may say a brief word about the short-term colleges. Many are directly run by local education authorities and the position on their funding is not different from that of non-residential adult colleges. Incidentally, this is an area in which we are not changing the situation. Let us not forget that the Secretary of State has given an important undertaking—important so far as short-term colleges are concerned—over the funding of adult education for the future. Other short-term colleges are run by voluntary organisations or trusts and some are university centres.
Where short-term residential colleges are run by voluntary bodies, it will be open to them, as at present, to seek support from LEAs for the provision they make which falls within the LEAs' remit. As I said, Clause 6(5) of the Bill is available to them if they seek support for any provision which may previously have been supported by LEAs but which will in future fall within the remit of the funding councils. It will also be open to the voluntary bodies to explore direct with the funding councils the possibility of designation under Clause 28 where they believe that Clause 6(5) is not appropriate to them. So the Bill will not alter the position of the short-term residential colleges.
Amendment No. 28A refers to residential educational opportunities at both further and higher education levels. The noble Baroness will forgive me but I do not think it appropriate to require the further education funding councils to secure the provision of higher education. We remain firmly of the view that the business of the long-term residential colleges in particular should be the provision of courses aimed at people with no or few formal qualifications.
On the other hand, it will be for the colleges themselves to negotiate with the councils over their role in the new sector. It will also be open to them to apply to the higher education funding council for
180
funding certain courses. In short, once again the Bill allows quite a lot of flexibility so far as concerns the long-term residential colleges.
Amendment No. 30 refers to the Workers' Educational Association and the four specialist adult colleges in London. I shall not speak about the WEA because, as the noble Baroness said, I have given an assurance, I believe, on two previous occasions. The Further Education Funding Council for England will be taking over that part of the WEA's funding now handled by the DES—over £2 million a year. The council for Wales will be taking over funding from the Welsh Office. The councils will be empowered to fund all aspects of the WEA's work, not just those courses listed in Schedule 2.
The LEAs also fund the WEA and in the past two years there has been an education support grant for that purpose in England. The grant will continue in 1992–93. We shall then consider whether it needs to continue longer in order fully to embed the funding for the WEA in LEAs' programmes. We believe it right that LEAs should fund the WEA to assist it in its duty of providing further education for adults. We believe that they will want to do so.
The four specialist adult colleges in London are the City Lit, Morley, Mary Ward and the Working Mens' College. I emphasise again that the future of those institutions within the new sector is secure. The Government recognise that they have a regional role in providing courses of all kinds for adults, not just those courses in Schedule 2. The council for England will be able to fund them in respect of all their provision and we do not look to them to make big changes.
Clause 3 is about the general duty on the councils to provide for the further education needs of adults. The councils will look to the long-term residential colleges, the WEA and the other specialist colleges to help fulfil that duty. That is why those institutions are to be included in the new sector. I must say, coming finally to the amendments, that I do not believe it is appropriate to write in special mention of those institutions as the amendments seek to do. I know I repeat my words but such action would single out institutions which form only a small part of the sector when the Government firmly expect that the funding councils will deal fairly with all the institutions in the sector.
I hope that what I have said quite extensively is an assurance that that is exactly what will happen. I apologise for speaking at some length but I know that this is an important matter. That is why it has been raised again. I know also that these are amendments tabled in earnest and that if I did not give proper replies, they would almost certainly be pressed. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press them.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care that he has taken over the amendments. I am sure that there will be some feeling of relief in certain quarters as a result of the Minister's assurances. Nevertheless they are just assurances. The noble Lord has not been prepared to accept the inclusion of anything in the Bill.

181
Perhaps I may just pick up two points in the Minister's remarks. One concerns the position of the short-term colleges. He said that they are not greatly different from the non-residential colleges. The major difference is that they cater to a much greater extent for people who are beyond the local government authority. That is a principle which the Minister recognised in relation to the four London colleges, which he accepted provide a regional service. The other short-term residential colleges very often provide not just a regional service but also a national service.
On long-term residential colleges, the Minister concluded by saying that it would be wrong to pick them out because they represent only a small part of education. It is precisely for that reason that those colleges are anxious to have their functions and responsibilities included in the Bill. They are a small part of education. They will find it difficult to compete with some of the larger institutions in the further education sector. They will find it difficult to compete with the universities and polytechnics—whatever they are called—in the higher sector.
It would have alleviated their fears considerably if the Minister had accepted the amendment. I am sorry that he has not. In view of that, I must test the opinion of the House.
7.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 28A) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 79.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Airedale, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Parry, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Combermere, V.

Rochester, L.

Craigavon, V.

Russell, E.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Shepherd, L.

Desai, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Galpern, L.

Tordoff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

[Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Grey, E.

White, B.

Hampton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Byron, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Auckland, L.

Carnock, L.

Balfour, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Belstead, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Blatch, B.

Coleraine, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Denham, L.

Brookes, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Butterworth, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

182

Elton, L.

Munster, E.

Ferrers, E.

Norfolk, D.

Flather, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gridley, L.

Rea, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Harvington, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Selsdon, L.

Hives, L.

Shannon, E.

Hooper, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Howe, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Joseph, L.

Strange, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Liverpool, E.

[Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ullswater, V.

Marlesford, L.

Vivian, L.

Mersey, V.

Waddington, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wharton, B.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

Mountevans, L.

*[The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 79 names. The Clerks recorded 80 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.39 p.m.
[Amendment No. 29 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Report stage resume again at 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
London Regional Transport has a great responsibility to the public to provide transport to meet passengers' needs in Greater London safely and efficiently. Unfortunately, millions of pounds are being lost every year because of the evasion of fares. Members in this House have always been keen on the idea of a penalty fares Bill and they passed a Bill through all its stages in this House. However, it was lost because it ran out of time in the other place when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is in the Chamber tonight, dealt with the matter as Minister.
It is extremely important that those people who use the system and pay for its service should not be defrauded by others who are unwilling to pay their fares. According to the annual survey, it has been calculated that about £12 million a year is now being lost on the Underground and an additional £17 million on the buses. Although as a direct result of

183
measures recently taken on the Underground the level of fraud has reduced, the losses are still far too high. It is generally accepted that further measures are therefore needed.
The Bill has been through all its stages in the other place and it is hoped that it will become law. It is similar to a measure passed in 1989 giving penalty fare powers to British Rail. The pilot penalty fares scheme of British Rail has reduced the number of people travelling without tickets by around 90 per cent. in the year following implementation. There are plans to extend the scheme throughout Network SouthEast.
As was the case for British Rail, before the measure can be introduced the Secretary of State has to be satisfied on a number of points. I shall not go into detail but they include adequate staffing, sufficient ticket machines, arrangements for monitoring defective machines and the provision of inspectors. There is an appeals procedure for disputed cases. I hope that the Minister will confirm the Secretary of State's responsibilities.
It is at last possible to produce extremely reliable and effective passenger-operated ticket machines. These are able to provide change and are now available at all Underground stations. Ticket machines are currently available 99.9 per cent. of the time. There are never fewer than two machines at any station and at busy stations there are many more. As a result of modern technology it will be more straightforward to reduce the incidence of fraud.
The present maximum single fare on LRT is £3.40 and a penalty of £10 is suggested in relation to that. The charges have been set because of the lower charges on the buses and the Docklands Light Railway.
Staff involvement is essential to the success of penalty fares and staff will be fully consulted. Fraud has increased substantially in recent years. It would be quite wrong to allow those who wish to indulge in fraud to get away with it at the expense of the fare-paying passenger. At the same time, it is important that we ensure that genuine travellers who are not trying to evade the fare will not be penalised due to an error in the system. If a passenger is unable to pay his fare, the penalty fare will not apply if he can prove that no ticket was available at the station. If a passenger states that he could not buy a ticket, the onus of proof at that stage will be on London Transport. It must prove that the passenger was not telling the truth in saying that the station was closed, that no one was available to sell a ticket or that the machine was out of order.
I have checked the systems and have discovered that British Rail has a permit-to-travel system whereby one can obtain a permit even if one cannot buy a ticket. I asked why that system was not considered by LRT. Apparently its new technology is so good that it will be possible instantly through the central computer system to know whether a passenger is telling the truth in saying that a machine is out of order or that no station staff are available. However, if the passenger wishes to raise one of those reasons after the incident, he has 21 days from the day after the completion of the journey in which to do so. Only then
184
comes the transfer of the burden of proof. The burden of proof first lies upon London Transport. However, if the passenger does not respond with an explanation instantly or within 21 days, the burden of proof will then rest upon him. Clearly, the instantaneous system of checking will not be available 21 days later.
It is important that the measure is introduced as soon as possible in order to make a substantial contribution towards the income of LRT. Recovery of the money that is at present being lost will be of benefit to all other passengers. Penalty fares will act as a deterrent to fraud. More people will find it wiser and cheaper to pay the proper fare. Recovery of the extra ticket revenue must be of benefit to all London Transport passengers. I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
7.46 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for explaining the purpose of the Bill. I must make it clear that I speak from the Dispatch Box in a personal capacity; my remarks are my own. I have no intention of opposing the Bill. My remarks are intended to be helpful and I wish to make some points which the Select Committee might consider.
I have read the Second Reading debate which took place in the other place on 9th July last year. I noticed in particular the points raised by Mr. Tony Banks, the Member for Newham North-West, and Mr. Harry Cohen, the Member for Leyton. Both appear to be regular users of London Underground. I recognise the serious nature of the problem as explained by the noble Baroness and by Mr. Neil Thorne, the Member for Ilford South, who piloted the Bill through the Commons.
The figures to which the noble Baroness referred were accepted by the Minister, Mr. Roger Freeman. However, I should be interested to know exactly how they were obtained. The firms which conducted the surveys stated that they could not give a precise figure of loss. One can readily understand that. The surveys or the monitoring carried out must indicate what evasion takes place, the nature of the evasion and the steps that must be taken to counter it. I understand that the Minister said that the Bill was closely based on the recommendations of a working party set up in May 1986, almost five years ago.
I note the Bill provides that before the procedure can be implemented on any particular route an activating order must be made by the Secretary of State. The Minister stressed that before an order is made and the scheme proceeds there must be fair and workable conditions. During the debate the Minister, Mr. Freeman, stated:
"the Secretary of State will need to be assured that satisfactory arrangements exist for staffing ticket offices and for monitoring and repairing ticket machines".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/91; col. 845.]
Noble Lords will recall that I have sometimes been critical of the ticket barriers. However, I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who assured me that under the new regulations a member of staff

185
had to be on hand. There has been a great improvement in the Underground stations which I have visited.
Nevertheless, I understand that following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on London Underground, a survey indicated that 45 per cent. of the people questioned said that they were regular travellers who had experienced difficulties with regard to ticket barriers. I recognise that there must be a need to use staff as fully as possible both in the interests of efficiency and staff satisfaction. However, in the debate in another place Mr. Tony Banks suggested that the diminution in staff numbers is one of the most obvious reasons for fare evasion. We should take note of that.
Both Members of Parliament from east London gave instances of stations without staff. They stated that it depended upon the time at which they were travelling. There are problems also at stations without ticket machines. Moreover, there are ticket machines which cannot deal with, for example, concessionary fare tickets. Of course problems are also created when stations are closed.
In previous debates in this House I have referred to my personal experiences. I intended to travel today by tube from my local station but it was closed. It is closed at certain periods of the day. That can only be due to inadequate numbers of staff. It may be argued that the people who live at Buckhurst Hill are so respectable that it would be worth the risk of losing a little money rather than paying staff to man the booking office.
There has been a problem also when the booking office at Buckhurst Hill station has been closed, particularly in the height of the tourist season, as regards paying the excess fare. One must join a queue of 20 or 30 people in order to pay a fare which one wanted to pay at Buckhurst Hill but could not because the station was not manned.
The Members of Parliament in another place said that in their experience evasion took place mainly after six o'clock at night. They emphasised, as I do, that adequate training must be given as regards inspections carried out on trains. There is a problem about inspections at peak periods. I use the Central Line. I can assure your Lordships that no ticket inspector could possibly go along the train to inspect tickets at peak periods. The question of congestion on trains must be looked into carefully if the aims of the Bill are to be carried out in the way we should like.
I turn now to the problem of unmanned stations. Because I cannot get a taxi at Buckhurst Hill station I go to the next station where I can get a taxi. I cannot recall an occasion in the past two months when there has been anyone to receive my ticket at Loughton station. Again, that can only be due to the inability of London Transport to engage the necessary staff. One presumes that that is for financial reasons.
Where there has been an inspector, I have always found him to be extremely courteous and he has done his job in a proper manner. I have no criticism as regards that. However, I do not know how one deals with the problem of inspection on trains during peak
186
periods. I believe that it is necessary to rely solely upon the ticket barriers at peak periods and if there is a problem with them that creates great difficulties.
I refer also to the problems raised by Mr. Harry Cohen, the MP for Leyton. I appreciated the fact that the agents for the Bill and representatives of London buses and London Transport met me to discuss the points which had been raised in the course of the Second Reading debate in another place and which were referred to by Mr. Neil Thorne. Noble Lords may ask why I am interested in the points raised by Mr. Cohen. For the first 34 years of my life I lived in Leyton and for 11 of those years I was the honorary secretary/organiser of the constituency party organisation. When I travel by car I travel through Leyton along Lea Bridge Road, which is one of the problems to which I shall refer. I do not expect the Minister to be in a position to deal with the details of the bus services going through Leyton and along Lea Bridge Road. However, it may be useful to repeat the points here so that the Select Committee may take a careful look at them.
Noble Lords may ask why I raise these points because the question of bus services has nothing to do with penalty fares. However, if one has to change buses because they are no longer running as far as one wishes to go, there is a possibility of fare evasion.
Mr. Cohen complained in particular of the fact that services 38 and 55 have been cut out. The arguments given to me by the representatives of London buses is that most people using those routes to central London start their journey from Islington and only 8 per cent. use the service from Leyton through to central London. It is argued also that Lea Bridge Road is served by routes 46 and 58 and that route 48 still runs into the City and covers much of the old route 38 as far as Islington. However, if one has to change from one bus to another the possibility of fare evasion arises.
I was surprised to read that Mr. Neil Thorne, in the Second Reading debate in the other place, argued that the changes in cutting out buses had improved reliability and that it had benefited more passengers than it had affected adversely because of bus links being broken. I do not wish to use this occasion for a political argument but it seems to me an irony that if buses are cut out things run more smoothly. That is a point which we must remember as regards the deregulation of buses in London. However, that is a political point which is not concerned with the Bill this evening.
It is suggested also that the reason for cutting out the buses, which has been done on certain routes, including Lea Bridge Road and Leyton, is traffic congestion. There is traffic congestion along parts of Lea Bridge Road, but if buses are cut out where do the passengers go? Are they using the buses which remain and thus causing further congestion on those buses? It cannot be argued that people in the area can use the Underground because it is a long walk from the area of Lea Bridge Road to Leyton station to catch a Central Line train to Walthamstow Central on the Victoria Line. It would provide those people with a good excuse to give their bosses for being late for

187
work. Alternatively, having found out that buses have been cut on those routes, are people using their cars —which is exactly what we do not want them to do?
When I travel by car, as I do sometimes, although I endeavour to use the Underground whenever possible, there is congestion along Lea Bridge Road. It occurs mainly—again I do not expect the Minister to know these local details but they may be useful for the purposes of the Select Committee —from Whipps Cross roundabout to the Bakers Arms and sometimes as far as Markhouse Corner. The congestion is usually caused by cars parked alongside the road. There is a garage with cars for sale and there are usually about nine or 10 cars parked along the road. It is a road which carries not only buses but also commercial lorries. That is the problem; but it is not a justification for taking off those buses.
The main speech of the Minister in the other place came early on and therefore unfortunately no arguments were advanced either from the promoter of the Bill or from the Minister. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with many of the points raised tonight, though I do not expect him to deal with the detail. However, I hope that those are points of which the Select Committee will take note bearing in mind that my purpose is to see that the Bill is successful. I believe that the points I have raised are relevant.
8 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we on these Benches—on this occasion I speak for my party on the matter since I am obviously in no danger of contradiction—support the system of penalty fares for London transport. It is blatantly unfair that those travellers who buy tickets should subsidise those who do not. It is also unfair to the taxpayers who subsidise the system.
As the noble Baroness carefully pointed out, the system must not be unfair to the passengers themselves. It must operate in a fair way and be seen to operate in a fair way. It must be seen particularly that all care is taken to ensure that passengers can obtain a ticket before embarking on a journey. If for any reason a passenger cannot, that fact must be easy to check. I should therefore appreciate it if we could be told how, there being no facilities available for the sale of the necessary fare, that situation will be interpreted.
The noble Baroness appeared to have a touching faith in modern technology. It is not always shared by those of us who must rely on it. There are many cases, of which probably all noble Lords have experience, when it is impossible to obtain a ticket before travelling; for instance, where the station is not attended either officially or sometimes, I fear, unofficially for shorter periods of time, or where the change-giving machines are not working. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised the question of concessionary fare availability. That is important.
I am delighted that there will be instantaneous checking of facilities so that the inspector can be informed. However, will the inspector on the train know? Will he possess a portable machine by which he
188
is able to plug into the central computer? Or will the system depend on his obtaining a name and address and being able to check up when he reaches a station.
I am delighted to hear that in the first instance the burden of proof will be on the authority and not on the passenger. I am dubious about whether it is impossible to check back. Given this wonderful new system, which records what facilities are available on any station on the London Underground system, I should have thought the keeping of records for a limited amount of time would not strain the system too much. The onus of proof could then stay on the authority.
Those are all matters of detail which must be carefully checked at the Committee stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I hope that the Minister, and possibly the noble Baroness, will be able to give some of the answers to the questions I have raised. In the meantime we support the principle of the Bill.
8.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner for so ably introducing the Bill. I am pleased to take this opportunity to set out the Government's attitude to it.
The Government support the LRT (Penalty Fares) Bill before us today as they have LRT's previous Bills. It must be right that those travelling on London Transport's services who deliberately set out not to pay the correct fare should be discouraged from doing so. That is the purpose of the Bill.
Your Lordships may be aware from debates we have had in this House on previous LRT Bills that LRT already has powers to operate penalty fares under the London Regional Transport Act 1984 and the London Docklands Railways Act of 1984, 1985 and 1986. But because there was dissatisfaction with those powers, the Government established a working group in 1986 to review the principles which should apply to penalty fares schemes on public transport. The Bill currently before us has been closely based on the recommendations of the working group.
Your Lordships will know that there have been other Bills with penalty fares provisions which have been approved by Parliament. But your Lordships, quite rightly, will be concerned that the principles of a fair and reasonable penalty system are properly reflected in the current LRT Bill and that honest passengers are fully protected.
I do not wish to comment in detail on the Bill, but there is one important aspect I should like your Lordships to bear in mind. In order for the powers within this Bill to come into effect my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will have to issue an activating order. My noble friend Lady Gardner referred to that, as did the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Beaumont. I can assure your Lordships that no such order will be issued unless the scheme proposed is fair and workable. The sort of things my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be looking for before he makes any activation order are whether all the necessary arrangements are in place to operate the scheme and

