Sitting of 16 January 1992

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

    KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Thursday 23 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Privatisation
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue he expects from the proceeds of privatisation for the period of the public expenditure survey.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): Privatisation proceeds are expected to be £8 billion in 1992–93, and £5½ billion in 1993–94 and 1994–95. These are as announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement of 6 November 1991.
    Mr. Mullin: What will we live on when the oil revenues have all gone and there is nothing left to privatise? Or will the Chief Secretary and his friends be sunning themselves in some tax haven by that time?
    Mr. Mellor: I suspect that we will live on the talents of the British people, which will be greatly assisted by the tax and spending regime—[HON. MEMBERS: "On the backs of the working class."] It is clear how rattled the Labour party is, as it has to start barracking this early in the proceedings. The real question that the hon. Gentleman should put is to his own party: how will it keep tax and spending plans going if it does not have the benefit of privatisation revenues?
    Mr. Marlow: Apparently there are some interesting, exciting, progressive, damn fool ideas going around about renationalising the water industry. How much would it cost if fair compensation were paid to the standard rate taxpayer each year if that were to be done?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend touches on an interesting point. The Labour party has become ever so coy about the details of its renationalisation plans. The last time it was asked about them by The Times, the best that it could do was to put up a research assistant to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to answer. I think that in due time the British people will want to know a bit more than that.
    Mr. Skinner: The Minister asks what Labour will do when it gets the chance to govern. Labour will ensure that
    1082
    the 3 million people on the pile of human misery known as the dole queue will be given a chance to work and to provide tax and insurance. Then, if I have anything to do with it—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Give the hon. Gentleman a chance.
    Mr. Skinner: We shall take back from the richest 1 per cent. of the population the £26·2 billion that they have had in tax cuts and use it for the national health service, pensioners, schools and all the social services.
    Mr. Mellor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's application for a job has been noted in the quarters which matter. What the hon. Gentleman must explain away is why, with the reductions in the upper rate of tax which have taken place under this Government, the contribution of higher rate taxpayers as a proportion of income tax is so much higher. It is because a low tax regime is a stimulus to effort, a way of ensuring that the British economy works effectively and that people are put back to work. I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's aspiration to get people off the dole queue, but I doubt whether he has any policies to achieve that.

    Penalty Tax
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the policy of the Inland Revenue in respect of charging penalty tax for a period before retroactive primary legislation is passed.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): That depends on the provisions of the legislation.
    Mr. Bottomley: As the problem which prompted the question has been resolved by the Inland Revenue, will my hon. Friend pass on to its staff the thanks of many Members of Parliament for dealing with issues that we have raised on behalf of our constituents and say that we hope that the problems will continue to decline as tax rates come down rather than go up?
    Mr. Maude: On behalf of the Inland Revenue, not always the best loved department of Government, I accept the kind compliments that my hon. Friend has paid to it; I am sure that they will be echoed in all parts of the House. The Inland Revenue does a difficult job in difficult circumstances extremely well.
    My hon. Friend is right to make the point that the job of tax collecting is very much easier with a tax system based, as ours increasingly is, on low rates of tax.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet representatives of the CBI to discuss manufacturing investment.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): I meet representatives from the CBI from time to time to discuss a broad range of issues.
    Mr. Thompson: In view of the CBI's projected figure for 1992 of a 4·4 per cent. fall in manufacturing investment, and of the 20 per cent. fall in 1991, is it not time that the Chancellor considered adopting the Labour party's policy on investment?
    Mr. Lamont: I am grateful for that suggestion, but I am not sure which Labour party policy the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I adopt to encourage investment.
    One of the most important parts of investment is inward investment into this country, which is very much encouraged by our low rates of tax—by our low rates of corporation tax and by the fact that we have a low higher rate of income of tax. We all know what the Labour party will do to the higher rate, but even it does not seem to know what it will do to the tax on middle managers—national insurance contributions. If Labour Members want to encourage inward investment, they should come clean and clarify in their own minds what their plans for national insurance contributions are.
    Sir Ian Stewart: As the future of manufacturing investment depends on confidence in future economic performance, does my right hon. Friend think that anyone contemplating what will happen to his income will feel more confident if he is threatened with slow torture rather than immediate amputation?
    Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party talks all the time about investment, but the other side of investment is savings. There is no investment without savings. The Labour party's way of encouraging savings seem to be the ingenious one of putting extra taxes on it.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Chancellor appreciate the harm being done to the economy by the 20 per cent. fall in investment in manufacturing industry and the CBI's prediction of a further 4 per cent. fall? Bearing in mind that unemployment is rising yet again, and that 900 companies are going bust every week, when will the Government realise the depth of the recession that their policies have caused and do something to stimulate investment in our manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Lamont: I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about investment. As he knows, it has fallen from high levels. Business investment grew by 45 per cent. between 1986 and 1989. He will also know that manufacturing investment actually rose in the third quarter of last year. He will also know that, notwithstanding the CBI's prediction, the latest Central Statistical Office intention survey predicted a 2 per cent. increase in manufacturing investment this year.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman has advanced his idea of how to encourage manufacturing investment. He says that there should be an increased capital allowance for this year, cunningly saying that it would cost nothing in the first year; that is equivalent to saying that the bill is in the post, as we all know that it is paid after 12 months.

    Tobacco Goods
    Sir John Farr: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total revenue from duty on tobacco goods in 1990.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The revenue from duties on tobacco goods in 1990 was £5·5 billion.
    Sir John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that explicit reply. Does she agree that tobacco companies also contribute a great deal to sport, and that they employ tens
    1084
    of thousands of people directly and indirectly? Will she send out a message to those who oppose smoking and belong to the brigade who say, "Do as I say and as I instruct you," to the effect that they should leave ordinary people to get on with the job of smoking and supporting the economy?
    Mrs. Shephard: I note what my hon. Friend says. At this time of year we receive many such representations, but they must be weighed against the annual death toll of 110,000 people which is associated with smoking. Employment in the tobacco industry, which my hon. Friend mentioned, has been falling steadily due to increased automation and the long-term decline in smoking.
    Mr. Radice: While we are on the subject of indirect taxes, will the Government tell the House how they will continue to cut direct taxes and improve public services without at the same time raising VAT as they did in 1979 and in the last Budget?
    Mrs. Shephard: I certainly would not like to prejudge what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might announce in his Budget. It was interesting to read in the Daily Express about Labour's plan for a luxury VAT rate.

    Inflation
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current level of inflation.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current level of inflation.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: All-items RPI inflation was 4·3 per cent. in November.
    Mr. Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that increasing expenditure on day one of a new Government while failing to deal with the important issue of taxation is the fastest way back to the high levels of inflation which characterised all Labour Governments?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is nothing wrong with massive increases in public expenditure, provided that the Opposition are open about the fact that they plan massive increases in taxation to finance them.
    Mr. MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to take Labour seriously on unemployment when under its policy inflation would rise following increases in public expenditure and our competitiveness in world markets would diminish?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour does not seem interested in getting inflation down. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition never even mentioned inflation in his speech at the party conference. Reducing inflation is the absolute first condition for medium-term prosperity. The fight again inflation must go on.
    Mr. Graham: While the Chancellor has been concentrating—unsuccessfully—on bringing down inflation, unemployment is raging and further factory closures and redundancies have been announced nearly every week

    1085
    since he came to office. When will he take steps to reduce interest rates to give some of the companies in Britain an opportunity to survive, fight and compete internationally? Should not the Chancellor hang his head in shame and resign now, and let the Labour party get on with bringing this country back to the richness that it deserves?
    Mr. Lamont: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the reduction of 3·5 percentage points in interest rates in the past 12 months. I am sure that he also welcomes today's news that the Abbey National, Halifax and Nationwide building, societies are reducing their lending rates to, as they put it, give a fillip to the housing market. I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's comment that we are unsuccessful in getting inflation down. At 4·3 per cent., our inflation rate is below the average of the European Community. I hardly dare to mention the 15½ per cent. average rate of inflation under the last Labour Government. Everything that Labour says about public spending shows that it is completely indifferent to inflation, which would have a bad effect on unemployment.
    Ms. Armstrong: Will the Chancellor explain why after the 1983 and 1987 elections inflation and other indicators rose significantly but the Government managed to get them down just before those elections? Is that the Government's real policy? What sort of guarantee can the Chancellor give that that sort of thing will not happen again? The only guarantee that I can give is that there will not be a Tory Government after the 1992 election.
    Mr. Lamont: Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell me under which of the three Conservative Governments since 1979 the average rate of inflation was remotely near that of the Labour Government from whom we took over.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figures for factory output prices, which were published earlier this week, show that the underlying rate of inflation continues to fall? What effect does he expect the very welcome news about mortgage interest rates to have on the retail prices index?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is drawing attention to an important point about the underlying rate of inflation. We have had some excellent producer prices figures. Excluding the volatile food, drink and tobacco sectors, which are influenced by Budget changes, the rate of inflation has fallen to 3·8 per cent. It is forecast to be 3½ per cent. in the fourth quarter of this year, which will be the lowest figure since 1969. The fact that the underlying rate of inflation is falling so sharply is a very good indicator and is very encouraging for the trend of the headline rate.
    As for the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I cannot anticipate entirely what will happen, but the reduction in mortgage interest rates will obviously have a beneficial effect.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall telling the House that a rise in inflation was expected in these months for what he called "technical reasons" shortly after the Prime Minister told the country that the Government had inflation licked? Did the Prime Minister speak in ignorance, or was he trying to keep the British people in ignorance before a possible November election?
    Mr. Lamont: As always, the Opposition should quote my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister correctly. My
    1086
    right hon. Friend said that we had inflation licked in a way that we had not had it licked for years. The trend of inflation is very good. The statistics prove that absolutely, and everybody except the hon. Lady knows it.

    Plant and Machinery
    Mr. Hayward: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was total investment in plant and machinery in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1991.
    Mr. Mellor: Measured at constant 1985 prices, plant and machinery investment was £19·7 billion in 1979, £19·4 billion in 1983 and £25·9 billion in 1987. Complete figures for 1991 are not available, but in the first three quarters plant and machinery investment was at an annual rate of £29½ billion, and 52 per cent. above its level in the comparable period of 1979.
    Mr. Hayward: It is important that the figures confirm that positive policies are being pursued. Will my right hon. and learned Friend say how we compared internationally in the 1970s and the 1980s?
    Mr. Mellor: The figures reveal the full extent of the increase in investment in the 1980s as a result of the Government's policies, an increase which has been maintained even during this period of recession. In absolute levels, we have fallen off only from the historically high 1980 figures. Comparison with other OECD countries is extremely interesting. In the 1970s, the average increase per annum in business investment in the Group of Seven was 3·1 per cent. whereas for the United Kingdom it was 2·3 per cent. In the 1980s, the average increase in the Group of Seven was 4·6 per cent. and in the United Kingdom it was 6·8 per cent.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman not been listening to the chorus of demands from the CBI, from the trade unions and now also from a number of Conservative newspapers for an increase in capital allowances for manufacturing industry? Why does he not take note of that widespread feeling?
    Mr. Mellor: We do take note of that feeling. The right hon. Gentleman, who was a Treasury Minister throughout the lifetime of the Labour Government, will appreciate that figures such as those that I have just disclosed to the House would have been regarded as a complete impossibility in his time.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the level of investment is most of all decided by the real rate of interest? Does he also agree that there has been a noticeable change of opinion in the business community, in that in 1990 it thought that we could go into the exchange rate mechanism without any disadvantage whereas it is now beginning to realise that the ERM obliges us to have a higher exchange rate and higher real interest rates than are appropriate for domestic needs?
    Mr. Mellor: I do not know whether my hon. Friend read Gavyn Davies's recent article, which showed that what most greatly influences investment is availability of markets and demand, and that running costs come very much second to those factors. Evidence shows that expected productivity in unit labour costs of British industry are more competitive now than they were when we entered the ERM.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase or decrease in manufacturing investment between 1990 and 1991.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Complete data for 1991 are not available. In the first three quarters, manufacturing investment at constant 1985 prices was 15½ per cent. below its level in the comparable period in 1990.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Chancellor agree that our abysmal economic growth performance since the Government took office in 1979 is due largely to the dismal performance of British manufacturing industry, and that the forecast for the year 1991 of a 15 per cent. fall in investment is a testimony to the failure of the Government's policies? Was it not sheer arrogant complacency for the right hon. Gentleman to tell the National Economic Development Council at its recent meeting that if he had known before that there would be a fall of 15 per cent. he would still have done nothing? Is it not time he retired and let somebody do something?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman's question was supposed to be about investment, but he has asked about growth in general. I cannot understand why he referred to poor growth performance in the 1980s unless he thinks that it is poor to have grown faster than France and Germany. That is an extraordinary assumption. He seems unaware that our exports in manufactures have recently been increasing their share of world trade. That cannot be described as a poor performance. The hon. Gentleman should get up to date with his facts.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the Opposition seem to delight in talking down the United Kingdom economy, the confidence of the foreigner investing in this country is great and we have the highest rate of inward investment in the EEC, despite the pessimism that the Opposition are always trying to spread?
    Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As he said, inward investment is one of the great success stories of the last decade. We have achieved more inward investment than any other European country. The great thing about that inward investment is that some of the most successful countries in the world have chosen this country in which to invest.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Chancellor assist businesses in making their investment plans by telling us whether he has revised his growth forecast for this year in the light of the Prime Minister's statements in his new year interview, which seemed to cast considerable doubt on the growth forecasts given earlier? In the light of what surely must be a changed forecast, will the right hon. Gentleman review his hostility so far to careful public expenditure designed to create infrastructure improvements for the future and to get the economy moving?
    Mr. Lamont: I note the hon. Gentleman's early Budget representation. I note that, unlike the Labour party, when the hon. Gentleman's party advocates increased public spending, it is at least honest enough to say that it will put up the basic rate of tax. However, the hon. Gentleman's position does seem a little curious. His party says that it will put up the basic rate of tax. Yet, at the same time, it
    1088
    said that if there were a coalition Government, it would stop the Labour party putting up the higher rate of tax. That is a curious position to occupy.

    Exports
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the trend in United Kingdom export performance over the past five years.
    Mr. Mellor: United Kingdom exports have grown 23 per cent. over the past five years, and reached record levels during 1991. I am pleased to say that after decades of decline, the United Kingdom's share of world trade in manufactures flattened out in the mid-1980s, increased in 1989 and 1990, and looks most likely to have increased again in 1991.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that extremely encouraging response. Does he agree that much of our country's undoubted export success has been due to competitive premium Export Credits Guarantee Department rates? Is he aware that many industrialists are concerned that we shall be unable to maintain our export performance due to uncompetitive rates, particularly vis-à-vis our principal competitors such as Germany, France and Japan? Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore have a meeting with his opposite number at the Department of Trade and Industry and endeavour to bring ECGD rates down to a level which would be more favourable to British exporters?
    Mr. Mellor: We regularly discuss such matters, which I recognise are important, but, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, ECGD premiums must reflect the risk for the taxpayer in export credits. He will be aware that losses by ECGD of £3 billion, which have already been disclosed, with the possibility of a similar sum in the pipeline, suggest that we cannot afford to underestimate the possible losses to the nation if we get the ECGD judgments wrong.
    One key way of protecting ourselves in future is to ensure that the premiums charged fully reflect the risks that the country has to take on in allowing such cover to go forward. I acknowledge that we must have an eye to the international experience, and our work internationally is to try to ensure that other countries, too, put up their premiums in a way that sensibly recognises the problems of such cover throughout the world.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: If export performance is as impressive as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, when will unemployment levels return at least to those that the Government inherited in 1979?
    Mr. Mellor: I have already told the House that the export performance of United Kingdom industry has been extremely good, with an increase of nearly 25 per cent. over five years, and an increase in manufacturing exports even during the past year of recession, in excess of 3 per cent. The question that the hon. Gentleman has to answer is what nostrums put forward by his Front-Bench spokesmen would make such a record possible under a Labour Government.

    City Institutions
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the City institutions.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My right hon. Friend meets the Governor of the Bank of England frequently, and they discuss a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Self-regulation in the City was meant to be a panacea which would solve most existing problems. Since then we have had Polly Peck, Brent Walker, the scandal of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, and then the greatest scandal of all—the Maxwell scandal. As self-regulation is proving somewhat less than satisfactory, is it not time to consider establishing a Securities and Exchange Commission—an SEC—as exists in America?
    The City of London is important to the invisible exports of this country, and we cannot allow scandals such as those that have happened in the past. Under self-regulation people tend to protect one another so that they do not get caught. Let us get things out in the open and have an SEC to ensure that the honour of the City of London is well protected by a statutory authority.
    Mrs. Shephard: I hear what my hon. Friend says. We have certainly seen some large and spectacular frauds uncovered recently, although they were not all in financial institutions. Clearly, however, that does not mean that the City is riddled with fraud or that the regulatory system has failed. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that no system of regulation can ever give complete protection against a determined thief or fraudster. The Government have done more than any other Government to tighten the regulation of the City, through a series of powerful pieces of legislation. In the end, a balance has to be struck between tight regulation and cramping any sort of innovation or initiative in the financial services sector, as the Labour party would advocate.
    Mr. Vaz: Could the Government be prevailed upon to persuade the City institutions to provide more positive assistance for depositors, creditors and former employees of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? The Minister will know that former depositors will have problems getting facilities for mortgages. She knows, too, that representations have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Could the City institutions be made positively to assist people who, through no fault of theirs, have lost a considerable amount of money?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman will wish to know that that point is being pursued. He will also be aware that arrangements are in place for the liquidators to aid banks in their assessment of applications made by small businesses and personal customers for alternative facilities.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has just said in urging the Government to give serious consideration to the establishment of a Securities and Exchange Commission in Britain. Is it not clear that the multiplicity of often overlapping self-regulating authorities are not adequately protecting the national interest? Will my hon. Friend the Minister bear it in mind
    1090
    that many of the frauds that have come to the attention of our regulating authorities were first discovered and reported to them by the American SEC?
    Mrs. Shephard: Of course, that was not so in the case of BCCI. I repeat to my hon. Friend that, while there is cause for concern about the large spectacular frauds that have been uncovered, the Government have done more than any other with the Financial Services Act 1986, the Banking Act 1987, the Building Societies Act 1986 and amendments to the Companies Acts to regulate the City of London.
    Mr. Salmond: In discussions with the Governor of the Bank of England on City institutions will the Chancellor discuss how to circumvent the damage done to hopes to locate the Eurobank in the United Kingdom by the Government's opt-out policy on the single currency? Will he further discuss whether it would be better to argue for Edinburgh as a location for the bank—a location much more acceptable to other Europeans than London, which the Labour and Tory Front-Bench teams have argued for?
    Mrs. Shephard: No decision needs to be taken for some time on the location of the European central bank. The Government have made it clear that a decision on the site would be premature at this stage. Whatever happens, the Government will do what they can to advance the case of the most credible United Kingdom candidate.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the Maastricht agreement on future inward investment into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the Maastricht agreement on future inward investment into the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We expect to continue our excellent record in attracting inward investment. Latest available estimates are that between 1984 and 1988 the United Kingdom received about one third of all inward direct investment to the EC—higher than any other member state.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the success of inward investment depends on availability of markets. In my hon. Friend the Minister's view, what would be the effect on the economy and inward investment if she abolished the ceiling on national insurance, increased the ordinary rate and basic rate of tax for a third of the population in the south-east and introduced a higher rate of value added tax on luxury products—all measures proposed by the Labour party?
    Mrs. Shephard: The attraction of the United Kingdom to inward investment is the skilled labour force, low unit costs compared with other EC countries and, of course, the competitive tax system with the lowest rate of corporation tax in industrialised countries. I fear that many of those features would be threatened by the policies of the Labour party.
    Mr. David Nicholson: The effects of the Maastricht agreement will be extremely beneficial for inward

    1091
    investment into Britain, but does my hon. Friend not agree that all the paraphernalia that would be inflicted on industry by a Labour Government would be disastrous for inward investment? Will she also emphasise that we are building on success and, to this end, will she give the House the figures for 1988, 1989 and 1990 on the proportion of American and Japanese investment in the EC which came to Britain?
    Mrs. Shephard: In 1988–89, 62 per cent. of all United States inward investment in the EC came to the United Kingdom and 42 per cent. of all Japanese direct investment in the EC came to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Enright: If the Minister is so keen on inward investment, why are she and her hon. Friends blocking the inward investment that would come from RECHARbonisation?
    Mrs. Shephard: For a moment, I rather wondered if the hon. Gentleman was following in the footsteps of his colleagues in the trade union movement who regard inward investment as an alien culture. Perhaps I might say that the problems with RECHAR, the Government consider, are entirely in the court of the European Commission.
    Mr. Chris Smith: For every £1 of inward investment that might conceivably be attracted by inadequate employment conditions and inadequate rights for employees, are there not £2 or £3 of inward investment that will be deterred by the absence of any positive contribution from Britain to the growing economic and monetary integration of Europe? Is not the greatest threat to inward investment the uncertainty that the Government have deliberately created by their opt-out on a single currency?
    Mrs. Shephard: As I said before, the key factors in the determining foreign investment are a stable economic environment, a commitment to a free and open market and a lack of intrusive social and industrial regulation. The United Kingdom's right to decide for itself on the merits of a single currency is not an important factor in investment decisions.

    Employee Share Ownership Trusts
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had any recent representations about ways of encouraging wider utilisation of qualifying employee share ownership trusts.
    Mr. Maude: I have received a small number of such representations, from my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) among others.
    Mr. Taylor: Despite the considerable progress that has been made under this Government in encouraging employee share ownership, will the Minister take careful note of the recent KPMG Management Consulting report which shows ways in which the qualifying employee-share option trusts can be made more flexible and therefore likely to be more widely used by companies and available to more employees in subsequent years of Conservative government?
    Mr. Maude: I have seen the report and am considering its implications carefully, but it is just worth pointing out
    1092
    that in 11 of the past 12 Budgets we have taken steps to encourage employee share ownership to the extent that by the end of March last year about 2·25 million employees had benefited under all employee share schemes and had received options or shares with an initial value of £6·5 billion. It is a highly desirable development and we hope to see it continued.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Does the Minister recall that when we discussed these matters during the passage of the Finance Bill the then Financial Secretary, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed passionate enthusiasm for workers' control? In the light of that enthusiasm is the present Financial Secretary able to tell us how many employee share ownership trusts have been set up under the statutory provisions?
    Mr. Maude: As I said, by the end of March 1990, 2·25 million employees had received shares or options under approved share schemes. Employee share ownership trusts are a relatively small part of the Government's provision of tax relief for employee share ownership, but it would be very nice to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) express on behalf of the Labour Front Bench wholehearted enthusiasm for what we believe in, which is giving employees in companies real ownership of the companies that they work for.

    National Interest
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he takes of the national interest in terms of the viability of businesses and the retention of jobs in deciding on the exercise of the functions of his Department in respect of Inland Revenue responsibilities.
    Mr. Maude: The first duty of the Inland Revenue is to collect tax which is properly due. It aims to treat all taxpayers with equal fairness and to settle their tax affairs impartially.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister recognise that that is a highly bureaucratic response? Given the way that business is suffering under the policies and decisions of this Government, and especially the policies of the Prime Minister, does the Minister recognise that he has a responsibility to ask his officials to deal with businesses in such a way as to enable them, wherever possible, to retain jobs and to keep their businesses going? Will he also accept that this should be his personal responsibility? Will he accept it before the House?
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) described my response as "bureaucratic". It is not a bureaucratic response at all; it simply expresses the statutory duty placed on the Inland Revenue by the House—that is, the duty to collect tax which is properly due. But the Inland Revenue does not pursue that in a blind and dogmatic way. If tax is owing and payment on the due date is impossible, the Inland Revenue will discuss payment over a period of time to meet the liability; and any taxpayer who is in difficulty in paying his or her tax should contact the Inland Revenue at the earliest opportunity to discuss how the difficulty might be resolved.

    Drugs
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantities of drugs have been seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in each of the last three years.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The information is as follows: in 1989, 50,935 kilos of cannabis were seized, in 1990, 24,896 and in 1991 21,796 kilos; in 1989, 337 kilos of heroin were seized, with 576 kilos in 1990 and 357 in 1991; 409 kilos of cocaine were seized in 1989, 561 kilos in 1990 and 1,061 in 1991.
    Mr. Banks: Obviously Customs and Excise must be congratulated on its vigilance. However, is it not time to consider the possibility of legalising soft drugs, especially cannabis? After all, cannabis does much less harm to a person's health than nicotine, and yet cigarettes are legal. It is the criminal activity surrounding the supply of illegal drugs that we should really worry about. If we were to legalise soft drugs, that would no longer be a problem.
    Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman congratulated Customs and Excise. I remind him that its task is to enforce the law. Would it be the policy of the Labour party to legalise those drugs?

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of the evidence given yesterday should there not be a full and frank ministerial statement—which should come from the Prime Minister—of what was known inside the Government at the time about the supergun affair? Bearing in mind the number of military items sold to the Iraqi regime by this country right up to the invasion of Kuwait and the highly critical comments made about the conduct of Ministers during the Gulf war, what right do the Government have to lecture hon. Members on the Opposition Benches over defence matters?
    The Prime Minister: In so far as the Gulf war is concerned, the hon. Gentleman is referring to one of the most successful military operations ever undertaken by this country or any other. It achieved its objectives more swiftly and with less bloodshed than anyone could possibly have imagined. As to the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he knows that much of what he said was nonsense. It has been dealt with often enough.
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Prime Minister if lie will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McCrady: Could I remind the Prime Minister that one of the consequences of his Maastricht agreement is to
    1094
    prevent Northern Ireland from participating in the new cohesion fund, to the extent of losing tens of millions of pounds? I am sure that he is aware of the total lack of adequate funding for roads, transport and the environment in Northern Ireland, especially now that the Secretary of State has imposed a total moratorium on all public spending in Northern Ireland. Would he assure the people of Northern Ireland and the House that as soon as possible he will remedy that appalling error, and allow Northern Ireland to benefit from the new cohesion fund as a category 1 area?
    The Prime Minister: There is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a higher level of public expenditure per head of population in Northern Ireland—and rightly so—than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The establishment of the cohesion fund and eligibility to benefit from it were agreed by all the member states. There is a misapprehension that Northern Ireland is the only category 1 area that will not benefit from that, but that fund is designed to help the poorest member states, not poorer regions or provinces within the more prosperous nations. So, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the purpose for which the fund was devised.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has no plans to increase income tax and national insurance contributions for millions of ordinary tax-payers? Does he agree that it is the height of irresponsibility to try to pretend that there can be a massive increase in spending from day one of a Government if the tax increases to pay for that are to be phased in?
    The Prime Minister: I can also confirm to my hon. Friend that we have made no plans for a super increase in VAT, as the Opposition have apparently considered. There is no doubt that the Opposition are now in a shambles over their tax plans. Their muddled statements show that they cannot be trusted on tax; they shift their position from day to day. The only thing that is certain is that a party that promises to spend and spend is a party that would have to tax and tax.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us why his record on unemployment is even worse than that of his predecessor?
    The Prime Minister: Everyone in the House and beyond regrets the fact that unemployment rises. That is why we are persisting with policies that will create long-term, permanent jobs for the future. We have put those policies in place—low inflation, lower taxes and lower interest rates. Those are the only measures that will get people into work and keep them in work, which is the only proper policy to follow.
    Mr. Kinnock: Unemployment has risen by nearly 1 million in the time that the hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor and Prime Minister, but still he refuses to do anything useful to stop that remorseless rise. Is it not because he believes that 2·5 million unemployed is "a price worth paying"?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not be so cheap over such a problem. Unemployment is greater than a year ago in every country in EFTA and in every G7 country except the Netherlands. French unemployment is at its greatest level ever. United States unemployment is higher than for the past five years. What the right hon. Gentleman might also have fastened his mind upon is the fact that reported job vacancies are rising, that the number of people placed in jobs is rising and that there are 500,000 more people in work than in 1979. Those are some of the facts which the right hon. Gentleman should absorb.
    Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman is a dodger.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: In the last year employment in Britain went down by 873,000. Job vacancies are still 10,000 lower than they were this time last year. When Sir Nicholas Goodison of the Trustee Savings Bank says that this is the worst recession in living memory, is it any wonder that the whole country knows that this is the Government of high unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: Some people might say that on policy rather than on personal matters the right hon. Gentleman is a tax dodger. He can give no lecture to us on unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] His policies would cut jobs across the whole country.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that was meant in a personal sense.
    The Prime Minister: Indeed; I expressly said that, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman's minimum wage would increase unemployment by putting 2 million people out of work. His plans to slash defence budgets by £6 billion would cost 100,000 more their jobs. His tax on jobs would cost another 100,000. He is the only person in opposition to plan for greater unemployment as a matter of policy.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions were to be removed, it would punish not just somebody earning £20,280 a year but would punish anyone who earned £390 in a single week? Does he agree that a proposal that would impose a massive tax burden on 4 million ordinary people could be produced only by a shower such as those who currently comprise the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is in a very excited state.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that the Labour party simply did not understand when it drew up its policy that everyone would pay more national
    1096
    insurance contributions in a single week if they earned above one fifty second of statutory UEL. The Independent pointed out, for example, that the Opposition's tax plans would mean
    "the largest ever peacetime tax increase."
    The Leader of the Opposition promised explicitly that anyone earning less than £21,000 a year would not pay a penny tax extra in income tax or national insurance under a Labour Government. Clearly, he was wrong about that. He should admit it, and do so publicly.
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he personally was informed about British Steel's decision to close Ravenscraig over a fortnight before the official announcement last week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]—and that instead of trying to reverse the decision, he and the Secretary of State for Scotland took part in a conspiracy of silence? Will the right hon. Gentleman now, even at this late stage, intervene to try to stop the closure, bearing in mind the Government's responsibility for privatising the steel industry, thereby allowing a butcher such as Bob Scholey to betray the Scottish steel workers?
    The Prime Minister: It is noticeable that the Labour party has not offered to keep Ravenscraig open. I was informed that British Steel would be making a decision on the day that it made the decision—[Interruption.] I was informed in confidence some days before that it would be making a decision on that day. It was a commercial decision by British Steel. It is clear, despite all their words, that Opposition Members would have done nothing different.
    Mr. Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence cuts of £6 billion would lead to a massive loss of jobs in defence industries throughout the country? Does he further agree about the hypocrisy of those who call on the one hand for the maintenance of defence contracts in public and, on the other, plan in private for defence reductions?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our policy, both for nuclear and conventional defence, is clear, has been set out in a number of documents and is properly costed. The Opposition do not say where they stand, cannot say where they stand and cannot admit to the jobs that would be lost if their policy were carried out. The Labour party conference has three times voted to cut £6 billion from the defence budget, and we can see the extent to which that would devastate the defence industry and the defence of this country.
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Madden: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about which I gave notice to his office earlier this morning? Will he arrange for X-ray and metal detection equipment to be installed immediately at Armley prison in Leeds? I ask for this following a serious breach of security at the prison last Friday, when a visitor inside the prison

    1097
    drew a knife and sought to attack another visitor. As this is the latest in a series of serious breaches of security at prisons, will the Prime Minister call upon the Home Secretary, who has clearly lost control of his own Department and no longer enjoys the confidence of the public, to resign now or else sack him?
    The Prime Minister: First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the detailed point that he wished to raise.
    Security at prisons holding category A prisoners is already very tight, with rigorous searching procedures. In addition, however, we are providing X-ray equipment, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested we should. A contract has been placed for the supply of this equipment to prisons that hold category A prisoners. Devices have to be specially constructed, and they will be delivered as soon as possible.
    In reply to the hon. Gentleman's last point, I can say that I have complete confidence in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to base defence policy on defence cuts—the North Sea oil of the 1990s—is irresponsible and misguided? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on Treasury affairs has actually stated this as a belief—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about Government policy.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Labour remains unsound on defence?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is clear that, as my hon. Friend says, Labour would cut the defence budget to ribbons. It is true that on defence Labour cannot be trusted. [ Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Prime Minister please answer the matters for which he has responsibility?
    The Prime Minister: I am seeking to do precisely that.
    It is perfectly clear that, while the defence of this country is the first priority of the present Government, it might not be the first priority of the Opposition if they were to make the defence cuts to which they have committed themselves.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House please tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 20 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Local Government Bill [Lords]

Proceedings on the Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Bill

TUESDAY 21 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Asylum Bill.

WEDNESDAY 22 JANUARY—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement.

Motion on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.

Motion on the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order.

THURSDAY 23 JANUARY—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate described as "The Growing Incidence of Poverty" followed by a debate described as "The Government's Failures over Ravenscraig". Both debates arise on Opposition motions.