189
to protect honest passengers from being penalised if no opportunity to buy a ticket has been provided. That was a point also made by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Beaumont.
My right honourable friend will also need to be satisfied that there are adequate publicity arrangements to inform passengers about the rules and that procedures for disputes and appeals are in place. In addition he will need to be assured that satisfactory arrangements exist for staffing ticket offices and monitoring and repairing ticket machines; also that ticket inspectors are properly trained to operate the scheme, that they are deployed appropriately and that they have proper identification. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Beaumont.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that it would seem strange—and difficult to justify to passengers and taxpayers alike—if this latest penalty fares Bill from London Transport were to be blocked when Parliament has approved similar provisions for other operators. I hope that your Lordships will support the Bill.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate. I am interested in the points that have been raised. To reply to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in the first instance the question of concessionary fares and machines not being effective for that purpose is one which London Transport may have to consider. It may be that something on the lines of a machine where one can at least obtain some form of ticket, is the answer. I am in favour of that, but there will have to be consideration of whether it is a practical proposition. If one could obtain something from a machine which states the station, the time and the date, then at least one would have established that although one was not able to obtain a concessionary fare, at least one had proof of being at that station. A concessionary fare would then be available.
The noble Lord asks whether inspectors can manage on the trains. I have seen inspectors on busy central London tube lines in the morning. It is interesting that the people who do not possess tickets are always greatly embarrassed. Knowing that the penalty fares Bill passed this House, I am always annoyed that passengers are never charged more than the cost of the standard ticket when it clearly costs a substantial amount to have someone there checking the situation. If this Bill goes through I am pleased that there will not only be someone checking but also that a penalty will be imposed. That is the important deterrent. I have seen inspectors at work on the central London tube in the peak hour and the system seems to work quite well.
The noble Lord raised the matter of Lea Bridge Road. I too read the debate in the other House and saw that this matter was a subject of interest. I enquired as to the present position. As the noble Lord said, although the issue is not strictly within the lines
190
of this Bill, it was raised in the earlier debate and it has now been raised again. I believe that it will help to place on record the present position.
London Transport has said that it will reconsider the issue of through services between Leyton and central London when bus priority measures have been introduced in Lea Bridge Road. The London borough of Waltham Forest is the traffic authority responsible for bus priority measures of this kind in Lea Bridge Road. London Transport's bus priority unit has held discussions with the London borough of Waltham Forest over developing bus priority measures. A design brief, setting out the area to be studied and the problems to be addressed, has been drawn up and invitations to consultants to tender for the work have been advertised. It is expected that a contract will be let shortly and the successful consultants are expected to start work by the beginning of March 1992. That sounds as if some progress is being made.
I feel very strongly about the point made concerning changing buses and how that is an encouragement to evade fares. It is usually much more expensive to have to take two short trips on buses than if one bus goes all the way. The decision to make bus runs shorter was taken to avoid traffic congestion. I can understand the reason. It is time that London Transport looked into the systems that work in other countries where there is a continuation ticket. For example, if one gets on the bus at Oxford Circus and one wants to go past Hyde Park Corner, although the bus finishes there, one has to pay quite a high amount to get as far as Hyde Park Corner. If one were able to use that ticket and to pay only the difference between that and what one would have paid if the one bus had gone all the way, that would be much fairer to the public. Because it would be fairer, there would be less cause for evasion. All the transfer ticket systems work very well, particularly in New York where I am most familiar with the system. These are all matters that should be considered over the years and I shall certainly do all I can to urge that they be considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked about the burden of proof. I wish to clarify that so that there is no doubt about it. In the first instance I may not have been 100 per cent. accurate. Clause 5 of the Bill deals with a person who becomes liable for a penalty fare which is disputed because he says,
"there were no facilities available for the sale of the necessary fare ticket"
either at the London Underground station or the British Rail station where his journey started, or there was a notice or an authorisation of the kind described —that is to say, a notice saying that one can travel without a ticket. In that situation, if the passenger explains to the ticket inspector at the time he is required to produce a ticket that he has not got one for any of the reasons I have just mentioned, then it is for London Transport to prove that the passenger is not correct.
The noble Lord hoped, and reading the Bill I believe it is the case, that if the passenger is given a notice to pay the penalty fare and he gives an explanation within 21 days of his failure to produce a ticket, based on the reasons I have outlined, it remains

191
for London Transport to prove that the statement is not correct. I believe that that is what the noble Lord asked about. The onus of proof changes in a case where a passenger does not provide a statement at the time that he is "caught" or within 21 days. It is then for him to prove that the facts do fall within the grounds I have described. I believe the situation is as the noble Lord put it. I believe that I am able to confirm that that is the situation.
I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. There is the prospect of benefit to all Londoners who use our very valuable transport system. Penalty fares will deal with the opportunist or foolish traveller who believes that it is smart not to pay. I hope that the extra revenue will be of benefit to all. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.16 to 8.40 p.m.]

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 3.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 30A:
Page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) In respect of education of the type to which paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above refer, and to which section 41(1) of the Education Act 1944 as amended applies, a council may—

(a) secure the provision for their area of such facilities as appear to them to be appropriate for meeting the needs of the population of their area; and

(b) do anything which appears to them to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of or in connection with such provision").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as the Minister indicated before adjournment, this amendment relates to the general duties of the funding councils and is intended to try to clarify the responsibilities and the position of the funding councils in relation to these general duties.
The specific duties of the funding councils are quite clear under Schedule 2 of the Bill. However, the general duties are very much less clear. The Bill that is presently before us is rather obscure. I am referring to Clause 3, subsections (3) and (4). Both appear to create a power to secure the provision of a kind to which the duty of the funding council does not specifically extend, but it does so by reference to the subsection which formally defines the duty in the first place; that is, subsection (1) of Clause 3. Subsection (3) states:
"A council may secure the provision of facilities for education to which subsection (1) above applies where they are not under a duty to do so".
One wonders exactly what that means. It would be helpful if the Minister in his response could be more specific.
We have had experience in the debate already today —and certainly we had experience in Committee—of the confusion that appears to exist between knowing
192
what the duties of local education authorities are, and the duties of the funding councils in particular, in relation to part-time education. I refer, for instance, to the position of Bradford College which is currently providing courses from basic literacy through to adult education, vocational education and higher education. Some of this work is on a part-time basis and some is on a full-time basis.
The problems which this college and similar colleges face in interpreting Clause 3 are considerable. It appears that colleges will have to apply to the local education authority for some funding and to the further education funding councils for every single course in which they are involved. That appears to be the position under the clause as it is at present; but as I say, the clause itself is not very specific. Because of the difficulties of the overlapping powers and duties between the funding councils and the local education authorities it is of considerable importance that the extent of these powers and duties should be clearly expressed in the Bill and that any risk of duplication or lack of provision through the confusion, which the Bill at the moment appears to create, should be put right.
My amendment attempts to state quite clearly what the responsibilities would be under paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 3, together with the responsibilities which are already clearly stated under Section 41(1) of the Education Act 1944 as amended. My new paragraphs (a) and (b) state quite clearly what the responsibilities of the funding councils should be. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, subsection (3) of Clause 3 enables the funding councils to provide for people who are not part of the population of their areas. The amendment would mean that the council for England, for example, would no longer have clear powers to provide for Scottish or French people living in England. I am sure that that is not what the amendment intends. Moreover, the amendment seeks to give the councils a power to provide education of the kind listed in Schedule 2 when under subsection (1) of Clause 3 they already have a duty. It does not therefore entirely fulfil what is at present intended in the Bill.
The noble Baroness queried the wording at the end of subsection (3) where the words "they are not under a duty to do so" are contained. I give a reassurance that the funding councils do have the powers that are concerning the noble Baroness in this part of her amendment. Under Clause 5(1) the funding councils may fund governing bodies of institutions in the further education sector for the provision of facilities for all types of further education, not just those which the councils have a duty to provide, and for the carrying on of any activities which the governing bodies consider necessary or desirable to be provided in connection with this provision of facilities.
The removal, therefore, by this amendment of subsection (3) would be extremely unfortunate, for the reasons which I gave in my opening remarks, and the power which the amendment seeks to provide is in fact contained in Clause 5(1). I hope that that meets the anxieties expressed by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation, which I followed to some extent but not completely. I shall read in Hansard tomorrow what he has said to see whether it meets completely the purpose of my amendment. My first thought is that the Bill is not as clear as my amendment would make it. However, I shall not press the amendment this evening. I should like to look more closely at what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 23, after ("by") insert ("adult education and other").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to stress that in making their arrangements the FE funding councils should have regard to Schedule 2 courses being given in their areas by adult education institutions. If the amendment is adopted it will introduce the first explicit reference in the Bill to adult education. For no obvious reason adult education has been wholly subsumed within the total caucus of further education. The fact that it caters for a different age range from most of further education, that its students are largely part time rather than full time and that their motivations, aspirations and work styles are different from those of the students of sixth form colleges or FE colleges in general is completely overlooked.
The immediate reaction to the White Paper when it appeared was that the adult education elements seemed to have been added late in the day for completeness rather than because anyone had given special thought to them. There was no reference to them in the Prime Minister's preface to the White Paper. Indeed the changes implied to the structure of adult education and the egregious division into qualification courses and leisure courses were seen to be wandering in the opposite direction to the integration aimed at in what the Prime Minister wrote. What gave great offence and showed a great lack of understanding of what education is all about was highlighted by the White Paper pronouncement that, save in deprived areas, the courses should be completely self-supporting. The storm waves were such that the intention was rapidly cast into oblivion by the Secretary of State's statement of 24th September. Since then no one in Government now confesses to having supported it in the first place—it should never have been there; but nor should the division of adult education into vocational and leisure courses and nor should other provisions relegating adult education to a second class status. They too should have been left out of the Bill.
We ask for this simple amendment to be accepted as an indication that adult education has a special integral character and a contribution all of its own. We are talking of a service which, according to the Minister, Mr. Eggar, speaking in the Commons on 24th October, has roughly the same number of students as the rest of further education put together. The same statement about numbers was made at col. 716 of Hansard on 10th December. It is a service that
194
is highly valued, has excited no criticism and is doing an essential job in a remarkably cost effective way. If there really is a reason for making it subservient to education for the 16 to 19 year-old age group it has not surfaced yet in any of the debates.
In Committee we proposed an amendment—Amendment No. 66 —at col. 580 of the Official Report for 10th December to relieve this subservience. It would have permitted adult education institutions already successfully providing Schedule 2 courses as part of their curricula to continue doing so and to be directly funded for this part of their work as the agent for their regional funding council. However, the Minister, while sympathising with the intention of the amendment, declared that it would place an awkward constraint upon the councils in performing their functions and would present difficulties of interpretation and judgment. I do not know whether that will remain his view today. Now we ask for the bare minimum.
We remain unclear as to what the phrase "have regard to" means in practice and what sanctions it entails or how the "having regard" is to be monitored; or, if that is thought to be deficient, it is to be appealed about. We fear that it does not confer a great deal of protection. If "have regard to" is nonetheless all that can be hoped for, we ask for adult education to be explicitly mentioned as a reminder that the work it is doing has to be respected and is not up for grabs.
Adult education institutions should not have to work in fear that courses they have been running successfully for a considerable time will be taken away from them or that they will be inadequately funded for them. I hope that the Minister can give a sympathetic response to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the words "shall have regard to", whether they be in primary legislation, secondary legislation or codes of practice, are in effect treated by the courts as mere words of exhortation, unenforceable, as a mandatory statutory duty, by judicial review. However, accepting that adult education has an integral character, surely it is included in the drafting,
"institutions outside the further education … or higher education sector".
If it is, what is the justification for singling out one particular institution from the generic definition?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this amendment seeks to define more closely the types of institution to which the councils would have to have regard in the fulfilment of their duty to secure the provision for adults of the types of further education mentioned in Schedule 2.
In order to fulfil this duty, the Bill requires the funding councils to have regard to—I listened to the interpretation of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway of the impact of those words—education provided by institutions outside the further education and higher education sectors. This amendment would require the councils to take into account education provided by adult education and other institutions. I quite understand why the noble Baroness, Lady David, moved the amendment. However, the difficulty

195
is that the subsection already goes wider than the proposed amendment and would already include all adult education institutions outside the further education sector.
Under Clause 3(2) (a) the councils have a duty to secure facilities which are in such places, of such character and so equipped as to meet reasonable need. In the discharge by LEAs and councils of their duties, and by further education colleges of their responsibilities, they will have to take into account the continuing accessibility of provision to local communities. One test of adequacy is that provision can be reached by the population it is meant to serve. The regional advisory committees will, moreover, have an important role in advising the funding council for England on significant local issues. They will have the job of seeing that local people are properly served. In addition, Clause 6(5) provides that adult colleges and centres which remain under the control of the LEA should be able to apply to FE colleges within the new sector for funds to support that part of their work which falls within the funding councils' remit. The FE college will forward the application to the funding council if facilities for the kind of courses in question would not otherwise be adequate in the locality. If the FE college does not forward the application, its decision will be subject to review by the Secretary of State on the usual Education Act grounds of unreasonableness or failure to perform a duty.
The purpose of these safeguards is to ensure that Schedule 2 provision—courses which fall within the scope of the funding councils' duty—continues to be accessible to local people. It is not to secure the survival of individual institutions.
I have gone into that detail because I think it was worth reminding ourselves of those safeguards. The problem with the amendment is that it does not add to the provisions that are already in the Bill. All that it seeks to achieve is already achieved by the existing wording. Although I understand why the noble Baroness has moved the amendment, I do not think it adds to the Bill. I hope, therefore, that she will consider withdrawing it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full reply. I agreed to put the amendment down because I was aware of the strong feelings in the adult education colleges among the people who work there and those who take the courses. There is still strong feeling.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, adult institutions may be included, but the people who work there wish to hear that adult education is safe. That is why I put the amendment down and why I hope that the safeguards which the Minister says are there will be recognised. I shall read what he said very carefully and I am glad I put down the amendment because it has given him an opportunity to make clear that the people in question will not be in outer darkness; they will be able to continue doing the same things. We shall come later to amendments on applying directly to the funding councils for support for the Schedule 2 courses and so on. We have put down other later amendments returning to the same point. I thank the Minister for his reply and hope that the people who
196
persuaded me to put this down will be reassured by the response. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) In discharging its functions under subsection (5) above a council shall consult local education authorities regarding the extent to which the education provided by institutions within the further education sector and the higher education sector is complementary to, and does not duplicate any educational provision made by institutions outside the further education sector of higher education sector.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is in the name of the right reverend Prelate and myself. It concerns a matter of planning and I am speaking also to Amendment No. 72. The amendments are first to Clause 3 and secondly to Clause 11 and the purpose is to ensure that the further education funding council provision and that of the LEA are co-ordinated.
Adult education has always been provided by a spread of bodies, voluntary and statutory, large and small, local, regional and national. Until now the LEA has had a strategic planning function and the duty to secure provision in its area. This duty is now divided between the funding councils and the LEA sector so it becomes essential in the interests of efficiency and economy, as well as for sensible planning, that the two sectors co-operate and co-ordinate their provision.
Cumbersome bureaucratic procedure should not be necessary but the division of functions proposed in the Bill necessarily implies new mechanisms, and some expenditure would be incurred in establishing and maintaining these. I hope that the two amendments, which are alike—both refer to further and higher education—may be taken as sensible planning arrangements so that there is no waste and there is understanding. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I ask the House whether it is correct to single out certain ways of requiring the discharge of functions which may limit the exercise of the function of discharge and exclude other aspects. As a matter of drafting, it is not a technique which is at all usual and is regarded as limiting rather than extending.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, as my name is attached to the amendment, I wish to support it. This is a matter of ensuring co-ordinated and strategic planning but the importance of that is not just for administrative convenience but in order to make sure that there is no further division than necessary between the adult education provided now under so-called leisure time activities and that which is provided which is or can be certificated. Co-ordination is essential between the providing bodies in order to secure that people can move between those two different sectors. That is its importance. It is in consumer interests and there is plenty of evidence to show that many people who start off on adult education do so tentatively and are not able with a good heart and confidence to start a course which can

197
be certificated. However, they can start with some of the less formal patterns of adult education and there must be co-ordination in order to promote the best possible interchange between these two groups. That is why I regard the amendment as important.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, says that the wording may not be as adequate or sufficient as it could be, but it is the principle that is important.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the division of duties to secure provision of further education for adults is clear in the Bill. Under the new arrangements, the duty to provide all types of course for adults will remain. The funding councils will have a duty to secure provision of a Schedule 2 type course; local education authorities will have a duty to secure provision falling outside Schedule 2. Amendments Nos. 33 and 72 would impose on the funding councils a duty to consult local education authorities to ensure that provision for adults made by institutions within the new funding councils sector did not duplicate provision made by institutions outside the new sector.
It is the Government's intention that provision for adults should certainly not be duplicated under the new structure of duties. The relevant parts of the Bill where this is set out are Clauses 3(5) and 11(7), which were drafted with precisely that intention in mind. Both the funding councils and the local education authorities will be required to have regard to provision made by institutions outside their respective sectors under Clauses 3 and 11. They therefore have a duty to be aware of and to take into account any such provision.
The funding councils and local education authorities may well wish to consult one another in the fulfilment of the duty. They may also wish to employ other methods such as gathering information directly from the institutions concerned. However, if I may say so on behalf of the Government, I see no need to prescribe the methods in legislation when it is quite clear from a reading of Clauses 3(5) and 11(7) that there is a firm intention that provision for adults should not be duplicated under the new structure of duties.
For those reasons, I genuinely believe that these two amendments are not necessary. They spell out in a detail which I believe is not necessary an intention or provision which is to be found in two separate clauses with their relevant subsections. On those grounds I resist the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am not satisfied with that reply. It may well be that the amendments could be better worded. I take the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and the Minister, and shall go back and discuss them again. I was not encouraged by what the Minister said. There will inevitably be a little duplication if people are to be served well. People could well start by doing so-called leisure classes and proceed to a subject that will be certificated. They will feel much happier if they can do it in the college that they already attend.
The Minister's description of the division of responsibility caused me some disquiet. I am not
198
altogether happy about it. I should like it to be a little more flexible. Therefore, consultations would be the right thing to have so that people know why certain courses are provided in one place instead of another. I should like to consult further about this matter as I was not happy with the reply. I do not know about the right reverend Prelate, but I should like to read what has been said, think about it, and possibly come back for a final time on Third Reading. For tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 34A:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert ("and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be reassured to hear that I do not intend to go through all the debate on this subject that we had in Committee; but as it was such an excellent debate it would be churlish of me not to take account of it. Since there are some people here who were not present on that occasion, I owe the House about a minute to explain what I am talking about.
The amendment relates to Clause 3(6), the clause which allows the Minister to vary Schedule 2 by order. It is a classic Henry VIII clause. It is a clause which allows the Minister, by regulation, to alter primary legislation. Our debate on this subject in Committee was exceptionally constructive. In particular, I take account of the point, made by several speakers, that if we are to object to such clauses we must be careful not to draft our legislation in too much detail. In fact we must, on occasion, be abstemious in making demands to put matters on the face of the Bill. That does not mean that there will never be occasions for such demands, but that we need to think twice about them.
That debate was so constructive that I even heard the word "compromise" mentioned. I am sure that if we were able to discuss this matter merely among ourselves in this Chamber we would have no difficulty in compromising; but it takes two to compromise. What I have not yet seen is any sign from Parliamentary Counsel's office that it is aware of any need to compromise on the use of these clauses. They still come thick and fast, and with no attempt made to justify their use on any particular occasion.
If we were to be persuaded that such clauses might, on some occasions, be legitimate there would have to be safeguards. There would have to be a spelling out of circumstances in which they could be used and conditions subject to which they could be used. That is something I have not yet heard coming from the Executive. We cannot merely allow them to be used whenever the Executive sees fit; because, of course, flexibility, as the Executive prefers to put it, is something which is at all times convenient to the Executive. If the Executive can use these clauses whenever it likes we are in danger of losing the special character of an Act of Parliament. So I suggest that there should be at least two principles that should be accepted in any compromise which goes forward. Both of them were originally recommended by the Donoughmore Committee.
The first, which we have not had here, and I hope that we shall if any such clause is offered to us again, is that there should be a special explanation of why we need this clause, in this place in the Bill. I do not just mean that it should be said that it provides flexibility. I mean some indication of why there is a legitimate object here which cannot otherwise be achieved.
The other point which is the subject of the amendment is that I agree profoundly with the Donoughmore Committee that the use of such clauses should always be subject to the affirmative and not the negative procedure. Changing the law, after all, is not a particularly trivial activity. If we read the Minute, we all know that after a Recess statutory instruments fall like snow in Lapland. I do not believe any of us can claim we keep up with all the negative instruments which are tabled and left to lie on the Table. If the law can be changed by a negative instrument, it can perfectly well be changed without anyone in this House knowing anything about it. I can see that that may create great flexibility but from a parliamentary point of view I do not know whether we should regard that flexibility as a good thing.
However, if the affirmative procedure is used, we at least have to be told that the Minister is changing the law. We may think that is perfectly all right. If that is the case, so much the better. No harm will have been done except the use of five minutes of the time of this House, and God knows that has happened before. Then at least we can approve a measure if it is all right or we can try to do something about it if it is not all right. As regards the use of Henry VIII clauses, that is a minimum condition. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support this amendment. I hope noble Lords will consider for a moment the form in which Schedule 2 on page 68 of the Bill is written. It states:
"The descriptions of courses of further education referred to in section 3(1) of this Act are the following".
That sentence does not mean the courses include the following. The schedule is quite specific. The drafting of the schedule is an unusual form of drafting to use when listing provisions. In that situation what does an amendment by order, as referred to in Clause 3(6), mean? It must mean either the creation of a new category or rescinding an existing category. A situation such as that is traditionally dealt with by the affirmative resolution procedure. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is totally correct in that regard. Incidentally, one would not meet in that situation the kind of problem that arises with the next amendment. However, I must not speak to that amendment at this stage.
Noble Lords will note that the form of drafting of Schedule 2 is tight. The only way to amend the existing list is either by the form of amendment to be proposed in the next amendment—to bring it on to the face of the statute—or by the creation of a new category or by rescinding an existing category. That is getting very near the function of primary legislation and assuredly should be met at all events with the affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I hope I may speak briefly to moderate the two speeches we have just heard. I am seriously worried about the amount of legislative time that is incurred by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We should recognise that both Houses of Parliament spend a far greater amount of time on that activity than any other house of legislature in any part of the world. That cannot be healthy.
If we insert affirmative resolutions in instances such as this, we would spend the best part of the year in legislative session. I do not believe that would be healthy. For myself I acknowledge that this form of words is rather inflexible. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, it is inflexible to state that the courses "are" the following measures rather than "include" the following measures. On the other hand I believe the courses constitute a list which can be changed and is meant to be changed if necessary. The next amendment on the Marshalled List standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), is an amendment such as we have been discussing. I hope the Government will accept it.
After the passing of this Bill, there should be flexibility for the Government to change the courses of further education after due consultation. The question is whether there should be any form of parliamentary control. In this case I do not honestly believe that is of crucial importance. It is of subordinate importance to the main purpose of the Bill. However, if there is to be parliamentary control—which I should like to see—it should be on the basis of the negative rather than the affirmative procedure. I should like to leave that thought with the Minister.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the amendment seeks to circumscribe the power of the Secretary of State to amend Schedule 2 to the Bill by making an amending order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I appreciate the motives of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in proposing the amendment and I should like to say a few words in reply.
The noble Earl's chief concern is that he wishes this House and another place to have the final say with regard to any changes made to the types of education which would be eligible to receive support from the funding councils. We have to ask ourselves whether this issue is one which requires the affirmative resolution procedure. Any change which the Secretary of State might seek to make in future to the provisions of Schedule 2 will be subject to negative resolution. On that point the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was extremely helpful, but on that question perhaps the noble Lord did not notice that the negative resolution procedure applies to changes to Schedule 2.
Your Lordships may well ask whether there is some sinister motive behind the Government's wish to give the Secretary of State power to modify Schedule 2 by order. That is not so. We have included the provision for reasons of sensible planning alone. Schedule 2 details the type of courses which the Government believe need to be secured at national level. The schedule as it stands has been carefully considered and I see no need to modify it immediately or often.

201
However, we must not exclude the possibility that at some future stage it might become desirable to modify Schedule 2 in order to reflect changes in the types and categories of further education available to adults and the ways in which they are described. It would be unnecessary for the Secretary of State to have to put draft proposals before Parliament under the negative resolution procedure. After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, we are concerned with a list of courses which can be changed and which it would be reasonable to expect to be changed as the years go by.
I realise that there are always two points of view on such matters. In this particular case I am not sure that this could be termed a Henry VIII clause. I very much hope that it is not because I should not like to be in charge of such a clause. Schedule 2 details the type of courses which the Government believe need to be secured at national level. That has been said again and again. My understanding of a Henry VIII clause is that it allows the Government to do anything; that would not be the case with respect to Schedule 2.
Be that as it may, I believe that the warning given by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson—who has as much experience of such matters as anyone in your Lordships' House—about the overburdening of Parliament is one which we should take seriously. On the one hand it is perfectly possible to say, as your Lordships have this evening, that a particular provision should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. On the other hand it is equally possible to say on another occasion that the House is overburdened and the weight of legislation is growing greater and ought to become less.
A balance has to be found in these matters. I believe that with the negative resolution procedure biting upon this provision that is as far as we ought to go. I do not expect that I have carried the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with me. Nonetheless that is the view that I put to your Lordships.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that reply. I would be exaggerating if I said that he had carried me with him but I believe that we have engaged in a constructive dialogue on the amendment, which I welcome. I do not think that the subject is yet at the point of resolution but we are beginning to achieve a meeting of minds in this area.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his support. I agree that the crucial point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. It is the question of time. I entirely agree with him about the pressure of legislation on this House and another place. I should have preferred to offer the answer to that problem offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, when he spoke on this subject in Committee; namely, that the Government should reduce the bulk of their legislative programme.
I know that that may not be a particularly easy answer to adopt. I am aware that the Government are under pressure to legislate, as well as creating such pressure themselves. However, my argument is that the length of the Session, like the size of the stomach, is a healthy and necessary check on over-eating. The
202
amount that one can get through in a Session is about the same as the amount of legislation that the Government can constructively think through in one year. If we try to squeeze more into the Session we shall have more legislation which is not effectively digested and that creates work in the courts and ultimately in this House itself. So, granted that I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, said about time, I am not certain whether the correct answer is to make it easier to squeeze more into the time that we have or for the Government to do rather less.
I agree that the crucial issue here is control. Obviously, there must be occasions when things are allowed to go through. If they are not we shall all go mad, which would be a pity. The question is: in whose discretion should it be as to whether matters need to be drawn to the attention of the House? The point on which I am not happy with the proposed resolution is leaving that discretion entirely to the Executive because what the Executive thinks should be drawn to Parliament's attention may not necessarily be that which Parliament thinks should be drawn to its attention. It is perfectly possible for us, when something is moved under the affirmative procedure, not to spend a long time debating it if we think that it gives rise to no problems. We in this House are capable of self-restraint and have proved it many times. I should much rather see a procedure for deciding what will receive scrutiny and what will not which is under parliamentary control rather than one which is under Executive control.
However, as we have a genuine dialogue going forward, I do not want to interrupt it. I do not think that a Division at this stage would be a useful way of carrying forward that dialogue. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Courses of Further Education]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 69, line 7, at end insert:

("(i) a course in independent living skills for persons with learning difficulties,

(j) a course in communication skills for persons with learning difficulties and their families.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to one that I moved and withdrew in Committee. Its purpose is to extend the list of courses for which FEFCs are responsible to include daily living skills courses and communication skills; for example, braille, sign language and lip reading classes.
The previous amendment received wide and strong support in Committee on 10th December, including the support of my noble friend Lady Warnock. At col. 625 my noble friend said:
"It is not generally appreciated that many young people with learning difficulties begin to learn only when they reach the age of about 16 or 17. They are often beginning a moderate upward curve between the ages of 16 and 21. It is therefore absolutely essential that some of these fundamental skills, which have been referred to as life skills, should be taught them at this further education stage. I also believe that

203
unless this provision is in the Bill at the beginning as part of the schedule it will be increasingly difficult to apply to the funding councils for money to cover the courses".
At col. 629 the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that he would like to reflect hard on the arguments that had been expressed so cogently and with such force. I therefore withdrew the amendment. I also wanted time to go into the question a little more thoroughly. We then had a good meeting with the noble Lord and the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Alan Howarth, at which we discussed a number of issues. It was most useful, but we did not come to any firm conclusion on the question. I do not believe that I heard any mention of the matter when the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, mentioned a package of measures in replying to my Amendment No. 15. I hope to show why we feel that this amendment is necessary.
The value of the courses is not at issue. The question is whether there are good reasons for giving the responsibility for these courses to the funding councils. I believe that there are two main reasons. The first is that including these courses in Schedule 2 would bring about an explicit duty for their provision. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said (at col. 628) that duties not given to the funding councils would remain with the LEAs. While that may be so, the disability organisations say they know from experience that in practice that will not guarantee provision. Currently, not all LEAs provide adequate facilities for life and communication skills courses. Therefore the mere continuation of their duties would not automatically ensure such facilities in the future.
Deaf Accord, which is a consortium of five deaf consumer organisations, describes the current situation with regard to sign language and lip reading classes. On sign language classes for families with deaf children, Deaf Accord states:
"At the moment only a few LEAs provide sign language classes. There are far more parents who want to learn than places available. This shortfall is partly met by voluntary organisations. In either case, families have to pay and the National Deaf Children's Society has been approached by many parents with requests for grants. Recently the NDCS have had to start refusing financial help in this area because they felt too much of their limited resources were being channelled into it. There is a chronic shortage of sign language classes. Those that exist are over-subscribed".
With regard to lip reading classes, Deaf Accord states:
"Lipreading classes are essential for people who have a hearing impairment whose first language is English. Thousands of elderly people need lipreading classes as their hearing deteriorates with age. Provision varies considerably from one area to another. It is sometimes provided by the LEA, sometimes by the health authority and sometimes by social services. Often there is no provision. Usually students have to pay full fees. Given that lipreading classes are essential to enable those whose hearing becomes impaired to communicate, and given that the majority of hard of hearing people are pensioners, the British Association of the Hard of Hearing believes that the provision of free lipreading classes should be a duty on FEFCs alongside adult literacy and numeracy courses".
The second major reason for the amendment is that these courses dovetail more neatly with the other responsibilities of the FEFC than with those of the LEAs. The RNIB points out that many of the students who take life or communication skills courses will also
204
be taking other basic skills courses in literacy and numeracy and/or vocational courses which are the responsibility of funding councils. Therefore it is only logical that both types of course should be provided by the same body in the same building. Many of the courses are already provided in a further education setting precisely because of the need to integrate programmes for students who are following a number of courses. Inevitably, students benefit from the daily contact with other young students that is available in the college, which is not so in an adult education institute, where there is a much less constant community.
I hope that the Minster, having had time to reflect and having heard a little more about the experience of the consumers, will be able to accept the amendment. At any rate, perhaps he will be able to say something positive at this stage. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the amendment would reposition the responsibility for securing the provision of courses in independent living and in communication skills for students with disabilities. As the Bill is drafted, the duty to secure provision for these courses would rest with local education authorities. The amendment would place the duty on the further education funding councils instead.
As I said during the debate on a similar amendment at Committee stage, the Government fully accept the value of such courses and that there should continue to be a duty to secure their availability. The Bill as drafted will continue that duty. If the courses are not added to Schedule 2, the duty to secure their provision will automatically remain with the LEAs. That is the effect of Clause 11, which provides that the LEAs have a duty to secure the provision of further education wherever the FEFCs do not. The point at issue is thus not whether there should be a duty in relation to these courses but whether that duty should remain with the LEAs or transfer to the funding councils.
I acknowledge that there are arguments both ways, many of which were discussed during the debate at Second Reading. However, the Government's view is that the duty would be better discharged by the local education authorities. These are courses that the LEAs provide now, as has been acknowledged, in collaboration with other agencies, including in particular the social services department, which share the same parent councils. Perhaps that serves as a small counter-argument to what the noble Baroness said about logic and convenience. Administratively and educationally it will make sense for the LEAs to continue to make this provision. Under the new structure LEAs will retain a clear duty to provide those types of courses and funding will continue to be available. The nature of the duty would be no stronger if it were placed on the FEFCs.
The amendment includes a proposal that the further education funding councils should also be responsible for providing courses in communication skills for the families of persons with learning difficulties. That proposal is not consistent with the