FRIDAY 24 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 27 JANUARY—Motions on the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order and the Electricity (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order.

Dr. Cunningham: First, I welcome the announcement that there is to be a debate on the Chancellor's autumn statement. Will the Chancellor, as is usual, take the opportunity to announce the date of the Budget—a matter that, this year, is of more than passing interest to hon. Members and to people in the country? May we have an assurance that when the debate is held next week it will be in order for hon. Members to discuss the Government's proposals on, for example, VAT? Will the Chancellor make it clear what he intends to do in the coming months about VAT?
During the debate on the autumn statement, will the Chancellor finally say whether, given the appalling rise in unemployment, which continues—indeed, the rate of increase is now worse than that in almost any other country in the western world, and certainly the worst in Europe—he still believes that that is a price worth paying? Is it not clear that, every week the Prime Minister stays in Downing street, several thousand of our fellow citizens lose their jobs?
Can the Leader of the House tell us when he intends to bring forward the revenue support grant orders for England and Wales? People throughout England and Wales are anxious to know exactly what the Tory poll tax will cost them and their families this year; and of course local authorities, which have the responsibility of trying to administer this fiasco and are now apparently recording more than 7 million cases waiting to go before the courts because of the inadequacy of this legislation bounced through the House, are also anxious to know what is in the revenue support grant orders.
Why have the Government been so reluctant to discuss the implications for Scotland of the closure of the
1100
Ravenscraig steelworks? We had to force Ministers to the Dispatch Box on Monday because the Secretary of State refused to make a statement on a matter of such vital importance to Scotland. The Government refused to provide time for a debate. The people of Scotland will not have missed these points and they will know that it is only because the Opposition are providing time on a Supply day that we shall have the opportunity to discuss the implications of the closure for employment and jobs in Scotland.
Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, I am certainly delighted that we are to debate the autumn statement next week, when it will be possible for us to put forward yet again in considerable detail the Government's spending programmes and the high priorities that we attach to all sorts of key areas, such as law and order, transport, defence, education and housing. It will also be possible to restate that these public expenditure plans are contained and are affordable within existing tax regimes.
That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about VAT. The charge that he makes on VAT ignores completely the fact that the main increase in VAT took place in the early years of this Government in order to deal with the very substantial fiscal deficit that we inherited.
The debate will also enable us to probe the Opposition's spending and tax policies, because it seems that they fluctuate day by day. There is total confusion and a huge gap between spending commitments and the tax proposals to fund them. We look forward to hearing the Opposition make their position clear in the debate next week.
With regard to the Budget date, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that it is usual for it to be given in the autumn statement. Indeed, it was not done in that way last year. But we shall make clear the date of the Budget at the appropriate time.
On the question of the revenue support grant orders, the hon. Gentleman knows that the position on revenue support grants has been made clear in other statements. However, I agree that it is important to have the orders, and I hope to be able to make a statement about a debate on the orders in my next business statement.
The Government were absolutely clear about the position on Ravenscraig and announced straight away their intention to set up an enterprise zone, so we shall be able to talk next week about the effects of that in creating new jobs in the area. I believe that what the whole House, the country and, in particular, the people of Lanarkshire and Scotland will want to know much more clearly than has been spelled out so far is exactly what the Labour party's position is on the Ravenscraig issue.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say that, despite the temptation to initiate an election campaign on the Floor of the House, the object of business questions is to ask about the business for next week. I therefore urge hon. Members to confine their questions to next week's business, bearing in mind that we have an important debate today for which there are no fewer than 16 groups of amendments.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a new and urgent need for a debate next week on defence? Does

1101
he understand that, despite the debate earlier this week, new uncertainties have emerged? They are illustrated in early-day motions 474 and 487.
[That this House recognises that the defence of the realm and the maintenance of international order through alliances are the prime duties of Government; notes the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the instability and uncertainty in many different areas of the world; welcomes Her Majesty's Government's determination to retain a viable and independent nuclear deterrent through the Trident programme and to provide balanced and fully equipped conventional forces; and regrets that the commitment of 130 honourable Members, over half of the Parliamentary Labour Party to CND, and of their Party Conference to massive cuts in conventional armaments, makes it impossible for the official Opposition to sustain a credible defence policy.]
Many people, especially shipyard workers in Barrow, are utterly bewildered by the Opposition's defence policy. It has been made absolutely clear that many members of the shadow Cabinet and defence committee say one thing but believe another.
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That seems to be happening not only in defence: the Labour party seems to be saying one thing one day and another the next. It was made clear in the defence debate this week that many members on the Opposition Front Bench, as well as all the officers of the Opposition Back-Bench committee, subscribe to unilateral nuclear disarmament. My right hon. Friend is right to say that exactly what the Labour party's is on the fourth Trident still needs to be clarified, because it ducked that question completely last week.
I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on defence next week. We have debated it this week, but as we have received such unsatisfactory answers this week and the Government's position is clear, I am sure that we shall return to it before long.
Mr. James Wallace: Does the Leader of the House agree that a debate compromising a review of the present arrangements for the government of Scotland and any proposals that the Government wish to put forward to improve them, the proposals for a Scottish constitutional convention and a review of Scotland's relationship with Europe would provide a full and comprehensive agenda reflecting all views on the Scottish constitutional debate, and would fit the great debate called for by the Secretary of State? Will he table an appropriate motion next week to enable the Scottish Grand Committee to debate those important items?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has suggested that those issues could be debated in the Scottish Grand Committee. I believe that that would be useful, because some aspects of the proposals that have been put forward, not least on the Scottish convention, bear a great deal of scrutiny and the real choices have not been put forward. I shall discuss with my right hon. Friend whether it would be right for me to arrange a debate next week, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the future of grant-maintained schools? Is he aware that Hendon
1102
school, in my constituency, was under-subscribed when it was under the control of the local authority but is now over-subscribed? He may remember his visit to that school 18 months ago.
Mr. MacGregor: I do recall that visit, and I remember the great enthusiasm with which the governors, head teacher and staff were embarking on grant-maintained status. I also noted the way in which parents have responded. My hon. Friend is right because many grant-maintained schools already have a high degree of support. I cannot promise a debate next week, but I am sure that there will be opportunities to debate the matter in the coming months.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on early-day motion 458?
[That this House is deeply concerned that (a) in October 1991, the Inspectorate of Pollution issued an improvement notice plus additional requirements upon Coal Products Ltd., Avenue Works, Wingerworth, Derbyshire, arising from problems of airborne pollution, (b) in November 1991, the North East Derbyshire District Council rejected a planning application for the installation of a plant for the regeneration of active carbon on the same site and (c) in December 1991, the National Rivers Authority issued a report showing that following partial treatment at lagoons in a country park, 40 million gallons of toxic effluent is seeping into the ground near homes at nearby Grassmoor; and calls upon the Secretary of State for the Environment to undertake an urgent environmental audit of the plant and its neighbouring communities with an immediate project of protecting the health and well-being of both the workforce at Coal Products Ltd. and residents in the surrounding communities, whilst seeking ways and means of safeguarding jobs in an area of high unemployment.]
A serious problem has emerged in the area over a period of months, and a series of reports have been issued, concluding with a report by the National Rivers Authority on effluent that is poured into the lagoons at Grassmoor—40,000 tonnes of it a year. The problem with trying to investigate such matters without an overall consideration by the Department of the Environment is that people are shunted between different authorities, such as the pollution inspectorate, the county councils, the district councils and the health authorities. A drawing together of all those authorities is required, as well as a debate that would have some significance to environmental development generally.
Mr. MacGregor: I am happy to have debates at the appropriate time. We have recently debated environmental questions generally. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government recently produced a progress report on the first year following the White Paper which shows, on a wide variety of fronts, considerable progress on environmental matters.
On the hon. Gentleman's specific point relating to the early-day motion, Coal Products Ltd., like any other company, is governed by strict environmental regulations introduced by this Government. I cannot, however, promise the hon. Gentleman a debate next week on the specific issue that he raises.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: May we have a debate on junk mail as soon as possible, to discuss a mailshot sent to many of my constituents by an

1103
organisation that is partly funded by Maxwell money which is so full of falsehoods that it would make the average time-share salesman blush; which redefines the term "junk mail" and peddles dodgy, old-fashioned and out-of-date remedies which have been banned in most countries and which have passed their sell-by date; and which bears the signature of an obscure Welsh politician, best known for losing his rag with Zimbabwean soldiers and for nutting people in public lavatories?
Mr. MacGregor: I have not seen the leaflet to which my hon. Friend refers, so I do not know the details. I cannot promise a debate on it next week, but perhaps he will find his own opportunities to discuss it in greater detail.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement from the Lord Chancellor on the workings of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 following the collapse yesterday in Liverpool and Gravesham of several hundred poll tax cases because the Government have so far refused to introduce a commencement order to allow computer evidence to be used in the magistrates court under that Act? I drew that fact to the attention of magistrates—albeit unsuccessfully—in my cases in Coventry and Wandsworth. What option do the Government now have? If they do not introduce the commencement order, will they tell every council that there must be a council officer with personal knowledge of all the billing arrangements of every individual who is brought before the courts? There are millions of outstanding cases. If the Government do introduce the order, will that not mean that the 5 million liability orders already granted and the 200 imprisonments that have already been made are illegal? Surely all poll tax cases should be stopped until the matter has been sorted out.
Mr. MacGregor: The Government are urgently considering whether there is any need to change the law governing proceedings in the magistrates court to deal with problems in the effective presentation of evidence in community charge enforcement cases. However, there is no bar on the institution of enforcement proceedings by local authorities where evidence of non-payment can be brought before the court, and proceedings continue to be brought successfully in many other areas.
Nothing that has happened in the recent cases provides any reason whatsoever for people who are liable to pay the community charge failing to do so. There is strong feeling among those who do pay the community charge about those who should pay but are not paying. There are exemptions and benefits for people on low incomes. There is very strong feeling about this issue and, although the Government are urgently considering the matter that has recently arisen, the vast majority of people expect those who are supposed to pay the community charge to do so.
Mr. Roger King: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate the issue covered in today's editorial in The Birmingham Post entitled "So much for 'Buy British"? The editorial deals with the Opposition's topic of encouraging people to buy British and points out that the Opposition's deputy leader has just bought a foreign car. Should we not, in
1104
conjunction with the very misleading Labour party political broadcast, call to account those who advocate buying home-produced goods but then buy foreign ones?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I think that it would be legitimate to raise it during the debate next week on the motion to approve the autumn statement, when I hope it will be pointed out that that party political broadcast was a gross travesty of the facts of British manufacturing industry. It was also a clear attempt to talk Britain down.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has written to the Leader of the Opposition drawing attention to the many ways in which it was a gross distortion and to the fact that, for example, one in 10 personal computers sold in the world—let alone in this country—is now made in Scotland and that no less than 85 per cent. of the kitchens sold in this country are made by British firms. The highly selective description of individual items in a kitchen which was contained in the broadcast did no credit to British manufacturing or to the enormous improvement that it has made, and it was a gross distortion of the facts.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the fact that there has been no debate on Northern Ireland for a long time? There are 10,000 British soldiers in Northern Ireland. We are debating everything else in advance of the general election but not Northern Ireland, so will he answer two questions? First, are talks taking place? I am advised that the press says that they are but that in practice they are not. Secondly, is it true that, in order to maintain a parliamentary majority, the Anglo-Irish Agreement will be ditched?
Mr. MacGregor: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there will be a full day's debate on one aspect of Northern Ireland—not the talks, but electricity—a week on Monday. We do debate Northern Ireland matters frequently.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has expressed the view that, unless the outstanding issues are resolved in the near future, it is unlikely that political talks could begin before the election because of a lack of time; but the Government very much hope that the obstacles will be overcome and that the talks can then begin.
I can confirm that stories about meetings at the party-political level are pure invention.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the debate on the autumn statement, it will be within the rules of order to constrast Government spending policies with the extravagant spending policies of the Opposition and to mention the taxes that will be necessary to pay for them? My right hon. Friend will agree that there is great anxiety about higher taxation and increased national insurance contributions. Surely it is right that the House should be able to question the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer about his apparent differences of opinion with his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that, subject to Mr. Speaker's ruling, it will be in order to discuss these matters—I know that they have been raised in previous autumn statement debates. The country will certainly be looking to

1105
the Opposition to clarify their position on taxation and spending. It seems as if the Opposition flounder almost every day in their responses to the charges and questions that we put to them, and I very much hope that they will clarify their position on national insurance charges on high and not so high incomes—and on whether any increases will be phased in. If so, we should be told how they will meet their spending commitments on child benefit and pensions. These are legitimate issues on which it would be perfectly in order for the House to spend a good deal of time next week.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will it be possible for the Lord President of the Council to ask the Department of Transport to make a statement or to initiate an early debate on the proposed review of coastguard services, a matter of serious concern to all of us who represent maritime constituencies? Fears have been raised about a reduction in manpower, and we should like to explore the matter further.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think it will be possible to have a debate in Government time, but I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on local government finance in London, so that we may discuss the growing evidence that Labour councils, far from struggling to provide services, cannot even be bothered to collect millions of pounds of rates and of community charge still owing to them? These councils do not collect their rents and have lost control of their rented housing stock. In short, they do not want to provide services; they just want to blame the Government.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that there is considerable maladministration among Labour councils, as witness the discovery of what went on in the council of Brent when it was under Labour control. I should think that it would be in order to discuss these matters when we debate the revenue support grant orders for England.
Mt. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern in the mining industry because, in the midst of important negotiations between British Coal, National Power and PowerGen on the future contracts on which mining depends, British Coal's commercial director, Mr. Malcolm Edwards, has been sacked? Given that it is only a few months since the Secretary of State appointed him under a two-year contract, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House next week on the matter?
Mr. MacGregor: We had a full debate on the coal industry yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I will raise the point with my right hon. Friend, but 1 doubt whether a statement next week would be appropriate.
Mr. Stephen Day: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to allow the House to debate health, specifically the recently published report which shows the great success of GP fund-holding practices and trust hospitals? Could the debate be held in Government time to allow us to congratulate the people who work in those facilities and the GPs who are now strongly supporting the
1106
reforms? A debate might allow the Opposition the opportunity to withdraw some of their more outrageous allegations about those reforms.
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend will have seen in the recent report on the first six months of the NHS reforms, substantial progress is being made by the NHS backed by our reforms and the record resources that we are making available. The report also shows that the NHS is treating more patients than ever before and placing much more emphasis on quality of services. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to all the staff in the health service. The report clearly shows that Opposition warnings about what would happen after the reforms have proved to be completely false. I would welcome a debate, but in the next few weeks many issues have to be fitted into the timetable, not least progress on Government legislation. I shall look for an opportunity for a debate, but I cannot promise one next week.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an early debate on the Government's determination to prevent part-timers from having the same rights as people who work full time? is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Leicester almost a third of all women workers and almost 20 per cent. of all workers are part-timers? It is disgraceful that they should be refused even the residual rights that the Government have left for those who work full time.
Mr. MacGregor: I am also aware that the Opposition's proposal for a national minimum wage would destroy many part-time jobs.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate next week on the principle and number of live animal exports which, we hear, have reached record levels in the past year? Does he accept that the conditions in which live animals are exported must be humane? There is considerable doubt sometimes about whether live animals are exported in humane conditions and a debate is urgently required.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the Agriculture Council on this matter, especially in relation to the export of live horses. I cannot promise a debate in the near future, but no doubt my hon. Friend will find opportunities to raise the matter further.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that, in the past four days, since we returned from the Christmas recess, I have heard more from Conservative Members about Labour party policy than I have heard on the national executive committee in 12 months? Will he listen to the pleas of those who have occupied the Waterloo ambulance station, using it for 70 homeless people who in a blaze of publicity over Christmas were helped by the Government? Now they need food. By whatever means possible, will the right hon. Gentleman get in touch with Ministers to ensure that, if it is right for the Government to gain publicity over Christmas for looking after a few hundred homeless, it should be right to do something about them now so that they are not turned out on the streets?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's second point. On his first point, I am grateful to him for his confession. Now we know why Labour policies are in such a mess.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend consider rearranging next week's business to enable us to have an urgent debate on industrial relations, bearing in mind that our reforms over the past 12 years have brought industrial relations to a new level of success? The number of days lost through strikes is lower than at any time since 1979, and people ought to know that Labour policies would sweep all that away and bring back the sort of industrial anarchy that existed in 1978–79.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is certainly right about the number of days lost through strikes. The figures announced today for the most recent month are the best for a long time and continue the trend of recent months. They are certainly better than 1979. In terms of the Government's general strategy on economic policy matters, it would be appropriate for some of those issues to be raised in Wednesday's debate.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the Leader of the House aware that the seventh report of the Public Accounts Committee on the privatisation of Harland and Wolff was not available to Members in the House until late yesterday evening and that it had been made available to others some time previously? That enabled the Belfast Telegraph, for example, to carry a huge article on the real cost of the sell-off. Northern Ireland Members were disadvantaged because they did not have the information and could not comment. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again?
As we are to have a debate on the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order, will the right hon. Gentleman seek to have the report of the Select Committee on Energy on the privatisation of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland available to us before the debate takes place?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall have to look into the second matter. There is a need for a debate on the privatisation of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland fairly soon.
I shall look into the availability of the PAC report. I am not clear about what was made available in the report last night and what was published in newspapers earlier. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is important that we have a debate soon on Kashmir, especially bearing in mind that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), in his capacity as deputy leader of the Labour party, has pledged his party to support self-determination for Kashmir? Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends take a more measured view, which I think would be much appreciated by our many Indian constituents.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall make the Government's position clear on Kashmir yet again. We believe that the dispute can be resolved only by peaceful agreement between India and Pakistan. That remains the best way to proceed. We have offered help if both sides want us to intervene. What the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said is a matter for him.
Mrs. Ray Mitchie: Yesterday we heard a statement on environmentally sensitive areas in
1108
England. I think that it is generally agreed that a positive way forward is to have a partnership between farming and environmental interests. As the Scottish islands await progress on the matter, can the Leader of the House tell us whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement early next week on ESAs for Scotland?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support in general for the policy. I entirely agree with her in that respect. The early experience of ESAs that I had when I was Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food showed the policy to be important, helpful and constructive. As for a statement on ESAs in Scotland, I shall have to raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, which I shall do.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read early-day motion 316, which stands in my name and is supported by about 40 right hon. and hon. Members?
[That this House is appalled at the mistreatment and murder of street children in Guatemala; and calls on President Serrano and the Guatemalan Government to urgently deal with this problem and in particular to support the work of the Casa Alianza and other agencies working to bring education and support to these children.]
It is alleged that the street children of Guatemala City are being killed by police officers and others. My right hon. Friend may know that one of my constituents, Bruce Harris, is in charge of the mission called Casa Alianza. Even he has been threatened with death. May we have an early debate on foreign affairs and aid and on the encouragement that should be given to President Serrano, who now says that he is keen to see the problem sorted out? The United Kingdom's full attention should be focused on the problems in Guatemala City.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I have read the early-day motion, and the Government share the concern that is expressed in it. We and our European partners have made clear to the Guatemalan Government the importance that we attach to human rights, and expecially to the rights of street children. I do not know when it will be possible to have a general debate on foreign affairs, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. If we have such a debate, it will be possible for him to raise this matter, as he will be able to do on other occasions.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Obviously I welcome the opportunity to debate next week Ravenscraig and the Lanarkshire economy. I hope, however, that it has not escaped the attention of the Leader of the House that one of the most famous companies in Scotland, Armitage Shanks of Barrhead, is facing closure because of the parent company's axe. May we be given the opportunity to debate the economy of Renfrewshire, which has suffered 35,000 job losses since the Government came to power? As I have said, we are facing the closure of a world-famous company in Scotland. The Government are not lifting a finger to help the economy of Renfrewshire. They are not investigating why the company wishes to move from Barrhead. Why is it that the Government do not want to debate what is happening in Renfrewshire? We have only their failed policies and an enterprise zone in Inverclyde. They are not doing anywhere near enough for Scotland. Do something now.
Mr. MacGregor: I was sorry to hear about the possibility of job losses at the company concerned, and I recognise the company's creditable history. However, this is a matter for the company. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have done a great deal to assist the Scottish economy. There have been particular measures in north Lanarkshire, but the matter goes way beyond that. It is the Opposition's choice to confine next week's debate to Ravenscraig and north Lanarkshire.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that high taxation is poor for inward investment and many other things? Will he assure us that next week's debate will be far-reaching enough for us to explain that in the early days of the Conservative Government—1979 and 1980—we had to repay massive debts incurred by the previous Labour Government and that since then we have religiously cut taxation? So, for high taxes vote for the Labour party. and for low taxes vote Conservative.
Mr. MacGregor: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point; he is right. I hope that there will be plenty of opportunity to debate those matters next week. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is laughing. He knows that the country now recognises that his party has been, is and always will be a party of high taxation, because it cannot resist spending other people's money. If the hon. Member for Copeland is complaining about the level of tax now, the country wants to know why he proposes to add considerably to it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As it was tabled. on 17 December, has the Leader of the House had time to reflect on early-day motion 424 in the name of a former Law Officer, a former Home Secretary, myself and 41 colleagues?
[That this House welcomes the public announcement by Her Majesty's Government of the identity of the new head of MI5; but calls on Her Majesty's Government to make a full statement about the role of Stella Rimington, in particular in connection with the activities of Mr. David Hart during the 1984 miners' strike.]
It welcomes the public announcement of the identity of the new head of MI5, but calls on the Government to make a full statement about Stella Rimington's role, particularly as it related to the activities of Mr. David Hart, during the 1984 strike. Also, as the first signatory of the motion, may I say that since it was tabled statements have been made to me about the involvement of Stella Rimington and Mr. Roger Windsor of the National Union of Mineworkers. The motion raises serious issues and calls for some sort of response.
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, following the passage of the Security Service Act 1989, the Government judged that it was right to announce the appointment of a new director general of the Security Service and I am pleased that that has, rightly, been seen as a positive step. The hon. Gentleman asked about the new director general designate's previous work. It has been the long-standing practice under Governments of both parties not to comment on operational matters, and we do not intend to depart from that precedent.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although nominal interest rates are falling, real interest rates are rising, causing even normally
1110
prudent businesses to fail, with increased job losses and mortgage foreclosures? Is it not economic nonsense that our interest rates should be dictated not by our own grave economic needs but by the interests of the German economy? In the absence of a revaluation of the deutschmark within the exchange rate mechanism, will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us are deeply concerned about our continued membership? Will he please grant an urgent debate on the specific subject of the exchange rate mechanism?
Mr. MacGregor: No. We have debated the exchange rate mechanism and general economic policy on many occasions and it will be possible to refer to that issue in the debate on Wednesday. I would not wish to have a debate on only the ERM because many other matters need to be raised. On the general principle, I believe that the vast majority of my hon. Friends are strongly in favour of the benefits that the United Kingdom economy and British business have received as a result of our membership of the ERM.
My hon. Friend will note that German interest rates and ours are closer than they have been for a long time. I am sure that he will also welcome the reduction in mortgage rates announced by the Abbey National today.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement next week on his handling of the planning process within Scotland in advance of the proposed local inquiry into the construction of a bridge to Skye? In a written answer this week, the Secretary of State for Scotland has confirmed that, in advance of the local inquiry, he and the Scottish Office have entered into a commercial contract with the designated builders of the project. That makes nonsense of the planning procedure and adds to the difficulties of the local objectors, which already include the 9 kg of paper produced by the roads directorate in Scotland, so that no proper analysis or preparation of arguments can be done in advance. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the handling of the process? It is certainly undemocratic, and many people are beginning to feel that it borders on the unconstitutional.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot comment on the details, and I certainly cannot promise a statement next week. We have much important business to conduct, so I doubt whether a statement will be possible, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Could my right hon. Friend find time for a short debate on the question of Short money? Does he agree that events this week have shown that there may be inadequacies in the funding of Opposition parties? If we can examine the matter in detail, might we be able to find sufficient research funds for the Leader of the Opposition to be able to check the quotations that he uses against the Prime Minister before misquoting them? Might it not also be possible to find the right hon. Gentleman a researcher who can at least draft a simple apology?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that was a failure of finance; it was simply a failure to understand the issues and to do homework.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House take into account early-day motion 452?
[That this House calls for publication of the Register of Members' Secretaries and Research Assistants; notes that the Register includes information on, amongst others provided with access passes, the proprietor of private psychiatric nursing and residential homes, employees of political and economic consultancies, international law firms, company directors, representatives of parliamentary lobbying organisations (including Research and Information Services, Westminster Ltd., Chelgate Public Relations Ltd., Taylor Steingberg Associates, Westminster Communications, Decision Makers Ltd., Charles Barker Public Affairs and others), a parliamentary researcher for parliamentary agents, a Lloyds underwriter and the Managing Director of Charles Barker Watney and Powell; and urges the Leader of the House to place a Motion on the Order Paper to facilitate publication so that the public may be aware of who has such privileged access, and why.]
The motion calls for the publication of the Register of Members' Secretaries and Research Assistants, and asks specifically that something be done about the business of the House—that is, that a motion should be put on the Order Paper to ensure that the register is published, as it contains an astounding cross-section of commercial lobbying organisations. The managing director of one of the biggest of such organisations attached to this place is registered as a Member's secretary or research assistant.
Is it not true that some hon. Members are receiving perks in return for providing passes and conferring advantages on commercial lobbying organisations? Should not that information be open to the public instead of being kept in the Library? Then people outside could know who was being registered and who was getting the passes, and hon. Members could explain the reasons, which may be perfectly valid, why the passes have been given.
Mr. MacGregor: I should not wish to comment on the hon. Gentleman's allegations, but, on his general point, it would not be appropriate to deal with the issue by publishing the Register of Members' Secretaries and Research Assistants. The right way to proceed may be to consider the matter when the House debates—as I hope we shall in due course, when we can find time—the Select Committee on Members' Interests report on parliamentary lobbying, which has now been published.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend certain that he has allocated sufficient time for next Wednesday's debate on the Chancellor's autumn statement to allow the House fully to ventilate the Opposition's extraordinary shambles on taxation? I ask that in the light of the interview given on the "World at One" today by the shadow Chancellor to Mr. James Naughtie, in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was fully and effectively "kebabbed"—I believe that that is the word. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he has ever known an Opposition in such a state of panic and disorder over such an important issue so soon before a general election?
Mr. MacGregor: We have been saying for a long time that there is a huge gulf between the spending promises that the Labour party has lavished on just about every interest group and its tax commitments. It now appears that the Labour party is reneging on some of those tax
1112
commitments, so my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issue. I am sure that the subject will feature in next week's debate. I cannot promise him any extended time next week, or another day next week, but we shall return to the matter again—by which time, no doubt, the Labour party's position will have changed yet again.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The attacks of the Leader of the House on my party are boring the public to tears. If he does not believe me, he should trawl public opinion. People are getting switched off by all this nonsense.
May I ask the Leader of the House a question and receive a straight answer, not an attack on the Labour party? May we have a debate on business services and, in particular, export credit guarantee premiums? Is he aware that companies throughout Britain, and indeed several in my constituency, say that they are losing business and large contracts abroad because they cannot afford the premiums? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter? Can it be debated in Parliament?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on the first point. I get a different reaction as I go round the country: I find that there is a great deal of interest. The Labour party would not apparently hint that it will change its position on national insurance contributions unless it was not greatly worried about the reaction that the public are already showing. The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong about that. [Interruption.] I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so sensitive on the matter. We are finding such reactions all the time.
The hon. Gentleman's point about export credit insurance could be raised in next Wednesday's debate because it is an economic matter and the debate is on the economy and the autumn statement.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. Friend find time, possibly next week, for a debate on unemployment in the north of England? We constantly hear in the House attacks on the Government's employment policy. My right hon. Friend will have noticed that in today's figures unemployment levels in the north-west—in Merseyside, Lancashire and Cheshire—are well over 20 per cent. lower than when the Government were last elected. Perhaps that is one point that should be pushed home hard to the electorate in the north of England.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think that it would be in order for him to make it in the debate next Wednesday, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. James Maxton: May I raise a specific point about the debate on the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order next Wednesday? Is the Leader of the House aware that that order is not listed today among the Remaining Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions? Is he aware that I have been informed that the order will not be laid until tomorrow and that it is not available at present in the Vote Office? That means that Scottish Members can obtain the order at the earliest tomorrow. They cannot get back in time to discuss it with their local authorities tomorrow afternoon.
There is to be an important debate which relates to Scotland in the House on Monday evening. That leaves about one hour between 9 am and 10 am on Monday

1113
morning for Scottish Members to discuss the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order with their local authority officials and representatives. That is a complete negation of democracy. I ask the Leader of the House even at this stage to withdraw the debate on the order next week and to put it on in the following week when we have had time to discuss it.
Mr. MacGregor: There is a general desire that we should debate the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order. I hope that the House will pass it so that local authorities may know exactly where they stand and are in a position to move forward. I am under the impression that that is generally agreed. I shall look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises immediately after business questions.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: In view of the belated but welcome interest in the House in occupational pensions, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 131?
[That this House regrets that the Occupational Pensions Board has approved the request of Lucas Industries plc to remove £90 million from the employees' pension fund for company use causing a further payment from the fund to the Inland Revenue of £60 million so depleting the pension fund by £150 million; notes that the 35,000 Lucas pensioners do not receive the maximum pensions allowed by the Inland Revenue; is mindful that the company has made no payments into the pension fund for six years; and believes a first call on any surplus in the pension fund should be to existing pensioners up to the maximum allowed.]
It deals with the raiding by Lucas Industries of £90 million from the funds of 35,000 pensioners when it had not paid a penny into the pension fund for six years. British Rail pensioners are unable to be represented as pensioners on the board of trustees of the pension fund.
May we have a debate on early-day motion 131 and the activities of the Occupational Pensions Board, which must rate as one of the least effective guardians of the public interest that the House has ever set up? A debate is long overdue. Millions of occupational pensioners in Britain are worried sick about the future and the stability of their pensions because they have read about disasters and of pension funds being raided. I might add that those pension funds were raided apparently with the official sanction of the Occupational Pensions Board. We need to have the matter opened up on a much wider front rather than merely having fishing expeditions on one incident.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a debate on the matter next week, but I am told that the Occupational Pensions Board was asked by Lucas to approve a modification of its scheme rules so that the scheme could benefit from a reduced tax liability. As well as transferring funds to the company, the modification also provides a significant package of benefit improvements, totalling £225 million, for scheme members. That is what I am informed as a result of seeing the early-day motion.

Business of the House

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 3 FEBRUARY
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Sir Michael Neubert

  Mr. Jacques Arnold

  Dame Jill Knight

Orders of the Day
  Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill
    New Clause 12

      PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF DISPUTES BY GAS CONSUMERS' COUNCIL
      ' . The following section shall be inserted in the Gas Act 1986, after section 32—
      "Preliminary investigation by Council of certain disputes.
      32A.—(1) This section applies where—

      (a) representations are made to the Council by or on behalf of a person who appears to the Council to have an interest in the matter to which the representations relate; and

      (b) that matter appears to the Council to constitute a dispute of a kind which may be referred to the Director under section 14A above or 33A below, or under regulations made under section 15A above.

      (2) It shall be the duty of the Council—

      (a) to inform the person by or on whose behalf the representations are made that he may have the right to refer his dispute to the Director; and

      (b) to make such investigations with respect to the matter to which the representations relate as may be specified in a direction given by the Director.