205
argument that those courses are the equivalent of the basic skills courses for which the funding councils will have responsibility for those who have no disability. While the courses that we debate are no less important, we see them as different and as more appropriately a local education authority responsibility.
There may be an argument that, as the new structure settles down and the distinctive spheres of LEA and FEFC responsibility evolve, it will make better sense for the FEFCs to take over responsibility for those courses. We are in no position to foresee such an outcome at this stage. However, I acknowledge that the possibility exists. If we reach that position, the Bill provides for these courses to be transferred to the FEFCs' sphere. As your Lordships know, Clause 3(6) allows the list of courses in Schedule 2 to be amended by order, as has been discussed. Courses in independent living and communication skills could be made an FEFC responsibility at a later stage if that became appropriate in the light of experience.
With that explanation of the Government's point of view, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether he can possibly take on board the fact that there are LEAs which are not making provision for those courses and that that may be taken into account when consideration is given to implementing the transitional provisions to which he has referred.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I heard the claims. I am not trying to throw doubt on them. However, they amounted to rather anecdotal evidence. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, states as a fact that the LEAs are not responding. I believe my words were that the LEAs will retain a clear duty to provide. Certainly if that is not happening, in view of what the noble Baroness has said it is a matter that I would wish to consider.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, very much for his intervention, and I cannot pretend that I am not very disappointed by the Minister's reply. It is a relief that it is possible that there may come a time when the FEFCs take over such responsibilities. However, he states that he does not foresee that at the moment.
There is no point in my dividing the House at this hour. I feel strongly about the matter. Will the Minister agree to keep the door open? Can we discuss it a little further? When he kindly met us we discussed a number of issues. I did not have the impression that his officials saw any real objections to the amendment. I do not know whether I am right. Is the Minister willing to discuss the matter further with me because there is concern among disability organisations on this issue?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that of course I am always pleased to discuss matters with the noble Baroness. I undertake to do so.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Persons with learning difficulties]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 3, line 27, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 35 and insert ("(subject to the provisions of those sections) do so in accordance with subsections (2) to (2B) below.
(2) Each council shall have regard to the requirements of persons having learning difficulties.
(2A) A council shall, if they are satisfied in the case of any person among the population of their area who has a learning difficulty and is over compulsory school age but has not attained the age of twenty-five years, that—

(a) the facilities available in institutions within the further education sector or the higher education sector are not adequate for him, and

(b) it is in his best interests to do so,

secure provision for him at an institution outside those sectors.
(2B) A council shall, if they are satisfied that they cannot secure such provision for a person as they are required to secure under subsection (2A) above unless they also secure the provision of boarding accommodation for him, secure the provision of boarding accommodation for him.
(2C) In exercising their functions under sections 2 and 3 of this Act in the case of any person who has a learning difficulty and is over compulsory school age, a council may—

(a) if they are satisfied that the facilities available in institutions within the further education sector or the higher education sector are not adequate for him, secure provision for him at an institution outside those sectors, and

(b) secure the provision of boarding accommodation for him.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I shall speak to all the government amendments to Clause 4 and to the consequential amendment to Clause 5. The amendments tabled in my noble friend's name would place a new duty on the further education funding councils in relation to students with learning difficulties. They would require the councils to secure provision for such students up to the age of 25 in institutions outside the further or higher education sectors if suitable provision is not available within those sectors and the councils judge that it is in the students' best interests to do so.
The Bill as drafted allows the further education funding councils to continue the existing practice of local education authorities of using placements in independent specialist colleges for students with learning difficulties. However, during the Committee stage anxiety was expressed that there should be a duty over the use of these placements, including arrangements for boarding accommodation where necessary. The amendments are in response to that concern and I hope that they will be acceptable to the noble Lords who support the introduction of a new duty in this area. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 36, Amendment No. 37:
Leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert:
("(2) It shall be the duty of each council to secure for persons having learning difficulties in their area sufficient facilities to which this section applies, that is, education suitable to the requirements of persons having learning difficulties over compulsory school age who have not attained the age of 25 years.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cavendish and Lord Belstead, and the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Howarth, for Amendment No. 36. It is greatly appreciated by all of us and I am sure by those who represent disabled people.
It is encouraging when the Government listen to the arguments put forward in this House. Whenever they do so many thanks are due to them and I am grateful to them on this occasion. A duty has been confirmed which is most important. That was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, at an earlier stage. Furthermore, the Government have made a remarkable concession; an extension to the age of 25 for people in higher and further education.
The only reason why I have tabled Amendment No. 37 is to adduce clarification. There was previous puzzlement about the amendment's drafting and its exact meaning. When a matter is not clear to the layman it becomes clear when it is pointed out that the draftsman's intention is unassailable and in accordance with the wishes expressed. In this case it appears that the Government's amendment places a clear duty for provisions outside the further education sector. However, it does not appear to place the same duty within the further education sector. That is the sole reason for tabling my amendment. If the Government can persuade me that the provision applies equally within and without I shall be happy; if they cannot do so I shall be unhappy. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I too am extremely grateful to my noble friends for the tremendous step that they have taken to create a new duty which is enforceable by judicial review. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for having moved Amendment No. 37 because it can serve only to engender constructive debate in the interests of clarification.
I take the view that on the basis of certain case law decisions under the 1981 Act it is implicit that under Clause 4 as amended by Amendments Nos. 36, 38 and 43 the courts would approach the position of statutory duty as follows. First, the council shall have regard to whether the facilities available in institutions within the further or higher education sector are adequate, for the particular person with learning difficulties, to meet his requirements. Secondly, if so, there is a duty to secure such provision. If not, there is the duty to secure provision for him outside those sectors at the expense of the authority, which may well include boarding accommodation.
If that construction of Clause 4 as proposed to be amended by Amendments Nos. 36, 38 and 43 is correct—and I think it is—and if that is common
208
ground, why should the initial duty to secure provision within the sector as such not appear on the face of the Bill? Why should it be treated as a matter of necessary implication? With respect, I am certain the courts would treat it as such. Perhaps the Government will be prepared to take that on board as a drafting problem, having taken on board the need for clarification, and return with an amendment on Third Reading to express on the face of the Bill the mandatory duty which is now implicit so that enforcement by judicial review may not be impeded by legalistic argument on a point of construction contrary to what I understand to be the true intentions of the Government.
The basis upon which the courts would imply that duty is on the basis of the implications of similar duty which arose in the context of Section 7(2) of the 1981 Act. The relevant decisions are Ex Parte H decided in 1983 and Ex Parte Davis in 1989. The Minister has copies of both judgments.
It seems that this is a mere matter of drafting. When I look at Clause 4 as it is proposed to be amended, I find some difficulty in seeing on the face of it that duty because, basically, it is not there. It is merely implicit. It is a crucial question of consequence. If the Government's intention is as I understand it to be, it is a mere matter of drafting and I ask the Government to put it right. It is not a matter which could be resolved by a Division because if there were a Division, I should take the view that the matter is implicit and I should remain in my place.
9.45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I point out that in discussing Amendments Nos. 36 and 37, if Amendment No. 36 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 37A as it would be pre-empted.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, as regards the term, "inside the sector", in Clauses 2 and 3, the duty towards persons with learning difficulties is the same as regards persons without learning difficulties. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
With respect to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I believe that we are trying to achieve the same ends. I shall read carefully what he said: it was quite technical. I may discuss the matter with him before deciding whether it is necessary to bring forward an amendment on Third Reading. I hope that in the light of that, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I am certain, now that the noble Lord has explained, that the proper construction is what I wished to hear. On the other hand, it is not sensible to include words in an Act of Parliament which even someone so noble and learned in the law as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, finds

209
difficulty in construing, as he himself confessed. However, after putting the provisional wet rag around his head, he came to the right conclusion.
How can the parliamentary draftsmen expect ordinary citizens to come to the right conclusion when someone so eminent in the law as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, finds it difficult, though ultimately he came through? I cannot believe that that is a sensible way of drafting. If it could be put even for the convenience of he who "runs may read" it would be a gain in the understanding of the law. After all, it is an important Bill. Everyone concerned with higher and further education must understand it. I do not see why it should be always necessary to go to lawyers to find out what an Act of Parliament means, especially an Act of this kind.
With the assurance that the noble Lord will think again and confer with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, about any possible amendment at Third Reading, I am grateful for what was said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 36 agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, I cannot call Amendment No. 37A as it has been pre-empted.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("subsection (1) above") and insert ("this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 47, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall by order specify that the requirements of individual students with learning difficulties shall be assessed. Such individual assessment shall be carried out in a form and by persons prescribed by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at present there is no requirement to continue statements for students in further education. Nevertheless, some local authorities have a policy of continuing assessments in FE which tends to be a simplified form of statement. On the other hand, some authorities have no policy. Problems have occurred with students from colleges which have not maintained any form of assessment experiencing subsequent difficulties where, for example, much of the first year at university is wasted because the university has insufficient information to prepare adequately to meet specific requirements of students with learning difficulties.
On 10th December the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said:
"There is no dispute from this Bench over the importance of assessing students' needs. That applies of course to all students, but particularly to those with disabilities and learning difficulties".—[Official Report, 10/12/91; col. 658.]
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, responded in col. 659,
"The question is how that is secured … If nothing is put into the Bill there will be defaulters in the further education scene. We wish to avoid that".
The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said,
"I feel that many of these matters can be incorporated".
The amendment would simply require that assessments of requirements of students be made. Nothing is argued except that the process used in schools should simply be extended. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, at Committee stage, suggested that further discussion was necessary. He is right to want the details of the process to be subject to further discussion. However, the amendment leaves the matter of detail to the Secretary of State and seeks only to ensure that a process which is currently patchy, with no commonly agreed procedures, be rendered more coherent and certain. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. It is a sensible proposal. From my personal experience as someone who is dyslexic, I can say that many people who deal with the problems of dyslexics would find it extremely helpful to have some form of continuing assessment out of the school system, if only to tell them exactly what they are supposed to do. It would not need to be terribly complicated. It may be simply a record of the concessions already given and considered to be appropriate in any form of study.
This type of assessment or system would be extremely useful in many cases because it is not very often that people do not want to give assistance, but they do not know what kind of assistance is required. If the information can be given they can go on and do the job. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady David, in moving the amendment, time can be wasted and problems caused by people not being prepared by some kind of forewarning of the types of concession that may be required. Bearing that in mind, I hope that the Government will be able to look favourably, if not on the amendment, then certainly on the idea.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, so many of the amendments which we have moved and to which the Government have been sympathetic and have responded, have been to continue the provisions for the education of people with special learning difficulties into the system of further and higher education. That has been a continuing theme of our amendments.
The theme of assessment is one of the most important. We all know that in the primary and secondary system of education those with special learning difficulties are subject to statements. They are known in the unpleasant language of officialdom as "statemented children". Though all may not be well with the system of making statements for children with special learning difficulties and though the details may not be right, the principle certainly is and I believe that that is accepted by everyone.
Why then should the provision be discontinued when children leave school and go on to further or higher education? I have never received an answer to that question. Everyone I know who is knowledgeable on this subject is quite sure, like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who has just spoken, that some form of

211
assessment should continue. If there is no form of assessment there may be a very wasteful use of human as well as financial resources.
This amendment is left very open. It is only saying that there should be a statement for these people as there is for those in schools. The matter is left entirely open for the Secretary of State to develop the detail of the system of assessment that is to be adopted. As such, I believe it to be an entirely reasonable amendment. It is very much in line with the other amendments which we have moved to bring further and higher education into line with primary and secondary education for children with special educational needs. I greatly hope that this amendment will be sympathetically received by the Government Front Bench.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment, which would place the Secretary of State under a duty to require the assessment of individual students with learning difficulties and would make the Secretary of State responsible for prescribing how that assessment should be carried out. I have already made it clear that the Government fully recognise the importance of assessing these students' educational needs. I have also made clear that the Government have reservations about whether an explicit statutory requirement for this purpose is necessary or helpful. I have been glad to have the opportunity to consider these issues further since our Committee stage debate. I must now confirm our view that it would not be appropriate to insert an explicit reference to assessment on the face of the Bill. We do, however, intend to ensure by issuing guidance to the funding councils and to local education authorities that assessment is given proper priority in further education.
As I explained during the debate at Committee stage on this issue, the further education funding councils could not discharge properly their statutory duty to have regard to the requirements of persons with learning difficulties without first establishing what those learning difficulties are and what provision is required to meet them. The need for assessment is therefore an implicit part of their duty in relation to students with learning difficulties. This is reflected in the assessment of students' needs which is at present undertaken by colleges.
As the Bill carries forward the existing duty into the new further education structure, colleges will need to continue to assess their students' needs. Existing legislation does not explicitly require assessments, nor does it prescribe how the assessments should be carried out. Nor does the Bill, but I hope I have shown that it would not allow further education to be provided without any regard to the needs of students with disabilities. The Government believe that the Bill already makes adequate provision to ensure that the needs of students with learning difficulties are assessed.
However, the Government take seriously the concerns that have been expressed that the assessment of students with learning difficulties in further education must be safeguarded. We believe that the
212
best way to address this is in the promotion of existing good practice through guidance. We intend therefore to cover the importance of establishing proper arrangements for assessing the needs of students with learning difficulties in the guidance to be issued to the further education funding councils. This is not guidance that they will ignore: it will come from the Secretary of State and set out how he expects the funding councils to use the money he gives them. For good measure, we shall issue parallel guidance to the LEAs about assessment in those areas for which they retain a responsibility; the amendment, of course, would not affect LEAs, so we have something additional there. This approach will allow assessment procedures to be sufficiently flexible to reflect the very diverse needs of the FE student population. I think the need for this flexibility is understood on all sides. By this approach we shall ensure that the need for assessment is taken seriously, without creating unnecessary straitjackets.
I have gone into this in some length and I hope in the light of that undertaking that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply but I confess that I am rather disappointed. I should have very much liked some form of assessment on the face of the Bill. I am supported in this by the Association of Principals of Sixth Form Colleges in the notes about the Bill which it sent to me. The association states:
"The statement on special needs provision contained within Clause 4 does not, to us, seem adequate. We would seek a funding for special need students which is based upon a clear process of diagnosis and assessment of real need".
It seems a bit odd that the Department of Employment is trying to develop a system of individual action plans for each trainee with the youth training and employment training programmes. The process of assessing special needs will no doubt be rather broader and more complex but it should perhaps follow a similar process with the aim of enabling students with disabilities to lead active, independent lives in full employment.
It seems to me that if the Department of Employment is doing that the Department of Education and Science might perhaps try to do something like that as well. Of course I am glad to hear that there is going to be guidance. I certainly shall not press this amendment tonight but I should like to consult, take advice and consider whether we are happy enough with the guidance—which I doubt—and reserve the right to come back at Third Reading if we are not entirely satisfied. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Administration of funds by councils]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) For the purposes of section 4(1) of this Act, a council may give financial support to any person or body in respect of provision of support services for persons having learning difficulties.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 61.
The purpose of these amendments is to allow further education funding councils and the higher education funding councils to establish and maintain peripatetic support teams for students with learning difficulties.
At present support is available to students with disabilities and learning difficulties in a number of different ways. However, a significant proportion of students are supported by peripatetic support teams. These are teams of professionals with a range of skills who offer assistance to a student in class and after class, who oversee the loan and maintenance of disability related equipment and who can give advice and training to college teachers and other staff. These teams are often LEA rather than college based and thus will not automatically transfer to the new funding councils. It is important that these teams continue to exist and indeed that they should be established in areas where they do not presently operate, so that all students with learning difficulties can benefit.
After the passing of the Bill, professionals working with the post-16 age group will need to be working with, and be managed by, those involved in further education. They will need to have an understanding of the different needs of students in comparison with school pupils and be free to develop a flexible service that is truly student rather than curriculum centred. They will need to be immediately available to staff and students when problems arise.
Many of the post-16 support teams are actively supporting students in higher education. For teams to have continued and consistent funding in the future, which allows them to maintain adequate staffing and plan effectively, financial support should come from both funding councils. I hope that the Minister can give a sympathetic response to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, these amendments would insert in the funding powers of the further education and higher education funding councils an explicit reference to support services for students with learning difficulties. The Government appreciate the value of these support services and we pay tribute, as the noble Baroness has, to the work that they do. However, the Bill already provides for their funding to be continued, and the amendments therefore are not necessary.
For further education, the power that allows the support services to be financed by the funding councils is in Clause 5(5) (b). For higher education, the power is in Clause 61(2) (d). The provisions cover all kinds of support and ancillary services. But they are deliberately not listed, so as not to impose any artificial constraints. There is no need to add a specific reference to support services for students with disabilities. The institutions too—in other words, the colleges—will be able to organise and fund support services of this kind under their existing powers in the case of the higher education institutions and under Clause 19 in the case of the FE colleges in the new sector. In Clause 19, students with learning difficulties are specifically mentioned. The powers in the Bill are adequate to cover the support services.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that possibly satisfactory reply. I shall need to check all the references that he kindly gave. However, on the face of it, his reply sounded fairly encouraging. I shall read it to see whether I am entirely satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 4, line 20, at end insert:
("(3A) In exercising their functions under Section 3 of this Act a council may give financial support for the provision of facilities for further education to a local education authority or to an educational institution maintained or assisted by a local education authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have pleasure in speaking at the same time to Amendment No. 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. This is the first time that I have spoken in the House on education. I do so now with great trepidation, simply as one who attends an evening class and has done so for a few years.
The amendment is intended to support adult education provision wherever it may be made and to strengthen the role of the funding councils in this area. The councils are to acquire responsibility for the types of further education courses listed in Schedule 2. That includes much valuable and valued work carried out in a great variety of adult education centres across the country.
Without the amendment the funding councils will be able to have only indirect contact with such centres which will be left to seek funding for their vocational, examination or basic education courses via a local college which will also be competing with them for funds and students. I am afraid that I shall have to go into a trite situation. It is a little like saying that the corner grocer must get permission from the nearest superstore to offer certain lines of stock.
In West Sussex, where I live, there are 16 community schools which offer vocational as well as non-vocational courses for adults. I use the term "vocational" as convenient shorthand for those courses in Schedule 2. The schools are in future to answer to two masters: the local education authority for non-vocational work and the further education college for the vocational work. Those are tongue-twisters. However, it would be a sad and unnecessary loss if the provision were in any way to be diminished as a result.
The local centres are closely identified with their local communities who understand them better than an outsider would. They are specialists in providing part-time education which adults can pursue in their spare time. This includes vocational courses, courses for those who wish to return to work, courses for career development or, importantly, for those who need to change career. They pride themselves on meeting the needs of their locality, and people may be as much as 15 miles away from their nearest college. The local centre must have the independence and

215
flexibility to identify and respond to such needs. That will not be achieved by making it a second-class satellite of a college.
Elsewhere there will be other patterns of provision outside the colleges: adult education centres, area networks and so on. The same arguments apply to them. The amendment attempts to allow for this variety and to recognise different local circumstances.
It would enable a community school, an adult centre or an LEA acting for a network of providers to deal directly with the funding council. It would thus not prevent two or more providers making a joint bid. It is not restricted to centres owned by the local education authority. Where an LEA supports non-vocational adult work at a voluntary school, a grant-maintained school or even an independent centre, those institutions could bid for funding council support for their parallel vocational work under the amendment. At the same time, the requirement for there being at least assistance from the local education authority prevents this from being an open door for countless new providers to seek to enter the market with bids for support.
The amendment is permissive. It does not require the councils to accept every bid. It is subject to their duty to secure adequate provision in such places as meet the reasonable need for this education, to make the most effective use of resources and to avoid disproportionate expenditure as set out in Clause 3. It does not even prevent bids being made via colleges as provided for in Clause 6(5) where this is the preferred local approach.
It simply acknowledges the role of the providers outside colleges and allows them a reasonable crack of the whip when bidding for support. They should not be sacrificed to some narrow view of administrative convenience simply because they are felt to be too numerous or the volume of their vocational work too small. If the centres are left to bid via colleges, Clause 6(5) makes the college judge and jury in its own cause should those bids compete with provision proposed by the college. Surely that cannot be right.
In some cases, the adult centres may serve a different geographic area from any particular college or provide courses of a type not generally covered by the college. What then is the sense of asking a college to judge submissions not within its own competence? If we are told that the colleges will normally simply pass on bids, only stopping or amending them in extreme circumstances, one has to ask what on earth is the point of building the extra link of complication and delay into the chain? If we are told that the safeguard against abuse is the power of the Secretary of State to intervene under Section 68 of the 1944 Act, should we not create a system which minimises the possible need for such a last resort which is anyhow limited in its scope?
The council will, after all, have its regional committees and staff to help resolve priorities across a range of bidders. That offers a better prospect of impartial consideration from the outset of funding bids from adult education providers.
Above all, the self-respect, the liveliness and the responsiveness of adult centres will be better preserved
216
and enhanced if they are allowed a measure of independence in their dealings. The sector as a whole should be strengthened to encourage competition, which the Government have supported for a number of years, between adult centres and colleges rather than subordinating one to the other. The amendment aims to foster a healthy adult education centre, recognising the importance of educational opportunities to the life and economy of this country. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, which is grouped with my Amendment No. 47. There is not a great deal for me to add as the noble Lord has covered most of the main arguments in favour of what we are discussing. We are essentially discussing the equal treatment of equals when it comes to finance rather than the unequal treatment of equals. In other words, it is our old friend the level playing field.
The noble Lord has placed his finger on the main point. Looking at my amendment, the local authorities have a useful role to play as a channel which might help to assure the small corner shop, as it were, that its future is not being decided by the supermarket. That was the noble Lord's most telling analogy. I hope that the Minister will take some of these matters on board and give us an encouraging answer.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the amendments will give powers to the funding councils to fund LEAs directly for Schedule 2 education. Amendment No. 42 will also enable the councils to fund institutions maintained or assisted by LEAs. It was about that that my noble friend Lord Teviot was mainly speaking. The Government are well aware that provision is made by LEAs and their institutions which falls to be the duty of the funding councils. The amendment moved by my noble friend is not necessary because the councils already have power to fund provision made outside their own sector through the agency of the colleges within their sector.
I ask noble Lords to consider what the Bill already provides under Clause 6(5). That provision has been introduced expressly to meet the concerns which my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, seek to meet through the amendments. Clause 6(5) allows institutions outside the FE sector to make applications through institutions within that new sector for support from the funding councils for provision which falls within Schedule 2.
The FE college which is applied to must forward the application to the funding council where the provision in question would otherwise be inadequate in the area. If the college decides not to forward the application, that decision will be subject to review by the Secretary of State on the grounds of unreasonableness or failure to perform a duty. I understood when my noble friend said that that would make the FE college which was handling the application judge and jury in its own cause, but with respect to him that is not the case.

217
First, it is not open, as the Bill is drafted, for the FE college to impose a view as to whether there is adequacy or inadequacy for the course being applied for. The FE college which is the channel has to take an objective view, not its own view. If it does not take an objective view, and can be found not to have taken an objective view, as I have said, the Secretary of State could come down like a ton of bricks under the provisions of the Education Act 1944 on the grounds that the FE college, acting as a channel, had been unreasonable or had failed to perform its duty. An application for support might come from an adult college or centre, a school or a voluntary body. It is the specific purpose of Clause 6(5) that all such institutions or bodies which make Schedule 2 provision should have the opportunity to get it considered for funding by the funding councils.
My noble friend made a telling point when he said that an adult education institution or centre, of the kind of which he has personal knowledge, provides an important local focus and facility and exerts an important influence. Therefore it is important that people should be able to get to the institution. There is no question of such an important provision which is made outside the council's sector being disregarded.
I remind noble Lords that one of the grounds on which the provision of adequate facilities for further education must be based is that councils must discharge their duty so as to secure that facilities are provided at such places that will meet reasonable needs. That means that in the discharge by the funding councils of their duties, where the FE colleges act as a channel of their responsibilities, they will have to take into account the continuing accessibility to local communities of an adult education centre or institute. The funding councils would have to consider carefully whether their duty was fulfilled through FE colleges' proposals.
In addition, we should not forget the regional advisory councils which will stand ready to advise the funding council for England on important local issues. They will want to ensure that issues which matter to local people are properly considered. Their task will be to reflect concerns to the funding council. That advice will be important to the council in making decisions on the provision it will fund and in deciding upon the conditions to be attached to the locations where provision will be made. There is no question, therefore, of the regional advisory councils giving financial support to anyone. That will be done by the funding councils.
As regards giving funding council support to local education authorities, we return to an issue where it again appears that the Government are agin local education authorities. Here a simple point must be made. Any direct funding of local education authorities would involve a division of the responsibility for the provision of Schedule 2 education within a particular area. I do not believe that is desirable. At the moment it is envisaged that a bid will be made from a college or an adult education institute, through a college which is within the new further education sector, to the funding council. That will mean that the
218
whole duty of the funding council is secured directly through the funding council's own sector. I know that administrative tidiness is never a good argument to use. However, from an administrative point of view that is a sensible way of proceeding. It is for that reason that the amendment, which seeks to bring in the local education authority as a candidate for direct funding from the funding council, is not desirable.
I have spoken for too long, but I hope I have attempted to reply to the points made by my noble friend Lord Teviot. I know he appreciates and has benefited from provision made by an adult education centre which he has attended. He and I have talked informally about that. The provisions made under Clause 6(5) constitute the right way for a centre or institute to proceed in obtaining direct funding from the funding council.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I was interested to hear my noble friend's reply. He and I have been involved in many legislative matters over the years. I am not sure whether I shall withdraw the amendment, but before I decide what to do with it I have an important point to make. No one can serve two masters, let alone three. When local adult education authorities are dealing with vocational courses, will there be a framework in the Bill whereby the funding councils will be able to fund them without having to refer to anyone else? I have tried to listen carefully to my noble friend, but I may have switched off for a moment. Can adult education centres at present receive direct guidance from the funding councils, as proposed in my amendment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I regret to say that the answer to that question is, no. The funding arrangements will work in this way. If an adult education institute or centre is providing courses which fall outside Schedule 2, which is the fulcrum point in this case, the funding for those courses will continue to come from the local education authority. However, if the centre or institute is running some courses which fall within Schedule 2 provision the centre or institute can make a bid through a further education college which is within the new further education sector for funding from the funding council. Under Clause 6(5) it needs to be done in that way.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it looks as though adult education will become a second class citizen. The noble Lord talked about the fulcrum. When I was at school fulcrum, in Latin, meant "shining". Unless the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wishes to intervene at this point I feel that I must divide the House.
10.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 42) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 44.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Combermere, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

David, B.

[Teller.]

219

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rochester, L.

Lockwood, B.

Russell, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Seear, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shepherd, L.

Northbourne, L.

Teviot, L. [Teller.]

Parry, L.

Tordoff, L.

Peston, L.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Balfour, E.

Carnock, L.

Barber, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Belstead, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Denham, L.

Butterworth, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

220

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saint Levan, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Howe, E. [Teller.]

Stockton, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Morris, L.

Trumpington, B.

Norfolk, D.

Ullswater, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vivian, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Waddington, L.

Reay, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.33 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("4(2)") and insert ("4(2A) to (2C)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 43 is consequential on Amendment No. 36, which has already been spoken to. On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) A council may give financial support to networks of providers of further education to adults operating credit accumulation and transfer arrangements related to the types of education set out in Schedule 2 to this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to facilitate the progression of adults into the kind of courses—vocational, academic and other—set out in Schedule 2 with regard to support for the work of networks of providers of further education. It would make specific the power of the further education funding council to fund the organisations which manage national credit accumulation and transfer arrangements for courses currently outside the remit of either the National Council for Vocational Qualifications or the higher education credit accumulation and transfer system administered by the CNAA.
The majority of Open College network-recognised courses fall within Schedule 2, paragraphs (c) to (h). For example, 82 per cent. of the work of the Merseyside Open College Federation is of that kind. The amendment that I now move is designed to meet some of the objections which were made to the amendment that I moved in Committee. There was, I believe, a certain amount of misunderstanding. The amendment does not attempt to extend Schedule 2 or to divert FEFC money to LEAs. It seeks to ensure the continued development of a rigorous accreditation process for those aspects of Schedule 2 work not covered by more traditional national awarding and examining bodies.
The National Open College Network (NOCN) is a federation of regional Open College networks created to develop and maintain a national credit transfer framework for all Open College networks. To be eligible for membership of NOCN an Open College network must operate within the NOCN national credit transfer framework and be subject to its processes of quality assurance.
Open College networks are federations of local education and training providers drawn from further, higher, adult and community education services. They also include certain voluntary bodies and employers. They exist to accredit learning in a wide variety of locally designed education and training programmes, ascribing credit values and levels to programmes in order to enable individual learners to accumulate credits for the purposes of entry to higher level qualifications or employment. I believe that they serve a very useful purpose, and it would be pleasing if that could be recognised by the appearance of this amendment in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I am in great sympathy with the noble Baroness when she talks of the importance of the Open College networks and the work that they do. Their particular value is that they allow people to enter at any level and begin to build up credits which can eventually lead to access to higher education. However, the proposal in the amendment assumes a somewhat tidier world than the one that in fact exists. In the first place, there are a variety of people engaged on the courses. Some are studying in the conscious hope of building up credits for entry to higher education; others are simply taking the courses for leisure purposes. The value of the courses lies in just that dual use. Often, people take a course for leisure and enjoyment and afterwards decide that they would like to put it forward for access credit through the Open College network.
Therefore, it is not possible to point to any individual course in order to fund it and say that it is a unit or a module which will build up to credit. Often, in fact, the higher education institution, with imaginative and flexible arrangements, is able to give credit and assess prior learning in a way which had not been envisaged either by the student or by the provider at the time that the course was followed.
For all those reasons I believe that it is right to leave the funding and provision of these courses to local education authorities. The authorities have done extraordinarily well in the provision of access courses and the flexible arrangements which allow for access. They have provided for local need and have enabled their residents to build up credit. I believe that to attempt to identify specific courses and transfer them out of local authority funding into the funding councils would inhibit rather than enhance that very important objective. For that reason I do not support the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask whether she has noticed that the amendment only suggests that the funding council may give financial support to those networks of providers. Was she concentrating her remarks on that point?
Baroness Perry of Southwark: If I may speak a second time, my Lords, yes, indeed. That is the question that I answered. I believe that to try to identify particular networks and forms of
support would inhibit the great variety of provision made for a wide variety of purposes.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I join with both noble Baronesses in expressing appreciation for the useful work done at local level in mapping out accredited progression routes for adults by those networks. There is every reason to expect the progression of adults from informal study to more formal study to continue, whether through the Open College networks or otherwise. Perhaps I may add that credit accumulation transfer is an increasingly important development.
The Open College networks are funded from a number of different sources at present although, as my noble friend Lady Perry pointed out, the lion's share

223
of the funding comes from the local authorities. The provisions of the Bill would not prevent the Open College networks from continuing to be funded for the work that they do. Indeed, in respect of education falling within Schedule 2 to the Bill, the funding councils will have powers to fund colleges in the FE sector. The relevant power is in Clause 5(1).
Through subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 6, the funding councils are also able, through the FE colleges, to provide funding for Schedule 2 courses and for activities relating to such courses made by adult colleges and centres or by voluntary bodies. It is that power on which we voted in the last Division.
My noble friend Lady Perry spoke from her experience of the difficulties of being able to identify the specific courses when we refer to the networks. However, in practice much of the work of the Open College networks will fall within the remit of Schedule 2, covering, for example, access to higher education courses and "return to learn" courses. Some of the accredited courses of the networks will not fall within Schedule 2. While they can assist progression to courses which fall within Schedule 2, they will be informal courses which fall to the duty of the LEAs, which have clear powers to fund such provision under Clause 11.
In summary, the whole of the Schedule 2 work of the Open College networks can, if the Open College networks wished to make a bid, be supported under Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill, whether it is provided by colleges within the new sector or by adult colleges maintained by LEAs. Other provision which assists progression and falls outside Schedule 2 can continue to be funded by the local education authorities, in this case under Clause 11.
I hope therefore that the noble Baroness, Lady David, will feel that these assurances cover the point that her amendment raises. The work of the Open College networks is valuable and can continue to be funded under existing powers in the Bill. But in the cases where it is possible to make a bid through Clause 6(5)—it is a familiar point now—then such a bid can be made.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have met some rather powerful opposition. However, I thank the noble Baroness for speaking to the amendment and the Minister for his reply.
Yet again, I shall have to study the detail of the Minister's speech and take advice. What has been said seems fairly convincing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, reserving the possible right to return on the issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) In determining the giving of financial support under this section, a council shall have regard to:

(a) the need to secure adequate facilities for the further education of the population of rural areas,

(b) the needs of small specialist colleges, and

(c) the differential costs of residential provision.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we move to a different issue: that of agricultural colleges. The agricultural colleges are anxious that the new further education funding councils to be set up by the Bill should recognise and make appropriate provision for the fact that by its nature agricultural education is more expensive to deliver than most other forms of further education.
Agricultural colleges tend to be small and specialised, with higher cost per full-time student than other FE colleges. The higher cost derives in part from the low student to staff ratios necessitated by the small groups approach appropriate to teaching practical skills—for example, animal husbandry, machinery maintenance and so on—which is needed to meet health and safety requirements.
There is also a greater requirement for residential accommodation. Because agricultural colleges serve dispersed rural hinterlands, daily commuting is not always possible for full-time students. The practical requirements of some courses—for instance, early morning milking—dictate that students reside on site. There is concern that in future students might be expected to contribute not only their boarding fees but also towards the residual boarding costs of colleges; that is, such fixed costs as catering, overheads and so on, which might well be beyond their grants.
For students on day-release courses, transport often has to be provided as public transport services in rural areas are inadequate. The practical facilities of the colleges are relatively high cost ones as, for example, they need to maintain living material, animals, plants and so on throughout the year in what are usually extensive buildings and grounds.
Although the number of purely agricultural students at the colleges has declined in recent years the colleges are adjusting to meet new demands for rural, land-based courses on such matters a countryside conservation, environment management, horticulture, equine pursuits and so on. The colleges have a key function as centres for training and retraining at a time of significant change and restructuring in agriculture and the rural economy.
The colleges are, therefore, expected to continue to have an important role to play in further education in rural areas, although on a wider base than hitherto. In order to fulfil that role they must be be allocated adequate funding by the new councils. Although regional advisory committees for the English council are provided for in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, it seems likely that any rural voice on these committees will be outvoted by urban interests.
The amendment is probing and is intended to encourage the Minister to give assurances that the special requirements of the agricultural colleges are recognised by the Government, which will ensure that the funding councils take full account of the special factors that make their role and the service they provide rather different from those of other FE institutions. As a former MAFF Minister, one hopes that the noble Lord will listen sympathetically to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment. There is anxiety in