      (3) Any such direction may be given so as to apply generally or to a specified class of matter or particular matter and may, in particular, specify in relation to any investigation which the Council is required to make under this section—

      (a) the practice and procedure which it is to follow in conducting its investigation; and

      (b) the information which it is to give to the Director with respect to the matter investigated.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.20 pm
      The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 24—the Gas Consumers' Council—
      'In section 2 of the Gas Act 1986 (the Gas Consumers' Council), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)
      "(3A) In appointing members for the Council, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing persons who have experience in or knowledge of activities connected with the supply of gas through pipes.".'.
      New clause 25—Gas Act 1986 (Investigations by Director)—
      '—(1) Section 31 of the Gas Act (duty of Director to investigate certain matters) shall be amended as follows.
      (2)For paragraph (b) in subsection (1), there shall be substituted
      "is referred to him by the Council under subsection (6G) of section 32 below.''
      (3) Subsection (2) shall cease to have effect:'.
      New clause 26—Gas Act 1986 (Investigation by Council)—
      '(1) Section 32 of the Gas Act (duty of Council to investigate certain matters) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) For paragraph (a) in subsection (2), there shall be substituted—
      "(a) any matter in respect of which any functions of the Director under this Part are or may be exercisable; and"
      (3) For paragraph (b) in subsection (2), there shall be substituted—
      "(b) any matter which relates to the supply of gas through pipes and in respect of which any functions of the Director General of Fair Trading under the Fair Trading Act 1973 or the Competition Act 1980 are or may be exercisable."
      (4) In subsection (3), for "paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above" there shall be substituted "subsection (2) of section 33 below".
      (5) The followng subsections shall be inserted after subsection (6)—
      "(6A) Where under an investigation under subsection (1) above any matter appears to the Council to be an enforcement matter the Council may prepare a written report on that matter and shall (subject to section 42 below) send a copy of any such report to—

      (a) any person to whom the report refers or who (whether or not he has made a representation to the Council) appears to the Council to have an interest in the matter to which the report relates;

      (b) the Director General of Fair Trading or any person whose functions under any enactment appear to the Council to be exercisable in relation to that matter;

      (c) any person who appears to the Council to be a person who ought to take account of the report in determining how to act in relation to that matter;

      (d) the Director.

      (6B) In reporting the matter under subsection (6A), the Council may recommend—

      (a) that he matter be reconsidered by the public gas supplier concerned;

      (b) that the Director consider exercising any of his functions under section 28 above.

      (6C) More than one recommendation may be included in a report under this section.
      (6D) Where the Council includes any recommendation in a report under this section, the report shall give the Council's reasons for making the recommendation.
      (6E) Where—

      (a) a report is sent to any public gas supplier under subsection (6A) above; and

      (b) the report includes a recommendation directed to that supplier,
      the shall have regard to it and notify the Council of the action which he has taken, or proposes to take, to comply with the recommendation.

      (6F) Where a public gas supplier fails to comply (whether wholly or partly) with a recommendation under subsection (6B) above the Council shall refer the matter to the Director."
      (6) Subsection (7) shall cease to have effect.'.
      New Clause 27—Gas Act 1986 (Duty to advise Director)—
      —(1) Section 40 of the Gas Act 1986 (general duty to advise Director shall be amended as follows.
      (2) After the words "advise the" there shall be inserted "Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the".
      (3) In paragraph (a) after the words "any of the" there shall be inserted "Secretary of State's or, as the case may be, the".
      (4) In paragraph (b) after the words "by the" there shall be inserted "Secretary of State of the".'.
      New clause 28—Gas Act 1986 (Annual Reports)—
      '—(1) Section 41 of the Gas Act 1986 (annual reports) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (2) after the words "advised the" there shall be inserted "Secretary of State or the".'.
      New clause 29—Gas Act 1986 (Information)—
      'The following section shall be inserted in the Gas Act 1986, after section 41—

    Information.
    41A The Director shall give information collected by or furnished to him under section 38C above to the Council, with a view to facilitating the exercise of the Council's functions under this Part.".'.
    New Clause 30—Electricity Act 1989 (Consumers' Council)—
    'For section 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 there shall be substituted—

    The Electricity Consumers' Council.
    2. (1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Electricity Consumers' Council (in this Part referred to as 'the Council') for the purpose of performing the functions assigned to it by this Part.
    (2) The Council shall consist of a chairman and such other members as the Secretary of State may from time to time appoint.
    (3) In appointing members for the Council, the Secretary of State shall so far as practicable, ensure—

    (a) that the members of the Council include members who, by reason of their familiarity with the special requirements and circumstances of the different areas of Great Britain or of small businesses, are able together to represent the interests of consumers of electricity supplied to premises in all those areas and such businesses; and

    (b) that the interests of consumers of electricity supplied to premises in different areas are represented by different members wherever that appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate having regard to the manner in which the various parts of the electricity supply industry in Great Britain organise themselves.

    (4) In appointing members of the Council, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing persons who have experience in or knowledge of activities connected with the supply of electricity to premises.
    (5) A member of the Council shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of the instrument appointing him and shall, on ceasing to hold office, be eligible for re-appointment.
    (6) The provisions of Schedule X to this Act shall effect with respect to the Council.".'.
    New Clause 31—Electricity Act 1989 (information by Director)—
    'The following section shall be inserted in the Electricity Act 1989, after section 42
    "42A. The Director shall give information collected by or furnished to him under section 42 above to the Council, with a view to facilitating the exercise of the Council's functions under this Part.".'.
    New clause 32—Electricity Act 1989 (investigation of enforcement matters)—
    'For section 45 of the Electricity Act 1989 (investigation of enforcement matters) there shall be inserted—
    "45.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Director to investigate any matter which appears to him to be an enforcement matter and which—

    (a) is the subject of a representation (other than one appearing to the Director to be frivolous) made to the Director by or on behalf of a person appearing to the Director to have an interest in that matter; or

    1117

    (b) is referred to him by the Council under subsection ( ) of section 46 below.

    (2) in this section and section 46 below "enforcement matter" means any matter in respect of which any functions of the Director under section 25 above are or may be exercisable.".'.
    New Clause 33—Electricity Act 1989 (investigation of certain matters)—
    'For section 46 of the Electricity Act 1989 (investigation of certain other matters) there shall be substituted—
    "46.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Council to investigate any matter which to which subsection (2) below applies and which—

    (a) is the subject of a representation (other than one appearing to the Council to be frivolous) made to the Council by or on behalf of a person appearing to the Council to have an interest in that matter; or

    (b) is referred to it by the Director under subsection (11) below.

    (2) This subsection applies to—

    (a) any matter in respect of which any functions of the Director under this Part are or may be exercisable;

    (b) any matter (other than an enforcement matter) which relates to the supply of electricity to premises. and

    (c) any matter which relates to the supply of electricity and in respect of which any functions of the Director General of Fair Trading under the Fair Trading Act 1973 or the Competition Act 1980 are or may be exercisable.

    (3) Subject to subsection (4) below, it shall be the duty of the Director to refer to the Council any matter which appears to the Director to be a matter (other than an enforcement matter) falling within paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above and which is the subject of a representation (other than one appearing to the Director to be frivolous) made to the Director by or on behalf of a person appearing to the Director to have an interest in that matter.
    (4) Nothing in subsection (3) above shall require the Director to refer to the Council any matter in respect of which he is already considering exercising functions under this Part.
    (5) Where on an investigation under subsection (1) above any matter appears to the Council to be a matter falling within subsection (2) above in respect of which it would be appropriate for the Director General of Fair Trading to exercise any functions under this Part, the Council shall refer that matter to the Director with a view to his exercising those functions with respect to that matter.
    (6) Where under an investigation under subsection (1) above any matter appears to the Council to be an enforcement matter the Council may prepare a written report on that matter and shall (subject to section 57 below) send a copy of any such report to—

    (a) any person to whom the report refers or who (whether or not he has made a representation to the Council) appears to the Council to have an interest in the matter to which the report relates;

    the Director General of Fair Trading or any person whose functions under any enactment appear to the Council to be exercisable in relation to that matter;

    (c) any person who appears to the Council to be a person who ought to take account of the report in determining how to act in relation to that matter;

    (d) the Director.

    (7) In reporting on a matter under subsection (6), the Council may recommend—

    (a) that the matter be reconsidered by the electricity supplier concerned;

    (b) that the Director consider exercising any of his functions under this Part.

    (8) More than one recommendation may be included in a report under this section.
    (9) Where the Council includes any recommendation in a report under this section, the report shall give the Council's reasons for making the recommendation.
    (10) Where—

    (a) a report is sent to any electricity supplier under subsection (6) above; and

    (b) the report includes a recommendation directed to that supplier,

    he shall have regard to it and notify the Council of the action which he has taken, or proposes to take, to comply with the recommendation.
    (11) Where an electricity supplier fails to comply (whether wholly or partly) with a recommendation under subsection (7) above the Council shall refer the matter to the Director.".'.
    New clause 34—Electricity Act 1989 (functions of director)—
    'In section 47 of the Electricity Act 1989 (general functions of Director) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.'.
    New clause 35—Electricity Act 1984 (duty of consumers' council to advise Director)—
    'For section 51 of the Electricity Act 1989 (general duty of consumers' committees to advise director etc.) there shall be substituted—.
    "It shall be the duty of the Council to keep under review matters affecting the interests of consumers of electricity supplied to premises and to advise the Secretary of State, or as the case may be, the Director on any matter which—

    (a) appears to it to affect the interests of consumers or potential consumers of electricity; and

    (b) is referred to it by the Secretary of State or the Director or is a matter on which it considers it should offer advice.".'.

    New clause 36—Electricity Act 1989 (reports of consumers' committees)—
    'For section 52 of the Electricity Act 1989 (periodical and other reports of consumers' committees) there shall be substituted—
    "52.—(1) The Council shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year, make to the Director and to the Secretary of State a report on its activities during that year.
    (2) Each report shall include a statement of the matters on which, during the year to which it relates, the Council has advised the Secretary of State or the Director under section X above.
    (3) The Council shall arrange for every such report to be published in such a manner as it considers appropriate.
    (4) In making any such report, the Council shall have regard to the need for excluding, so far as that is practicable—

    (a) any matter which relates to the affairs of an individual where the publication of that matter would or might in the opinion of the Council, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual; and

    (b) any matter which relates specifically to the affairs of a particular body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, where publication of that matter would or might, in the opinion of the Council, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that body.".'.

    New clause 37—Electricity Act 1989 (National Consumers' Consultative Council)—
    'Section 53 of the Electricity Act 1989 (the National Consumers' Consultative Committee) shall cease to have effect.'.
    New clause 38—Electricity Act 1989 (Abolition of Consumers' Council)—
    'In section 54 of the Electricity Act 1989 (abolition of Consumers' etc. Councils) the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (c)—
    "(d) the consumers' councils established under this Act; and
    (e) the National Consumers' Consultative Committee.".'.
    New clause 39—Electricity Act 1984 (Schedule 2)—
    'Schedule 2 of the Electricity Act 1989 shall cease to have effect.'.
    New clause 40—Telecommunications Act 1984 (investigation of complaints)—
    'In section 49 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (investigation of complaints) the following paragraph shall be inserted in subsection (1) after paragraph (b)—
    ";or
    (c) is referred to him by the Council under subsection (ii) of section 54D below.".'.
    New clause 41—Telecommunications Act 1984 (Telecommunications' Consumers Council)—
    'For section 54 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 there shall be substituted

    The Telecommunications Consumers' Council.
    54.—(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Telecommunications Consumers' Council (in this Part referred to as 'the Council') for the purpose of performing the functions assigned to it by this Part.
    (2) The Council shall consist of a chairman and such other members as the Secretary of State may from time to time appoint.
    (3) In appointing members for the Council, the Secretary of State shall so far as practicable, ensure—

    (a) that the members of the Council include members who, by reason of their familiarity with the special requirements and circumstances of the different areas of Great Britain or of small businesses, are able together to represent the interests of consumers of telecommunication services in all those areas and such businesses; and

    (b) that the interests of consumers of telecommunication services in different areas are represented by different members wherever that appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate having regard to the manner in which the various parts of the telecommunication services in Great Britain organise themselves.

    (4) In appointing members for the Council, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing persons who have experience in or knowledge of activities connected with telecommunication services.
    (5) A member of the Council shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of the instrument appointing him and shall, on ceasing to hold office, be eligible for re-appointment.
    (6) The provisions of Schedule X to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Council.".'.
    New clause 42—Telecommunications Act 1984 (duty of Council)—
    'The following section shall be inserted in the Telecommunications Act 1984, after section 54—

    Duty of the Council
    54A.—It shall be the duty of the Council to keep under review matters affecting the interests of consumers of telecommunication services and to advise the Secretary of State, or as the case may be, the Director on any matter which——

    (a) appears to it to affect the interests of consumers or potential consumers of telecommunication services; and

    (b) is referred to it by the Secretary of State or the Director or is a matter on which it considers it should offer advice.".'.

    New clause 43—Telecommunications Act 1984 (annual and other reports)—
    'The following section shall be inserted in the Telecommunications Act 1984, after section 54A—

    Annual and other reports
    54B.—(1) The Council shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year, make to the Director and to the Secretary of State a report on its activities during that year.
    (2) Each report shall include a statement of the matters on which, during the year to which it relates, the Council has advised the Secretary of State or the Director under section 54A above.
    (3) The Council shall arrange for every such report to be published in such a manner as it considers appropriate.
    (4) In making any such report, the Council shall have regard to the need for excluding, so far as that is practicable—

    (a) any matter which relates to the affairs of an individual where the publication of that matter would or might in the opinion of the Council, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual; and

    (b) any matter which relates specifically to the affairs of a particular body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, where publication of that matter would or might, in the opinion of the Council, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that body.".'.

    New clause 44—Telecommunications Act 1984 (information by Director)—
    'The following section shall be inserted in the Telecommunications Act 1984, after section 54B—

    Information to be furnished by the Director
    54C.—The Director shall give information collected by or furnished to him under section 27C above to the Council, with a view to facilitating the exercise of the Council's functions under this Part.".'.
    New clause 45—Telecommunications Act 1984 (Investigation of complaints by Council)—
    'The following section shall be inserted in the Telecommunications Act 1984, after section 54C—

    Investigation of complaints by the Council.
    54D.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Council to investigate any matter to which subsection (2) below applies and which is the subject of a representation (other than one appearing to the Council to be frivolous) made to the Council by or on behalf of a person appearing to the Council to have an interest in that matter.
    (2) This subsection applies to—

    (a) any matter in respect of which any functions of the Director under this Part are or may be exercisable;

    (b) any matter which relates to telecommunication services provided or telecommunication apparatus supplied in the United Kingdom; and

    (c) any matter which relates to the supply of telecommunications and in respect of which any functions of the Director General of Fair Trading under the Fair Trading Act 1973 or the Competition Act 1980 are or may be exercisable.

    (3) Where on an investigation under subsection (I) above any matter appears to the Council to be a matter falling within subsection (2) above in respect of which it would be appropriate for the Director General of Fair Trading to exercise any functions under this Part, the Council shall refer that matter to the Director with a view to his exercising those functions with respect to that matter.
    (4) Where under an investigation under subsection (I) above any matter appears to the Council to be a matter falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above the Council may prepare a written report on that matter and shall (subject to section 48 below) send a copy of any such report to—

    (a) any person to whom the report refers or who (whether or not he has made a representation to the Council) appears to the Council to have an interest in the matter to which the report relates;

    1121

    (b) the Director General of Fair Trading or any person whose functions under any enactment appear to the Council to be exercisable in relation to that matter;

    (c) any person who appears to the Council to be a person who ought to take account of the report in determining how to act in relation to that matter;

    (d) the Director.

    (5) In reporting on a matter under subsection (4), the Council may recommend—

    that the matter be reconsidered by the telecommunications supplier concerned;

    that the Director consider exercising any of his functions under this Part.

    (6) More than one recommendation may be included in a report under this section.
    (7) Where the Council includes any recommendation in a report under this section, the report shall give the Council's reasons for making the recommendation.
    (8) Where—

    (a) a report is sent to any telecommunications supplier under subsection (6) above; and

    (b) the report includes a recommendation directed to that supplier,

    he shall have regard to it and notify the Council of the action which he has taken, or proposes to take, to comply with the recommendation.
    (9) Where a telecommunications supplier fails to comply (whether wholly or partly) with a recommendation under subsection (5) above the Council shall refer the matter to the Director.".'.
    New clause 46—Telecommunications Act 1984 (Advisory Bodies)—
    'Section 54 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (power to establish advisory bodies) shall cease to have effect.'.
    New clause 47—Telecommunications Act 1984 (Advisory Bodies) (No. 2 )—
    'The advisory bodies established under the Telecommunications Act 1984 shall cease to have effect.'.
    New clause 48—Water Industry Act 1991 (Customer Services Committee)—
    '-. (1) Section 28 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (customer services committees) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (1) for the word "Director" in each place it occurs there shall be substituted the words "Secretary of State".
    (3) In subsection (3) for "Director" there shall be substituted "Secretary of State".
    (4) For subsection (4) there shall be substituted—
    "(4) A customer services committee shall consist of—

    a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State; and

    such members (not less than ten nor more than twenty) of other members appointed by the Secretary of State as he may determine:"

    (5) In subsection (5) for the word "Director" in each place where it occurs there shall be substituted the words "Secretary of State ".'.
    New clause—Water Industry Act 1991 (duties of customer services committees)—
    '—(1) Section 29 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (duties of customer services committees) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (c) of subsection (1)—
    "and
    (d) to advise the Secretary of State or as the case may be, the Director on any such matter as the committee considers appropriate.".
    (3) In subsection (2) the words "Subject to subsection (3) below," shall cease to have effect.
    (4) In subsection (3) for "refer to the Director" there shall be substituted "investigate".
    (5) Subsections (4) to (6) shall cease to have effect.
    (6) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
    "(3A) Where under an investigation of a complaint under this section any matter appears to the committee to be a matter falling under paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (3) above the committee may prepare a written report on that matter and shall (subject to section ( ) below) send a copy of any such report to—

    (a) any person to whom the report refers or who (whether or not he has made a representation to the committee) appears to the committee to have an interest in the matter to which the report relates;

    (b) the Director General of Fair Trading or any person whose functions under any enactment appear to the committee to be exercisable in relation to that matter;

    (c) any person who appears to the committee to be a person who ought to take account of the report in determining how to act in relation to that matter;

    (d) the Director.

    (6B) In reporting on a matter under subsection (6A), the committee may recommend—

    (a) that the matter be reconsidered ;by the company concerned;

    (b) that the Director consider exercising any of his functions under this Part.

    (6C) More than one recommendation may be included in a report under this section.
    (6D) Where the committee includes any recommendation in a report under this section, the report shall give the committee's reasons for making the recommendation.
    (6F) Where—

    (a) a report is sent to any company under subsection (6A) above; and

    (b) the report includes a recommendation directed to that company,
    the company shall have regard to it and notify the committee of the action which it has taken, or proposes to take, to comply with the recommendation.

    (6G) Where a company fails to comply (whether wholly or partly) with a recommendation under subsection (6B) above the committee shall refer the matter to the Director.".'.
    New clause 50—Water Act 1991 (Other functions of consumer services committees)—
    'The following section shall be inserted in the Water Industry Act 1991, after section 29—

    Other functions of consumer service committees.
    29A.—(1) Every consumer committee shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year, make to the Director and to the Secretary of State a report on its activities during that year.
    (2) Each report shall include a statement of the matters on which, during the year to which it relates, the committee has advised the Secretary of State or the Director under section 29 above.
    (3) The committee shall arrange for every such report to be published in such a manner as it considers appropriate.
    (4) In making any such report, the committee shall have regard to the need for excluding, so far as that is practicable—

    (a) any matter which relates to the affairs of an individual where the publication of that matter would or might in the opinion of the committee, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual; and

    (b) any matter which relates specifically to the affairs of a particular body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, where publication of that matter

    1123
    would or might, in the opinion of the Committee, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that body.".'.

    New clause 51—Water Act 1991 (Information by directors)—
    'The following section shall be inserted in the Water Industry Act 1991, after section 41—

    Information.
    41A.—The Director shall give information collected by or furnished to him under section 38A above to the customer service committee allocated to the company concerned, with a view to facilitating the exercise of the committee's functions under this Part.".'.
    New clause 52—Water Industry Act 1991 (customer service committees) (No. 2)—
    'For Schedule 4 of the Water Industry Act 1991 there shall be substituted—

    SCHEDULE 2

      CUSTOMER SERVICE COMMITTEES
      1. A customer service committee shall not be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.
      2. A customer service committee may pay to any member such sums, whether by way of remuneration or otherwise, as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine.
      3. (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, a customer services committee may, with the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and terms and conditions of service, appoint such staff as it may determine.

      (2) A customer services committee shall not appoint a person to act as principal officer of the committee except after consultation with the Secretary of State.

      (3) For the purpose of ensuring that there are persons available in particular localities of its functions under this Act, a customer services committee may, without any such approval as is required by sub-paragraph (1) above, appoint such persons to be so available as it may determine.

      (4) Persons appointed under sub-paragraph (3) above shall not be paid any sums by the committee for or in respect of their services except sums reimbursing them for their travelling expenses and such of their other out-of-pocket expenses as do not relate to loss of remuneration.

      (5) The consent of the Treasury shall be required for the giving by the Secretary of State of an approval for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above.

      4. A customer services committee shall have power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the performance of any of its functions under this Act.
      5. It shall be the duty of a customer services committee to comply with any notice given by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury requiring it to perform duties of a financial nature specified in the notice.
      6. The Secretary of State may, to such extent as may be approved by the Treasury, defray or contribute towards the expenses of the Council.
      7. Any sums required by the Secretary of State for the purposes of paragraph 6 above shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
      8. In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 in Part II of Schedule 1 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) there shall be inserted (at the appropriate place) the following entry—
      "A Customer Services Committee"'
      and the like insertion shall be made in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act.1975.".'.
      The following amendments: No. 50:
      'The following Schedule shall be inserted in the Telecommunications Act—

      TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMERS' COUNCIL.
      1. The Council shall not be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.
      2. The Council may pay to any member such sums, whether by way of remuneration or otherwise, as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine.
      3.—

      (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and terms and conditions of service, appoint such staff as it may determine.

      (2) The Council shall not appoint a person to act as principal officer of the Council except after consultation with the Secretary of State.

      (3) For the purpose of ensuring that there are persons available in particular localities of its functions under this Act, the Council may, without any such approval as is required by sub-paragraph (1) above, appoint such persons to be so available as it may determine.

      (4) Persons appointed under sub-paragraph (3) above shall not be paid any sums by the Council for or in respect of their services except sums reimbursing them for their travelling expenses and such of their other out-of-pocket expenses as do not relate to loss of remuneration.

      (5) The consent of the Treasury shall be required for the giving by the Secretary of State of an approval for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above.

      4. The Council shall have power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the performance of any of its functions under this Act.
      5. It shall be the duty of the Council to comply with any notice given by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury requiring it to perform duties of a financial nature specified in the notice.
      (6) The Secretary of State may, to such extent as may be approved by the Treasury, defray or contribute towards the expenses of the Council.
      (7) Any sums required by the Secretary of State for the purposes of paragraph 6 above shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
      (8) In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 in Part II of Schedule 1 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) there shall he inserted (at the appropriate place) the following entry—
      'The Telecommunications Consumers' Council',
      and the like insertion shall be made in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.".'.
      No. 51, new schedule—Electricity Consumers' Council ( Staff Etc.)—
      1. The Council shall not be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.
      2. The Council may pay to any member such sums, whether by way of remuneration or otherwise, as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine.
      3.—

      (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and terms and conditions of service, appoint such staff as it may determine.

      (2) The Council shall not appoint a person to act as principal officer of the Council except after consultation with the Secretary of State.

      (3) For the purpose of ensuring that there are persons available in particular localities of its functions under

      1125
      this Act, the Council may, without any such approval as is required by sub-paragraph (a) above, appoint such persons to be so available as it may determine.

      (4) Persons appointed under sub-paragraph (3) above shall not be paid any sums by the Council for or in respect of their services except sums reimbursing them for their travelling expenses and such of their other out-of-pocket expenses as do not relate to loss of remuneration.

      (5) The consent of the Treasury shall be required for the giving by the Secretary of State of an approval for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above.

      4. The Council shall have power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the performance of any of its functions under this Act.
      5. It shall be the duty of the Council to comply with any notice given by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury requiring it to perform duties of a financial nature specified in the notice.
      6. The Secretary of State may, to such extent as may be approved by the Treasury, defray or contribute towards the expenses of the Council.
      7. Any sums required by the Secretary of State for the purposes of paragraph 6 above shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
      8. In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 in Part II of Schedule 1 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) there shall be inserted (at the appropriate place) the following entry—
      "The Electricity Consumers' Council";
      and the like insertion shall be made in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.'.
      Mr. Redwood: The new powers to set standards and resolve disputes rest with the director general, but the Gas Consumers Council shares with Ofgas the responsibility for sorting out consumer complaints about British Gas. This new clause provides the framework to accommodate their special position, something which the Standing Committee that considered the Bill was keen to see. It will allow the Gas Consumers Council to carry out investigations of complaints that come to it, while ensuring that the customer is informed of his entitlement to have the dispute resolved by the director general.
      Opposition proposals in their new clauses would complicate the position considerably. They amount to a vote of no confidence in the director general and a vote for confusion over the duties and responsibilities of the different bodies. I urge the House to reject the Opposition new clauses.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: That was a very disappointing speech from the Minister. I am sorry that he seems oblivious to the large volume of complaints that he knows about because he has had more than one report on them—complaints that emanate from every part of the country and concern every utility. The commonest complaint from constituents, from the public, from the users, is that the utilities that were formerly public service companies have now become monopolies within the private sector. Regulation has failed and we would not be debating these clause if the earlier Act had not failed properly to protect the users of these utilities.
      Nowhere is that failure more apparent than in the volume of complaints which the House is aware of. The Gas Consumers Council, for instance, has dealt with more than 125,000 complaints since it was established under the Gas Act 1986. It has answered 400,000 inquiries. It has had to deal through its regional offices with problems of billing, of service and of supply.
      1126
      In the other sectors, about which the Minister has again had adequate information, the figures are equally shocking. In telecommunications there have been nearly 40,000 complaints in England and almost 50,000 complaints up and down the country, and that does not include the half a million complaints which have been received about billing disputes, most of which remain unresolved; this is the single biggest area of consumer dissatisfaction when it comes to unresolved complaints. There were more than 10,000 complaints about electricity and more than 4,500 complaints about water.
      One may suspect, with considerable justification, that it is because of the inability—demonstrated by the utility, the regulator and certainly by the Secretary of State and his Department—to tackle those complaints effectively that there have not been many more complaints. There can be little doubt that people feel that it is hardly worth while complaining about water and electricity.
      Nothing demonstrates that more than the electricity price increase forced on more than 22·5 million customers last year. At the beginning of 1991 the electricity operators began submissions to the regulator, advising that there would be an increase well above inflation. In spite of the fact that the Secretary of State, in February, stated his unhappiness with the expected size of the increase, and that the regulator was well aware of the planned price increase, it was approved. An increase of 10·6 per cent. was foisted on customers on 1 April when 6·4 per cent. was more in line with the RPI.
      What happened then? We can judge how ineffective the regulator was in standing up for the consumer by the fact that by October the electricity companies had merely been asked what they were going to do about bringing their prices down towards the RPI figure of 6·4 per cent. In effect, the regulator was snubbed by them. The increased charges have been imposed for the past 10 months. Since October, the companies have done nothing except overcharge their customers.
      I am grateful to Mr. Littlechild's department—the Office of Electricity Regulation—for giving me the figures. The rate of overcharging is staggering. OFFER told me today that Eastern Electricity was overcharging by 1·5 per cent. That does not seem much, but it amounts to £25 million. The Merseyside and North-Western electricity board is overcharging by 0·5 per cent., according to OFFER, which amounts to £2·5 million. Northern Electric has been overcharging by 2 per cent., which puts £12 million into its pockets. Southern Electricity has gained £17 million from overcharging, according to OFFER. The South Western electricity board has gained £10 million and Yorkshire Electricity has gained £7 million. That makes a staggering total of £93·5 million for overcharging electricity customers. Meanwhile, the Minister and the Secretary of State sat and did nothing and the regulator was powerless to act.
      That is the Government's record on representing the consumer. It is shocking that the Minister should come to the House and dismiss so casually the merits of these excellent amendments.
      Mr. Terry Lewis: Does my hon. Friend have the figures for NORWEB, which have been causing considerable problems for consumers in its area and have resulted in many letters to local papers, especially in Tory marginal constituencies?
      Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I missed NORWEB. To put the matter beyond doubt, the level of overcharging by that company was the highest in the country and netted it £20 million. My hon. Friend is assiduous in ensuring that such abuses are highlighted and in defending his constituents. He certainly speaks eloquently for the concerns of Opposition Members.
      New clauses, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 and their effect on the Gas Act 1986, the Electricity Act 1989, the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Water Industry Act 1991, will bring considerable advantage to consumers.
      Let us consider why we are faced with the problems of overcharging and the high number of complaints.
      Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to give director generals the necessary power to resolve the complaints and to take fully into account customer interest? Does he agree that his amendments do not help? The amendments say that customer complaints should go to the Secretary of State, but they do not give the Secretary of State power to override the director general and to determine the complaint. Surely it is better that the complaint be determined by the person who has the power—the person who receives the customer complaint.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Griffiths: The Minister has been in office since 1987 and is obviously a fast learner. We put down a reasoned amendment because we support the principle of the Bill, as we have made clear. The Minister seems surprised at that. If he reads the Second Reading debate, he will see that that was made clear to the House. Indeed, we support the principle to such an extent that I am only echoing what we said when the individual measures were going through the House earlier in the 1980s. It is the failure of those measures to take account of what Labour was saying at that stage which has necessitated the new legislation.
      The saddest thing is that the Minister is prepared to go only halfway to meet the challenge that faces the industries in addressing consumer grievances. He is still over-concerned about the profits that the businesses were making. He is over-concerned to make sure that the directors are protected so that they can pay themselves what they want and can take whatever boardroom perks they want at the expense of the consumer. That will be the subject of further debate later.
      The powers in the previous legislation were too lax to protect consumers. The powers in this Bill, sadly, are also lax. The Minister seems pleased about what has been happening and is willing to defend it. If we consider each area individually, we shall see why the new clause is necessary to address the problem of the ineffective consumer committees. We also propose a cut in the number of consumer committees from approximately 190—most of which are ineffective-to about 50 effective committees which will have tough powers to represent users.
      In electricity there are 14 regional consumer committees, with one for each electricity company. They are funded via the licence fee. The members and the chairman of the regional committees are not independent of the regulator and the industry. They are hired and fired by the regulator. That is the main reason for our opposition to the present set-up.
      1128
      The regulator has a distinct role as an economic regulator. That is very different from the role of consumer advocate. In many areas the blurring between the role of the regulator and the dependence of the consumer committees on the regulator have caused them to be so ineffective.
      An indication of the dependence of the committees on the regulator is given in a brochure issued by one electricity consumer committee. It says that OFFER provides each committee with secretariat support. The committee secretary is a member of OFFER's staff. OFFER also provides each committee with its finances and its accommodation. The committees in England and Wales are based at OFFER's regional offices and those in Scotland are in OFFER's Scottish headquarters. That close link could have worked to the benefit of the consumer, but clearly it has failed the consumer. The reason is that the consumer committees have too often been toothless watchdogs, unable to command the information which new clause 27 addresses.
      The structure for water is similar. There are 10 regional consumer service committees covering the various sewerage areas. The regulator appoints the chairmen, Ofwat—the Office of Water Services—provides the secretariat and, as with electricity, the chairmen of those committees comprise a national consumer committee which is chaired by the regulator. It is all far too cosy.
      Only when we examine telecommunications, the area which generates the greatest number of complaints, do we see how ineffective is the present absurd structure established by the Government. There are four national advisory committees. They were set up specifically to be advisory bodies rather than user councils. An indication of their status can be gleaned from examining the submission of the English committee to Oftel's latest financial report. It expresses its gratitude to the Office of Telecommunications,
      "without whose support, the functions of an Act would be impossible to carry out."
      One can bet that to be the case, with the use of its offices, its secretariat and, most important, being dependent on it for its membership.
      Another fact has come as a surprise to several hon. Members with whom I discussed the matter earlier today. There are about 150 telecommunications advisory committees throughout the country. Earlier today, my research assistant telephoned directory inquiries for the telephone number of the telecom advisory committee for the Edinburgh area. The telephone operator told my researcher. "My screen says, 'See Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for Scotland' but when I key that, nothing comes up. I will refer you to a supervisor." A little later the supervisor said, "I am searching for you. Nothing is coming up. May I take your number and call you back?" I am still waiting for the return call.
      In other words, we have, covering telecommunications, 150 advisory committees, the telephone numbers for which are apparently not in the telephone directory, and directory inquiries knows little, if anything, about them. It seems odd that, when a member of the public tries to contact one of the committees, its telephone number is not available. I will willingly give way to the Minister now if he can put forward any defence of those 150 telecommunications advisory committees. Nothing could be more indicative of the ineffectiveness of the Government's lapdog consumer representation than those advisory