225
rural circles and among farmers about the funding of agricultural colleges. As the noble Baroness said, it is not a cheap form of education. It remains important to the rural economy and environment, in particular at this moment of impending change and diversification.
I am sure that I need not elaborate in view of what has been said. I know that my noble friend the Minister will understand these matters. I trust that further education funding councils will understand the needs of these colleges. They are vital to the future of rural areas and I hope that my noble friend will give assurances about them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too wish to say a few words in support of the amendment. First, I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady David, about rural transport. When I was a teenager I lived in a remote rural area. It was an area which the English thought was Cornwall and the Cornish thought was England. After publication of the Beeching Report we were told that the remote rural areas could rely on busses. For once in a blue moon the Sunday Times sent a correspondent to our area. He asked, "When is the next bus?" and was told, "Next Tuesday". That is the kind of situation in which transport costs become rather severe.
I also support what the noble Baroness said about high unit costs. The funding council regime is one which can accommodate high unit costs. I heard and appreciated what the Minister said about disproportionate cost earlier today. However, although the regime can do so, it does not find it easy. Anyone with high unit costs facing a funding council regime will feel anxiety, and that anxiety is likely to be well founded.
Also, at present the agricultural community has been facing a good deal of hardship. If we are to reach a conclusion to the Gatt Round—and the arguments in favour of doing so are extremely strong—it is possible that that could imply for farmers even further hardship. It is not right in that situation to inflict unnecessary hardships on the rural economy and I agree that we are dealing with the rural economy as well as agriculture. If hardship in this sort of area can be avoided it should be.
Finally, I ask the Minister not merely to repeat the previous answer that there is nothing to stop the funding councils funding what is under discussion. He must have noticed that that answer is not altogether reassuring to those on these Benches because it is taken as axiomatic on this side of the House—and I suspect in some other quarters as well—that the amount of money provided will not be sufficient to meet the object for which it is designed. It never is. I cannot think of any occasion under this Government when it ever has been. Therefore, those whom it is important to preserve and who are likely to face particular hardship are bound to ask for particular protection. It would be worth giving that protection to them.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I believe that I can give some assurances about this important matter—the agricultural colleges—and I am grateful to the noble
226
Baroness, Lady David, for moving the amendment and to my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for taking part in this short exchange of views.
It will be for the councils to judge how best to fulfil the duty placed upon them, for example, in ensuring that adequate facilities are available in rural areas. It will also be for the councils to determine how to make the most effective use of their resources. However, in reaching those judgments they will be able to take account of the needs of each area with advice from the regional committees and they will also be able to take account of the type of institution making the provision —in this case, the discussion has centred around agricultural colleges although the amendment could affect other specific kinds of institutions—the nature of the study provided by the institution and whether there are any alternatives available.
I refer your Lordships to the assurance given in the White Paper which preceded the introduction of this Bill that the further education funding councils would be able to apply differential weighting in order to take account of the higher costs of, for example, workshop-based or other specialist provision.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for reminding the House about our earlier discussions on disproportionate expenditure. It is worth repeating on this amendment that expenditure is not disproportionate if the money is being spent in order to meet the purpose for which it is to be spent. In other words, if the money needed to run an agricultural college is at such a level that it is meeting the needs of the college and the students attending it, then there will be no question of that being disproportionate expenditure.
Finally, the Government well understand that some kinds of provision are more expensive than others. We are aware of anxieties expressed by different groups that they may be disadvantaged by funding arrangements which take no account of inherent differences. One of the main reasons for the reform is to try to get the best from the variety of different further education institutions which will go into the new further education sector. We do not wish to obliterate differences but to enhance them. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness will believe it is right to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords who gave me support on the amendment and the Minister for his reply, which has certainly given some reassurance. As I have said so often, I shall need to return to those who asked me to table the amendment to see whether they wish me to come back and take up any of the points made by the Minister. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Administration of funds: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 48A not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 5, line 26, leave out ("particular") and insert ("religion or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in discussion in Committee on Clause 62 the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford helpfully pointed out that the present definition in the Bill of institutions of a denominational character would exclude institutions administered by more than one denomination. I undertook to bring forward government amendments to remedy that defect. I believe I am right in saying that I have had a shot at it and the right reverend Prelate has also tabled amendments. In moving Amendment No. 49 I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 51, 140 and 142. The right reverend Prelate has tabled amendments starting with Amendment No. 50.
With regard to the government amendments, with the removal of the word "particular" the general principle set out in the Interpretation Act that singular includes plural applies. The opportunity has also been taken to extend the definition to cover institutions in which the religious connection is not with any specific denomination.
It was never the Government's intention to exclude those institutions from the definitions. We were brought to address the matter by the right reverend Prelate and I am most grateful to him. The amendments will repair the defects in both parts of the Bill. As I say, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for pointing out the omission.
Before the right reverend Prelate speaks on the matter, perhaps I may say that the assurance I should like to give is that I am advised that the amendments have precisely the effect of extending the definition of institutions of a denominational character in Clause 62 to cover institutions connected with more than one denomination. That was something which the right reverend Prelate said was certainly his intention to correct. My advice is that the amendments actually achieve that. I hope that the amendments hit the target which the right reverend Prelate also wishes to hit. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister places me in something of a difficulty in so far as I am a little slow in catching up with that splendid phrase about the singular including the plural. That was not language I was used to when I was educated in English grammar. I take it, therefore, that it is a legal definition.
If the Minister is assuring me, as I believe I heard him say, that when the Bill says "religion or denomination" that actually means "denominations", the point is achieved. If that is the case then I support the amendment and shall not move my own. I hope my understanding is correct.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can give the right reverend Prelate the assurance he is asking for regarding the interpretation and the effect of my amendment. The words "religion or … denomination" can mean "religions or denominations". That is exactly the case. The singular means the plural in statutory language.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 5, line 31, leave out ("particular") and insert ("religion or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 5, line 31, at end insert ("or
(c) all or most of the property held for the purposes of the institution is held under trusts which provide that such property is to be used either for or in connection with the provision of education in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination or denominations or for or in connection with the operation of an institution which is conducted in accordance with the tenets of a particular denomination or denominations.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I moved this amendment at Committee stage, not in connection with Clause 6, but with Clause 62. On reflection, we recognised that this amendment should apply to the institutions in this part of the Bill as well as to the higher education institutions. The Minister will remember that my concern is that some of these denominational institutions are operating under trust deeds which are confined not just to what happens to the property if the institution is closed but are drawn up in order to control the management and running of the institution as an operation.
Therefore, I believe that some further amendment may be necessary. My advisers have asked that this amendment should be moved in order that the issue can be properly attended to. If the Minister can assure me that for some reason there is some other legal interpretation to do with the singular and the plural, I shall be happy. However, I need to move the amendment in order to elicit a response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate has moved this amendment because he is right that this is unfinished business. I shall not go over the problem because he has outlined it succinctly. I admit that finding a solution to the problem has proved to be more complex than we had expected. The Department of Education and Science has examined a number of trust deeds for institutions generally recognised to be denominational which are funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. It appears that there are some that would not pass the tests specified by Clause 62.
However, some of these institutions would also fail the third test proposed by the right reverend Prelate's amendment. In other words, the addition of this amendment would not make the definition sufficiently comprehensive for the purposes of Clause 62 nor would it necessarily do so in relation to Clause 6. Therefore, the best way forward would seem to be for the department, in consultation with the right reverend Prelate's advisers, to seek an amendment to these clauses which will provide for a suitably comprehensive definition of institutions of a denominational character. With that reassurance, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel that it is right that

229
we ask those who advise us to continue at the drawing board in the hope that we shall be able to return, probably jointly, with an agreed amendment which I hope, but cannot absolutely undertake, to have ready at the next stage of the Bill. At any rate, there is a determination to make sure that we get an amendment which will be suitable to the right reverend Prelate and the Government before the Bill is finally passed into law.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister sits down, perhaps I may just observe that it is surely we who look to the right reverend Prelate for guidance on the indivisibility of the plurality and the multiplicity of the unity.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, on this occasion I shall not attempt to respond to the noble Lord's interesting theological point, but shall stick to the amendment. I am immensely grateful to the Minister for his reassurance. I believe that we are agreed what it is that we wish jointly to achieve. I shall be happy to leave the matter on the basis which he has suggested—that is to say, that our respective advisers should try to deal with this technical matter. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 5, line 44, after ("are") insert ("in the view of the sponsoring body, the external institution or the LEA").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the question of who is to decide about adequacy. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that more than one part of a system is able to influence the definition of the adequacy of provision for the population of any area and that adequacy is expressed in more than volume terms. Adult education will continue to be provided through a variety of means, including voluntary bodies, but with the new FEFC sector playing a major role. This amendment is intended to probe government thinking and to establish whether it is really their view that in future adequacy will be determined by the local FE college alone.
It is hard to see any long-term future for adult education centres, colleges or voluntary bodies in providing Schedule 2 work, if that is the case. I beg to move.
Viscount Combermere: My Lords, I fully support this amendment. As the Bill stands, in the absence of direct billing, nearly all adult education centres will have to route their application for funds via their neighbouring FE college. If funding is denied or delayed, for whatever reason, that could have a serious effect in terms of planning a programme of studies.
I have personal experience in planning a relatively large programme of around 65 adult courses at university level and I am currently engaged in such a task at the moment. Planning, in my experience, starts about nine months before the courses actually start. Part-time staff need to be engaged; timetables need to be worked out and agreed and publicity material
230
needs to be available well in advance of the courses starting. This latter aspect is vital, as experienced part-time staff do not grow on trees and have to be contacted well in advance if one is to get the right lecturer and ensure proper standards.
Further, experience in this field has at least taught one that inadequate or late publicity material seriously damages the prospects of a programme or a single course. The last thing that adult education needs is unnecessary and possibly damaging uncertainty.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so, I do not think that we can treat adequacy as if it appears for the first time in the Bill under Clause 6(5). We are not free to decide how we should define it. In considering what is meant by the word we need to look back at Clause 3 and the duty on the funding councils to secure the provision of adequate facilities for further education and discharging that duty a council must,
"secure that facilities are provided at such places, are of such character and are so equipped as to meet reasonable need"
In determining what is adequate provision under Clause 6(5) the further education sector college must have regard to this duty which is laid upon the council under Clause 3.
The amendment of the noble Baroness adds to the meaning of what is adequate in a way which, with respect, I do not think is appropriate. It would introduce quality as a defining factor of adequate provision. Quality is, of course, a very important matter and we are dealing with it in Clause 9 and in the new clause which comes after Clause 52. But Clause 6(5) is not the right place to include quality considerations.
To define inadequate provision in terms of quality will have quite a strange effect. It might mean that an FE college would be asked to forward to the funding council an application for funding of new courses on the grounds that identical existing courses were of poor quality. That is unlikely to be a very good basis for decisions on funding. The way forward would surely be to tackle the poor quality provision first and give it a chance to improve.
In summary, we do have difficulty with these amendments. We believe that further education colleges should have the formal role in determining adequacy, in which process it would need to confer with colleges making applications to it and the local education authority as necessary. Setting up a formal disputes procedure is not the way forward and might well tend to make any disagreement more bitter and protracted. Defining inadequate provision, as Amendment No. 55 seeks to do, goes further than would be right for the reasons that I have recently given.
I remind your Lordships of a point which I have sought previously to make. The further education college which has to decide on forwarding the bid to the funding council may not, under Clause 6(5), take a subjective view. It must take an objective view. There is nothing said in Clause 6(5) about the view which a further education college can take on a bid. It can only look objectively to see whether or not the provisions of Clause 6(5) are fulfilled.

231
Standing behind that all the time will be the knowledge that if the further education college which is being used as a channel for the bid takes a view which can be said to be unreasonable, or not fulfilling a duty, then the Secretary of State can come down on that college like a ton of bricks and find that it has acted outside its powers. I apologise for disagreeing with the noble Baroness, but I do not believe that the amendment is the way to go about this. The existing provisions in the Bill, looking back to Clause 3, are a very good and firm guide as to what is or is not adequate.
Baroness David: My Lords, I forgot to say that in moving Amendment No. 54 I was speaking at the same time to Amendment No. 55. However, it was clear from the Minister's response that he realised that. I thank the noble Viscount for his support. My response will be same as it has been so many times. I shall have to read carefully what the Minister has said. I shall consider, consult and then decide whether it is worth coming back again. In this case I think that it is probably not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 56 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 5, line 48, at end insert:
("( ) 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 resolution,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to set up an appeals mechanism for external bids for FEFC funding via a sponsoring body. There is no appeals mechanism. I know from what the Minister said on the previous amendment that one can go to the Secretary of State, but that is a rather heavy handed way of going about it.
Under the provisions of the Bill as it stands nearly all adult education colleges services institutions will need to route their applications to FEFCs for Schedule 2 funding through a local further education college. They will not be eligible for incorporation or designation. Relationships in some localities between adult and FE services have not always been good and the Bill radically alters the distribution of influence between the two. In any event, other people's programmes and funding needs are unlikely to be a sponsoring college's top priority.
External institutions will need to know when they can expect to have the information on which to design and publish promotional material, engage part-time staff and timetable staff and premises. The route through FE college sponsorship may apply to nearly all adult education services or, as we propose, only to the smaller. In either case it will be essential to the maintenance of proper local community-based services that there is no unnecessary delay in determining the level of funds to be made available and that there should be an appeals mechanism. Without these provisions, damaging instability will be
232
introduced into the planning mechanisms of adult centres and services and the adequacy of provision for a locality could be determined without appeal by a body which had shown no previous interest and demonstrated no expertise in the education of adults.
The amendment seeks to set up some kind of appeals mechanism. Such a mechanism is necessary in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to sympathise with the proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the idea of an appeals mechanism looks like natural justice, but there are two reasons why the idea is not perhaps well conceived. 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. That means that the buck ought to stop with the funding council. The second point is that the buck does not stop with the funding council. I apologise for repeating this point but it has to be repeated in this case. If it can be shown that the middle man—the further education college through which the bid is routed—has acted in an unreasonable way, then the Secretary of State can come down like a ton of bricks on that college and call the college to account for either being unreasonable or for not fulfilling its duty.
Before I sit down perhaps I can be a little more constructive than that. 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. Moreover, the determination by an FE college of the adequacy of Schedule 2 provision in its locality must he based on good knowledge and experience. That means that it will need to confer with local adults colleges making applications to it and, as necessary, the LEA. We would certainly expect it to do so.
With that assurance I hope that the disagreement I have expressed with the idea of an appeals machinery will become a little more acceptable.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the regional advisory committee as being there to help, but according to the amendment the appeal could go,
"to the relevant Council or, in England, the Regional Advisory Committee, for resolution".
I have therefore taken that point. As I said, it seems to me that for it to have to go to the Secretary of State is a hard way to proceed. There should be simpler ways than going to the boss. Yet again, I should like to read and consider the answer and decide whether it is satisfactory. Tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Supplementary functions]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 57A:
Page 6, line 41, leave out ("and") and insert:

233
("(aa) shall publish an annual report on the funding and quality of further education, the educational standards in further education, and the management of resources in the further education sector, and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an annual report amendment to which the House is quite accustomed. It is a familiar type of animal. The case for arguing it here is that we have a very new system —the creation of what I imagine will be a single system out of a highly disparate collection of units. We have many questions in our own minds about how it will work. I recall particularly the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford on Amendment No. 4 dealing with sixth form colleges. A great many questions were raised to which I should very much like to know the answers.
It seems to me that it could be to the benefit of the House to have an annual report laid in front of us and to hear something of the funding councils' opinion of how matters have worked out.
The amendment directs that the annual report should deal with,
"the funding and quality of further education".
The linking together of those two words is the essence of the amendment. The Minister said, slightly to my surprise, on the previous amendment that he was a little worried by the introduction of the notion of quality into the notion of adequacy. I should have thought that those were as inseparable as David and Jonathan. There is a necessary connection here. Part of the purpose of drafting the amendment in this way is to bring to a head the debate on what the link may, or may not, be between quality and funding. I know that it is not a question which appears exactly the same on the two sides of the House. As a dispute may from time to time arise, an informed, thorough and professional opinion can be valuable. The question arises over and over again: is the level of provision enough for the objects it is designed to achieve? That is not the same as asking whether more money should be spent? It is a matter of the link between the level of provision and the object it is meant to achieve. It is becoming nowadays very difficult indeed to try to argue that the level of provision is not adequate to its objectives. Over and over again people say, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, did on the first amendment today, "This is the voice of the providers, it is self-interested". Practically any informed comment is liable to be dismissed with that argument.
Of course, there is a point here which is worth attention. That is precisely why it is important, if that question is being raised, to have a voice which is not open to objection, a voice which is at the least neutral. That is the usefulness of having a report dealing with the link between quality and funding by the funding council. The council must be presumed to carry the confidence of the Secretary of State. I cannot see why he should have appointed it if that were not so.
The Secretary of State's judgment in such a matter is not, of course, infallible; but it is becoming a constitutional argument: how the Secretary of State's judgment, if he persists in it year after year in the face of criticisim, can be made subject to review. No method of making it subject to review has yet proved
234
effective. It is no use saying merely that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, because every time anyone in Parliament says anything about it we receive, over and over again, the objection that that is the voice of the providers and there is no need to listen to it. A report from the funding councils on this question is badly needed. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I support the amendment. The Bill explicitly charges the funding councils with the duty of securing the assessment of quality, and establishes a committee to do just that and to give them advice. But quality itself is not defined. I believe that it is a word that has not previously been used in education legislation. Nor are the councils required to see that any particular level of quality is achieved, merely that quality should be assessed.
To elaborate a little on what the noble Earl said, where quality and funding are the responsibility of the same body there is a risk that financial considerations will affect decisions about quality. There must be a natural tendency for an acceptable level to be defined as the best level that can be afforded. Where expansion is taking place while resources are constrained, which is the position in further education today, the pressure to sacrifice effectiveness to economy is all the stronger.
The amendment requiring the publication of an annual report, setting quality in the context of resources, will make the funding councils be open about their responsibilities and facilitate the public accountability of the sector as a whole; so we on this side of the House support the amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to require that the councils should publish an annual report on the funding and quality of further education, the educational standards in FE and the management of resources. As the noble Earl said, an amendment of this kind is familiar, but the point is: is it necessary?
Clause 8 already lays a duty on the councils to provide the Secretary of State with such information on provision as he may require. It also empowers the funding councils to submit such information or advice relating to such provision as they think fit. It would thus be open to the Secretary of State to call for information about about funding, standards or management of resources from the council and it will be open to the council to submit such information on its own initiative. Further, colleges will be required under Clause 48 to publish information about the educational provision made or proposed to be made for their students and about educational achievements, and it will be open to the Secretary of State to specify that such information should include information on quality and standards.
After that litany, I do not believe that it is necessary to impose a further duty on the councils in that respect. Although I realise that the noble Baroness and the noble Earl have spoken in favour of the amendment, I hope that it will not be pressed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we have been here before. Every time we try to ask for a report to be made to