      1129
      committees. It is time that we had tough, effective committees representing consumers. That is what we are demanding today.
      The new clauses have considerable importance. For example, new clause 24 would impose a clear duty on the Secretary of State to appoint members with appropriate expertise to the Gas Consumers Council and the other consumer councils. Lest my remarks about the Gas Consumers Council are misconstrued, I hasten to put on record my gratitude for the work done by that council and its staff. We want the powers of the other consumer councils brought up to the levels enjoyed by the Gas Consumers Council.
      So the first aim of the new clause is to ensure that the structure of the consumer councils is similar to that which the Gas Consumers Council has enjoyed. The Gas Consumers Council is special, because it is completely separate from the regulator and is not dependent on the regulator for any form of patronage or secretariat. That separation is critical, because the job of the regulator is not simply to look after the Minister's and wider interests but to examine the interests of the business, as is right and proper. The consumer councils, however, have the job of championing the consumer. That is the model that we are seeking to embrace. We want to see the Gas Consumers Council as the model for all the utilities, with five key enhancements.
      New clause 24 would ensure that consumer councils had people with the appropriate expertise—not necessarily as members but certainly as consultants and advisers. There can be little doubt that any consumer body, if it is to be effective, must have access to expertise.
      That is something which new clause 24 would establish. Sadly, given the Minister's introductory remarks, as well as some of the comments that peppered the Committee stage debate and his previous speeches and writings on this matter, it is hardly surprising that he is not too keen to give consumers more effective access to information and expertise.
      That, after all, is what puts pressure on business to justify its decisions. New clause 24 would give the consumer councils the weaponry to ensure that they were staffed with people who had an understanding not only of consumer affairs—vital though that is—but of how industry works. In terms of expertise, they would be on the same footing as both the regulator and the industry itself. They would not necessarily have the multi-million-pound back-up that business has, but at least they would be on the first rung of the ladder.
      New clause 25 would empower the Gas Consumers Council, and the subsequent new clauses would empower the other consumer councils, to deal with enforcement matters. It is a matter of some concern that issues relating to licence conditions are currently outwith the remit of the Gas Consumers Council and, of course, none of the other consumer bodies or committees come close to dealing with that matter. We want to make sure that the consumer has access to the material that determines licensing and the licence conditions so that we may have someone to speak for consumers when a licence is being considered. There should be provision for vetting and for the structure to be considered with some expertise. The regulator is more neutral in this matter, and we need someone to champion the interests of consumers.
      New clause 26 would give the consumer councils power, in dealing with an enforcement matter, to draw up a report
      1130
      and make recommendations. We should like to see such a report sent to the regulator and, where appropriate, to the Office of Fair Trading, which plays a critical part in vetting business and in ensuring fair and proper business practice. Under this new clause, the utility would have to have regard to the report, and if it should fail to comply with the recommendations the consumer council would have to refer the matter to the regulator. We realise that the regulator would still have the last say in determining the outcome of a complaint, but the process would be much more open, and the consumer council would have much better access to the information, which at present is held by the regulator as the referee and by the utility itself as one of the major players.
      To enhance that openness we need new clause 28, which would give the consumer councils the same access to raw data on the utility performance levels as the regulator has. It is critical that business should not be able to stand behind bogus and unsustainable claims of commercial confidentiality and that it should be compelled to provide the consumer bodies and others representing the consumers with information about how decisions are taken. Too often the regulators have been over-defensive and over-protective of their information. In this regard, I think that the Minister has accepted their defence. We all know of officials, whether in the private or the public sector, who are afraid to give up information. That is being overcome gradually. Once it has been overcome, businesses, councils and other bodies wonder why they were ever so secretive.
      New clause 28 would give a further push in that direction, a further impetus to ensuring that data that might be used very effectively were made available. Of course, the Gas Consumers Council has been very effective in getting data—one way or another. It has been able to influence decisions because it has information. Over the past six years, one of its greatest achievements has been its campaign against disconnections. In 1988, the number was between 60,000 and 80,000; thanks to the gas consumers' pressure on Ofgas, on the basis of information that they collected through their regional offices, it is now below 20,000.
      4.45 pm
      I want to refer to something that may be a fear of the Minister and of those who think that individuals are the only consumers. Business consumers are often the biggest spenders and often stand to lose the most. We are very keen to see that they too are protected. The Gas Consumers Council brought about the change in British Gas's contract market to protect businesses. All the consumer councils established by the next Labour Government will be effective not just for the domestic consumer but for the business consumer. It will be remembered that the Gas Consumers Council referred British Gas to the Office of Fair Trading, with a recommendation that there should be a referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We know that, as a direct consequence of that, the contract matter became subject to regulation. Even where only limited information has been available, the Gas Consumers Council has been able to secure great benefits not just for the domestic consumer but also for the business consumer.
      The sad thing is that, because the other advisory committees have been hamstrung in the way that I outlined, they have not been able to act in the same limited but effective way as the Gas Consumers Council. How

      1131
      many disconnection abuse cases have not been properly addressed because the consumer bodies lack proper resources and proper independence? How many businesses have been paying too much because of the absence of a body like the Gas Consumers Council to champion their interests?
      I do not understand why the Minister does not accept the thrust of this argument. Surely it is beyond party political dispute that, in the 1990s, we want consumer bodies that are as effective as possible, but the Government have been plagued by narrow dogma for the past 13 years, and the dogma is as alive and well today as it has been at any time during those years. The Government have been in favour of deregulation and have been intent on watering down consumer representation and on making sure that business is free to do very much what it wants.
      With new clause 27, we want to make sure that the consumer committees are able to go directly to where the buck stops—to the Secretary of State—rather than through the regulator, as at present. It is ludicrous that a consumer committee should not have direct access to the Secretary of State. We all know that if a utility wants to speak to him, the Secretary of State—certainly in the case of the present Government—will trot down the road to meet it rather than expect it to come and see him. The importance of these five new clauses—the importance of extending the powers of the Gas Consumers Council and bringing all the other consumer bodies up to the strength of that council—cannot be overstressed.
      It is important that any money that is spent at present is spent effectively. I want to know from the Minister how much is spent on the current consumer bodies—electricity, the National Consumers' Consultative Council and its 14 regional committees, the 10 water committees, the four Telecom national advisory committees—and I hope that he will be able to answer my question today. I should like to know, in particular, the budget for the 150 telecommunications advisory committees. We know, of course, that the budget for the 12 gas consumer committees is around £2 million. I want to see those 190 bodies, only one of which has been really effective, cut to around 50 on a regional basis, all of them with enhanced powers, championing the consumers' point of view, and making sure that the absurd and quite unjustifiable increases that have been forced on so many people are not perpetuated.
      One of the problems that have to be addressed is the composition of these committees. If the past 13 years have taught us anything about quangos, it is that Tory quangos really are Tory quangos. The packing of these committees too often with defeated or failed Conservative party members is common. My predecessor as the Member for Edinburgh, South is a case in point. I will write to the Minister giving a list of the quangos that he was put on after he lost the Edinburgh, South seat. I am sure that my hon. Friends who were triumphant in the last election will act similarly.
      This is the important message that I want to deliver. It is not that we will reverse what the Government have done with a mirror image. In the 1970s, it was noticeable that consumer committees and other quangos were much more balanced and had representatives of all parties and of no party. I want to see on the new consumer consultative committees people who, irrespective of party, know and care about consumers and do not have to carry a Tory
      1132
      party card, as they often do now when appointed to these committees, and certainly to the higher salaried levels. That is one of the reasons why these bodies have been so ineffective.
      We need consumer committees that truly represent consumers. That is why, in new clauses and amendments, we have suggested ways of democratising, which I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to take on board.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to have wide representation on consumer committees. However, at least in Wales, the Labour party had as bad a reputation as the present Government for putting its party members on to quangos. Will he confirm that the Labour party is committed to advertising places on consumer committees so that the widest possible range of applications can be received? Does he agree that that is the fair way of doing it?
      Mr. Griffiths: I certainly have no objection at all to making sure that the widest possible publicity is given to the posts, and I have no objection in principle to advertising. However, I take deep exception to the hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier comment. We know from the speech that he made to trading standard officers how his thinking goes. He wishes to centralise everything—to make sure that everything is brought into the centre, that responsibility for trading standards is removed from local councils and brought to the centre. I wonder what malevolent purpose lurks there. I do not want to provoke the hon. and learned Gentleman——
      Mr. Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has ascribed to me a malevolent purpose, which is a personal slight on me, on an issue with which, with respect, the structure of trading standards authorities has nothing whatsoever to do. Surely the hon. Gentleman should be required to withdraw his assertion that I have a malevolent purpose and to apologise.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I think that the hon. Gentleman was momentarily diverted from what is in order in the debate.
      Mr. Griffiths: I accept your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      When the hon. and learned Gentleman interrupted me with what I thought was a fairly irrelevant and malicious intervention, I was drawing my remarks to a close by saying that there is a commitment on our part to ensure that consumers are adequately represented, as they are not at present, and that the widest possible membership is sought.
      As I have said, I have no objection to the principle of advertising these posts. Indeed, if the hon. and learned Gentleman was in the Standing Committee when I raised the possibility of elections to these committees, he knows that that was not ruled out. Indeed, I was canvassing that pretty strongly myself in a probing amendment. So I am not prepared to take lectures from the hon. and learned Gentleman about the structure of such bodies. I believe that we are at one in wanting to ensure that there is much wider representation than at present and that we have effective bodies.
      It is in that spirit that I commend the new clauses.
      Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman said that his researcher had had trouble finding the telephone number

      1133
      of the Scottish TAC. My inquisitiveness has managed to get the reply very promptly. He may like to know that the number is 031—for those dialling from outside Edinburgh—244 5576. I cannot understand why his researcher went for such a long lunch that he could not find it.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, is clearly that when the Minister's civil servants telephoned, it was fresh in their memories because they had just spent three hours finding it.
      Mr. Redwood: That was a very pathetic attempt to recover the position. There is no secret, as far as I am concerned, about these numbers and I am very happy to advertise this one today through the usual channel of Hansard in this debate which is being so intently listened to by so many hon. Members.
      The hon. Gentleman implied that appointments were made throughout the system of representation entirely by director-generals. He should note that the chairmen and members of the four national advisory committees of Telecom are appointed by the Secretary of State. So there is more distinction in those appointments than he was suggesting
      I was not enchanted by the hon. Gentleman's idea of going back to the golden era of the 1970s, the winter of discontent and justice in appointments to all bodies. It did not seem to me to have the ring of truth about it, any more than it did to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
      Mr. Alex Carlile: This is a winter of discontent for the Labour party.
      Mr. Redwood: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right in that intervention from a sedentary position. Also, Labour has not enjoyed comments on its tax proposals, but those are not relevant to this debate.
      The main contention of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) is that there should be a clear distinction between the customer committees and the regulator. That is where I beg to differ and where I hope that the House will agree with the Government. In order to have effective regulation, there has to be one person or one body that can make the decisions, that can settle the complaints in the interest of either the customer or the business, based upon a fair judgment of the legitimacy of those complaints.
      The great weakness in the Opposition new clauses—I suspect that they were not drafted by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen but were drafted elsewhere—is that in the end——
      Mr. Griffiths: What about Government amendments?
      Mr. Redwood: Government amendments are, of course, approved by and in part drafted by Ministers, who are entirely responsible for them and have taken an active part in their drafting. The hon. Gentleman does not know how government works; it is so long since his party has been in government. Little does he know how much attention these amendments get from Ministers.
      The Opposition new clauses suggest that the regulator should still be the only person in the system with the power to determine disputes, so although the hon. Gentleman tries to make out that there is a big divide between us, in practice we seem to agree on the important thing—that only one body or person can settle those disputes and that
      1134
      person or body should be the regulator in each case. The hon. Gentleman did not answer my intervention on that point, and I think that he now accepts that there is no difference between us on that crucial matter.
      The hon. Gentleman's new clauses would create far more confusion in the system. They would disrupt existing boundaries between the consumer bodies and the director generals. They would try to shift the balance and would give the consumer bodies a more advisory power, but they, would have no power to deliver that, so they might increase the tensions and boundary disputes within the system, rather than help the proper and prompt settlement of disputes by the director general.
      5 pm
      If Labour Members have no confidence in the directors general, they should say so and be honest in their criticisms. They should say why they think a particular director general is falling down on his task and should come forward with their own recommendations on how it could be done better. I think that we are well served by the current directors general and, with the strength and powers in the Bill to settle customer disputes, in all cases with the force of law behind them, they will provide an even better service, as the Opposition and the Government want.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South says that he has been reading my speeches and writings, but he has not been doing so very attentively or he would know that I have often insisted on the primacy of a customer interest. One of my main criticisms of the performance of the nationalised industries under Labour and Liberal Administrations in the past is that they were too negligent of customer interests, and that customer interests needed to be promoted in the order of priorities. That is exactly what a policy of competition does. Under a competitive system, customers are put first because everyone wants to win their business. Under the system of regulation that we have laid out in recent years and which the Bill now strengthens, customer interest is a driving force for better quality, prices and service from businesses.
      One of the new clauses proposed by the Opposition seeks to change the balance of representation on the Gas Consumers Council. It says that that council should consist of people with direct practical experience of the industry's activities. I suspect that, again, the Labour party has not done its homework, for if it had, it would see that three members of the Gas Consumers Council have direct practical and professional experience in the areas which Labour Members say should be represented on that council. One is an engineering consultant with a lifetime's experience of fuel issues and two are currently in business in the commercial sector as fuel purchasing managers, with exactly the detailed knowledge and experience which Labour Members say should be available to the council.
      Therefore, we do not need the new clauses, because it is clear that current practice takes into account the need for the right kind of expertise on that body, and it already works perfectly well. The right clarifications that the Bill needs to settle the boundary lines between the Gas Consumers Council and the regulator are those in the Government new clause. I commend our new clause to the House and urge hon. Members to reject the other new clauses.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 13

      THE DOMESTIC SUPPLY DUTY
      ' . In section 52 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (the domestic supply duty), in subsection (2), the words "and which are situated in the area of the undertaker" shall cease to have effect.'—[Mr. Redwood.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Redwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government new clause 22—
      Transitional provision with respect to replacement appointments.—
      Government amendments Nos. 24, 47, 25, 26, 30, 33, and 41 to 45.
      Mr. Redwood: The clauses dealing with competition in water services were the subject of a public consultation undertaken by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office just before the Bill's publication last November. Those who commented during the consultation generally welcomed the increased scope for competition but many considered that the proposals were still too restrictive and suggested modifications. As a result, we have now brought forward—as I said we would in Committee—amendments to give still greater encouragement to competition. Those amendments are along the lines that I outlined to the Committee.
      Part of this group of amendments—new clause 13 and amendments Nos. 25, 26, 43 and 45—will ensure that water and sewerage undertakers must allow any prospective customers to connect a service pipe to their water mains or a drain to their public sewers, whether or not those customers are in the area for which the undertaker is appointed.
      Initially at least, the new right is likely to be used mainly by prospective customers close to the border of their appointed undertaker, who may he nearer to the neighbouring undertaker's mains or sewers than to those of the local company. As inset appointments are made, the practical opportunities for connecting to another undertaker are likely to increase, giving more choice to more customers.
      The customer will continue to be responsible for providing the service pipe or drain from his premises and meeting the cost of making the connection to the undertaker's main or sewer. Commercial agreements could vary that practice
      Amendments Nos. 24, 30, 33 and 44 will replace the arrangements at present in clauses 38 and 39 with provision for companies to be given an inset appointment to serve a single large customer. A large customer is defined as one using more than 250 megalitres of water a year. There is provision for the Secretary of State to reduce that threshold, after consulting the director. Applications for inset appointments are subject to procedures laid down under section 8 of the Water Industry Act. They require applications to be published within 14 days of being made and will thus adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for meeting the concerns raised by some hon. Members in Committee about the length of the consultation period on proposed appointments to serve large customers.
      There are also necessary consequential amendments. Those include transitional provisions in new clause 22 to
      1136
      cover the period between an appointment being made and its coming into force; provisions in amendment No. 47 to ensure that the necessary pipe-laying powers are available where an inset appointment is to serve a single large customer; and requirements for the NRA, which is responsible for water resources, to be kept informed of applications for inset appointments.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: As the Minister rightly points out, he gave undertakings in Committee that the Government would attempt to widen competition possibilities. The amendments certainly do that, but only in theory. Practice will show that the amount of competition will be at the margins of the existing water company areas because of the infrastructure costs of moving a great distance into another water company area, and even the need to create extra water capacity that does not exist in many areas. About three water companies have enough spare capacity to consider competing with other water undertakers, and it is highly unlikely that anything will happen in practice. The proposals to extend competition are simply a fig leaf for the privatised monopoly that will still exist in the form of the water companies.
      We shall not vote against the amendments because, if we find that they come to something, all well and good, but the public should not be fooled by the idea that competition in the supply of water or sewerage services will be significantly increased. The existing companies simply do not have the capacity to become involved in a big way.
      I raised the following question in Committee and was not absolutely satisfied by the Minister's answer. In a period of drought, with the water company having made commitments outside its area, will the companies within its area take precedence in terms of supply or will they suffer because of contractual commitments made by the water company outside its area?
      Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's grudging assent to the proposals. We must wait and see what develops. They are methods by which competition can develop and spread in the industry, and we welcome them for that reason. Fig leaves can be becoming and may turn out to be rather larger and more becoming than the hon. Gentleman suggested. The proposals also include ways in which competition could be further strengthened as in the case of the 250-megalitre limit which can be reviewed when we have seen how it develops. That will provide a way to vary the current practice under the proposed legislation when the Government and the director general think it right to do so.
      I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Gentleman in Committee about what happens when there is a scarcity of water. other than to remind him that the legislation requires the water companies to maintain supplies. Of course, there are ways in which water rationing can be introduced for non-essential uses in good time so that fundamental supply is not interrupted.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 22

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO REPLACEMENT APPOINTMENTS
      ' . The provisions of section 10 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (transitional provision with respect to replacement appointments) shall become subsection (1) of that section and the following subsections shall be added at the end—
      "(2) Subsections (3) and (4) below apply where, by such an appointment or variation, one company ('the new undertaker') is to replace another company as a relevant undertaker, but the appointment or variation has not come into force.
      (3) The following provisions of this Act shall (except where they are inapplicable to the kind of undertaker in question) apply in relation to the new undertaker as if the appointment or variation had come into force—

      (a) sections 18 to 24 and Schedule 3;

      (b) sections 32 to 35;

      (c) section 155 and Schedule 9;

      (d) sections 156, 158 to 161 and 163 to 167 and Schedule 11;

      (e) sections 168 to 171, 173, 174, 178 to 180 and Schedule 12;

      (f) sections 181 to 183 and Schedule 13;

      (g) sections 184 to 188 and Schedule 14;

      (h) sections 189 to 192, 197 to 200, 202, 203, 206, 208, 209, 211, 212 and 217.

      (4) Such of the conditions imposed on the new undertaker under section 11 below as the Director may specify in a written notice given by him to the undertaker shall have effect, in relation to the operation of any provision mentioned in subsection (3) above before the appointment or variation comes into force, as if the appointment or variation had come into force.
      (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (3) above by adding to, removing or modifying references to provisions of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 23

      CONDITIONS FOR CONNECTIONS WITH WATER MAINS AND FOR SUPPLIES OF WATER
      ' .—(1) Section 47 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (conditions of connection with water main) shall be amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
      (2) In subsection (2)(b)(ii), after "expenses" there shall be inserted "reasonably".
      (3) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(2A) No condition shall be imposed by a water undertaker under subsection (2)(e) above unless the undertaker would have difficulty in discharging its statutory obligations, in relation to the supply of water to the relevant premises or any part of those premises, if the condition were not imposed.
      (4) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
      "(3A) Any dispute as to whether any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2)(a), (b), (e) or (f) above has been complied with may be referred to the Director for determination under section 30A above by either party to the dispute.
      (3B) Any dispute between a water undertaker and any other person as to whether—

      (a) any security required by a condition imposed under subsection (2)(a) above was reasonably required,

      1138

      (b) the expenses referred to in subsection (2)(b)(ii) above were incurred reasonably, or

      (c) in a particular case, subsection (2A) above prevents a water undertaker from imposing a condition under subsection (2)(e) above,
      may be referred to the Director for determination under section 30A above by either party to the dispute."

      (5) In section 53 of the Act of 1991 (conditions of compliance with domestic supply duty), in subsection (2)(a)(ii), after "expenses" there shall be inserted "reasonably" and after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(2A) Any dispute between a water undertaker and any other person as to whether the expenses referred to in subsection (2)(a)(ii) above were incurred reasonably may be referred to the Director for determination under section 30A above by either party to the dispute.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Government amendment No.46.
      Mr. Redwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Section 47 of the Water Industry Act 1991 allows a water undertaker to require customers to meet certain conditions before the undertaker has to carry out its duty to connect a customer to its water main and to provide a supply of water for domestic purposes. In some cases there may be room for dispute about whether it is reasonable for undertakers to impose a particular requirement. New clause 23 limits the circumstances in which an undertaker can require separate service pipes and the costs of disconnection that it can recoup from the customer. It also provides for disputes about certain of the requirements which can be imposed to be referred to the director for determination. The new clause also includes the provision of clause 31(4) which is deleted by amendment No.46. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Question put and agreed to. Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 1

      PRICE RéGIME
      'Having determined the standards of overall performance under 27B(a) above, the director will give due regard to the price régime which he approves to assess whether that price régime is appropriate in relation to the provison of the standards of overall performance and the level of remuneration received by the directors and senior managers; and the Director will require the operator to change that price régime to one which is commensurate with the standards of overall performance which are met and the cost structure of the operator in meeting those targets.'—[Mr. Henderson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Doug Henderson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following: New clause 7—Energy efficiency objectives—
      '.—The Director shall give due regard in the price regime which he approves to the achievement of standards of overall efficiency in the performance of the electricity companies in their duties to meet consumers' needs, and in particular the contribution made in achieving energy efficiency objectives laid down in section 3 of the Electricity Act 1989.'.
      New clause 54—Prohibition of late payment penalty charges by electricity companies—
      '.—The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3) of section 18 of the Electricity Act 1989—

      1139
      "(3A) A domestic tariff fixed by a public electric supplier shall not include provision for any additional charge upon any person solely because of delay by that person in paying monies due in respect of supply".'.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Henderson: It might be helpful if I were to explain the contents of the new clause. New clause 1 provides that, where a regulator is empowered to set standards within an industry, he must take some account of the prices charged. I hope that the House accepts that there is a clear relationship between the provision of standards and the price that a consumer or customer might have to pay. Most of my remarks will deal with new clause 1. I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) might be able to comment on new clause 7 and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) will comment on new clause 54.
      In many ways, new clause 1 is important because it relates in principle to a number of organisations and industries covered by the Bill and which the Bill attempts to regulate. Many hon. Members and some members of the public might wonder whether the Bill as originally drafted and the Acts on which privatisations were based—for example, those dealing with telecommunications and gas—do not already give a regulator considerable powers to do several things, including set the prices. That is the case, but the Government, recognising the weakness in the current legislation, have identified the fact that it is necessary to go further and to place an obligation on a regulator to establish standards of performance for individual customers and for the industries in general. We support the objective but having gone that far, we believe that it is also necessary to give additional powers to the regulator, which will emphasise the responsibilities involved in setting those standards, to take into account the resulting price regime.
      We have not tabled the new clause merely to extend the debate on the Bill. There is considerable evidence that Oftel—in the case of telecommunications—has not been as effective as most of us want it to be. It has not been able to regulate the industry effectively in the ways that we believed essential for the future of the industry and for the protection of the customer.
      Very few people would dispute the fact that British Telecom has high—some would say excessive—profit levels. In the various discussions between British Telecom and Oftel, Oftel has not been able to get to grips with the way in which British Telecom can interpret price agreements one year and follow through with largely inflated profits in the following year.
      Similarly, Oftel has not been able to have meaningful discussions with British Telecom about the way in which British Telecom's cost structures relate to the provision of the service. It has not been able to get to grips with the level of salaries paid to senior executives of that company. I hope that the House accepts that that is a legitimate issue about which the regulator should be concerned. If not, there is an open invitation to any private monopoly to pay its bosses salaries which are in no way commensurate with the level of responsibility. Some obligations should be extended to the regulator to take care of those shortcomings.
      1140
      I shall not prolong the argument in supporting new clause 1, but it is necessary to give a little more evidence covering some of the issues which were debated in another context in Committee. Whatever the Government say about the improvements in British Telecom's control over its prices increases since 1984—I accept that controls have been tighter since then—the evidence still shows that during the Government's period in office from 1979 until now, British Telecom's prices have moved ahead of the retail price index by 3·1 per cent. That has happened at a time when everyone in the industry internationally recognises that there have been huge improvements in productivity.
      The Government cannot dispute that, whatever else has happened in the telecommunications industry in this country over the past 10 or 12 years, there would have been major improvements in productivity which arise—thankfully—out of major changes and improvements in scientific knowledge and its application. That, above all, has enabled British Telecom to be slightly less aggressive in its price increases since 1984, but there is still a long way to go.
      I do not believe that the Financial Times is objective in all issues but it has taken a special interest in the changes in telecommunications. Indeed, on many occasions it has complimented the Government on the changes that have taken place. At the time of the announcement of the last set of results for British Telecom the Financial Times said that its profits were £1 billion more than would be expected from a reasonable profit return on capital in a company that was reasonably well managed and achieving slightly better than average performance. Spread among the 20 million residential customers of BT in this country, that money represents about £50 per family.
      That £1 billion could be spent in a number of different ways. I do not intend to judge how the money should be spent; I merely make the point to emphasise that, should the Government or any telecommunications company choose to start taking action on this matter, the resources to do so exist.
      I do not want to overplay the salary increases of the bosses of private utilities, but it would be wrong not to take note of the recent salary increases enjoyed by the chairman of British Telecom. Between 1988–89 and 1989–90, he received a 90 per cent. increase in addition to other fringe benefits, taking his salary from £282,000 to £374,000. If that was not enough, in the following year, the latest for which we have figures, he received an additional 43 per cent. pay increase—between 1989–90 and 1990–91—taking. his pay to £536,000. That tells us something about the cost structures of British Telecom.
      Of course I recognise the need to pay attractive salaries to senior management in private utilities so as to attract the best people to them. I make no judgment on these levels of salary. It is however, legitimate for the regulator to be able to assess how appropriate the bosses' salaries are as one factor in a general assessment of whether the cost structures are appropriate to the standards of performance and to the price regime.
      British Telecom is apparently not satisfied with present levels of profitability, as we were told in press accounts yesterday. It is not happy with the present price regime agreed with the regulator. In the talks to begin in a few weeks time, it proposes to lay down a new agenda for the regulator, to the effect that the obligations into which it has already entered to reduce prices have been so onerous

      1141
      that it cannot continue with them, and that it wants to slow down the process of improving prices. So British Telecom is not prepared to agree to the same price cuts next year as those to which, to some extent at least, it agreed this year.
      British Telecom also says that line rental charges—they are excessive and there is great scope for reducing them in real terms so as to extend phone ownership—are not high enough and that it wants to increase them relative to its other charges. I repeat, therefore, that it is important when assessing standards of service to scrutinise prices and cost structures.
      The Government have consistently argued that competition can help to bring prices down and improve the industry's performance. I do not dispute that competition has an important role in attempting to achieve those valid objectives, but there is not much competition among providers of telecommunications services. Mercury has a small percentage of the business market, although that is concentrated in the City of London and in other major cities. It is a fairly lucrative market, but Mercury has not attempted to take on the residential market. In effect there is no competition in the provision of residential telephone services—British Telecom has an effective monopoly.
      The only difference now is that this is no longer a public monopoly with some accountability: it is a private monopoly, and instead of a direct relationship between the state and the monopoly provider, there is now an indirect link through the regulator.
      I do not dispute that this is the shape of the future, but if it is, we must ensure that the conditions are right to govern the way in which the regulator operates. Regulation will be the key to making providers of utility services accountable to the public.
      The Government should accept that this principle is valid, and that there is serious public concern about British Telecom prices and about the amount of its directors' remuneration. They must also accept that prices must be related to standards of service. We discussed this in Committee, although not as explicitly as the new clause does. I hope that the Government will show more flexibility than they showed in Committee and that they will show themselves willing to listen to the arguments, to understand public anxiety and to accept the new clause, which I believe will bring about more public confidence in the way in which these important private utilities are run.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a Labour Government would set the prices of British Telecom or any other large telecommunications provider? Would a Minister decide how much to charge the consumer?
      Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman must be telepathic, because he has moved on to the last point that I wanted to make. Before doing so, I can assure him that a Labour Government would not set prices for the utilities. It would set out general objectives for the utilities, and the regulators would be charged with implementing that agenda in negotiations and consultations with the utilities.
      If the Government this evening fail to accept the new clause—it is an utterly reasonable new clause—I give notice that a future Labour Government will seek to modify the context in which utilities provide a service. We want to toughen up regulation, not to weaken standards of
      1142
      service. We want good standards of service in telecommunications and other utilities, but we also want the regulator to get a grip on the price regimes adopted by the various utilities.
      Mr. Bill Michie: As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said, I shall be concentrating on new clause 54, which stands in my name. The idea behind it is to safeguard the position of low-income electricity consumers by stopping electricity companies charging for late payment.
      When this matter was first brought to my attention, only Yorkshire Electricity was carrying out this practice of imposing penalty charges on customers who paid late—it was something of a novelty. But it was said that we needed regulation to stop the practice for fear that other companies would follow suit. Just today I have heard that other companies are to take up the practice, and that gives added strength to my argument in favour of the new clause.
      The amount of penalty paid is determined by the length of the delay in payment and can amount to between £9 and £16. Many people cannot pay their electricity bill on time because they have low income, and to add £9 or £16 to the next quarter's bill makes matters worse. It does not solve any problems but creates more. No one argues that people should not pay if they can afford to pay or that the companies should not try to obtain their rightful dues. However, the practice that I have described discriminates against low-income families with budgeting problems.
      5.30 pm
      It is argued that slow payment or non-payment can have an enormous effect upon profits and is unfair to those who pay on time because they will be charged more to offset people who are not paying on time or do not pay at all. There is some strength in the argument that good payers may be affected by non-payers but that will be the case only if companies are struggling to make a decent profit. Of course, that is not the case at all.
      The recently released interim results for the first six months of 1991–92 show that Yorkshire Electricity's profits are up by a fifth. In the six months to 30 September 1991 its pre-tax profits were £33·1 million, an increase of 17 per cent. on the £28·3 million profit for the first six months of 1991. Over the same period, its operating profit fell slightly from £34·8 million to £34·3 million. That was largely due to the point that I am making—the provision against bad debt. Despite that, the operating profit represents the equivalent of £18·79 per domestic customer. That is a considerable profit, bearing in the mind the number of customers. A profit of £34·3 million shows that Yorkshire Electricity is not short of money and does not need to take such drastic action.
      The problem with low penalty payment schemes such as the one adopted by Yorkshire Electricity, is that they do not fully discriminate between people who can afford to pay their bills and those who are struggling. Those who are struggling, consumers on low incomes with difficulty in budgeting, are supposed to be helped by the companies. That was the whole point of some of the regulations discussed in Committee and elsewhere. The companies should not penalise them.
      It is well known that the franchise licences under which the electricity companies operate require them to