235
Parliament or for it to be published, the Minister replies that the report will be made to the Secretary of State. That is not the same thing. I should be grateful if the Minister would not continue to answer these amendments as if it were.
The Secretary of State and Parliament are not synonymous. The procedure described by the Minister is a good one for informing the Secretary of State's judgment. What the procedure described by the Minister does not do is to provide any method of controlling the Secretary of State's judgment. But it is, as I see it, precisely the controlling of the Secretary of State's judgment which is the problem. Secretaries of State in this country enjoy a truly terrifying degree of power. If a Secretary of State should persist obstinately in an error—Secretaries of State are human beings and therefore like everyone else among us they must be capable of doing that—there does not seem to be any adequate means of control.
Every time we try to obtain impartial information laid before Parliament by which the judgment of the Secretary of State might be reviewed, the Minister simply replies that the information is put before the Secretary of State. That really is not good enough. I do not intend to divide the House at this time of night, but this issue will come up again. I beg the Minister to give a more considered answer to the real point at issue the next time this matter comes up.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, before the noble Earl decides to withdraw the amendment—if that is his intention—I hope I may remind him that the list of duties and powers on providing information includes a requirement on colleges, under Clause 48, to publish information about the educational provision,
"made or proposed to be made for their students"
and about educational achievements.
That provision does not depend upon the Secretary of State and involves the publication of information.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments. They go a very little way towards meeting my point. This is likely to be purely factual information. It will state that an institution has courses in X and Y and has Z number of students. If the information goes further than that, it will be dismissed as being simply the voice of a provider that does not need to be listened to. It does not get us anywhere with the real problem, which is that of controlling and reviewing the judgment of the Secretary of State. However, it is not my intention to divide the House on this matter now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Assessment of quality of education provided by institutions]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("the quality of education provided") and insert ("and reporting on the quality of education across the service and over time").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 151 and 153. Clause 9 concerns quality. I hope this
236
is the right place to move this amendment. The Minister criticised me for mentioning quality on Clause 6.
The Government's belief appears to be that quality control —the in-house procedures for maintaining standards at the point of delivery—is the responsibility of the colleges; that is, from 1993, governing bodies and their management teams. Quality assurance—the procedures for maintaining the standards of awards across this sector—will be the responsibility of the examining and validating bodies which themselves are subject to the rules of SEAC and NCVQ. Those two bodies will have oversight of the vast majority of courses described in Schedule 2. I think that is reasonable so far as it goes. Only those on the spot can check and change delivery in the classroom, and it is clearly the responsibility of those who kite-mark awards to ensure that one is as good as another if they bear the same label.
However, this minimal approach omits the assurance of basic skills and access courses which are in Schedule 2 but are not subject to SEAC and NCVQ. It also omits comparative surveys and the consequent accumulation of experience, especially of teaching, learning and institutional management, which is one of HMI's most useful functions. It omits the public reporting on organisational effectiveness and on trends of decline or improvement which HMI undertakes at present and, further, the giving of advice and help to institutions and teachers for the purpose of improving standards of service. That has been a forte of those who have observed and evaluated education over the years.
Will the phrase "quality assessment" embrace activities such as those I have listed? It would be preferable if they or something like them could be worked into the text. I suggest that an amendment should be made to paragraph (a) so that the subsection would read:
"Each council shall … secure that provision is made for assessing and reporting on the quality of education across the service and over time in institutions for which the council give, or are considering giving, financial support under this Part of this Act".
That still does not oblige the council to use HMI or an audit unit. Therefore, I hope that an amendment such as this might be acceptable to the Government.
An improvement could be made to subsection (2) of both Clause 9 and Clause 66. If the purpose of the committee is to give advice on assessing quality, surely a substantial proportion of the committee should have experience of inspection and/or quality assurance. I suggest an amendment to the subsection to read:
"The majority of the members of the committee shall be persons appearing to the council to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision, inspection and quality assurance of further education".
In the case of Clause 66 that would refer to higher education.
I hope that the Government might be sympathetic to those amendments and we shall receive a favourable reply this time. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, I do not think that there is a great deal of difference between Amendment No. 58 and the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which sought annual reports. In my answer to that amendment, which did not find favour with the noble Earl, I listed the different ways in which information about quality is provided, and in some cases is published, so far as concerns the council.
In response to this amendment I should remind the House that it was precisely to meet points that were made in Committee about the need for an independent view that we brought forward Amendment No. 62 which amends Clause 9 to provide that a majority of the members of the quality assessment committee shall be from outside the council. That shows that we are serious about the need to have what might be seen as an entirely independent view on the quality assessment committee.
I shall not read out the litany of ways in which information can be provided because if the noble Earl were present it would enrage him. However, there are a great many ways in which information can be or will be required to be provided. In some cases it will be published. As I imagine that there is no secrecy about any of these matters it is all information which sooner or later will be in the public domain. To add statutory reporting arrangements in addition is too much.
That is the only difference of view between the Government and the noble Baroness on this amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, has the noble Lord also replied to Amendment No. 64?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness on the subject of Amendment No. 64. I had overlooked the fact that that was to be dealt with together with Amendment No. 58. I apologise.
Baroness David: My Lords, my answer will be the same as always. I shall read, consider and take advice on the Minister's reply and possibly return to the matter. It is rather more than simply a matter of reporting. I should very much like to take advice and possibly return to the matter at Third Reading. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 7, line 32, leave out from ("institutions") to ("and") in line 34 and insert ("within the further education sector").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 9 provides that each further education funding council shall secure that provision is made for assessing quality of education. As it stands, the clause provides that that duty shall extend to assessment of the quality of education provided in institutions for which the council gives, or is considering giving, financial support. The effect of the amendment is to restrict the duty to all institutions within the further education sector.
I ask noble Lords to consider the amendment alongside the proposed new clause to follow Clause 52 which makes it clear that local education authorities
238
will be responsible for keeping under review the quality of education in institutions that they continue to maintain. That will secure quality control where a maintained institution is indirectly assisted by the council under the arrangements in Clause 6(5). Other financial assistance that the council may give under Clause 5(5) will be in respect of training, advice or research rather than education, so it does not need to be covered by the arrangements in Clause 9. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I understand it —and I think that the Minister has been quite clear in introducing the amendment —the effect would be to restrict the responsibility of the council for assessing quality to those institutions that are within the FE sector; that is, to those colleges that acquire corporate status as a result of the Bill when it is enacted. However, unless specific alternative arrangements were made, there would be no requirement to check on the quality of work provided as a result of external funding provided by the councils. That would include Schedule 2 work carried out by the LEA-maintained adult education institutions, although I understand that the Minister has just said that, under a later amendment, the local authority would retain the right to inspect. However, more importantly, it would, as I understand it, mean that the funding councils had no duty to ensure the quality of provision for special education needs secured outside the FE sector. Will the Minister say how quality will be assessed in that area?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. I asked the House to see the amendment alongside the proposed new clause to follow Clause 52, which makes it clear that local education authorities will be responsible for keeping under review the quality of education in institutions that they continue to maintain. That was exactly what I said. That will secure quality control through the LEAs where a maintained institution is indirectly assisted by the council under the arrangements in Clause 6(5).
I shall have to write to the noble Baroness about the special education point as I am not aware of it. It is obviously a point of some importance and I promise to write to her and send a copy of my letter to the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Seear, who are on the Front Benches of their respective parties this evening.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 7, line 38, at end insert:
("(c) establish a committee, to be known as the "Curriculum Advisory Committee", with the function of consulting at national level upon the educational and training strategy for this sector and of giving advice to the council on the discharge of their duty under paragraph (a) above and such other functions as may be conferred on the committee by the council.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 60 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61, 63 and 86.
Regrettably, this Bill totally lacks an educational rationale, as I and other noble Lords said in

239
Committee. Instead, it concerns itself entirely with the structures and funding of further education and the philosophy of extending competition into the sector. Without any curricular dimension to the Bill, there continues to be a lack of coherence between the pre-16 and post-16 experience of young people. Many criticisms can be made of the Education Reform Act 1988, but at least an education philosophy lay at its heart in Clause 1(2), which referred to the need for schools to establish:
"a balanced and broadly based curriculum which promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
The Government's proposals in the White Paper that preceded that Bill—Education and Training for the 21st Century—for parity of esteem between A levels on the one hand and vocational qualifications on the other through the ordinary advanced diploma system will regrettably do nothing to improve our low full-time participation rates compared with those of our competitors in other countries. It is possible that more detail concerning the educational content of the White Paper will be provided through DES circulars. That method was used in the recent consultation about the ordinary and advanced diplomas. But I fear that such a piecemeal approach to implementation militates against the integrated approach to the post-16 curriculum and organisation which ought to underpin the Bill itself.
It also runs counter to the need for continuity within the 14 to 19 curriculum, which was identified by the National Curriculum Council in its most recent corporate plan. That established the 14 to 19 curriculum as a priority area in the coming year. Yet the Government seem to be overlooking the work of their own advisers in that respect.
Perhaps I may say a few words about what the amendments ought to achieve. Amendment No. 60 gives the funding council at national level a duty to establish a curriculum advisory committee that would look at the needs of the further education sector and try to establish a consensus about the educational needs of the whole sector. Those educational needs do not need to focus solely on the name and nature of qualifications. The processes and experience inside and outside the classroom must also be examined.
At a local level the amendments place a duty on the corporations to provide an appropriate curriculum, building on local strengths within a national framework. That means the involvement of teachers, students, governors and employers in identifying the educational entitlement of students in FE.
Under the terms of the Bill the majority of the members of the proposed quality assessment committee shall have experience or have shown capacity in the provision of further education. An important role of that committee and the committees established by the amendments will be to advise on the quality of education and on improvements in classroom practice, which in turn should lead to improvements in the achievement of pupils.
The committee needs to have all-round experience and knowledge of further education. For example, a
240
committee member should be aware of the interrelationship between equality of opportunity, access and provision, including that for pupils, young people and students with special educational needs, and educational achievement. If teachers in an institution are to have respect and confidence in assessing the quality of education, it is essential that the committees should include members who are qualified teachers. That is provided for in Amendment No. 63.
The amendments would give a much needed curricular dimension to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me if at this late hour I seem to become a little pedantic or even jaundiced. I believe that the amendment is flawed. There is a reference to:
"the educational and training strategy for this sector".
But I believe it is appropriate to point out that Clause 9, like Clauses 8, 7, 6 and 5 before it, refers to both the higher education and the further education sectors. Therefore the amendment could scarcely stand in its present form.
Moreover, subsection (c) proposes to set up a curriculum advisory committee but subsection (b) before it has just set up a quality assessment committee. The noble Baroness suggested that one of the functions of the proposed curriculum advisory committee would be to make comments on the evaluation of quality. Matters have already become complicated in another area and will become complicated again in the area of quality evaluation. There appears to be a tendency toward reduplication in this field. I have much sympathy with the noble Baroness's objective. But would it not have been better served by a more modest amendment to paragraph (b)? The Bill already provides for the establishment of a quality assessment committee,
"with the function of giving … advice on the discharge of their duty under paragraph (a) … and such other functions as may be conferred on the committee by the council".
I should have thought that it might well have been sufficient to make some suggestions as to what further duties could be added. Do we really need two committees when one might suffice?
11.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord in saying that I am not absolutely clear why the considerable number of other bodies could not be used for that objective. I have in mind such bodies as the National Training Task Force, the Further Education Unit, the National Curriculum Council, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and, not least, Her Majesty's Government. They are involved to a lesser or greater extent in the task which the noble Baroness sets in the amendment. Although those bodies may have their hands full, I cannot believe that there is not one among them which would not be eager to take some part in the work that is set by this amendment instead of creating a new body.
I was not entirely sure from the noble Baroness's remarks whether this anxiety was behind the amendment: that there should be channels through

241
which those involved in education and training at national level can comment on the funding councils' quality assessment arrangements or other aspects of their performance. There is nothing in the existing legislation to prevent them from doing so. That causes me to wonder again why the large number of expert bodies which, broadly speaking, exist in this field could not have been lighted upon as being the instruments through which the noble Baroness would set up this body.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am a little puzzled as to why he suggested that there are many other expert bodies which could do the job better. I am puzzled in particular by his reference to the National Curriculum Council. I did not believe that it covered further education; I thought that it covered primary and secondary education. It would be widening its remit to expect it to carry out the work of a committee on the curriculum—as the amendment proposes—which would specifically advise the funding councils in that area.
I accept that the Further Education Unit in the Department of Education undertakes work in this field. However, it advises Ministers rather than the funding councils. Again it might find itself in a slightly difficult position if it were asked to do both.
On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I do not believe that the quality assessment committee could do the job that I have in mind. It is a quite different role from commenting on or advising on the development of the curriculum for 16 to 19 year-olds in further education, in particular when considering how that ought to relate to what is happening to 14 to 16 year-olds. I believe that everyone in the House will agree that there is a need for continuity.
I accept the noble Lord's first point that the amendment may be flawed. In the light of that, I shall be happy to consider whether an improved amendment can be brought forward at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 62 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 63 to 66 inclusive.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 7, line 39, leave out from ("committee") to end of line 41 and insert:
("(a) shall be persons falling within subsection (2A) below, and
(b) shall not be members of the council.
(2A) Persons fall within this subsection if they appear to the council to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of further education and, in appointing such persons, the council shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of further education or in carrying responsibility for such provision.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, anxieties were expressed by your Lordships during the Committee stage debate on the parallel clause in Part II that there should be a voice for current practitioners on the
242
quality assessment committees and that a majority of members should not also be members of the funding council.
The Government have accepted the force of these arguments in relation to further education as well as higher education. The Secretary of State appreciates the importance of institutions having full confidence in the quality assessment procedures. The Government have tabled this amendment which will require the funding councils to have regard to appointing, as part of the majority of members on the committee, people currently engaged in the provision of further education. This is similar to the amendment to Clause 1 concerning the membership of the further education funding councils themselves.
The second effect of this amendment is to require that a majority of members of the quality assessment committee shall not also be members of the funding council. The Government have concluded that a statutory requirement of this kind would provide an important guarantee of the independence of the committee's operations and advice. The two limbs of the amendment are in response to views expressed at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for taking enough time to repeat the warm thanks that I offered to the Minister for the equivalent concession in Amendment No. 10. We are glad to see this amendment and I am grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 65 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Functions of local education authorities in respect of further education]:
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 8, line 24, at end insert ("including youth work").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 71. They are concerned with the youth service. In Committee we spent some time discussing the youth services, which cover 5 million young people at any one time. I shall not dwell on the details of the service except to remind your Lordships that there was general agreement in Committee about the value of the service educationally, socially and spiritually.
In response the Minister spoke appreciatively of the service. He gave a detailed and complex explanation of cases where the youth service is a statutory responsibility under previous legislation. When I looked at the references that he gave I found that nowhere is it stated specifically. To be fair to the Minister, I believe that he indicated that. It is all a question of inference and general responsibilities.
The Minister also wrote to the National Youth Agency. Perhaps I may quote one sentence of his letter. He stated:
"May I again confirm that the revised section 41, which is inserted under clause 11, continues to cover the youth service, and that the service is statutorily part of further education".
The Minister states that clearly in the letter but the clause itself does not state it so clearly. The purpose of the two amendments is to insert the fact that further