      1143
      formulate and abide by codes of practice on debt recovery and discrimination. They require companies to give every assistance to people to pay their bills if they have difficulty in budgeting. Regrettably, the electricity regulator has not so far been able to persuade those companies, and certainly not Yorkshire Electricity, to withdraw the penalty scheme.
      I was glad to hear from my hon. Friends that they support the new clause, which I shall not press to a vote. I have been assured that the points that I have raised will be carefully considered. I am sure that we shall have a Labour Government after the next election and that they will give effect to the new clause in a code of practice, or something of that nature. I have doubts about codes of practice, because I understand that they are self-regulating and I should like something stronger. I hope that my hon. Friend who will be responsible for future legislation will bear that in mind.
      Many people are affected by the penalty practice. The late payment scheme that operates in Yorkshire is thought to penalise at least 20,000 to 30,000 low-income consumers per year. I estimate that the figure is more likely to be 40,000 per year. For that reason alone, it is time that the House made sure that the companies do not impose such fines on people who face financial difficulties. That is the point of the new clause, and I hope that it will be taken on board.
      Mr. Peter Hain: I support the new clause. The problem with the Bill and the Government's attitude to and policy on telecommunications in particular, although it also applies to water, gas and electricity, is that, under privatisation, prices are geared to the interests of big business and not to the interests of the ordinary citizen. That is the essential problem we face when seeking to introduce consumer protection legislation.
      Old-age pensioners, the disabled, the poor and the unemployed get a very bad deal from the large private monopoly utilities. They get a particularly bad deal from British Telecom in terms of standing charges and the pricing regime. They also get a bad deal because of high deposits, and are cut off when they are unable to pay the high charges. The whole pricing regime seems to close in on such people and denies them their elementary human rights. Therefore, they suffer a double penalty, first by being poor and secondly by having imposed upon them charges which they cannot possibly bear.
      I spoke about elementary human rights. Conservatives may snigger and dispute that, but in a modern age it is a human right to have the essential lifeline of a telephone. As the family is broken up and extended, many citizens are deprived of links with their families. People are huddled in city centres, often frightened to go out of their homes because of rising crime, and they lack the income to enjoy a decent quality of life. For them the telephone is a vital lifeline and therefore an essential citizen's right.
      The present pricing regime, which the Government are happy to allow to continue and which they encourage, denies such people access to a telephone. That is a deliberate policy by the Government, as one can see from the rebalancing of tariffs to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) referred. That rebalancing, carried out in negotiations between British Telecom and Oftel, deliberately increased rental charges by much more than
      1144
      ordinary charges. That bears most heavily on the poorest sections of the population. Rental charges have shot up over the past year.
      In the first half of 1991–92, revenue from rentals increased by 14·8 per cent. That is more than double the average RPI increase over that time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North has said, not content with that, British Telecom now seeks an increase in rental charges. As I have said, that will bear most heavily on those who are least able to carry the charges.
      Many old-age pensioners who come to my surgeries are paying more for rental than for telephone calls. In some cases, they pay 10 times more. That problem bears most heavily on pensioners who are just above benefit level—the income support level—perhaps because the husband has been a miner and has a miner's pension, which is often trivial, and is therefore not entitled to the range of benefits to which he might be entitled if he were paid the basic retirement pension. He is faced with telephone charges that seem to him to be sky high.
      The Minister may say that British Telecom has introduced the support-line scheme and has operated the low-user rebate scheme for a while, but rental charges are still far too high under the support-line scheme. They are £9·23 a quarter. That may not be much money to the Minister and his colleagues who enjoy high salaries but it is a great deal of money to ordinary pensioners who are on low incomes. Conservative Members may scoff, snigger or laugh, but they do not understand and they do not care about the conditions in which ordinary people are living.
      The installation charge for a telephone is £163·05, which is about three times the sum to which a single retirement pensioner is entitled. Many of the people to whom I have referred do not have a very good credit rating and so they have to put down a heavy deposit. What prospect is there of such people acquiring a telephone in those circumstances?
      At the same time, BT is generating huge profits. It makes a profit of £105 every second. The Minister may say that most of BT's profit has been channelled into investment. I understand that argument, but the ordinary consumer, including the ordinary pensioner, who cannot afford to have a telephone installed, will take the view that exorbitant profits are being generated. He or she will want to know why BT is not finding the cash to reduce rental charges or, in some circumstances, to abolish them, and why it is not funding the provision of telephones for some of the most vulnerable and deprived citizens.
      Ordinary consumers do not understand how the chairman of BT can get £10,000 a week while they receive perhaps less than £100 a week and are denied access to a telephone. The Government should ensure that there is a pricing policy that makes it possible for every householder to afford to have a telephone installed. If installation charges were either free or purely nominal, I believe that BT and the Government, through corporation tax and so forth, would get their money back in no time at all. The increase in tariffs that would come from the increased use of lines would produce extra revenue for BT. It could be that it would be able to introduce a new pricing structure that abolished standing charges for pensioners and those on income support, for example, while having a higher initial tariff to fund that abolition.
      In many instances a telephone is an essential lifeline for a pensioner who lives alone, and it is interesting that a third of single pensioners do not have telephones. That is

      1145
      deplorable in a civilised or so-called civilised society. It is interesting to compare our household penetration rate with the rates of other countries. I understand that 80 per cent. of residences here have telephones. In the United States, the rate is 95 per cent. It is even more significant that it is 98 per cent. in France. The French have a publicly owned telephone system that is regarded as the best in the world. The "great" privatised telecommunications system that the Government praise to the rooftops cannot get anywhere near what the French have achieved. As I have said, a third of our single pensioners do not have access to a telephone. That is deplorable, especially when the competitive regime has been rigged in such a way that businesses receive much more favourable treatment than ordinary consumers.
      I urge the Government to change the regulatory regime. If they do not use the Bill to do that, they should do so after it has been enacted. They should ensure that there is a level playing field between BT and its major competitor, Mercury, and any other competitor that comes into the market. That would enable BT to concentrate on providing an equal service for everyone instead of giving a better service to the business customer. It is the business sector that provides the profitable market and that is where competition is fiercest. Accordingly, BT is forced to drive down its prices if it is to compete, but every citizen requires low prices, or at least prices that are fair. We shall not see such prices until the regulatory regime is changed.
      I believe that the Minister will have to acknowledge that the introduction of an allegedly consumer protectionist Bill will have no effect because of the pricing and regulatory policies that have been introduced. Market forces are not sufficient to protect consumers. Consumers need rights to be enforced and pricing policies that are designed to protect them. The Government may claim to be the champion of the shareholder in the context of telecommunications, but they are not the champion of the consumer. When we look back with the benefit of historic hindsight on the 1980s and early 1990s and reflect on telecommunications policy, I believe that it will be seen to be geared to the short term. Investment in BT is falling while profits rise. Consumers take second place while the number of complaints shoots up.
      It is time that the Government changed their entire policy. They should act to protect the consumer. They should allow BT to stop looking over its shoulder towards domestic competition and enable it to become a leading player in the global market. At the same time, BT should ensure that old-age pensioners, the disabled and those who are on low incomes have the benefit of a telephone and have a decent quality of life.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the debate. On many occasions it seemed that the Opposition's policy, on analysis, was similar to that which the Government are recommending. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) for his intervention, which teased out the fact that, when it comes to how the system works, the Labour party is endorsing much of what we have been doing.
      I think that the right approach is the promotion and development of competition wherever possible and the existence of firm and clear regulations for monopoly areas, where customer interests are very important and are a duty
      1146
      upon the regulator. That is exactly what our legislation and regulatory framework provide. The Bill and other regulations and legislation that are already in being require the establishment of standards of performance and standards of service. It is against the background of those standards that the price regime is agreed.
      I cannot see how the kernel of the Labour party's proposal in new clause 1 would do anything or why it is necessary, given the requirements that are already upon the industry, as are set out in the Bill and in preceding legislation, licences and regulation.
      The Bill provides measures to prevent a reduction in standards to achieve a hidden price rise. I think that the Labour party agrees with that proposal. The regulator has, of course, to bear in mind the total costs of the industry when considering price caps. Labour's policy towards BT was described at greater length in Committee, and it seems that the Labour party would cut profits and at the same time demand increased investment. As we said in Committee, that is an implausible policy for the Labour party to recommend. Profits have an important function in paying for investment and providing the necessary signals to make the investment worth while.
      I am glad that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) accepted that prices have been much better controlled since 1984. Indeed, only since 1984 has there been a sensible system of price control. There was never one under nationalisation. There was no effective system through Ministers or directors in the 1970s when Labour and Labour-Liberal Administrations were in being. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North has not yet seen a full year's trading with the new retail prices index minus 6·25 per cent. formula. He must be aware, however, that it is the most stringent system of control to be operated anywhere in the world. I think that it is one of which BT, the industry and the country can be proud. Prices will fall by 6·25 per cent. in real terms during the period of that price control.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, asked about the future. He asked whether there would be a review of line rental charges and the price cap. He put forward the views of BT. He well knows that in due course there will be a review of these matters. The evidence of BT and of other interests, including customers and the Opposition, if they care to submit evidence, will be carefully considered by the director general.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, expressed scepticism about the power of competition. He did so not because he doubts the theory that competition can do the job but because he wonders whether the practice will build up, especially in the local loop. He should look carefully at what is happening with the development of local loop competition from cable television operators entering telephony. He might like to know that there are 20 licence applications at the Department of Trade and Industry for new services under the duopoly review that we announced last year. I hope that we shall be able to make speedy progress in processing and granting the licences where the applications are of the right form. Some of these services will strengthen competition in the local loop. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that when we can make the announcement.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) spoke to new clause 54. I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said about those who are under considerable

      1147
      financial pressure when faced with the possibility of additional charges from their electricity utility. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that matter, because he will find that action has already been taken that goes a long way to meeting his requirements.
      The hon. Member understood in his speech that, if people deliberately delay payment until they are finally threatened with disconnection, they increase the costs for other electricity consumers. They increase the cost of capital for the business as the business has to borrow for the money that it has forgone and it is incurring the additional cost of reminder letters and chasing up before the final threat of disconnection and the levying of the additional charge. He said clearly that, if people can pay but will not do so, it is not unreasonable for them to pay more when the utility catches up with them because they have imposed those additional costs upon other electricity consumers, many of whom are less well off but who have met their bills on time because they do not want to experience that hassle.
      I accept that there could be cases such as those described by the hon. Gentleman where people are in genuine hardship. Therefore, the Director General of Electricity Supply has requested that electricity companies waive the charges in such cases. I am told that Yorkshire Electricity has agreed to do so and has included that in its code of practice.
      The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted codes of practice, but that he was sceptical about how strong they would be. I hope that he will accept the good faith of the codes of practice and see how they work out. If he becomes aware of cases of hardship following the introduction of that measure, I hope that he will refer them to the director general, because he is just as concerned about genuine hardship cases. The hon. Gentleman may care to note that the penalty charges for late payment pre-date privatisation by a long way. Therefore, it is not fair to say that they are the result of a privatised management seeking to increase its profitability. They are a perfectly sensible response to a genuine business problem. If too many customers delay payment, it is disruptive and costly for the business.
      The hon. Gentleman may care to note that there is good news on disconnections, which are even more worrying and threatening to the type of consumer about whom he and I are concerned. In 1976, there were 114,330 disconnections, and by 1990, that had dropped to 55,196, well below any figure achieved in the 1970s under the Labour Administration. I hope that he will welcome that and see that some things are getting better.
      The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) repeated his point about the human right to have a telephone and the need for more people on low incomes to have access to the system. We debated that extensively in Committee. He is trying to under-sell British achievement. The penetration figure was 88 per cent. in 1990, but it has risen since then. I welcome, as he does, the great progress made in improving and increasing access to telephone use, ownership and rental over recent years.
      In 1972, which was not long ago, only 42 per cent. of households had a telephone. It is well over double that level now, because we have introduced a system that enables the industry to have the resources and profits to invest in growth, and because the industry has introduced
      1148
      the support line and low user rental rebate schemes which are imaginative and good schemes and much better than anything that was in existence before.
      I think that the hon. Member for Neath finds himself at variance with this Front Bench spokesman. He got a little carried away in his peroration and said that he thought that our entire policy should be changed, yet the Front Bench spokesman said that he agreed with the idea of introducing competition and with many of our regulatory measures. In fact, much of new clause 1 supplements, in looser language, what we are already doing in existing legislation and in this Bill. I hope that the House will rest content with the Bill as tabled and as amended by the Government.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I want to deal particularly with new clause 7, which has not been dealt with so far. As we have found throughout the passage of the Bill, some of the matters are common to the different public utilities and, as a result, it is right to group them. However, that means some jumping about from electricity and gas in the energy sector to British Telecom in the trade and industry sector and to water and sewerage in the environment sector.
      In many ways, new clause 7 is similar to new clause 1, but it deals specifically with electricity. It could be applied easily to gas, because it deals with the place of energy efficiency in any pricing or regulatory regime for any of the four great public utilities—particularly gas and electricity—in a monopoly position.
      We are interested in the way in which energy efficiency should be encouraged in a monopoly public utility. Gas was privatised three years before electricity and has undergone a five-year review. I believe that the review will take effect in April 1992. In the negotiations between the regulator and the gas industry, the industry has accepted the proposal by Ofgas that there should be an E factor, or efficiency factor, in the way in which gas prices are changed year on year. In other words, an allowance will be made for an additional price rise per unit if the gas industry makes suitable efforts to reduce the number of units consumed.
      The industry will split the difference with its consumers. If a utility introduces measures to help its customers to use less of its product, the customer will gain most of the benefit, but the industry will gain some benefit through the application of the E factor—a small increase on top of the retail prices index plus X minus Y, or whatever it may be. Also, there will be a contribution towards the reduction in the number of units used while raising the unit charge. That is admirable, except that it has taken five years to arrive.
      In the new clause, we have asked for something that most people in the industry realise is inevitable—there will be an E factor for electricity. This is a rattling good idea for the gas industry, so why do we have to wait five years for it to be applied to the electricity industry? I hope that the Minister will revise the Government's rigid idea that it is fair dinkum for the City that, when a company is privatised, it must be left alone for about five years with a level playing field that keeps the investment institutions happy. That is nonsense.
      The Government are about to agree all sorts of proposals with the European Community to encourage energy efficiency. They half agreed to the idea of carbon taxes during meetings in December with their EC

      1149
      counterparts at Environment, Energy and Finance level. They are adopting all sorts of proposals for stabilising CO2 emissions, but they will not accept this good idea in case it offends their friends in the City. That is idiotic. They will have to revise their views shortly. It could be introduced in this Bill very simply, but they will not do it because of the "not invented here" problem and because they do not want to offend the investment institutions.
      When this Bill had its Second Reading and went to Committee, the remaining shares in British Telecom had not been sold. I am sure that the Government were worried about offending the investment institutions that they needed to keep sweet in order to sell the remaining shares. Now that British Telecom has been sold, I hope that we will see a last-minute conversion, either here or in another place. I hope that they will accept the energy efficiency incentive for the electricity industry so that it can assist its consumers to reduce their consumption while being able to increase the unit charge and, thereby, reducing overall the bills for their consumers.
      That is what we hope will happen, and that is what we promise will inevitably happen when we assume the powers of government. There is no time to lose on the environment front, and energy efficiency can make such a contribution to the environment that we hope the Government will have a deathbed conversion and, before the Bill receives the Royal Assent, will announce that they too will equalise the priority given to energy efficiency in the gas and electricity companies.
      6 pm
      What effect might that have on the electricity distribution companies' profits? It has been calculated that they now make a return of about 8 per cent., after allowing for inflation. That is a very high rate of return for monopoly public utilities. Most people seem to assume that a monopoly public utility ought to make a rate of return of about 5 per cent. after allowing for inflation, but our regional distribution companies make 8 per cent.—about 60 per cent. more than one would have expected. The Government have allowed profits to let rip, so there is a big margin which the companies should undoubtedly be asked to spend on improvements in energy efficiency. In the end, that would bring their profits down to what could be called normal profits for public utility companies.
      The companies should not be making more than 5 per cent., taking the good years with the bad. We are in the middle of a recession, and this would not normally have been expected to be a good year. But the profits have been allowed to run freely, because we are still in the initial stages after privatisation. The Government have allowed the companies to do nothing more than mug the consumer. The Government have not created privatised companies in the conventional commercial sense; they have created pound note machines, which are beneficial for the shareholders and earn profits 60 per cent. higher than they should be, considering the nature of the companies and the protection from competition that their monopoly position gives them. People cannot have two sets of wires leading to the three-pin plugs in their homes.
      Profits are far too high, and the surplus should be creamed off to assist with energy efficiency. That would be good for the environment and for consumers; the shareholders themselves, especially the large institutions, expect that to happen in the long run. But of course it cannot be allowed to happen yet, because that might upset
      1150
      the merchant banks which advised the Government so ill on the privatisation of the distribution companies. It might even upset the regulator, because he, in effect, wrote the preparatory documents for electricity privatisation, and perhaps he would not yet like to admit how wrong he was.
      I have some examples of what the Government have done in setting up what I call pound note machines rather than conventional commercial enterprises. I was interested to read the analysis of the top 500 European and British companies in Monday's Financial Times. The list was interesting, because it contained recently privatised companies. There was a special analysis of which 25 of the United Kingdom's top 500 companies had had the biggest profit increases in the past financial year.
      Seven of those top 25 companies were recently privatised water or electricity companies. The third was Northumbrian Water, the fifth was Welsh Water, the seventh North West Water, the 10th Wessex Water Services, the 15th South Wales Electricity, the 23rd Yorkshire Water Services, and the 24th South West Water Services. Thus, of the 500 biggest British companies in terms of market capitalisation, seven of the 25 with the biggest percentage increases in profits were privatised utilities.
      We can look at the figures another way. Seven of the 12 companies with the biggest increases in profits among the biggest 300 companies in Britain are recently privatised water or electricity companies. Top of the list for profit increases is Northumbrian Water; second is Welsh Water; third is North West Water; fifth is Wessex Water Services; seventh is South Wales Electricity; 11 th is Yorkshire Water Services; 12th is South West Water Services. More than half of the top profit rockets among the biggest 300 companies in Britain are recently privatised companies.
      That is a staggering figure, and it shows, if we needed to be shown, the degree to which privatisation has been carried out so as to mug the consumer and benefit the shareholder—to stuff money into the pockets of City advisers and shareholders. The consumer has been left with nothing to gain and everything to lose from privatisation.
      We have asked about standards of service. Why has the process of privatisation made it so easy for the companies to make profits 60 per cent. higher than what we could call the norm for monopolies? It has happened because the regulators cannot really know as much about the industry as the companies do. One can ask about the standards of service—for instance, why do such an unbelievably high number of consumers in south Wales have their electricity cut off?
      I wrote recently to OFFER asking what it could do about the fact that we had paid an increase of 46 per cent. in the four years since the electricity privatisation White Paper was published in February 1988. It was the second highest price increase in the country—the increase in the south-west was the highest—yet Wales and the south-west also had the highest number of cut-offs. Standards of service were appalling, yet the price rises were the highest.
      When I asked OFFER what it could do about that, the letter that I received in reply gave the companies' explanation—not OFFER's explanation but the companies' explanation, because the director-general of OFFER cannot know as much as the companies. The companies can always flannel; they can always find an Enid Blyton excuse, a little story to tell OFFER, and

      1151
      OFFER passes that on to the Member of Parliament who is trying to do his job and look after the consumers in his area.
      We need regulators with teeth, regulators with powers. We have not got them at the moment.
      Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman was discussing the desirability of an E factor. Will he clarify the size of E factor that would be necessary to achieve the kind of energy-saving programme that he wants?
      Mr. Morgan: I thought I had given an explanation of the kind of E factor that we would seek. We would keep the price of electricity stable in cash terms but would order, by way of a code of practice, that the difference between a 5 per cent. rate of return, after allowing for inflation, and the 8 per cent. return now being earned by the 12 regional electricity companies in England and Wales should be spent on improvements in energy efficiency on their customers' premises—for instance, by providing low-energy light bulbs, loft insulation or draught-proofing. That is not uncommon in the United States, and it would be sensible here. Either electricity prices could be reduced so that the companies earned a real rate of return of roughly 5 per cent., or prices could be left at today's levels, whereby the companies earn 8 per cent., and the companies could be told to spend the extra money on energy efficiency.
      That would achieve some of the Government's objectives over the next three or four years—catching up for the benefit of consumers, but catching down, as it were, in terms of the roaring rates of return now being earned.
      Let us return to the subject of how strong we want to make the regulators. We did not contest the Bill on Second Reading because we approve of the regulators' powers being roughly the same in the four big public utilities, but we are anxious to ensure that the regulators have a strong commitment to regulating the industries and use the statutory powers that they are given.
      Considering the history of the four public utilities, one could say that we are looking for regulators who have the statutory powers that Stephen Littlechild has in the electricity industry, combined with Ian Byatt's brains and James McKinnon's teeth. Some such composite regulator is needed providing the best of the three worlds—I always leave out telecoms because I am no expert on that industry.
      We all take an interest in seeking some sort of regulator who will do something for the consumers rather than take the company's view 90 per cent., of the time. We have seen in the gas industry the regulator doing something for the consumer. Perhaps that is because James McKinnon was not involved in the process of privatisation but was found subsequently. Ian Byatt and Stephen Littlechild are severely inhibited by the fact that they virtually wrote their own job descriptions by being so involved in the process of privatisation as political advisers or, in the case of Ian Byatt, civil servants at the Treasury. They do not seem to know quite how to use their powers to compel the industry to do what is necessary to defend the consumers' interest.
      I have outlined how we see the need to strengthen the regulators and make them far more independent of the industry and far less tied up with the wish not to create antipathy in the City or the investment community for the next round of privatisation. We want someone who regards is as his one plain and simple job to look after the consumers of the four major utilities. Whether the
      1152
      Secretaries of State for Energy, the Environment or Wales like it, that will be the job to which he is 100 per cent. committed. That is the type of person whom we shall appoint. The four utilities need stronger powers to protect the consumer.
      Mr. Redwood: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the points that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has made.
      One of the main ways in which energy usage can be made more efficient is to improve and change the system of generation. Of course, that is exactly what competition and the changes in the industry are doing. The substitution of combined cycle gas projects for the old coal-steam projects that dominated the industry prior to privatisation will make a large difference. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the thermal efficiency of those new stations is greatly superior to that of the old type of station that was constructed by the nationalised industry.
      The hon. Gentleman may be well aware that the Office of Electricity Regulation has issued codes of practice on the matter about which he is worried. Of course, section 3 of the Electricity Act 1989 requires the promotion of efficiency and economy in the use of electricity. The Bill before the House tonight gives new powers to the Director General of Electricity Supply to require electricity suppliers to inform customers of standards set and achieved for energy efficiency.
      I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has discovered that the privatised companies have done well. They have done well and increased their profitability against the background of firm price regulation and control. The reason why they have done well is that they now have the incentive to do so. They are raising their productivity in a way that they never did under Labour Governments and nationalisation. So my hon. Friends would have been surprised if the electricity companies had not figured prominently in the list of companies showing considerable improvements and better profitability. The hon. Gentleman's attack on both Mr. Littlechild and Mr. Byatt was unfair. They are extremely good regulators, and their contribution to the development of regulatory styles and techniques in Britain and throughout the world is extremely important.
      Professor Littlechild's development of the formula of simple price control based on the retail prices index and an adjustment to take account of fuel costs and efficiency in the industry is being monitored and adopted elsewhere in the world because it is an extremely good way of regulating an industry and offering a pledge and a promise to the customer. That pledge matters to the customers because it is a pledge on the price of the goods or service that they will receive.
      I urge the House to reject the new clause. It is unnecessary. The Director General of Electricity Supply has the powers that he needs. His consultative document has set out several ideas, including an E factor. We are happy to trust his judgment, and he does not want the powers in the Labour party's new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 204.

      Division No. 39]

      [6.13 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Anderson, Donald

      Allen, Graham

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Alton, David

      Armstrong, Hilary

      1153

      Ashton, Joe

      Illsley, Eric

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Ingram, Adam

      Barron, Kevin

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Battle, John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Beckett, Margaret

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Beggs, Roy

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Bellotti, David

      Leighton, Ron

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Lewis, Terry

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

      Livsey, Richard

      Blunkett, David

      McAllion, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      McFall, John

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Caborn, Richard

      McKelvey, William

      Callaghan, Jim

      Madden, Max

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Carr, Michael

      Maxton, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Meacher, Michael

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Meale, Alan

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Corbett, Robin

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Cox, Tom

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Crowther, Stan

      Morley, Elliot

      Cryer, Bob

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Mowlam, Marjorie

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

      Mullin, Chris

      Dixon, Don

      Nellist, Dave

      Dobson, Frank

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Edwards, Huw

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Enright, Derek

      Rogers, Allan

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Faulds, Andrew

      Ruddock, Joan

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Sheerman, Barry

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

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Flannery, Martin

      Short, Clare

      Flynn, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Foster, Derek

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

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

      George, Bruce

      Snape, Peter

      Gordon, Mildred

      Spearing, Nigel

      Gould, Bryan

      Stephen, Nicol

      Graham, Thomas

      Strang, Gavin

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Turner, Dennis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Hain, Peter

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Haynes, Frank

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Henderson, Doug

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hinchliffe, David

      Worthington, Tony

      Hood, Jimmy

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Mrs. Llin Golding, and Mr. Ken Eastham.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      NOES

      Arbuthnot, James

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Burns, Simon

      Baldry, Tony

      Burt, Alistair

      Bellingham, Henry

      Butterfill, John

      Benyon, W.

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Carrington, Matthew

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Carttiss, Michael

      Body, Sir Richard

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Boswell, Tim

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bottomley, Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Bowis, John

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

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

      Colvin, Michael

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Conway, Derek

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      1154

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Lightbown, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Lord, Michael

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

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Devlin, Tim

      Maclean, David

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Dover, Den

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Dunn, Bob

      Malins, Humfrey

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Mans, Keith

      Dykes, Hugh

      Marlow, Tony

      Eggar, Tim

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Mates, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Fallon, Michael

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

      Farr, Sir John

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Favell, Tony

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Mills, Iain

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Fornnan, Nigel

      Moate, Roger

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Forth, Eric

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Moss, Malcolm

      Franks, Cecil

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Freeman, Roger

      Nelson, Anthony

      French, Douglas

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Norris, Steve

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Page, Richard

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Paice, James

      Gregory, Conal

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Pawsey, James

      Grist, Ian

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Ground, Patrick

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hague, William

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Portillo, Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Hannam, Sir John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Harris, David

      Redwood, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Rhodes James, Sir Robert

      Hayes, Jerry

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Hayward, Robert

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Sims, Roger

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David

      Speller, Tony

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Squire, Robin

      Irvine, Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jack, Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Jackson, Robert

      Stern, Michael

      Janman, Tim

      Stevens, Lewis

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sumberg, David

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Key, Robert

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Kilfedder, James

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Thompson, Sir D. (Calder

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Valley)

      Knapman, Roger

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Thorne, Neil

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Tracey, Richard

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Waller, Gary

      1155

      Ward, John

      Wood, Timothy

      Warren, Kenneth

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Watts, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Wells, Bowen

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Whitney, Ray

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Irvine Patrick.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2

      ELDERLY AND DISABLED CUSTOMERS
      'The following section shall be inserted in the Telecommunications Act 1984. after section 7(4)—
      "New Section 7(5)
      (1) A licence granted under this section shall require the licence holder to produce a Code of Practice describing their services for elderly and disabled customers.
      (2) A Code of Practice prepared under subsection (1) above may only be made after—

      (i)consultation with, and approval of, the Director

      (ii) consultation with persons or bodies representative of elderly and disabled people.".'.—[Mr. Henderson.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Henderson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): It will be for the convenience of the House to debate the following amendments to the new clause: No. 1, in clause 1, page 3, line 14, after 'performance', insert
      'including household penetration services for the disabled, and the balance of regional infrastructure development.'.
      No. 2, in clause 6, page 7, line 14, at end insert
      '27HA The criteria settled under section 27H above shall provide that disabled people and people of pensionable age shall be exempt from the requirement to pay a deposit.'.
      Mr. Henderson: May I begin by explaining to the House the purpose of the clause and amendments before it? New clause 2 deals with the introduction of a ode of practice in utilities governing facilities for elderly people and for disabled people. Amendment No. 2 deals with deposits in regard to facilities for pensioners, and amendment No. 1 relates to a number of issues in connection with the standards of performance which a regulator will in future require an operator to meet—a subject which the House has already discussed to some extent in a previous set of amendments. Most of my comments relate initially to amendment No. 1.
      If there is a particular virtue of the Bill, it is that the Government have recognised that privatisation of public utilities in itself is inadequate as a means of improving services and developing the utilities, and that, where a private monopoly has replaced a public monopoly, there is an ever-increasing need for the public interest to be recognised and to be represented in some way. There is a growing consensus in the House—already acknowledged in the debate—that the important way of representing the public interest is to make sure that a regulator is appointed and, that the regulator has teeth to make things happen in the industry.
      There has therefore been a fairly discernible change in the perception of the Government of the benefits that can accrue from privatisation. Some might argue that it is a transformation in Government thinking, and the Minister may be able to confirm whether that is his view or whether
      1156
      he believes that it is just a turning back in Government thinking, slightly away from a purely ideological position to one that reflects the actualities of running a utility and providing a service which is desired and needed by the community.
      It is on the record this evening that the Government have accepted the need to improve the status of and give greater powers to the regulator, and that one of the crucial powers of any regulator is that of determining the general standards of performance expected of a utility in the delivery of its service. The issue before us now is whether the Bill as currently constructed has sufficient teeth to enable the regulator to undertake his or her responsibilities in the regulation of those utilities.
      I suggest that elements of clause 1, dealing with standards of performance, are too timid. They leave the regulator exposed to undue pressure from the private utilities and their supporters. They do not give the regulator sufficient power to say to the utility, "When I talk about standards of performance, I mean specific things." There should not be an argument on the core of what matters regarding standards of performance. There will always be scope for interpretation at the periphery, but, when dealing with core standards, the regulator should be able to tell the utility what matters and what is on the agenda, and that they affect everything in the negotiations, whether it is the provision of services or the prices paid for them.
      6.30 pm
      The purpose of amendment No. 1 is to lay down three items of importance to the regulator when dealing with telecommunications. The Government have made the jump from thinking that privatisation was all that mattered to recognising that privatisation in itself does little to improve the performance of utilities and that, where a private monopoly exists—as it essentially does in telecommunications—a regulator is required to protect the public interest. Is it not appropriate for the regulator to have pre-designated issues that affect standards of performance?
      I hope that every hon. Member understands that, until every residential property is linked to a telephone service, one cannot begin to provide the software and the other services which can benefit the individual or society. One cannot provide those without establishing the basic physical link. I hope that, in acknowledging that technical point, the Government will go further and recognise that it is important for us to give the highest priority to establishing that link to every residential premises. Virtually all business premises are connected. Twenty years ago, we had a comparative advantage over some other countries because of our level of telephone penetration, but we are beginning to fall behind, even taking into consideration the changes made in the past few years.
      In Germany, more than 91 per cent. of residential premises are connected by a fixed-link telephone. In the United States of America, more than 93 per cent. have such a connection, and in France the figure is 98 per cent. However, in Britain, as the Minister told us earlier, the figure is 89 per cent. In 1988, it was 87 or 88 per cent. Whichever figure we take, there is clearly a gap between the level of provision in this country and that in comparable industrial nations. When beefing up the powers of the regulator and setting performance

      1157
      standards, it is crucial that the House recognises the necessity of giving the regulator the power to extend levels of telephone penetration.
      Surely the regulator should be able to insist that those providing telephone services should reconsider the amount of deposit required, as my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) said. Is the present level of deposit appropriate in the circumstances? Does it deter many people from taking the opportunity to have a telephone?
      The regulator should be able to consider the cost of installation, which is way in excess of such costs in many comparable countries. Are those charges appropriate if we are trying to extend telephone penetration?
      The regulator should consider the cost of local calls. Many people who want a telephone because they want that essential link with the outside world would mainly make local calls, yet they know that in this country the cost of those calls is way in excess of their cost in competing industrial nations. They know it instinctively even if they have not studied the statistics.
      I hope that the Government will be able to decide that the regulator should study the industry and developments taking place, including the aspects that the Minister referred to, such as developing the provision of local loops through cable companies and others. If such developments take place, is it not essential that British Telecom, which will incur the largest burden in having to provide extensions to households throughout the country, is able to agree a price relationship with other companies that link into the BT system? That would enable everyone in the industry to play their part in extending the telephone service.
      Is it not right that the regulator should encourage the various providers to extend telephone services? In that way, the potential profits, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Neath referred, could become reality. There will only be potential for those organisations which want to use BT's facilities or for BT itself to accrue such profits once there is a telephone in every residential premises.
      In the past 40 or 50 years, and especially in the past 10 years, there have been serious regional disparities in economic activity in this country. Is it not appropriate for a nation with that background to put high on its agenda the provision of essential infrastructure, so that there can be a good spread of resources and investment throughout the regions? To some extent, that has already happened in the highlands of Scotland, where modern facilities have been introduced with the help of European funding, which has helped the small business community in the more remote areas. That is one good example. Surely the regulator should be given the responsibility of making that a top priority in discussions with various operators about the standards of performance essential to developing the telecommunications structure.
      As we discussed facilities for the aged and the disabled extensively in Committee, I do not want to labour the point, but I want to establish the principle that a utility is not like any other company that provides a service or goods. A utility provides a core service for the community—a service on which everyone depends, whether it is electricity, gas, a telephone or water. There is something different about those commodities and the Government have recognised that fact because they are moving towards regulation. Surely, when providing those services, a special case can he made for establishing special facilities for the aged and the disabled—such as, for example, the provision
      1158
      of a coupler attached to the telephone so that the 3 million people who are hard of hearing have a better opportunity to use the telephone.
      There might be a need for liaison between British Telecom and a local Department of Social Services office about the advantages of a mobile phone with a limited range for pensioners in a fragile physical state, so that, if they fall, they do not lie on the floor for hours because they cannot reach the fixed-link telephone on the wall. Often such facilities are made available by the operator, but the regulator should have the responsibility to ensure that operators have a code of practice which includes such provisions. That is merely one example, which good operators would probably want to provide of their own free will. However, that does not mean that there is no need for legislation.
      Not every operator will always operate to the highest standards. Some new operators wishing to enter the business might not have the same social conscience as operators have demonstrated in the past. That is another reason why standards of performance need to be designated by the regulator.
      If they are consistent with what they said in Committee, the Government will argue that the regulator already has the power to make those matters count in his or her negotiations with the operator in establishing a price regime. My answer is to ask why, if the regulator already has the power, it is necessary to have the Bill which identifies that the standards of performance must he a crucial element in determining whether the activities of an operator are acceptable to the regulator. If the Government have jumped that gap and reached the point where they accept that standards of performance are crucial, surely they should go that little bit further and identify the important standards of performance that will affect the future of the industry and the needs of consumers.
      There is advantage in being specific. If our proposal is accepted, it will give the regulator much greater scope to do what he or she currently wants to do. I hope that the regulator would want the things that I have referred to included as important priorities by the operator. The Opposition proposal would give more power to the regulator's elbow in negotiations to force change upon the operators.
      If clause 1 is to have more teeth, and if the Government are to convince the public that they are serious about regulation, they should accept that the new clause and the amendments being discussed with it are reasonable. If the Government fail to accept the changes, and if similar amendments are not accepted in another place, people will begin to ask just what kind of citizens charter we have. They will want to know whether it is a real citizens charter with teeth which, in the case of telecommunications, can do something about extending the telephone service to the 13 per cent. of the population who do not have a telephone, which can spread investment in the industry throughout the regions and which can establish strict codes of practice to assist disabled and aged people. People will want to know that the citizens charter regards such issues as important. If the Government want the citizens charter to be credible, they have an obligation to accept the new clause and the amendments.
      Sir John Hannam: I should like to speak to amendment No. 2, tabled in my name and the names of

      1159
      other hon. Members from the all-party disablement group. The amendment relates to the deposit which is required before a telephone can be installed. The deposit is of tremendous importance to disabled people and the aged. The amendment seeks to give them exemption from deposits for telephone services.
      The citizens advice bureaux—I am sure that we are all great admirers of the work they do throughout the country—are particularly anxious that the exemption is given, because they are in the front line in dealing with the numerous cases of clients who are unable to afford the deposit and installation cost of several hundred pounds which are asked of them.
      The CABs very much welcome many of the Bill's provisions, which will assist them greatly. They and the disability organisation, RADAR, also welcome the Government's attempt to regulate the criteria relating to deposits and particularly the upper ceiling of £150 placed by British Telecom on deposits for its customers. However, I share their belief that, for very elderly and disabled people, particularly housebound disabled people, a telephone is an essential service. It is more often a lifeline than a luxury.
      Telephones provide the link not only with the medical and paramedical support that disabled people need but also with social services, family and friends, all of whom may be necessary in an emergency. In addition, we all know that most disabled people have lower incomes, yet have to pay higher costs than the non-disabled. They have to pay extra for heating, laundry, clothing and medicines. It is punitive for them to have to pay a deposit on what for many is an essential piece of equipment for everyday life.
      We all know that, in today's society, the telephone plays a pivotal role in interactive communications. The services that can be accessed via the telephone often provide disabled people with the ability to function in mainstream life when inaccessible buildings would deny them that ability. It is important that disabled people are automatically exempt from telephone deposit charges so that that channel of communication and access is not barred to them.
      6.45 pm
      A couple of cases from CABs will illustrate the point. The first involves a couple in Greater Manchester who are on income support. They were recommended by their general practitioner to have a telephone installed. They were asked to pay a £150 installation cost plus a £200 deposit. They could not afford those amounts. In another case, in the Chilterns, an elderly disabled pensioner wished to have a telephone installed. As a new subscriber, the pensioner was asked to pay a deposit of £350, which he was unable to pay. After negotiation, British Telecom would only reduce the deposit to £200, which was still far in excess of what the pensioner could afford.
      Under the electricity and gas legislation, it is already a statutory requirement that particular regard shall be paid to the needs of elderly and disabled people. Under the Telecommunications Act 1984, British Telecom is required to design special services for disabled consumers. I pay tribute to it for the technology which it has introduced and the practical changes which it has made over the last few years.
      1160
      The amendment would be a logical extension of existing statutory duties to assist disabled people to lead as normal lives as possible and to be protected in emergencies. In the spirit of the Government's community care policies, I hope that the principle will be accepted and that the necessary changes will be made to the Bill, probably when it reaches the other place.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I too should like to make a brief intervention on amendment No. 2. I agree with everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), but I should like to put a slight gloss on the matter in relation to two issues: first, the very elderly and, secondly, the problem of the very elderly living in rural areas. In my constituency there is a high proportion of elderly people; that applies throughout rural Wales and similar rural areas.
      In rural Montgomeryshire there are approximately 6 per cent. more elderly people than in the average rural district in the United Kingdom. We are proud of our elderly population. It is a fact that in areas like Montgomeryshire people live longer because the climate is pleasant and the way of life is perhaps a little more peaceful. Certainly the work that the people have done over the years has tended to be more healthy than working in the House and in many other more sedentary occupations.
      The average rural village, certainly in my part of Wales, tends to be high, somewhat isolated, with little or no public transport. Although unemployment is low, wages tend to be low, too. Usually people want to stay. if they can, when they become very old.
      Care in the community is doing well by and large in rural mid-Wales, and the Government are to be commended for the emphasis that has been placed on trying to ensure that elderly people retain their independence for as long as possible. In my Christmas round of hospitals and old people's homes, both public and private, I noticed that their population had aged, with the average age of the residents being much higher than it was some years ago. The reason is simply that more elderly people can stay in their own homes. They are being provided with home helps, nursing care and the excellent general practitioner care.
      Medical care in rural Wales is of an exceptionally high standard and is an example to other parts of the country, but because there is no public transport and people can become isolated and lonely—an emotional viewpoint which becomes overwhelmingly subjective as they become much older, perhaps being widowed—it is essential for them to have the one means of communication which can keep them in touch with the outside world on a person-to-person basis. The television tells them what is going on in the outside world, but does not enable them to speak directly to anybody.
      A deposit for an elderly person who may have done without a telephone until becoming older, as is common in rural Wales, may be too much to meet. The great majority of pensioners in my constituency do not have occupational pensions. They do not complain about that. They just get on with life and live on their state pension, and they manage surprisingly well, considering the level of the pension. But when the time comes and they are isolated and must choose between going into an old person's home

      1161
      —possibly going into a council pensioner's bungalow—and staying in their own home, their ability to communicate with other people is a key factor.
      It would be consistent with Government policy for care in the community to say that if not for all pensioners—amendment No. 2 perhaps aims high in that respect—at least for pensioners who are 75 or over, telephones should be provided without a deposit having to be provided. I hope that the Government will give a sympathetic response on that point.
      Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate for the sympathy that they have shown to disabled people, and of course the Government and the regulator wish to see progress made in providing the right kind of services to such groups of people.
      I remind hon. Members that under the telecommunications legislation, the director general has a duty to promote the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users in the United Kingdom, including, in particular, those who are disabled or of pensionable age. That is the first requirement in section 3, which lays down the duties. The director is also obliged by section 54 to set up a body to advise him on matters affecting the disabled and elderly.
      Disabled and elderly people are specifically covered in British Telecom's general code of practice, and the director general has established a committee to advise him on their needs. Licence condition 31 requires BT to consult the director general from time to time about the supply and connection of apparatus for the disabled. Condition 32 requires BT to ensure that telephones with sound amplification facilities and telephones capable of being inductively coupled to hearing aids are available. BT also provides a wide range of other services, and has established an action for disabled customers' department to help it meet the needs of the disabled. It has also issued a publication setting out in detail the facilities it has to offer people with difficulties who need special treatment.
      The regulator has not been inactive. He obtained a change in British Telecom's policy on deposits which was announced in August, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) for mentioning that favourably. The House might wish to know some of the detail. As a result of that change of policy by BT, there are now four new categories of customer and customers seeking different kinds of service.
      The first comprises those who need pay no deposit—that is a large category—being those who have had a BT service in the past and have paid their bills when requested. They will rarely be required to pay a deposit. One would be requested only if there had been some other problem, relating to their credit-worthiness, which had cropped up more recently. So, many people are asked for no deposit because they have been past customers and there has been no problem with their credit rating.
      There are then three categories—low, medium and high risk. The—low risk new customer is asked for a deposit of £75; the medium risk, £100; and the high risk, £150, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter mentioned. About 40 per cent. of new customers pay a deposit. Such deposits are repaid, with 9 per cent. interest after a year.
      I am, of course, concerned if it is felt that that is still an impediment to disabled people who need access to the service and are not an extreme credit risk to BT. If a customer is asked for a deposit and is unhappy with the position, he can go to the director general. This legislation
      1162
      will be of assistance, because the director general may decide, with his duties under the telecoms legislation and given the new powers that this measure will give him, that he wishes to influence the decision by BT.
      I should like to see the system in operation before going all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and Opposition Members in their proposals. I shall make sure that, on this important issue, the strong feelings of hon. Members are relayed to the director general in the context of his general powers for disabled people.
      Mr. Hain: I appreciate the sympathetic response that the Minister is giving. Is he aware that, in addition to the deposit charge levels which he has identified, there is a connection charge in respect of telecommunications of £163? In other words, people are being asked to find a great deal of money. That double charge is the key problem.
      Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I agree that it can make things difficult, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter implied. A deposit of £150, or even more before the new policy was introduced, on top of the full connection charge, represented a substantial sum. I suggest that the right approach is to start with the deposit, which is what the director general has been doing as a result of that new policy of BT. I hope that I have helped the House by what I have said about how we would like to see the director general use his powers and how he may wish to be involved in some cases where difficulties still arise.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) asked whether there had been a latter-day conversion or U-turn by the Government in seeking stronger regulatory powers. Not at all. The bulk of the regulatory powers are already in existing legislation. The Bill looks at those powers in the light of experience and brings the powers of all the regulators broadly up to the level of the best in the different pieces of legislation evolved over time for the various industries.
      The Government have always said that there will be large monopoly areas in many industries for the foreseeable future and that those areas need careful regulation in the customer interest, as we have identified in previous debates. We have also said that we believe that the best regulator of all is competition. That is why we have taken measures to promote competition, and as competition builds up, our point will be even better established that competition is the customer's best friend and can provide an excellent deal on price, service quality and range of services available.
      BT already sets out its services for disabled customers, and the regulatory framework does much of what the House is seeking to achieve in this short debate. So, while expressing much sympathy with the aims of some hon. Members, I suggest that the new clauses are not required and that the director general should get on with his work in the way I have described.
      Question put and negatived.

    New clause 8

      GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF UNDERTAKERS
      `( )—(1) In section 68 of the Water Industry Act 1991, subsection (3) shall be omitted and there shall be substituted—
      "(3) An undertaker shall be in breach of his duty under subsection (91)(a) above if water is unwholesome, or becomes unwholesome, at any point along a pipe supplying the premises concerned, unless—

      (a) the unwholeness arises from a leak which is the responsibility of the occupier, or

      (b) the occupier, or a person on his behalf, has wilfully or negligently caused damage to the pipe and such damage has caused the unwholesomeness.".'.—[Mr. Win Griffiths.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7 pm
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following: New clause 9—Responsibility for sewage pipes—
      '( )—(l) In section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
      "(1A) A sewerage undertaker shall remedy any defect in a sewer to which this section applies at any point along the whole such length of the pipe, unless any such defect arises from wilful or negligent damage caused to the pipe directly by an occupier of any premises to which the pipe is connected.".'.
      Amendment No. 4, in clause 24, page 20, line 15, at end insert—
      `(aa) the number, length and location of pipes in the area of each undertaker through which drinking water is supplied to domestic and non-domestic premises which contribute to a deterioration in the quality of water supplied particularly when it could be a public health hazard;'.
      Amendment No. 5, in page 20, line 19, at end insert
      'including the wholesomeness or otherwise of water supplied in accordance with section 68 of the Water Industry Act 1991 as amended.'.
      Mr. Griffiths: New clauses 8 and 9 bring an important new principle into play. At present, the customer is responsible for the pipe from the main to the property. In the case of a terrace house the length could be a metre or two; in some cases it is the length of a garden; in others it can be at least the length of a lane. The Government are responsible for ensuring that tap water quality meets the standards set out in the European Community directive. The water and sewerage undertakers are responsible, on behalf of the Government, for ensuring that the standards are adhered to, and we believe that they should be responsible for the entire length of pipe to a customer's tap or toilet. The Government should accept that the undertakers will assume that responsibility. However, the new clauses contain the proviso that, if a customer can be shown to have been negligent about the care of pipes under his property, he should bear the cost of dealing with any resulting problems in respect of the quality of water or sewerage. That is a fairly straightforward principle.
      In this group of amendments, we make the point that the director general should collect information about any water-carrying pipes that, in themselves, could cause a deterioration of water quality, which, in turn, could be harmful to the consumer. In this respect there are two important contaminants or pollutants. One of them is lead, and there is a well established link between the presence of lead in water and brain damage, particularly in the case of young children. Indeed, this theory has an historic and well established pedigree."The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" could have been shortened considerably if Gibbon had simply pointed out
      1164
      that it was the magnificent lead-lined water systems of the Romans that did so much damage to their intellectual powers.
      Lead is the first problem in respect of which the director general should collect information about pipes that can cause damage to the health of consumers—information to be made publicly available. In this country there are about 2 million people who drink water that fails to meet the EC standard of 50 micrograms per litre. This is clear from samples taken by the water inspectors.
      The figure of 2 million does not include children and adults who go to the old schools and hospitals that still exist. Medical research has demonstrated that lead levels above the EC figure of 50 micrograms per litre, in combination with exposure from other sources, can result in blood lead levels that have adverse biochemical effects, including interference with the formation of red blood cells. That is why we are keen to establish for consumers a list of the places in which these offending pipes are to be found. Samples that were taken in 1988 and 1989 indicated that, in the country as a whole, almost one quarter of water zones did not comply with the EC limit of 50 micrograms per litre. Thus, lead is a widespread and serious problem.
      The other pipes that give rise to concern are those that are lined with coal tar pitch. Most of them are old mains, and they are to be found principally in the Thames water authority area, particularly in and around London, and to a certain extent in the south-west water area. In England and Wales 102 water zones are affected. Over a period, the water combines with the coal tar pitch to produce chemicals known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These are extremely deadly chemicals, and under EC regulations only 0·2 of a mocrogram per litre of water is allowed.
      As it is a cancer-causing agent, the consumer has a right to know exactly where such mains are and whether there is a potential problem. Altogether, it affects about 4 per cent. of water zones, which in the last two years for which measurements were taken had levels which exceeded the EC limit for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. That is why we want the water companies to take full responsibility, as the Government's agents in this matter, for meeting the standards of the EC water quality directives and why, in these two particular cases of which there is public knowledge, the damaging effect on people's health of lead pipes and of coal-tar, pitch-lined pipes, should become public knowledge and information on these matters should be collected and printed.
      I shall be returning to the more general question of our water supplies and our beach and river water quality standards when looking at some later amendments, and also to some more specific problems relating to lead.
      I hope that the Government can respond positively by saying that the water undertakers will accept this responsibility for pipes, right to the customers' taps and toilets, and that they will get the director general to publish specific information about lead pipes and coal-tar, pitch-lined pipes.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): New clause 8 seeks to place an unfair burden of responsibility on the water supplier. Whereas now the water supplier is, quite rightly, responsible for the wholesomeness of water in water supply pipes, the new clause would make the water supplier additionally responsible for water in customers'

      1165
      pipes unless the water supplier was able to prove that the customer had damaged the pipes or caused a leak which had led to contamination of the water. It would clearly be unreasonable to make the supplier responsible for the condition of a large number of other people's water pipes.
      Safeguards for water wholesomeness are already stringent. Ninety-nine per cent. of the 3·3 million tests carried out in 1990 by the drinking water inspectorate were satisfactory. Indeed, privatisation has enabled the water industry to set in place a programme for remedial action for those supplies which do not yet comply with standards. This will involve a capital investment programme of over £2 billion by 1995. So new clause 8 would not acid any significant protection to the consumer but would place an unfair burden on the water supplier.
      New clause 9 is redundant. It seems to be trying to make sewer undertakers liable for repairs to public sewers, but they are already so liable.
      With regard to further information, clause 24 already makes provision for the director general to collect information from water undertakers about their performance against standards set out in section 38 of the Water Industry Act 1991. In this context, quality of drinking water is obviously of paramount importance. As I made clear in Committee, this is not a matter for the Director General of Water Services; it is a matter for the drinking water inspectorate, which enforces the standards. knowledge of the whereabouts of pipes is needed at times, but that information is already available. Section 198 of the Water Industry Act requires undertakers to keep records of all pipes and underground works vested in the undertakers and to make those records available, free of charge, for inspection by the public.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I hear what the Minister is saying and I only wish that it were correct—unless, of course, Dwr Cymru has got its own legal position absolutely wrong. I shall be referring to this information in more detail later, but I will read one sentence of the reply I received to my request for information about lead pipes.
      The chairman of Welsh Water, John Jones, said this:
      "Unfortunately, I am unable to provide details of areas specifically affected by lead piping since Dwr Cymru has no right to obtain this information. However, I believe that it can safely be assumed that all areas will have some properties with lead pipework."
      He could not give me specific information.
      Mr. Baldry: As I made clear—and of course this is correct because it is on the face of an Act of Parliament—section 198 of the Water Industry Act requires undertakers to keep records of all pipes and underground works vested in those undertakers and to make those records available, free of charge, for inspection by the public. In short, if the director general has need of such information, he too has access to it. This amendment is unnecessary.
      7.15 pm
      The purpose of amendment No. 4 is to require the director to collect and publish information about drinking water quality. Again, this amendment shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the tough regulatory regime that we have already put in place arid of the various regulators.
      Drinking water quality standards are not a matter for the Director General of Water Services. The standards for drinking water quality are set out by my right hon. Friend
      1166
      the Secretary of State in the water quality regulations which are enforced by the drinking water inspectorate. The inspectorate already regularly obtains information from the water companies about the quality of water supplied under no fewer than 57 parameters and the inspectorate publishes an annual report giving a comprehensive description of drinking water quality in England and Wales tested rigorously against the very demanding criteria of the water quality regulations.
      Therefore, this amendment is not only not appropriate but would simply lead to a duplication of effort, requiring the director general to collect and publish such information—an exercise already ably and competently undertaken by the drinking water inspectorate.
      The new clauses and amendments are redundant, otiose or unnecessary.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 11

      RESTRICTIONS ON DIVERSIFICATION
      `The following section shall he inserted in the Water Industry Act 1991, after section 14—
      "14A. The Director General of Water Services may require the appointed company not to engage in specified diversification of its activities if he is of the opinion that the company's ability to meet its statutory obligations would be prejudiced by such diversilication.".'.—[Mr. Alex Cathie.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we will take new clause 53—Water and sewerage undertakers: subsidiary companies—
      `.—(1) It shall be a condition of appointment that any water and sewerage undertaker shall separate completely its statutory functions from those of any subsidiary company which carries out activities unrelated to its statutory role.
      (2) The Director shall establish such rules as are necessary to ensure that customers of any water and sewerage undertaker pay no charges or make any contribution to the undertaker for the activities of any of its subsidiaries.'.
      Mr. Carlile: The Liberal Democrats recently published a drinking water survey called "Coming Clean on the Water We Drink". It produced some interesting results—rather more interesting than the title, perhaps, for which I am pleased to claim no credit. Our survey found that about 416.000 people in the South West Water area were supplied with water which breached regulations owing to its aluminium content. We know how much concern there has been, in the south-west in particular, about aluminium in water. Another 208,333 people were supplied with water which had come from 10 zones where regulations governing lead were being breached.
      It is certainly fair to say that South West Water has undertaken a large investment programme, and it is to he commended, but that programme has failed to make up for years of decay and under-investment in the infrastructure. As a result, a large number of people are still drinking sub-standard water.
      It is my view that it is reasonable that, faced with the enormity of this problem, water companies which do not possess sufficient resources to meet their commitments as water suppliers should not, without close regulation, be

      1167
      allowed to diversify their activities, particularly into speculative ventures. The new clause offers a straightforward and necessary additional measure of regulation.
      The Water Industry Act 1991 sets up a different corporate structure for the privatised water plcs from that for other utility plcs. The holding company may own other companies, one of which is called the "appointed" company under the Act. That company receives the appointments under the relevant licence. The appointed company deals with the core business, which is water and sewerage works. That core business is regulated, but the holding company may, perfectly reasonably, also own subsidiaries that are totally unrelated to the core business.
      That means that Ofwat has no jurisdiction over those associated activities, except to ensure that any diversification does not harm the appointed company's ability to meet its commitments. That in turn means that, although the director general can look at the potential effect of an associated company, relating to the appointed company's ability to meet its commitments, he cannot look at what is happening in associated companies once they have been established by the appointed company.
      Last September, Ofwat issued a licence amendment specifically dealing with that issue. The director general, Mr. Byatt, who has exercised great skill in his role—I deprecate the earlier criticism of him—quickly recognised the effects that diversification was having both on the public image of water plcs and on the companies' resources. The decision by Welsh Water, Dwr Cymru, to set up a series of hotels stamped clearly on the public mind the fact that water plcs are engaging in business that is very diverse from water. Wales has some fine hotels, but many of its country hotels are available to any purchaser who can offer a reasonable price because he will not make much money out of them. It may be argued that Dwr Cymru's investment is sound in the long term, but it does not appear to be a sound investment at present.
      The licence means that the plcs must certify that they have the necessary financial and managerial resources to meet the appointed companies' obligation under the statute. Ofwat is carrying out a ring-fencing exercise to assess the sufficiency of the resources that are going in to meeting the appointments. However, Ofwat recognises that the issuing of a licence is only a monitoring device and that the regulator cannot forbid diversification, even if it is found that the company does not have sufficient resources to undertake its statutory duties because the resources are being frittered away elsewhere. That is what the new clause is all about.
      Who pays for the losses that may occur as a result of diversification? Many companies have gone out of business, and big business is not exempt from that trend. Clearly, it would be wrong for the water companies' customers—those of us who turn on the tap and provide the sewage—to pay for the provision of services that are unrelated to the water companies' main purpose, if those services lose money. Mr. Byatt is on record as saying plainly that the losses made by subsidiaries should be borne by the shareholders of the plcs, not by the customers. Otherwise, a dreadful injustice could result whereby not only would the companies fail to meet their obligations to the detriment of consumers, but they would
      1168
      be forced to stand the losses made by the activities that had diverted the resources away from keeping up the appointments for statutory duties.
      To show that I am not exaggerating, I shall focus on some examples of diversification activities, other than the hotels that I have mentioned. There are good and bad examples. Some of the diversifications that have been carried out by North West Water should be considered against the background of the capital expenditure programme to which the companies are committed and the costs of meeting various European Community drinking water, bathing and waste treatment standards—for example, the municipal waste water directive.
      Earlier this year, I went bathing in Bournemouth at 3 o'clock in the morning and a very pleasant experience it was, too. Bournemouth's is one of the few beaches in this country that meets the European criteria. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are welcome to join me next time I go swimming at 3 o'clock in the morning.
      The impact of meeting all those obligations already has an inevitable cost consequence for the consumer. Indeed. the Secretary of State for the Environment recently said that water charges may need to increase by 50 per cent. by the end of the century to meet statutory and European Community obligations. So it is important that diversification should not bleed money from the plcs to raise charges even more. Naturally, some diversification is relevant and makes good sense.
      North West Water has diversified into activities related to the water business, such as water purification and treatment, which is an acceptable form of diversification. It is important, however, that it be monitored closely because of possible competition implications.
      An example of competition implications can be taken, again, from North-West Water. It has acquired several businesses from abroad and at home that specialise in the designing and engineering of water and waste systems. In particular, it has acquired a good company called Water Engineering Ltd., primarily engaged in the design and installation of water and waste treatment plants in the United Kingdom. That key company is involved as a supplier in the £24 billion capital expenditure programme to be undertaken in the next 10 years. A consequence of that ostensibly sensible investment is that North West Water will be involved in buying services from a company that it owns wholly.
      That raises the issue of transfer pricing and the dangers of cross-subsidisation between the core business of North West Water and Water Engineering Ltd. It is important that the cross-subsidisation should not be at the expense of the consumer of water services. North West Water has given assurances that it would buy services from its subsidiary at full market rates, and I welcome that assurance. Nevertheless, there is plainly concern about the possible vertical integration of the water industry by such deals.
      Ofwat is carrying out a survey of transactions between core businesses of the water plcs and subsidiaries in related markets, and investigating transfer pricing. If Ofwat finds that the survey shows that the public interest is not being served, it is important that it should have powers to deal with such a problem.

      1169
      7.30 pm
      Much less defensible, however, is diversification into completely unrelated areas, especially when the companies involved—the plcs—have very high environmental targets which in many cases they are not meeting. There is plenty of evidence that those targets are not being met. High targets also mean that companies are likely to have higher K factors—as they are called—relating to price increases. That is the case with South West Water, which recently chose not to defer its full K increase for 1992. Its average bill for next year is £91·23, an increase of well over 10 per cent. on 1991.
      One appreciates that South West Water has a very high capital programme, which includes investment to end the dispoal of sludge at sea by 1998. However, South West Water, with all those obligations and in addition to possessing six subsidiaries in businesses which relate to water and waste treatment, has a 20 per cent. stake in West Country Television Ltd. That media acquisition might be a good investment, but it is plain that such an investment has no relation whatever to the core business.
      The new clause raises an issue of principle: is the regulator to have a full range of powers to deal with the panoply of business conducted by the water plcs in order to ensure that that full panoply is being operated in the interests of the consumer, or is he to have only powers which are restricted to the appointed company, to the company providing the water services? If he has the full range of powers, the public interest is fully protected. If he has only limited powers, it follows logically that there is only limited protection. The new clause seeks to ensure maximum public protection without in any way preventing the privatised companies from conducting their businesses sensibly and with reasonable regard to normal business practice.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: We fully endorse all that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said about the need to control the diversification activities of the water companies. Our new clause seeks to do more or less the same as his. We want to ensure that, before any water or sewerage undertaker is appointed to carry out its statutory role, any subsidiary company that it establishes whose activities are wholly unrelated to that statutory role is completely separate from the core business and that the director establishes such rules as are necessary to ensure that, whatever happens to the unrelated subsidiary business, the customers of the water and sewerage undertaker do not contribute in any way.
      There is no doubt that the current appointees in England and Wales—the water and sewerage companies—have taken advantage of the immensely beneficial position in which they found themselves as monopoly suppliers of water and sewerage services to buy into businesses which cannot be regarded as related to their core business. Northumbria Water, for example, has bought into cable television; Yorkshire Water is involved in the direct mail business; Thames Water is involved in landscape gardening and Southern Water in vehicle leasing.
      I must not neglect to mention Welsh Water, Dŵr Cymru. I usually mention it as its chairman is a constituent of mine and I try to look after his best interests, however he might test my desire to do so. Welsh Water has engaged in some wonderful diversifications which currently include—I believe—a 14·9 per cent. share in South Wales
      1170
      Electricity, which cost, if I remember rightly, more than £300 million. Surely, that money which it claims was raised on the capital markets, could have been much better used to speed up the programme to comply with water quality standards required under European Community directives.
      The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery raised a number of serious issues relating to the activities of water and sewerage undertakers in subsidiary businesses which are not related to their core activities. I shall deal with one or two issues which were not fully covered in his speech.
      The first relates to the way in which the subsidiary business may receive loans from the core company to develop its activities. I am advised by consultants interested in the water industry that at the moment the accounts of the water companies cannot be sifted to detect whether the subsidiaries are paying the full commercial rate of interest on any loans that they may receive from the core business. That is one reason why we believe that the two activities should be completely separate. The way in which the money may move between the two and the way in which the charges are made for services provided between them should be immediately evident to anyone who studies the accounts of the core business or of the subsidiaries.
      Another issue is that of taxation. The water companies were given a highly preferential deal on corporation tax when they were created. I think that it is true to say that, for well over 20 years, they will not have to pay corporation tax. Under the complex group taxation rules, if a core business somehow made a loss in a particular year—I agree that that would be incredible under the present rules—but the subsidiary companies made a profit, that profit would not be subject to corporation tax because it could be subsumed into the accounts of the core business, and corporation tax relief would be given. That would mean a loss of finance for the Exchequer arising in the first place from an extremely beneficial deal given to the water companies when they were created.
      It is of course also possible for the core business to subsidise its subsidiary companies. Thames Water has acquired a business that is not directly related to its core services but which is a water industry service that Thames might use itself—it is a subsidiary plumbing company. It would be perfectly possible for Thames to allow that company to provide it with services at a favourable rate. Thames could put business its way, to the disadvantage of other private competitors. I am sure that the Government would be concerned by such a development.
      There are all sorts of ways in which core businesses and their subsidiaries might cross-subsidise each other. However, the customers of the core business could be disadvantaged and pay higher water charges because of the way in which the subsidiaries of that business operate.
      We lost the vote in Committee on the principle of not allowing core businesses to run subsidiaries in unrelated areas of business, so at the very least the Government should accept these new clauses now, since they contain the sort of rules which will mean that customers paying for core business activities will not suffer from the multifarious and complex operations that are possible under our company and taxation rules. The waters, dare I say it, should not be muddied and no advantage should be taken of customers of a core business.
      Mr. Baldry: The two new clauses have a similar purpose—to allow the director general to include conditions in a water or sewerage companies appointment prohibiting it from diversifying. I hope that the House will not think me discourteous if I therefore discuss them both together.
      There was some suggestion that the water companies might be in some difficulty in meeting their statutory and other obligations. It is fair to point out that, last year alone, capital spending by the water companies increased by nearly 40 per cent. in real terms, to £2·5 billion. In the current financial year capital spending is planned to show a further increase of more than 20 per cent. in real terms, to more than £3 billion. There is every reason to expect that that will be achieved. As all hon. Members know, the water companies together are expected to spend about £28 billion over the next decade, which works out at investing £5,000 each and every minute on enhancing water quality.
      It is clear that we get good value from our water charges. They are among the lowest in Europe, averaging only 43p per household per day for the combined costs of water supply and sewerage—roughly the cost of a single cup of coffee in any cafe in the country. The French, Germans and Italians all pay much more for their water services.
      As for diversification, I appreciate the concern that lies behind the new clauses, but I feel that they are unnecessary. Of course it is important that the director general should have the power to ensure that an appointed undertaker's ability to carry out its core business is safeguarded. The legislation already provides for that. The director already has power to impose conditions restricting diversification by water and sewerage undertakers. Section 11 of the Water Industry Act 1991 gives the director wide powers to impose such conditions of appointment as appear to him necessary or expedient. Section 2 of the Act imposes a general duty on the director to exercise his regulatory functions in a manner best calculated to ensure the proper provision of water and sewerage services throughout England and Wales, and to ensure that the undertakers can finance the proper carrying out of their functions.
      The director general has already taken steps to ensure that water and sewerage services are not put at risk by diversification. He has agreed to an amended condition F of the instrument of appointment of water and sewerage undertakers, which came into effect on 3 September last year. It requires the appointed undertakers to act at all times in a manner best calculated to ensure that they have adequate financial and management resources to enable them to carry out the regulated activities, including their investment programmes, to submit to the director with their accounting statements a certificate confirming that they will have adequate financial and management resources to carry out the regulated activities for at least the next 12 months, and to submit a further certificate when an appointee or any group company embarks on any activity other than a regulated activity which could be material to the appointee's ability to finance the carrying out of the regulated functions.
      7.45 pm
      So, condition F already requires the finances of the core business carrying out the regulated activity to be ring-fenced and reported on separately from any other activity. The director keeps the licence conditions under
      1172
      review and I have no doubt that he will take action if there is evidence that the new conditions are not providing adequate protection for the customers.
      In my submission these new clauses would not add any protection to consumers or customers, and there is no evidence to suggest that businesses are failing to discharge their responsibilities in every regard.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I am disappointed by the Minister's response, because the purpose of the new clauses is to ensure that, if the director general sees, in his regulatory role, that he ought to be able to take certain actions to correct what is happening, he should be able to take them. Such powers do not exist now, or at least they are not strong enough.
      We shall obviously watch what happens to the subsidiaries of the water plcs with great care, and no doubt there will be more opportunities to return to this subject. I am therefore content not to press the matter, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to ask the Minister a couple of questions—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who moved the new clause, has withdrawn it.