243
education includes youth work. I do not understand why the Minister is so reluctant to make that specific. As he well knows, the National Youth Agency and many other national youth organisations are anxious that the Bill should clearly state that youth work is a statutory responsibility. It is not an idle wish on their part. In these difficult days of rate-capping and financial constraints, such a specific reference would safeguard their interests and to some extent strengthen their hand when dealing with competing claims on limited finances.
The amendment may not be as well drafted as the Minister would wish but perhaps he will agree in principle that there should be a specific reference to youth work or the youth services. If he agrees with that but cannot accept this amendment, perhaps he will be prepared to meet my sponsors and myself on this problem. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, this is an important issue and I shall take up the time of the House for a few moments. I read carefully the reply which the Minister gave in Committee in which he said that the proposed changes to Section 41 of the 1944 Act, linked with the old Section 53 of the Act, covered the youth services issue.
The proposed Section 41 lays upon local authorities the duty to provide further education, and subsection (3) defines further education. It states that further education means:
"full-time and part-time education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age (including vocational, social, physical and recreational training); and organised leisure-time occupation provided in connection with the provision of such education".
Section 53 of the Act states:
"facilities for primary, secondary and further education provided for their area include adequate facilities for recreation and social and physical training".
In both cases we are looking at social, physical and, in one case, vocational training. That is a relatively limited definition and I suggest to the House that it does not adequately cover the totality of what we mean by youth services.
In his reply in Committee the Minister said that at present in legislation there is no definition of "youth service". If that be true—and I am sure that it is—it is high time that such a definition were put on the statute book. To be helpful I suggest that a possible definition may be: "All those services which will tend to help young people to develop into balanced, happy, healthy individuals and to play their part in the life of the community in which they live".
I give the House two examples which would not be covered by the definition in the Act: namely, the counselling of young people and the befriending of young offenders. Those are extremely important issues in the work of the youth service. One group in our community in great need of help today are those young people who have suffered from the withdrawal of parental support, or worse, those suffering from low self-esteem who lack adults whom they can trust and respect. That group is particularly vulnerable to crime, prostitution, alcohol and drugs. I believe that we need to provide a wide range of youth services,
244
including counselling and befriending, which will be needed to bring those young people back into the mainstream of our society.
The duty to make such a provision should be laid clearly upon the local authority and it is not so laid in the Bill as it stands. This amendment would supplement the provisions which are already in the Bill with the wider duty to provide such youth services as are needed by their population.
I believe that this is an important amendment. I hope that the Minister will either accept it or return at a later stage with a revision of it.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I emphasise my support for the amendment. As a former teacher, alas, I am only too aware of students who seem totally turned off by traditional schooling, whether in further education colleges or sixth form colleges and so on. Sometimes it is their own fault, sometimes it is the fault of their teachers and at other times it is the fact that they suffer from undiagnosed learning difficulties such as dyslexia or autism.
There are countless young people who, as children, are deemed to be almost ineducable and yet, as teenagers, develop late to become what the Americans rather charmingly call "late bloomers". There are many reasons why young people are encouraged and stimulated by taking part in the valuable activities and classes that are run by the youth service to develop innate but hitherto unsuspected talent. Non-academic activities are particularly valuable for students at further education colleges which do not necessarily offer the more structured general curriculum of school sixth forms.
As I said in Committee, I beg the Government to ensure that youth work is included in the provision of education which,
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure".
I shall be grateful for the assurance of my noble friend the Minister that the local youth service needs of the young people of each community—their present, their changing and even new needs which are bound to develop from time to time—are provided for in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 67 and 71 are, to use the Minister's own words in Committee, looking for more than simply sticking the phrase "youth work" on the face of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will take the point away and look at it again.
12 midnight
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in Committee I supported the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, to bring the youth service within the scope of the Bill. In doing so I said that the Scout Association, with which I have long had a connection, considered that although the majority of local authorities provided for the service, it was at a reduced level compared with the support given in the past. That organisation therefore believed that it was time for a statutory duty to be placed on local authorities for that purpose. In support of that view I learned only today that the county of Warwickshire is now proposing to dispense altogether with expenditure on the service.

245
As has already been said, in his reply to the Committee the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to the problems associated with trying to bring the youth service within the scope of the Bill. In the light of those problems the noble Lord advised us to think again. That we have done, as is evidenced in the amendment, by eliminating all reference to the youth service as such, and instead referring simply to youth work in general.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, responded sympathetically to the earlier debate on this subject. Along with other noble Lords, therefore, I hope that he will now either accept the amendment in its present form or, following the support it has received from all parts of the House, agree to bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading to achieve the purpose that we have in mind.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we are again discussing a matter which is obviously of interest to your Lordships. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Northbourne, my noble friend Lady Brigstocke and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for remaining until this late hour to discuss this specific matter.
As I explained to your Lordships at the Committee stage, the provision of what is known as the youth service is already covered in the Bill within the broad definition of further education. The youth service is not specifically mentioned —indeed, it is not in existing legislation—but the relevant statutory basis is under the revised Section 41 of the Education Act 1944 set out in Clause 11, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
The introduction of the words "youth work" to try to define further what is meant by further education adds not a great deal to the Bill or indeed to the powers already available to provide a youth service under Clause 11. There are two specific problems which I must place before your Lordships. One is that by identifying youth work specifically as part of further education it could be argued that youth work might otherwise be excluded from other parts of the education Acts, of which this Bill will form a part, that relate to local education authorities' provision of further education. I shall look at this matter. It has been expressed very eloquently this evening. We have to look at that particular point.
The other point which needs to be looked at was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in a most informed way. I am not saying that it is, but if it were possible to put either youth work or youth service on the face of the Bill, there would have to be a definition. I thought that just for once the noble Lord was perhaps a little less than fair when he made the point that, for instance, counselling is not covered in the existing revised Section 41. I should have thought that social training did cover counselling. I am only giving my view. I believe that the noble Lord's point was not a very good one. However, I believe that, as regards the befriending of young offenders, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, had a telling point. I acknowledge that he did.
246
I have listened with interest to the arguments which your Lordships have put forward both today and at Committee stage. I appreciate the genuine anxieties that lie behind what has been said. I also acknowledge the expertise that lies behind what has been said. The Government fully support the youth service and the value of youth work for young people. I should like to look at this matter again. I do not want the Government unnecessarily to stand in the way of doing something which obviously your Lordships feel strongly about. However, I have pointed to two specific difficulties that there are and there may be others.
I undertake to write to the noble Baroness who moved the amendment and to send copies of the letter to those of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate on the amendment so that noble Lords can decide what the next step shall be.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance. We all agree with him that the service is covered, but in a vague kind of way. I am sure that we should all like to insert a suitable definition of youth work if we can agree on it. I hope that, in addition to writing to us, the Minister will also consult us on what the amendment should be. In the light of the assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 8, line 24, at end insert:
("(1A) A local education authority shall discharge that duty so as—

(a) to secure that facilities are provided at such places, are of such character and are so equipped as to meet the reasonable need for education to which subsection (1) above applies, and

(b) to take account of the different abilities and aptitudes of persons within its area.").

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the responsibilities of the local education authority. The Minister will remember that, since the publication of the White Paper, there has been concern about the division of funding of adult education between the funding council and the local authority. There has been the anxiety that leisure-time adult education may be undervalued. It seems important to clarify and re-emphasise the responsibilities of the local education authority.
Therefore, this amendment proposes to put on the local education authority a responsibility which is almost exactly comparable—but appropriate for its different responsibilities—to that allocated to the funding council in Clause 3(2) (a) in order to give a parallel responsibility, as far as it applies, recognising their different responsibilities. It is important that the local education authority's responsibility should be clear not least to those living in rural areas where there is anxiety that they may not have the same degree of access to the further education colleges where that sector of adult education will be provided.
When I raised this matter at Committee stage the Minister was kind enough to say that he understood the worries which prompted the amendment. He

247
recognised the force of the arguments; he said that he would like to consider a little further the implications, and that he would report back to this House. I do not see an amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, so I thought that he would like this opportunity of welcoming the amendment at this stage. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, as my name is to this amendment I should like to support it and add my hope that the Minister will keep his word, having said that he was very sympathetic and would look at it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I certainly have kept my word in saying that I would look as sympathetically as possible at this amendment. Indeed, I have considered very carefully whether the Government could accept the amendment, but the trouble is that I am afraid that I have not reached the point where that can be done.
I have concluded that the amendment does not alter the force of the core duty upon local education authorities to secure the provision of adequate facilities for further education which falls outside the duty upon the funding councils.
What constitutes the adequacy of facilities is for the LEA to determine. There are statutory procedures for challenging LEA decisions about the adequacy of provision and, in the event of such a challenge, it would be for the Secretary of State to determine whether the LEA was in default of its duty.
Our concern about the amendment is simply this. An amendment by its nature presumes the introduction of some different effect within the legislation. But Clause 11, even with the amendment proposed, does not change the existing duty upon local education authorities. It could indeed be regarded as misleading for the Bill to include new wording which does not alter the force of a duty upon local education authorities which they have had since 1944.
Your Lordships have not asked me, but your Lordships may well be thinking—and the right reverend Prelate might ask in his concluding remarks—why wording of this kind has been introduced in Clause 3 if it it not acceptable in Clause 11. In fact it is implicit in what the right reverend Prelate said that that question must be at the front of his mind. The first answer is that we are introducing a new statutory duty upon the funding councils whereas we are maintaining an existing statutory duty which has existed for over 40 years upon the local education authorities. The second answer is that the councils' duty encompasses the whole country and it is therefore reasonable to set out in a little more detail how it is to be carried out. Local education authorities are already aware that their duty is to provide a local service to suit local people.
I am genuinely sorry that I cannot accommodate the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness so far as this amendment is concerned, but I have tried to set out the reasons why that is so. Having hoped that I might come up to the gate in putting down an amendment, I am afraid that I have not been able to do so.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Honesty, which one would expect from someone speaking from these Benches, requires me to say that I do not find his response very convincing. Nonetheless, at this hour of night I do not think that I have any option but to seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment. In doing so I hope that better counsels might yet prevail.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 69.
Page 8, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament in respect of each financial year in which this section is applicable a statement that adequate financial resources are available to funding councils and to each local education authority to enable them to provide adult education of high quality sufficient to the needs of their areas.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is yet another attempt to ensure that there is adequate provision for adult education in this country. We have been assured that it is a duty on local authorities to make provision for leisure time activities, but there is more than a lurking feeling that it will come very much at the end of the obligations which are accepted by the local authorities. There is a very real danger that the adult education provision will be the Cinderella of the education services. In our view that would be disastrous. The role of adult education in a society changing as fast as ours is changing, with new needs for different categories of people emerging all the time, is very great indeed. Unless there are real financial resources, nothing very much will happen and the existing adult education provision—although it will not be done away with—will gradually dwindle until it is of very little value.
This amendment is intended to make sure that there really are adequate financial resources available. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to add my support as my name is to this amendment. Acceptance of this amendment would show that the Government's intentions, about which we hear a great deal as far as concerns adult education, really are serious and genuine.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am uneasy about the amendment on several grounds. Two are purely technical. Clause 11 states:
"For section 41 of the Education Act 1944 (functions of local education authorities in respect of further education) there is substituted".
It is an odd function of the local education authority that the Secretary of State should do something. That is a technical point. My second technical point is that we could well imagine that in certain circumstances a local authority might not be able to provide sufficient money for the reason that it was running short of money. We are all aware that some local authorities have overspent. In that circumstance, for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement that "adequate financial resources are available" would be most imprudent. The amendment should not read,
"a statement that adequate financial resources are available".
It should read:

249
"a statement as to whether or not adequate financial resources are available".
That could easily be put right by a small amendment.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made an interesting observation earlier in the debate. He observed, if I quote him correctly, that it is axiomatic that the amount of money is never enough to meet the needs. In a way one feels that in most walks of life. It would be a most unusual provision to ask the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement that money was sufficient. Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer, and my noble friend Lord Renton, who often advises me on these matters, is not beside me this evening. I should be surprised if there are comparable provisions elsewhere in the statute book. Perhaps noble Lords opposite can advise on that point.
Ultimately in many ways I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. One wishes that sufficient resources should be made available—I have every sympathy with that—but I wonder whether it is possible to legislate that sufficient resources should be made available. In the final analysis I agree that much of what we are discussing throughout the Bill is whether enough money is being put, will be put or has been put into various areas of education. Some of us may well feel that in certain areas not enough has been put or is likely to be put. That point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I have much sympathy with it. However, I am uneasy as to whether one can solve the problem simply by proclaiming that the Secretary of State should declare that enough money has been made available. For that reason, although I do not disagree with the amendment, I am uneasy about it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I have been looking at the wording of the clause. I do not think that the placing of the amendment is quite as inappropriate as the noble Lord suggested. The clause concerns the duties of local authorities and the ability of local authorities to carry out those duties. It is the ability of local authorities to carry out those duties on which this amendment bears.
The noble Lord also drew attention to the possibility that local authorities may not have enough money. That is precisely why my noble friend Lady Seear put down this amendment. We have been discussing and will discuss again the revenue support grant to local authorities and how far that is calculated in a way suitable to take account of the provision of adult education. If a local authority does not have enough money it would be legitimate to ask the Secretary of State to look at the revenue support grant and ask whether it took the needs of adult education adequately into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, quoted me almost accurately but, as is inevitable with quotations from memory, not quite accurately. There are two significant differences. First, I did not say it was axiomatic. I was not talking about the general situation of money not being sufficient. I was talking about a specific problem which I see as peculiar to the lifetime of this Government. Secondly, I was not just
250
saying that money is not sufficient to do what one would like. I know that that is always with us. I was trying to allege something that is a good deal more fundamental than that—an insufficiency of money to discharge all the functions that are meant to be discharged; a real mismatch between funding and function. I shall not detain the House any further with that now.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should have thought that this was an area where the public expenditure round and the Autumn Statement were the correct vehicles for giving information from a Minister through Parliament to the country. It enables both Houses of Parliament to question the Ministers or representatives of the departments concerned as the individual plans resulting from the Autumn Statement for the departments become clearer, particularly the capital expenditure plans and others.
Therefore, with respect to the noble Baroness, this is not the first time that I have heard her in equally persuasive tones endeavouring to get such an amendment on to the statute book. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I should have thought that there was obviously merit in wanting to see that Parliament and the public are made aware of what are the amounts of money for departmental functions and views from Ministers as to whether the money is sufficient. But this derives or flows from the time of the Autumn Statement in statements which are made or extracted from Ministers in both Houses of Parliament as the months go by after the public expenditure round.
I echo the remark of my noble friend Lord Renfrew that it would be unusual to have an amendment of this kind. Education legislation provides many statutory duties for which funding must be available and it would be strange to single out one set of duties for the treatment proposed in this amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his not altogether surprising reply. I do not regard the fact that it is unusual as necessarily an argument against the amendment. There always has to be a first time, even for a Conservative government. However, at this time of night the last thing I intend to do is to test the opinion of the House and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70 to 72 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 9, line 34, at end insert:
("( ) In exercising their functions under this section a local education authority shall secure that provision is made for reporting on the quality of education across the service and over time in institutions for which the local education authority give, or are considering giving, financial support under this Part of the Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to secure provision for quality assurance in the LEA sector. It implies a continuing role for LEA inspection and advisory services. Can the Minister tell us how he sees a continuing role for HMIs in this context? The Government have given repeated assurances recently about the importance

251
which they place on the continuing adult education provision to be made by LEAs. This is not reflected in the drafting of the Bill.
All education provision should be subject to professional quality assurance mechanisms. LEAs will in the main wish to continue their inspection and advisory roles for their own adult education but, like the further education funding councils, they should be required, not merely empowered, to do so. This was not picked up at Committee stage and I had heard that the Government were thinking of introducing an amendment of this kind themselves. However, it does not seem to have appeared. The issue seems to me to need to be addressed. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government's amendment in the form of a new clause after Clause 52 would place a duty upon LEAs to keep under review in institutions maintained or assisted by them the quality of education provided, the educational standards achieved and the management of financial resources. It would also allow local education authorities to cause inspections to be made by persons authorised by them.
In addition, the funding councils and their quality assessment committees will themselves have a duty to secure that provision is made to assess the quality of all the education provided in institutions within the FE sector, which may include education which falls within the duty of the LEA and is funded by the LEA.
Precisely how the councils and committees assess quality will be a matter for them. They may wish to involve LEAs in so far as particular courses are funded by them. As for the LEAs, they will be free to set conditions which will no doubt include conditions on quality and standards for any financial support they give, or propose to give, to institutions within the sector.
252
Those are strong proposals. However, the noble Baroness is not satisfied that they go far enough. I do not believe that it is necessary to put an explicit duty on LEAs to report on quality. The process of accountability will mean that reports go before local authority education committees in respect of the LEA's exercise of its functions. Such proceedings are generally open to public scrutiny. It is not necessary to legislate here on matters which are part and parcel of local government business.
The amendment does not tell us to whom the LEA should report or what the nature of the report should be. On those grounds, the amendment is technically defective. We can leave reporting matters to LEAs in the exercise of their functions. I hope that the noble Baroness is persuaded to withdraw the amendment. Before she decides, on her question about what part HMIs will play and so forth, perhaps we may wait until I move the amendment after Clause 52 when we deal with that point on Thursday.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry, I have not studied the amendment. I was aware that it would not be dealt with until Thursday. I knew for the first time yesterday of its existence. I did not connect it with this clause, and that is my fault. I shall read carefully the amendment and what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past midnight.

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS: ADVISORY COST LIMIT
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS: ADVISORY COST LIMIT
  INCOME SUPPORT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS
  INCOME SUPPORT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS
  NIGHT AND SHIFT WORK: HEALTH EFFECTS
  NIGHT AND SHIFT WORK: HEALTH EFFECTS