    New Clause 20

      EXERCISING OF ANY TELECOMMUNICATIONS DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUNCTION
      'The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 shall be amended as follows—
      (1) In section 10, after "Foreign Compensation Commission" there shall be inserted "or the Director General of Telecommunications";
      (2) In section 13(1), after "28(b)" there shall be inserted "30B";
      (3) In Schedule 1, after paragraph 30A there shall be inserted—
      "30B The Director General of Telecommunications and any prescribed person, arbitrator or arbiter, in respect of the exercise of any dispute resolution function under the Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12), and any member of the Director's staff authorised to exercise those functions under paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications Act 1984.".'.—a[Mr. Hain.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Hain: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I do not make these remarks in an adversarial spirit, and I may even spare the Minister the sort of peroration for which he chided me in an earlier debate—most unfairly, I thought.
      That is not to say that the new clause does not represent a serious issue; it is an extremely serious issue, as I shall suggest later. However, in Committee the Minister showed a fair degree of sympathy with the thinking behind the newclause, saying:
      "I shall certainly reflect further … and … give more information on Report".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 December 1991; c. 383.]
      I trust that we will not be disappointed this evening, given that expression of intent.
      The new clause deals with a serious anomaly in the Bill, which is that the regulator has a quasi-judicial power, yet no clear legal obligation to give reasons for his decisions on disputes such as those over billing, charging, bad debt,

      1173
      deposits and so on. That leaves the public in the dark and it leaves British Telecom—or, for that matter, any other designated operator—in the dark over policy standards. If there is a dispute between a customer and British Telecom, surely BT should be fully aware of the reasons for the regulator's decision on the dispute, so that it can then change its policy, alter its standards and ensure that the mistake is not repeated. Similarly, the customer should be aware of the reasons for the regulator's decision.
      If the tribunals legislation is applied in the way that the clause suggests, section 12 of the Act would require the director general to give reasons for his decision. The new clause would accomplish that task and remove a serious anomaly. It would also allow a right of appeal to the courts which is presently denied to any complainant who feels that he has been unfairly treated by the regulator or by a designated telecommunications operator such as BT.
      The application of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 to the Director General of Telecommunications would allow an appeal on a point of law in the High Court against the director general's decision. Under the Bill, the director general's decision is or could be final and would preclude an appeal on a point of law, although the question of a judicial review may remain open. The Minister has said:
      "Let me first reassure him that the director generals will give reasons. Were they not to do that, the decisions could be subject to judicial review."
      He also said:
      "I think that regulators should give reasons, and will have to do so under the Bill. If they do not, they will have the sanction of judicial review."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E,17 December 1991; c. 382–83.]
      Far be it from me as a humble Back Bencher to disagree with the no doubt eminent advice of the vast ranks of the Minister's civil servants, which no doubt include learned civil servants. However, I have taken legal advice, and I am told that the Minister's statement is wrong in law on two counts. First, there is nothing in the Bill to oblige the director general or the arbitrator to give reasons for his decision. Accordingly, the Minister must be relying on a purported statement of general law.
      Secondly, there is no general rule of administrative law obliging regulators and other administrative officials carrying out judicial—type functions to give reasons for their decisions. If there were such a general rule, it is accepted that failure to give reasons would be a ground for judicial review. I am also advised that the Minister is wrong to say that failure to give reasons would attract the sanction of judicial review.
      Statutory tribunals listed in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act are required to give reasons, unless they are covered by one of the exceptions in the Act. There are cases which suggest that a court could hold that a statutory tribunal not listed in the Act must give reasons for its decisions. However, there is no general rule of law that tribunals, or administrative authorities which are not called tribunals but carry out judicial—type functions, such as the Director General of Telecommunications, must give reasons for their decisions.
      It is important for the Minister to define a tribunal in this context, because it is not defined in general law. When he is resolving a dispute in this manner is the Director General of Telecommunications acting as a tribunal on, for example, a request for a deposit? That issue can be satisfactorily settled only by including a specific provision
      1174
      in the Bill that the director general is a tribunal in this context and has a specific obligation to give reasons for his decisions.
      The essential point is that, although it is possible for a court to be persuaded to hold that a director general was acting as a tribunal and may also be persuaded to hold that he was a formal tribunal of the kind that the law recognised as obliged to give proper reasons for its decisions, there is no certainty that a court would so hold. It is wrong for there to be uncertainty about the director general's duty in this respect. It should not be left to British Telecom or a customer or a complainant against BT who is dissatisfied with the director general's decisions, but has received no reasons for them, to have to test the law by seeking a judicial review to find out whether the director general is obliged to give reasons for his decisions.
      The issue should not be left to that complicated internecine process but should be made specific in the legislation and should not rest on the say-so of a Minister in Committee or in the House. It is almost an insult to the intelligence of consumers, if not to the House, to say that somebody who is not satisfied with the director general's decision should have to rely on a judicial review. The whole process of such a review is extremely complex and consists of a number of stages. To stop frivolous applications one has first to apply for permission to apply. It is time-consuming and costly and, as far as I am aware, there is no entitlement to legal aid for those seeking leave to appeal to a judicial review.
      It is not a realistic option for a consumer who is not satisfied with the director general's decision. A dissatisfied consumer or a company such as BT should not have to resort to judicial review. It is nonsense. The legislation should stipulate that the director general should give reasons for his decisions in resolving disputes. The Minister must concede that this is a basic matter of a consumer rights.
      Mr. Redwood: As the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) says, I undertook in Committee to provide more information if the Council on Tribunals came to a stronger view on dispute resolution by the regulators. The council has done so because it has concluded that it should seek supervision over adjudication functions of the regulators. The implications of that are that the council would wish to oversee the setting up and operation of procedures which might involve oral hearings of a tribunal type. The council is not looking at the complaints procedures of any of the utilities, as the Opposition previously implied. Under the tribunals legislation, it would not provide relief in a particular case. It is concerned with procedures.
      In the light of the council's view, the Government are now considering how best to proceed. Departments are considering their position with their regulators, because each one raises somewhat different issues. They will liaise with the council and decide on each of the regulators. I shall look at telecommunications with an open mind and in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
      If Departments reach agreement with the council which necessitates formal supervision to be stated, that will be done by the Lord Chancellor's Department as an order under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the promise that we are reviewing the matter in the light of the council's statement. He might agree that the route that we suggest is a better legal route than an amendment. I cannot say that our legal

      1175
      advice is the same. The views that I expressed in Committee obviously depended on legal advice to the Government, and our view is still that these matters could be subject to judicial review in the way that I then described.
      Mr. Hain: I thank the Minister for his sympathetic response. However, I think that the advice that I have been given is stronger than the Minister's response and I do not wish to withdraw the clause.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 21

      COMPETITIVE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
      `After subsection (2) of Section 20 of the Gas Act 1986 there shall be inserted—
      "(2A) The Director shall not allow such shorter period if in his opinion—
      (1) The construction of this pipeline constitutes an anti-competitive practice or an abuse of a dominant position in the market.
      (2) The public gas supplier has prior to giving notice under subsection (1) above made application to a local planning authority for planning permission for that pipeline and that application will inhibit potential competitors of this supplier from executing any works for the construction of a pipeline to serve a similar market.
      (3) The intention of the public gas supplier in giving notice under subsection (I) above is to inhibit potential competitors of the supplier from executing any works for the construction of a pipeline to serve a similar market.
      (4) The investment in the pipeline is inconsistent with the public gas supplier's duty under section 9(1)(a) above.".'.—[Mr. Tim Smith.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      8 pm
      Mr. Tim Smith: The term "level playing field" is much used, but it best describes what my new clause seeks to achieve. Until quite recently, British Gas was the monopoly constructor of pipelines. There are now other companies that wish to compete with British Gas in constructing pipelines and they are finding planning and other difficulties in their way. The object of the new clause is to give additional powers to the Director General of Gas Supply so that he can deal with the problem.
      I do not want to delay the House by going into great detail. This is a technical matter, but the principle is simple enough. I am glad to say that the principle has the support of the Director General of Gas Supply, who I was glad to see was knighted in the new year's honours. I believe that he does an excellent job in combating the monopoly which is British Gas. He has written to my hon. Friend the Minister to say that he supports the principle behind the new clause.
      Timing is important. The director general explains in his letter:
      "There has been no competitive pipeline construction in the gas supply area for many years. There are ten new power stations on the planning path at this time … as a consequence pipelines will be required to carry the gas to the sites."
      That means that timing is critical. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister may be waiting for agreement within
      1176
      the European Community on two important directives that will impact upon these matters. My plea to him is that the matter is more urgent than that, for the reasons that I have given. I hope, therefore, that he will give serious consideration to the principle behind my proposal.
      Mr. Morgan: We were rather worried that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) would not move the new clause, and we are pleased that he did. It raises some interesting considerations about the way that the Government, with the support of the Director General of Gas Supply, see the evolution of a competitive gas market. As we said in Committee, a competitive gas market could take two different forms. There could be one set of pipelines with different suppliers pushing gas through them. There could be two sets of pipelines. There could be two sets of long-distance tranmission lines and only one local distribution network. As the Minister agreed in Committee, there is a possibility under the Government's proposals that there could be two sets of local distribution pipes as well as two sets of long distance transmission pipes from the gas fields or the beachheads in East Anglia, Morecambe bay, north Wales or wherever.
      I shall explain why the Opposition cannot support the new clause, even though we think that it contains some interesting ideas. We think that the ability to break ground, as it were, for long distance transmission and transmission pipes requires much more consultation with local authorities, which will have to give planning permission. We entirely agree, however, that it should not be possible for British Gas to abuse its monopoly position. That may or may not be covered adequately by article 85—I think that that is the relevant article—of the treaty of Rome. I believe that that provision deals with dominant position. We are not completely happy that enough work has yet been done with the local authorities.
      We do not know what the reaction of the general public will be to the idea of two or possibly more companies having the right to break streets. We said in Committee that it has occurred only once in the context of the British gas industry, and that was in Edinburgh before the first world war. We think that residents would not be comforted if two entirely separate gas networks were to evolve.
      There are some possible health and safety implications that we have not yet sufficiently explored. Gas is an extremely combustible commodity. If a public-spirited citizen is taking his dog for a walk and he smells gas, or thinks he does—it is often a badly cleaned sewer, and in both instances there is methane—and decides to telephone the gas supplier, he will look for "G" in the telephone book and make a call. To be fair, there is usually a response within 20 minutes and something is done. If there are two or three sets of gas suppliers or networkers, can we be sure how we would organise emergency services?
      Mr. Tim Smith: I might he able to reassure the hon. Gentleman. As far as I am aware, the companies that are interested in competing in British Gas are not interested in competing to supply gas to domestic consumers by digging up the streets and having two or three lines running underneath the pavement. They are more interested in supplying the industrial market over long distances.
      Mr. Morgan: Unfortunately, the implications of opening two ownerships of long-distance transmission gas pipelines and of owning, local distribution networks is that

      1177
      two gas companies will run lines down the middle of the street and compete for supply. That which happened in Edinburgh before the first world war was not excluded by the Minister in Committee, and I assume that he will not exclude it when he replies on behalf of the Government, unless he has had a change of heart. Therefore, there is the possibility of two separate street-breaking rights for local distribution gas suppliers. That is possible given the way that the Government envisage the long-term development of transmission. If the Minister wants to say that that is completely off, that it is out of court and that he has changed his mind since Committee, fair enough. If that is the position, we shall listen. We need to know, however, exactly how the health and safety requirements would be implemented, bearing in mind that gas is such a highly combustible and explosive commodity.
      We do not think that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has considered sufficiently how the emergency services would work if there were actual or suspected gas leaks or distribution leaks. The public respond extremely well if there is a whiff of gas, and we must ensure that they would be able to respond in the same way if there were two or more suppliers. We do not know what the reaction of local authorities and the general public would be if two or three additional gas suppliers had the right to break streets to provide a supply or repair a supply. Local authorities would have to be consulted before we could be sure of their reaction. We cannot give our support to the new clause at present.
      Mr. Redwood: The Government are sympathetic to the concerns that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) about inequalities in the laying of gas pipelines. We remain firmly committed to the introduction of the level playing field that he is seeking. We need to take account of existing European Community legislation on the environment and the revised Seveso directive, when it is adopted.
      My hon. Friend's new clause contains provisions on anti-competitive or predatory behaviour. That can already be tackled by the Director General of Fair Trading under existing competition legislation. Anyone with evidence of such behaviour should make a complaint to the DGFT. I encourage those who think that such practices may be taking place to do just that. I am not convinced that the Director General of Gas Supply requires new powers in this area in addition to the powers that already lie with the Director General of Fair Trading.
      In the longer term, the best way forward is to ensure that a fully competitive market exists in the supply of gas. This objective is being actively pursued. I do not find myself in agreement with the defence of monopoly that comes from the Opposition Benches. The Bill introduces new powers to end the monopoly of British Gas, and it is welcome for that. We recognise that the new clause takes up a genuine concern. The Government are therefore considering what legislative changes—especially planning changes—may be needed to create a level playing field to ensure that competition develops in the construction of gas pipelines. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's new clause. I do not think that it is in the right form, and I think that he might agree with me.
      Mr. Tim Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I understand that he recognises the difficulty and that he is prepared to consider it further. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
      Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 3, line 14, after 'performance', insert
      'including household penetration services for the disabled, and the balance of regional infrastructure development.'.—[Mr. Morgan.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 145.

      Division No. 40]

      [8.09 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Lewis, Terry

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Livsey, Richard

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Meale, Alan

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Carr, Michael

      Nellist, Dave

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cox, Tom

      Reid, Dr John

      Cryer, Bob

      Skinner, Dennis

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

      Spearing, Nigel

      Dixon, Don

      Stephen, Nicol

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Vaz, Keith

      Fisher, Mark

      Wallace, James

      Foster, Derek

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      George, Bruce

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Gordon, Mildred

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hain, Peter

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Henderson, Doug

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      NOES

      Baldry, Tony

      Dover, Den

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dunn, Bob

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bottomley, Peter

      Eggar, Tim

      Bowis, John

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fallon, Michael

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

      Farr, Sir John

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Burns, Simon

      Forth, Eric

      Burt, Alistair

      Freeman, Roger

      Butterfill, John

      French, Douglas

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Gale, Roger

      Carttiss, Michael

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gregory, Conal

      Chope, Christopher

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Grist, Ian

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Ground, Patrick

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Hague, William

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Conway, Derek

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Harris, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Couchman, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cran, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      1179

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Paice, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Patnick, Irvine

      Irvine, Michael

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Jackson, Robert

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Janman, Tim

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Kilfedder, James

      Rathbone, Tim

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Redwood, John

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rowe, Andrew

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sims, Roger

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lightbown, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Speller, Tony

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stern, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Stevens, Lewis

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Sumberg, David

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mans, Keith

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Marlow, Tony

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Tredinnick, David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

      Waller, Gary

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Ward, John

      Mills, Iain

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Moate, Roger

      Watts, John

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Norris, Steve

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Mr. Tom Sackville and

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Mr. Tim Boswell.

      Page, Richard

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 6

      BILLING DISPUTES
      Mr. Redwood: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 7, line 35, after 'sheriff', insert—
      '( ) Except in such circumstances (if any) as may be prescribed by regulations under this section—

      (a) the Director or an arbitrator (or in Scotland an arbiter) appointed by him shall not determine any billing dispute which is the subject of proceedings before, or with respect to which judgment has been given by, any court; and

      (b)neither party to any billing dispute which has been referred to the Director for determination in accordance with regulations under this section shall commence proceedings before any court in respect of that dispute pending its determination in accordance with the regulations.

      ( ) No designated operator may commence proceedings before any court in respect of any charge in connection with the provision by him of any relevant service unless, not less than 28 days before doing so, the customer concerned was informed by him, in such form and manner as may be prescribed by regulations under this section, of—

      (a) his intention to commence proceedings;

      (b) the customer's rights by virtue of this section; and

      (c) such other matters (if any) as may be so prescribed.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 13, 14, 53 and 22.
      Mr. Redwood: The amendments put it beyond doubt that resolution of a billing dispute by the director general should be available instead of, and not as well as, going to the county court. The amendments aim to prevent simultaneous actions going on in the two arenas, with the confusion that that would cause. In addition, the amendments would forestall the possibility that a utility might start debt proceedings in court against a customer who had disputed the bill and had referred that dispute to the director general. If the utility wants to take a customer to court it must give 28 days' notice and tell the customer of his right to go to the director general instead. Amendment No. 53 is clarificatory.
      Mr. Morgan: May I ask for further clarification of exactly how the Minister envisages that the arrangement would work? I am concerned about how practical a measure it is in real life. I am worried that it would invite the public utilities in the first place to initiate debt proceedings, to issue the warning specified in the four clauses that we are offered as amendments affecting the regulatory set-up for the four utilities.
      The utilities would say, along with the warning, "Instead of the debt proceedings continuing, you can have the matter referred to the director general—not as a complaint but for arbitration." Most people would then decide that they would have a better chance with the director general than with the county court because he sounds less threatening, and they would go to the director general, as provided under the new powers.
      The Minister is trying to present this as a two-sided dispute, involving, as well as billing disputes in which the public utility is the injured party, or believes it is—because of late payment, non-payment, a bouncing cheque or whatever—billing disputes in which the aggrieved party is the customer. In common, I am sure, with other Members on both sides of the House, I get complaints about, for example, the withdrawal of the four meter readings per year. Such billing disputes always produce deep suspicions when bills are estimated only three times a year. Some electricity companies read meters even less often than that, and people tend to believe that whether the bills are overestimated or underestimated, the companies are cheating them. That may or may not be so, but it leads to suspicions.
      In some billing disputes, the aggrieved party is the customer rather than the utility, and if this is to be an even-handed, 50:50, "citizens charter" style improvement in consumers' rights vis-a-vis monopoly utilities, the legislation should be drafted so that, if public utilities reduce the number of meter readings from four to three per year—or from eight to five over a two-year period, as some are now doing—the customer should be able to say. "I will initiate a form of protest or complaint against you."
      The only way in which the measure before us can work is when companies say, "We wish to recover a debt from you, but, short of a county court procedure—threat, threat; nudge, nudge; wink, wink—if you like we shall not contest the bill but will refer it to the director general for arbitration." In the letter, that will seem an attractive proposition. They will say, "We could take you to the county court for debt, but one way out of this for you is

      1181
      to refer the matter to the director general, or an arbitrator appointed by him, not for a complaint but for final arbitration.
      The threat of the county court frightens the life out of most people, especially elderly people, and it would still be there. There would simply be one alternative: "If you do not want to go to the county court, you can have a final arbitration by the director general." How much of a satisfactory additional right would that be for the average customer, if it becomes an excuse for the 20 odd utilities in the regulated monopoly sectors to litter the country with threats of county court action? There will be nothing to stop them, and they will be able to provide the little let-out that people may wish to obtain a final resolution through the director general or his arbitrator. I am not sure whether that is fair for consumers.
      Mr. Redwood: The form of the amendments is clear and clarifies the position so that the issue will be resolved either by the court or by the director general. It is important that there should be an either-or choice. The customer gets the advantage, as the hon. Gentleman said in his disquisition, of being warned, with 28 days' notice of the intention to open court proceedings, and he will have the opportunity to enjoy his rights under the Bill. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed that. Surely the Labour party agrees that we do not want parallel actions going on, with the chance that each might come to a different decision, with the extra costs, delay and hazards that that would involve. There should be an either-or choice. The clauses must be balanced, and the amendments achieve just that. I commend them to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 17

      BILLING DISPUTES
      Amendment made: No. 13, in line 34, at end insert—
      '( ) Except in such circumstances (if any) as may be prescribed—

      (a) the Director or an arbitrator (or in Scotland an arbiter) appointed by him shall not determine any billing dispute which is the subject of proceedings before, or with respect to which judgment has been given by, any court; and

      (b) neither party to any billing dispute which has been referred to the Director for determination in accordance with regulations under this section shall commence proceedings before any court in respect of that dispute pending its determination in accordance with the regulations.

      ( ) No public gas supplies may commence proceedings before any court in respect of any charge in connection with the provision by him of gas supply services unless, not less than 28 days before doing so, the customer concerned was informed by him, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, of—

      (a) his intention to commence proceedings;

      (b) the customer's rights by virtue of this section; and

      (c) such other matters (if any) as may be so prescribed.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 21

      BILLING DISPUTES
      Amendment made: No. 14, in Page 19, line 37, at end insert—
      '( ) Except in such circumstances (if any) as may be prescribed—

      (a) the Director or an arbitrator (or in Scotland an arbiter) appointed by him shall not determine any billing dispute which is the subject of proceedings before, or with respect to which judgment has been given by, any court; and

      (b) neither party to any billing dispute which has been referred to the Director for determination in accordance with regulations under this section shall commence proceedings before any court in respect of that dispute pending its determination in accordance with the regulations.

      ( ) No public electricity supplier may commence proceedings before any court in respect of any charge in connection with the provision by him of electricity supply services unless, not less than 28 days before doing so, the tariff customer concerned was informed by him, in such form and manner as may he prescribed, of—

      (a) his intention to commence proceedings;

      (b) the customer's rights by virtue of this section; and

      (c)such other matters (if any) as may be prescribed.'.—(Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 24

      INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO LEVELS OF PERFORMANCE
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in line 6, at end insert—
      `(6) In arranging for the publication of an information under subsection (4) above, the Director shall have regard to the need to include, so far as practicable, any matter which relates to—

      (a) the health or physical well-being of consumers of water supplied by the undertaker concerned; and

      (b) (in consultation with the NRA) the well-being of the environment, flora or fauna, or any amenity.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 25, line 16, at end insert—
      '(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, each water undertaker shall include on each annual bill issued to customers a statement of whether drinking water supplied by the undertaker to the customer concerned has on every day during the previous twelve months fulfilled quality standards presented by or on behalf of the European Community and in force on the day concerned.
      (3) Where on any day to which subsection (2) above is applicable such quality standards as are therin referred to have not been fulfilled, the undertaker shall include in the statement made under that subsection details of—

      (a) the dates on which the standards were not fulfilled;

      (b) the substances and amounts of such substances in respect of which the standards were not fulfilled;

      (c) the principal health effects of the substances referred to in paragraph (b) above;

      (d) the reasons which in the view of the undertaker caused the failure to fulfil standards; and

      (e) the steps which it proposes to take to improve drinking water quality in the area concerned'.

      No. 8, in clause 27, line 40, after 'performance', insert `(including the quality of river and other inland waterways and beach water into which sewerage treatment plants discharge)'.
      No. 9, in line 22 at beginning insert—
      '(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, where on any day to which subsection (2) above is applicable such quality standards as are therein referred to have not been fulfilled, the undertaker shall include in the statement made under that subsection details of—

      (a) the dates on which the standards were not fulfilled;

      1183

      (b) the full details in respect of which the standards were not fulfilled;

      (c) the possible health effects of the failure to meet these standards referred to in paragraph (b) above;

      (d) the reasons which in the view of the undertaker caused the failure to fulfil standards; and

      (e) the steps which it proposes to take to improve sewerage services in the area concerned'.

      No. 10, in line 35 at end insert—
      ' "(6) In arranging for the publication of any information under subsection (4) above, the Director shall have regard to the need to include, so far as practicable, any matter which relates to—

      (a) (in consultation with the NRA) the health or physical well-being of people, and especially children, served by the undertaker concerned and

      (b) (in consultation with the NRA) the well-being of the environment, flora or fauna, or any amenity.".'.

      No. 11, in clause 28 line 45 at end insert—
      `( 1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection ( I) above each sewerage services undertaker shall include on each annual bill issued to customers a statement of whether these services supplied by the undertaker to the customer concerned has on each occasion tests have been carried out during the previous twelve months fulfilled quality standards prescribed by or on behalf of the European Community and in force on the day concerned.'.
      Mr. Griffiths: The purpose of the amendments is to bring home to the public the issues relating to the quality of the tap water that they drink, the water at the bathing beaches on which they may seek to enjoy themselves and of the rivers and waterways of England and Wales.
      We want two types of information to be available. We have touched on one element in earlier debates—that is, the publication of general information by the director general on the quality of tap water and the quality of bathing beach water, in as much as that relates to the way in which the water companies and sewerage undertakings provide a service to deal with sewage. That service must ensure a high quality standard in the waters around our shores.
      First I shall deal with tap water quality and the European Community directive. I have already mentioned lead pollution, and I shall not go into much detail on it now. Almost a quarter of our water zones have pollution levels that exceed the 50 micrograms per litre permitted under the EC directive. We know that lead in water definitely damages our health, and a large part of the country is affected by that type of pollution. More than 2 million people are at risk.
      There may also be problems concerning aluminium, which is sometimes naturally present in our water and is sometimes added by the the water companies to help make the water clear. Again, about 2 million people are affected. They drink water which sampling procedures show to be above the EC permitted level of 200 micrograms per litre. Just over 10 per cent. of water zones do not meet the level set in the European Community directive.
      8.30 pm
      We all know that not long ago the Medical Research Council studied 80 districts in England and Wales and found that the risk of Alzheimer's disease was one and a half times higher where the mean aluminium concentrate exceeded 110 micrograms per litre, than in areas where it was 10 micrograms per litre. That level of 110 microgrames is well below the permitted EC level. Yet there is strong evidence of a link between aluminium and
      1184
      Alzheimer's disease. I am pleased that some water companies have stopped using aluminium to help keep the water clear.
      Several other damaging chemicals and substances are present in water in the United Kingdom. Almost 2 million people drink water which has nitrate levels above those permitted by the EC. Almost a third of water zones in England and Wales exceed the permitted levels. Some 298 water sources exceed the maximum admitted concentrations of pesticides. That probably affects more than 1 million people. Friends of the Earth took Thames Water to the European Court over pesticide pollution. I am pleased to say that the court case has been withdrawn and Thames Water and the other water companies have agreed to install treatment plants to prevent pesticide concentrations in our water.
      Another issue of serious concern is groundwater pollution. Some 30 per cent. of our water supply comes from aquifers, wells and the like. Yet 10 per cent. of the supply has concentrations of cancer-causing solvents higher than the limits recommended by the World Health Organisation. The National Environment Research Council has expressed fears about the contamination of our groundwater. Doctor Stephen Foster is head of the NERC British geological survey hydrogeology research group. He said in a press notice:
      "Groundwater is under threat from an ever increasing number of soluble chemicals from urban and industrial activities and modern agricultural practices … Groundwater pollution takes place stealthily, almost imperceptibly and the slow movement of water from the land surface to deep aquifers means that it will take many years after a persistent chemical has entered the ground before it affects the quality of groundwater supplies. By the time the danger is realised large amounts of pollutants arc already present…we can no longer take high quality groundwater for granted."
      I am pleased to say that the NERC is looking into the problem, but we already know that it is a growing problem.
      The EC allows 800 grams per litre of trihalomethanes to be present in the water. Yet Germany has adopted an even lower limit of only 20 grammes per litre. The United States has a permitted level similar to that of the EC, but proposals have been made to reduce it, because research there has indicated a highly significant relationship between chloroform and cancers, particularly of the bladder, colon and rectum. So moves are afoot to deal with that problem.
      I have already referred to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In Britain 4 per cent. of our water zones have concentrations above the permitted maximum. We have other problems such as cryptosporidium, of which there have been serious outbreaks in Oxford, Swindon, Hull and Scotland. The ones in the Oxford and Swindon areas lasted for three weeks in 1989. People suffered severe vomiting and diarrhoea. It is an ever-present problem. Unfortunately, it has become more of a problem simply as a result of cost-cutting methods of filtering water. That is an issue of which consumers need to be aware.
      It is amazing that the Government have allowed relaxations of the permitted amounts of pollutants which present health dangers in excessive amounts in our water. Unfortunately, the EC has agreed to the relaxations. Thames Water is protected from prosecution on cryptosporidium pollution. North West Water, Severn Trent Water, Northumbria Water, Yorkshire Water and Welsh Water are all permitted to exceed lead levels. In the

      1185
      north-west, there is as yet no date set for ending the relaxations. South West Water is permitted to exceed trihalomethane levels. Many water companies are allowed relaxations on faecal bacteria. Many companies have relaxations for aluminium. There are relaxations on the nitrate and pesticide levels for Anglian Water and Severn Trent.
      So here we have the Government conniving to allow pollutants in our water at levels above those which are publicly acknowledged to pose a danger to health. That is why we believe not only that it is the responsibility of the director general to publish information on tap water but that such information should appear on water consumers' bills.
      Last year, Which? magazine did a survey of the water companies and asked some of its members to write around to the water companies for information about the quality of their water. It found that 21 of the 44 water company responses did not supply information on the maximum levels of substances allowed in water; 17 of them gave no data which allowed comparisons to be made; nine of them gave data based on only three months information or less; 10 of the respondents gave the information in different ways to different customers who made the inquiry.
      So there is no doubt that a great deal still needs to be done, despite what the Secretary of State said yesterday when he lauded the quality of British water as the best in Europe. I would not want to question that assertion, but what I am very concerned about is that, while making the assertion, the Government nevertheless allow pollutants in our water which are a danger to public health.
      Let us take Wales as an example for some of the pollutants that I have already mentioned. As regards lead, samples have been taken in the county of Gwent, in the Brecknock district of Powys, in the Dynevor district of Dyfed, in Cardiff, in the Rhymney Valley district of Mid-Glamorgan, and in a whole swathe of territory from the north of Carmarthen bay across to Wrexham, where the lead levels are in excess of the EC maximum.
      Trihalomethanes are also present in parts of Wales, and aluminium above recommended levels is to be found across the whole of Wales. I said earlier that I would refer in a little more detail to information supplied to me by Welsh Water on lead levels in south-east Wales. My inquiry of them showed that, in the city of Cardiff, for example, in Cardiff, North-West, 20 per cent. of the random samples taken exceeded permitted levels; in the Llanishen area 10 per cent.; in the Caerau/Fairwater area 25 per cent.; Cardiff-Docklands 25 per cent.; Cardiff, East 20 per cent.; Cardiff-Llandaff/Whitchurch 10 per cent.; Cardiff-Canton/Riverside 20 per cent.; and outside Cardiff, in the large town of Barry, in the Romilly Park-Wenvoe-Colcot areas, 15 per cent. Yet Welsh Water could not tell me exactly which houses were affected. That is why I believe it to be right that the water companies provide this information at least once a year on bills to consumers.
      Welsh Water boasted about the availability of information to the public on the quality of their water. They said in a press release issued a few months ago:
      "A register can be viewed during normal working hours at the company's offices at Aberaeron, Bangor, Brecon, Haverfordwest (Withybush), Hereford, Mold, Nelson, and Swansea (Kingsway)."
      The citizens of Cardiff, where, as already shown, there is a serious lead problem, do not have access. The nearest
      1186
      office is an hour or more away on public transport, in Nelson. In Committee, I explained that my nearest office would be Swansea, a city that I might visit two or three times a year and then generally not in office hours.
      So although, as the Minister will tell us, the information is available and different organisations publish it, it is not accessible to the customer. I should have thought that, under the impetus of the citizens charter, the Government would be keen to have this information available to consumers.
      8.45 pm
      Turning briefly to the water quality arising out of the provision of sewerage services, it is somewhat ironic that the Government have chosen to blow the trumpet of the effectiveness of privatisation in speeding up the improvement in the quality of these services by denigrating their own record in the priority that they gave these services in the 12 years that they were in power before privatisation; but that is the fact. Unfortunately, in all respects, privatisation has not pulled off the trick, because we find that, only at the end of last year, when the National Rivers Authority's report on river quality appeared, the quality of our river water over the preceding five years had gone down; 15 per cent. of the rivers and inland waterways had been downgraded and 11 per cent. upgraded, leaving us with a 4 per cent. deterioration. In Wales, there was a 17 per cent. deterioration.
      In 1989–90, there were almost 27,000 pollution incidents, of which over 3,000 were serious, but it is interesting to note that there were only 309 successful prosecutions and that often these prosecutions resulted in fines which can only be described as minimal. In the Welsh Water area, for example, there were 17 prosecutions which resulted in fines amounting to £19,000, when the companies being fined had pre-tax profits of over £100 million.
      A Friends of the Earth survey of the quality of Welsh beaches showed that 20 or 30 popular Welsh beaches contravened the EC's freshwater fisheries directive, and 10 of the 30 broke the EC's dangerous substances directive, mainly because of the cadmium levels present in the inland waterways.
      On sewage treatment works, while it is true that the position has improved, there have nevertheless been many instances—hundreds—where the sewage treatment works have failed to meet even the relaxed standards allowed when the Government privatised the industry.
      There are here important public health issues. To their credit, the Government continue to sponsor research into the public health effects of the pollution of our popular bathing beaches. There was the Blackpool study carried out by Lancaster university, which showed clearly that children were three times more likely to suffer from vomiting and five and a half times more likely to contract diarrhoea if they went in the water than if they remained on the beach. A study in Ramsgate showed a small increase in the reporting of gastrointestinal and diarrhoeal symptoms in bathers compared with non-bathers, at a beach which did not meet EC standards, whereas at Langland bay in Swansea, a beach which did meet the standards, no increase in gastrointestinal and diarrhoeal symptoms were reported.
      The Government are therefore continuing the research. and I am pleased about that, but customers have the right to know whether the beaches in their area meet these

      1187
      standards. Again, I should have thought that the Government would want that information to be publicly available to the water companies' customers.
      The Minister said earlier and in Committee that we were expecting too much of the director general. As other bodies, such as the National Rivers Authority, made it their business to report on river and beach water quality, and the drinking water inspectorate reports on tap water standards, he said that there was no need for that information to be brought together and provided to customers.
      I am pleased to be able to say that the Water Services Association does not believe in that philosophy. In my post this morning—and I expect in the post of most hon. Members—was a fat book on all aspects of water quality—tap water, river water and beach water. If it can produce that, why cannot the director be given the duty of ensuring that customers have direct access to such information and do not have to travel up to 70 miles, as is the case for some customers in Wales, if they want to get to one of the offices where Welsh Water's information on water quality is available.
      I hope that the Government, in the name of the citizens charter, are prepared to accept that customers have the right to know what is in the water that they drink and what is in the waters of our rivers, inland waterways and beaches, which may harm public health. I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendments.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall speak briefly in support of amendment No. 6 and the others in the group. It is consistent with the policy behind the Bill that the public should be better informed after this legislation has been passed about services previously provided by either public or quasi-public utilities, as well as about other services.
      As hon. Members who have been following the Bill will know, part I provides that information should be made available about water supply and levels of performance. That is right. People want to know about profitability, investment and the rest. However, one of the best tests of performance is quality.
      Yesterday, the Secretary of State made it clear that, if we are to achieve good water quality, bills will have to increase by 50 per cent. in a relatively short time. That is a significant increase, but water is not a cheap service and I am not saying that it should be. I am one of those people who accept that, to get the investment needed if the water industry is to produce the best quality water, additional capital will have to come in and the public will have to pay for that service.
      People naively think that the water industry is simple, but it is not. There is a lot of work between the heavens and the tap to ensure that people have no cause for complaint.
      I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be sympathetic to the idea that the information is exactly the sort that could be well used and well distributed. The amendment seems to be straightforward, especially when judged by the tests already established.
      The European Community has established standards, and it is a collective sadness that we in Britain do not achieve them. Targets on drinking water quality were set for us to meet by 1985; we have failed to comply with them. As regards drinking water quality, we are the most
      1188
      persistent offender in matters pursued by the European Commission and taken through the legislative process. There is still a long way to go.
      A few weeks ago, I and my colleagues produced a report. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary saw it. It was called, "The Water We Drink." Based on the only figures produced by the inspectorate last year, by doing a simple mathematical multiplication, taking each water zone and the levels of excess chemicals or materials in the water in it—for example, lead or nitrates—we worked out the number of people who were potentially affected in all those zones by pollution in water. It amounted to more than 10 million users.
      One cannot say that those figures were accurate in detail. They cannot be. One would have to study each zone. The water companies have to record where there is a breach on a certain component of the water in a zone. Therefore, one can only establish how many zones there are in a water authority area, how many people live in each zone and thus how many people are potentially affected.
      The water industry was resistant to and critical of that form of calculation. No doubt I shall discuss that with the industry at my next meeting and I am happy to do so. None the less it is a valid argument that, judging from the drinking water inspectorate's evidence and report, and from the water industry's own methodology, many people in this country are at risk because they are drinking water which, when tested, shows a higher incidence of harmful components than is allowed in legislation agreed by us in the European Community.
      The water authorities' methodology for testing water can be disputed. Some of us believe that they do not test sufficiently comprehensively to ensure that quality characteristics are adequately presented. We can debate that in the context of the water industry, but the simple proposition in the amendment is that, when one bills customers, one should tell them how good the quality of their water is.
      There is no doubt that the quality of air and water is increasingly of concern to the public throughout the country. That is a characteristic of an advanced society. We expect better quality air and water now than we did 30, 50 or 100 years ago. We have the technology to quantify and judge quality and we are able to tell the customer. If we believe in open government and in the citizens charter, we must accept that citizens need information. Citizens should be the arbiters of the performance of public services, whether in public or private hands, and of the monopoly suppliers. Often water can be supplied only by a monopoly supplier, even though in the private sector.
      I support the amendments in the group. Such information should be included on bills. Although the usual formula will probably be used and the Under-Secretary will probably say that there is some technical flaw in drafting the amendment so that he cannot accept the amendment tonight, I hope that he will accept the principle behind it, and that before the Bill goes on to the statute book, we can ensure that the public can find out what is going on—from information put through their letter boxes, rather than having to go to the library or to the offices of the water companies.
      Recently an interesting experiment was carried out when some journalists went with the drinking water inspectorate to Severn-Trent water authority to find out what processes were carried out. One is allowed to go and demand certain information and look up the records.I

      1189
      think that I am right in saying that they found—irrespective of the water quality result—that the public are not availing themselves of the right to go and look for the information. That is not surprising when the place where one might have to go may be miles from where one lives.
      I send my water account from south London to Swindon because that is where the Thames Water billing office happens to be. I have never inquired whether I would have to go to Swindon to discover facts and figures about the quality of Thames water. If so, I would rarely make that journey, unless I could get off at that station on my way to somewhere else. It would be much simpler for the public to be given the information through their letter boxes by the supplier than for them to go hunting for it. I hope that the Minister will be positive and that we can make this progressive, though modest, Bill better as a result.
      Mr. Baldry: We had a fair concession this evening from the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). We will have to look with care at its exact formulation in Hansard, but I think that I heard him agree that we in Britain probably have the best quality water in Europe. I think that that is what I heard him say, but I shall wish to check it in Hansard tomorrow. If he did say so, that would be an honourable statement on his part. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was wrong in asserting that Britain is among the worst offenders within the European Community. It is among the top four countries in compliance with European Community directives.
      9 pm
      Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Bridgend spoiled a fair concession by repeating the litany of disaster that we heard in Committee. He managed to condense it today into 27 minutes; I think that it took an hour and a half in Committee, when he went through everything, including blue-green algae, which he did not mention today.
      If hon. Members keep talking down the industry, it causes people to be apprehensive about drinking tap water which has to go through 57 tests, and causes them to drink more mineral water which they have to buy in supermarkets. The irony is that that product has to go through fewer tests.
      I hope that we can all agree that the drinking water inspectorate undertakes a rigorous number of tests. In 1990, there were 3·3 million tests, 99 per cent. of which were within the legal standards.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has touched on two points which perhaps he can amplify. First, does he accept that the drinking water inspectorate is insufficiently staffed to do its job properly? I think that it has 19 staff who go once a year to each water authority. Secondly, the Minister made the valid point that there is far less regulation of the mineral water industry than of tap water. Does he accept that the Government should consider that, and that the customer is entitled to the same control of bottled water, which is often grandiosely described, as of tap water, as was amply demonstrated by a recent television programme?
      Mr. Baldry: On the first point, the drinking water inspectorate carried out 33 million tests during 1990.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: We need clarification on that point. It is not the inspectorate which carries out the tests, but the water companies themselves. A very small number of those tests are checked by the inspectorate.
      Mr. Baldry: Of the 3·3 million tests carried out on drinking water during 1990, 99 per cent. were within the legal standards. The drinking water inspectorate undertakes an exercise which ensures that those tests are carried out properly and fully. A total of 3·3 million tests seems to be a substantial number. Of course, the drinking water inspectorate is a good regulatory authority which we have introduced, just as we established the National Rivers Authority and the Director General of Water Services.
      The inspectorate is adequately staffed to carry out its functions. Its first year report is testimony to its ability to discharge its responsibilities. The chief inspector concluded that water supplied to consumers is of a high quality, and is often of an exceptionally high quality. I think that is evidenced by the facts.
      As to water sold in shops, consumers must draw their own conclusions. My point is that it is ironic that, by talking down the quality of our drinking water, some Opposition Members are scaring people into drinking water which may not have been tested to such rigorous standards.
      Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 show that there is misunderstanding about the involvement of the various regulators in the industry. We may have so many regulators that it is difficult for the Opposition to keep up with them in their determination that the interests of consumers and the public are protected.
      The director general does not have a direct interest in the quality of water supplied, though he obtains information on remedial action that undertakers have in place. Should he become aware of anything not already being pursued by the National Rivers Authority or the drinking water inspectorate, he would bring it to their attention. It is appropriate for the National Rivers Authority and the drinking water inspectorate to collect and publish information, as they have the overall picture. So amendments Nos. 6 and 10 would duplicate work already being done quickly and properly by other regulators.
      As for the remaining amendments, the requirement for water undertakers to provide information on water quality would increase the costs of administering the billing system, but would not make available any new information to consumers. Water undertakers are already required by the water quality regulations to maintain a record of drinking water quality, which includes details of all water quality samples taken in accordance with the regulations.
      They are also required to inform each customer at least once a year that records of water quality may be inspected by the public free of charge, giving the address, telephone number and hours of opening of at least one of the offices at which such inspection may be made. That information is provided with each customer's water bill. So it would be burdensome to require sewerage undertakers to provide information on sewage discharges. Likewise, the National Rivers Authority is responsible for setting standards on discharges from sewerage works in line with European Community standards, where appropriate, and enforcing compliance with those standards.

      1191
      Under the Act, the Government have made available to customers far more information about water quality than ever before. One of the central tenets of everything that we have done is that there should be the maximum openness, with the maximum information being made available to consumers on environmental matters. I believe that the present arrangements are sufficient to ensure that consumers are properly informed about the quality of their water and of sewage discharges. The amendments would simply add to the costs—which, in due course, would have to be reflected in bills to consumers—without giving consumers any extra information or advice.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I am disappointed with the Under-Secretary's reply, since we are asking simply for a logical conclusion to everything about which the Government are trumpeting on the availability of information. Like all hon. Members, the Minister knows that probably fewer than 1 per cent. of customers would be likely to visit water company offices to check the details for themselves. Like him, I do not have an estimate of the cost of our proposal, but I am sure that it would not be prohibitive as part of water company costs. Indeed, I believe it to be a cost that the consumer would be prepared to pay.
      Information is available because, generally speaking, the press covers pollution incidents when they occur. The Minister must accept that hardly a week goes by without a serious incident being reported. There has been evidence that water companies have tried to get away with it in the past. The Camelford incident was the most notorious in pre-privatisation days, but, even post-privatisation, companies have faced the dilemma of whether an incident is serious enough to warrant the issue of a warning to customers, and in one incident in north-west London, when the company decided belatedly to warn consumers to boil their water, there is evidence that some people suffered ill health because they drank water before the warning was issued.
      Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that putting information on customers' bills would not deal with the type of incident to which he has just referred. Whether a water company should advise consumers about an incident as it occurs may or may not require to be done immediately. But they will need advice, if at all, before the next quarterly bill is issued.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I do not dispute that. I am simply pointing out that water companies have not always been anxious that their customers should know about these things. If, once a year, there were enclosed with the bill a note giving details of water quality and of the standard of the sewerage service, it could do no harm.
      Question put and negatived.

    Clause 25

      INFORMATION TO BE GIVEN TO CUSTOMERS ABOUT OVERALL PERFORMANCE
      Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 21, line 16, at end insert—
      '(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, each water undertaker shall include on each annual bill issued to customers a statement of whether drinking water
      1192
      supplied by the undertaker to the customer concerned has on every day during the previous twelve months fulfilled quality standards presented by or on behalf of the European Community and in force on the day concerned.
      (3) Where on any day to which subsection (2) above is applicable such quality standards as are therin referred to have not been fulfilled, the undertaker shall include in the statement made under that subsection details of—

      (a) the dates on which the standards were not fulfilled;

      (b) the substances and amounts of such substances in respect of which the standards were not fulfilled;

      (c) the principal health effects of the substances referred to in paragraph (b) above;

      (d) the reasons which in the view of the undertaker caused the failure to fulfil standards; and

      (e) the steps which it proposes to take to improve drinking water quality in the area concerned'.—[Mr. Win Griffiths.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 36, Noes 138.

      Division No. 41]

      [9.10 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Lewis, Terry

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Livsey, Richard

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Carr, Michael

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Nellist, Dave

      Cox, Tom

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cryer, Bob

      Short, Clare

      Dixon, Don

      Skinner, Dennis

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Fisher, Mark

      Stephen, Nicol

      Foster, Derek

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      George, Bruce

      Vaz, Keith

      Gordon, Mildred

      Wallace, James

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hain, Peter

      Henderson, Doug

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Kennedy, Charles

      Mr. Robert Wareing.

      NOES

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Baldry, Tony

      Fallon, Michael

      Bellingham, Henry

      Farr, Sir John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Favell, Tony

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bottomley, Peter

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bowis, John

      Forth, Eric

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fox, Sir Marcus

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

      Freeman, Roger

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      French, Douglas

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Gale, Roger

      Burns, Simon

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Burt, Alistair

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Butterfill, John

      Gregory, Conal

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Ground, Patrick

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hague, William

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Harris, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Conway, Derek

      Hayes, Jerry

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Cormack, Patrick

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Couchman, James

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cran, James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

      Hunter, Andrew

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Irvine, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Jackson, Robert

      Dunn, Bob

      Janman, Tim

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kilfedder, James

      1193

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rathbone, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Redwood, John

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lightbown, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lord, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Speller, Tony

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Steen, Anthony

      Mans, Keith

      Stern, Michael

      Marlow, Tony

      Stevens, Lewis

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sumberg, David

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mills, Iain

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Waller, Gary

      Moate, Roger

      Ward, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Warren, Kenneth

      Nelson, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Norris, Steve

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wood, Timothy

      Page, Richard

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Paice, James

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Mr. Tom Sackville and

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Mr. Tim Boshell.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 31

      REFERENCE OF CERTAIN DISPUTES TO THE DIRECTOR
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 26, line 4, leave out subsection (4).
      No. 16, in page 26, line 23, leave out 'satisfied' and insert 'complied with'
      No. 17, in page 26, line 30, leave out 'satisfied' and insert 'complied with'.
      No. 18, in page 26, line 45, leave out '(3)' and insert '(4)'.
      No. 19, in page 27, line I, leave out `(3A)' and insert `(4A)'.
      No. 20, in page 27, line 4, leave out 'or'.
      No. 21, in page 27, line 6, at end insert
      'or
      (c) whether any excess is repayable, or any expenses are recoverable, by the undertaker under subsection (4) above, or the amounts of any such excess or expenses,'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 32

      BILLING DISPUTES
      Amendments made: No. 53, in page 27, line 36, at end insert—
      `by the carrying out of.
      No. 22, in page 28, line 11, at end insert—
      `( ) Except in such circumstances (if any) as may be prescribed—

      (a) the Director or an arbitrator appointed by him shall not determine any billing dispute which is the subject of proceedings before, or with respect to which judgment has been given by, any court; and

      1194

      (b) neither party to any billing dispute which has been referred to the Director for determination in accordance with regulations under this section shall commence proceedings before any court in respect of that dispute pending its determination in accordance with the regulations.

      ( ) No relevant undertaker may commence proceedings before any court in respect of any charge in connection with the supply of water for domestic purposes or (as the case may be) the provision of sewerage services other than by the carrying out of trade effluent functions unless, not less than 28 days before doing so, the customer concerned was informed by it, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, of—

      (a) its intention to commence proceedings;

      (b) the customer's rights by virtue of this section; and

      (c) such other matters (if any) as may be prescribed.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 33

      THE 25,000 THERM LIMITS
      Amendment made: No. 23, in page 28, line 38, leave out from 'substituting' to end of line 40 and insert

      (a) where the limit is for the time being expressed by reference to a number of therms—

      (i) such lower number of therms as he considers appropriate; or

      (ii) such lower limit, expressed by reference to a number of kilowatt hours, as he considers appropriate; or

      (b) where the limit is for the time being expressed by reference to a number of kilowatt hours, such lower number of kilowatt hours as he considers appropriate.'—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 35

      INSET APPOINTMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 24, in page 29, line 29 [Clause 35], leave out
      'In section 36(3) of the Water Industry Act 1991' and insert—
      '—(1) In section 7 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (continuity of appointments, replacement appointments etc.), in subsection (4), for "company; or", at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
      "company;
      (bb) the appointment or variation relates only to parts of that area and the conditions mentioned in subsection (5) below are satisfied in relation to each of the premises in those parts which are served by that company; or".
      (2) In section 7 of the Act of 1991 the following subsections shall be added at the end—
      "(5) The conditions are that—

      (a) the premises are, or are likely to be, supplied with not less than 250 megalitres of water in any period of twelve months; and

      (b) the person who is the customer in relation to the premises consents in writing to the appointment or variation.

      (6) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Director, make regulations amending subsection (5)(a) above by substituting for the quantity of water for the time being specified there such smaller quantity as he considers appropriate."
      (3) In section 8 of the Act of 1991 (procedure with respect to appointments and variations) the following subsection shall be added at the end—
      "(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations impose such additional procedural requirements as he considers appropriate for any case where the conditions mentioned in section
      7(5) above are required to be satisfied in relation to an application for an appointment or variation replacing a company as a relevant undertaker."
      (4) In section 9 of the Act of 1991 (duties affecting making of appointments and variations), in subsection (3), after "(4)(b)" insert "or (bb)".
      (5) In section 36(3) of the Act of 1991'. No. 47, in page 29, line 40, at end insert—
      '( ) In section 158 of the Act of 1991 (powers to lay pipes), the following subsections shall be added at the end—
      "(8) Subsections (9) and (10) below apply where—

      (a) an appointment or variation has been made under section 7 above replacing a company as a relevant undertaker,

      (b) the appointment or variation relates only to parts of the area to which the company's appointment as relevant undertaker related, and

      (c) the conditions mentioned in subsection (5) of that section were required to be satisfied in relation to each of the premises in those parts served by that company.

      (9) Where the company which has replaced the relevant undertaker has done so as water undertaker, in the application of this section and section 159 below in relation to that company any pipe supplying, or intended to supply, any of the premises referred to in subsection (8)(c) above with a supply of water which exceeds, or is likely to exceed, 250 megalitres of water in any period of twelve months shall, for the purposes of subsection (7) above, be deemed to be a water main.
      (10) Where the Secretary of State makes regulations under section 7(6) above amending section 7(5)(a) above he shall by regulations make the corresponding amendment in subsection (9) above.
      (11) Where the company which has replaced the relevant undertaker has done so as sewerage undertaker, in the application of this section and section 159 below in relation to that company any pipe draining, or intended to drain, any of those premises shall, for the purposes of subsection (7) above, be deemed to be a sewer.".'.—[ Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 36

      CONNECTIONS WITH WATER MAINS AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH SEWERS
      Amendments made: No. 25, in page 29, line 41, leave out from '1991' to end of line 12 on page 30 and insert—
      '(which imposes on a water undertaker a duty to make a connection with one of its water mains where the premises for which a supply of water is required are in the undertaker's area), the words "in the undertaker's area" shall cease to have effect.'.
      No. 26, in page 30, line 13, leave out from '1991', to end of line 31 and insert—
      '(which gives the owner or occupier of any premises in the area of a sewerage undertaker a right to have his drains or sewer communicate with the public sewers of that undertaker), the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
      "(1) Subject to the provisions of this section—

      (a) the owner or occupier of any premises, or

      (b) the owner of any private sewer which drains premises,
      shall be entitled to have his drains or sewer communicate with the public sewer of any sewerage undertaker and thereby to discharge foul water and surface water from those premises or that private sewer.".'.—[ Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 37

      BULK SUPPLIES OF WATER
      Amendments made: No. 27, in page 30, line 32, leave out first 'section' and insert 'sections'.
      No. 28, in page 30, line 37, leave out 'this Part' and insert
      'securing the efficient use of water resources, or the efficient supply of water,'.
      No. 31, in page 31, line 20, leave out from 'section' to 'unless' in line 21.
      No. 54, in page 31, line 24, leave out from 'desirability' to end of line 29 and insert
      'of-

      (a) facilitating effective competition within the water supply industry;

      (b) the supplier's recovering the expenses of complying with its obligations by virtue of this section and securing a reasonable return on its capital;

      (c) the supplier's being able to meet its existing obligations, and likely future obligations, to supply water without having to incur unreasonable expenditure in carrying out works;

      (d) not putting at risk the ability of the supplier to meet its existing obligations, or likely future obligations, to supply water.'.

      No. 52, in page 31, line 29, after 'capital.', insert—
      'Variation and termination of bulk supply agreements.
      40A.—(1) This section applies where, on the application of any party to a bulk supply agreement—

      (a) it appears to the Director that it is necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing the efficient use of water resources, or the efficient supply of water, to vary the agreement or to terminate it, and

      (b) the Director is satisfied that that cannot be achieved by agreement between the parties to the agreement.

      (2) The Director may by order—

      (a) vary the agreement by—

      (i) varying the period for which the supply of water is to he given; or

      (ii) varying any of the terms or conditions on which that supply is to be given; or

      (b) terminate the agreement.

      (3) Before making any order under this section the Director shall consult the NRA.
      (4) Where an order is made under this section the agreement concerned shall have effect subject to the provision made by the order or (as the case may be) shall cease to have effect.
      (5) An order under this section may require the payment of compensation by any party to the agreement to any other party.
      (6) The obligations of a water undertaker under subsection (5) above shall be enforceable under section 18 above by the Director.
      (7) In exercising his functions under this section, the Director shall have regard to the expenses incurred by the supplier in complying with its obligations under the bulk supply agreement and to the desirability of—

      (a) facilitating effective competition within the water supply industry;

      (b) the supplier's recovering the expenses of complying with its obligations by virtue of this section and securing a reasonable return on its capital;

      (c) the supplier's being able to meet its existing obligations, and likely future obligations, to supply water without having to incur unreasonable expenditure in carrying out works;

      (d) not putting at risk the ability of the supplier to meet its existing obligations, or likely future obligations, to supply water.

      (8) In this section—
      "bulk supply agreement" means an agreement between one or more water undertakers for the supply of water in bulk and includes—

      (a) an order under section 40 above which is deemed to be an agreement by virtue of subsection (4) of that section; and

      (b) any agreement which has been varied by order under this section; and

      "supplier", in relation to a bulk supply agreement, means any water undertaker which is required by the agreement to provide a bulk supply of water.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 38
      LARGE SUPPLIES OF WATER TO CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE UNDERTAKER'S AREA
      Amendment made: No. 30, in page 31, line 30, leave out Clause 38.—[Mr. Redwood.]
    Clause 39
      AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISPOSAL ETC. OF EFFLUENT FROM PREMISES OUTSIDE UNDERTAKER'S AREA
      Amendment made: No. 33, in page 32, line 32, leave out Clause 39.—[ Mr. Redwood.]
    Clause 40

      NEW CONNECTIONS WITH PUBLIC SEWERS
      Amendment made: No. 55, in page 34, line 44, leave out from 'desirability' to end of line 49 and insert—
      'of—

      (a) facilitating effective competition within the sewerage services industry;

      (b) the existing undertaker's recovering the expenses of complying with its obligations by virtue of this section and securing a reasonable return on its capital;

      (c)the existing undertaker's being able to meet its existing obligations, and likely future obligations, to provide sewerage services without having to incur unreasonable expenditure in carrying out works;

      (d) not putting at risk the ability of the existing undertaker to meet its existing obligations, or likely future obligations, to provide such services.'.—[ Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 47
      CORRESPONDING PROVISION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
      Amendment made: No. 35, in page 38, line 38, leave out 'and 12' and insert `to 13'.—[ Mr. Redwood.]
    Clause 49

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT, ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 36, in page 39, line 1, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
      No. 56, in page 39, line 9, after '34' insert
      ', 35, (The domestic supply duty), (Transitional provision with respect to replacement appointments) and 36 to'.
      No. 57, in page 39, line 10, leave out 'section' and insert
      'sections (Conditions for connections with water mains and for supplies of water) and'.
      No. 37, in page 39, line 10, after '45;', insert—
      '(cc) section 46(2) to (4);'.
      No. 38, in page 39, line 14, after '47;', insert—
      1198
      '(ab) subsections (1) to (4), this subsection and, so far as is necessary to give effect to paragraph (b), subsection (6);'.—[ Mr. Redwood.]

    Schedule 1

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 39, in page 40, line 26, at end insert—
      '. In section 4 of the Gas Act 1986 (general duties of Secretary of State and Director), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
      "(4) Subsections (1) and (2) above do not apply in relation to the determination of disputes by the Director under or by virtue of section 14A, 15A or 33A below.".'.
      No. 40, in page 40, line 27, leave out 'Gas Act' and insert 'Act of'.
      No. 41, in page 41, line 38, at end insert—
      '. In section 8 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (procedure with respect to appointments and variations)—

      (a) in subsection (2)(a) and (4)(b) "the NRA" shall be inserted after "appointee"; and

      (b) in subsection (5)(b) "the NRA and on" shall be inserted after "on".'.

      No. 42, in page 41, line 40, leave out 'Water Industry Act' and insert 'Act of.
      No. 43, in page 42, line 8, at end insert—
      '. In section 52 of the Act of 1991 (the domestic supply duty), in subsection (3)(a) for "a water main" there shall be substituted "one of the water undertaker's water mains".'.
      No. 48, in page 42, line 28, at end insert—
      '. In section 98(4) of the Act of 1991 (breach of duty of sewerage undertaker to provide public sewer) for "water" there shall be substituted "sewerage".'.
      No. 44, in page 42, line 29, leave out paragraphs 18 to 21—[ Mr Redwood]

    Schedule 2

      REPEALS
      Amendment made: No. 45, in page 43, line 20, column 3, at end insert—

      'In section 45(1), the words "in the undertaker's area",

      In section 52(2), the words "and which are situated in the area of the undertaker".'—[ Mr. Redwood.]

    Title
    Amendment made: No. 49, in line 13, after 'suppliers', insert
    `to make a minor correction in section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991;'.—[ Mr. Redwood.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Redwood.]
    9.23 pm
    Mr. Henderson: I have the impression that the House is keen to make progress quickly. I do not know whether it is wise to speak for five minutes, which might encourage others to speak, or to proceed for a little longer.
    May I make one or two quick points to sum up the Opposition's view of the Bill? The Government led the country to believe that privatisation would solve all the problems of our utilities. They led them to believe that

    1199
    with regard to telecommunications, gas, electricity and water. The country's experience in the past five or six years has—as the Government now admit—led them to different conclusions. They now realise that privatisation in itself does very little to change the level of service provision or the prices charged for those services by what are effectively monopoly utilities, and that the key test is the sensitivity of a utility to the needs and demands of the public.
    There has been growing recognition during the Bill's progress that one of the best ways to ensure that public needs and demands are represented is through a regulator. The test of whether the Bill is effective is whether it is sufficiently tough to be able to achieve what all hon. Members have agreed is essential in relation to the provision of the utility services, whether it is tough enough to give the utilities the opportunity to develop along the correct lines for the country's needs and whether the regulation is tough enough to protect the consumer.
    The Bill is an improvement on the current position, in that it covers the need to set standards of performance and to give information to consumers on the extent to which those performance standards have been met, the need to establish effective procedures for dealing with complaints, the need to examine procedures to prevent unnecessary disconnections of public utility services, the need to promote efficient use of gas and electricity and the need to guarantee water quality.
    On the down side, in Committee and on Report, the Government have shown themselves to be short on positive action and many of the clauses appear more concerned with public relations than public protection. If the Government were serious about setting standards of performance in telecommunications, they would have accepted the amendments tabled in Committee and on Report which dealt with questions of telephone penetration across the country, of the balance of resources throughout the regions and of additional facilities for disabled and aged people in the provision of those services.
    If the Government were serious about regulation, they would have accepted amendments relating to gas and electricity which link price regimes with performance in energy efficiency and amendments linking water prices to water quality.
    As the Opposition have said during debates at all stages of the Bill, we support the need for tougher regulation and for the principle behind the Bill in that regard. We shall not deny the Bill a Third Reading, but I give notice that we shall pursue the aspects of the Bill with which we are unhappy this side of the general election and promise that we shall continue to pursue them beyond that.
    9.28 pm
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I wish to ask the Minister whether he will reconsider a number of issues before the Bill goes to another place. I am a shareholder in British Telecom and in Cable and Wireless which is the owner of Mercury, and I advise the Telecommunication Managers Association, so I must declare an interest.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: How much do you get?
    Mr. Bruce: Would you like a cut?
    1200
    I welcome the Bill and the way in which it fulfils many of the promises made in the citizens charter. However, I am concerned that it should include all customers. I should have thought that business customers were included in the requirement—or pledge—in the citizens charter that,
    "where elements of monopoly remain, regulation protects the consumer."
    "The consumer" must mean the business consumer and the single line user. The inclusion of all customers would make it much easier for British Telecom to conform to all the requirements that will be placed on it by the regulator.
    It is a little strange that BT should resist that idea, because it stressed in all the documents that it sent to Committee members that it already supplies all the statistics and levels of service that it expects to have to supply under the regulations. BT claims that, in the offer-for-sale document that the Government put out when selling their shares in BT, the additional requirements extended to multi-line users would affect profitability—but that does not add up. Indeed, BT's own briefing does not suggest that.
    The very clause titles in the Bill—"Standards of performance", "Information with respect to levels of performance", "Information to be given to customers about overall performance"—show that BT cannot possibly say that it will not provide multi-line users with the same level of service as single-line users in these areas. It is foolish of BT to resist applying the same standards to everyone, because that will cost more—trying to differentiate between single and multi-line users in its statistics, for instance. I suspect that it will be a nightmare for the regulator to deal with statistical information that differentiates between single and multi-line users.
    Such differentiation will also lead to a nightmare when trying to decide how to reach the standards required. The cost of reaching those standards is nil, because it is much better for shareholders if BT provides a service for 99 per cent. of the time, since it is then receiving revenue for that time. BT has already adopted a compensation code for larger users, so we might as well ensure, under this Bill, that small and large users are dealt with in the same way.
    I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has asked BT whether all this will affect its profitability, but I believe that BT will be foolish if it continues to resist the idea of serving all its customers under the same set of regulations.
    Telecommunications is different from other forms of monopoly because under this legislation we are setting up a real free market. In such a free market, I am sure that a self-regulating body and an ombudsman will have to be appointed by the industry itself. Given that we are establishing a statutory regulator and ombudsman for only part of the industry, Mercury, the cable operator and others who have entered the field will be at a marketing disadvantage because they will be able to claim that they are subject to regulations different from those that govern BT.
    We should include all telecommunications operators in the same system. If it proves too onerous for an operator who is just starting up to reach the required market share for inclusion, perhaps such operators should be required to achieve only 5 per cent. or 10 per cent.—not 25 per cent—market share before being included.
    We want a true citizens charter for all telecommunications users. Everyone should know that the Government are regulating his telephone service and what is happening

    1201
    in the marketplace. We know that cellular operators are excluded already. They have one of the worst records of providing the service that they promise to their customers.
    If BT decided to use service retailers to sell communications in the high street, those retailers might find themselves insulated from the Act and find that BT, like them, was not covered by it.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall my mentioning that we should include data transmission services in the list of relevant services in new section 27L(a). Can they be included? Why should they be excluded?
    BT needs to see the light. Quality regulation is good for it and good for its customers and shareholders. The Government should think again before taking the Bill to another place, because I rather suspect that, if these points are not picked up before then, their Lordships will want to press the Government further on them.
    9.34 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Bill is a step in the right direction, but it is also an example of the Government trying to tidy up their act after the dogma has bolted. They rushed into a series of Bills which, it was alleged, would open monopolies to competition, but in many cases they simply changed a state monopoly to a private monopoly. The philosophy has been entirely misconceived. It is perfectly proper to say that, as a natural resource, gas is a state asset and to allow as much competition as possible in its exploitation. We have argued for greater competition in the gas industry than the Government have ever sought to provide.
    All the artificial constraints of maintaining a regulated monopoly mean that it is not in the best interests of the consumer. Greater competition would require less regulation, but that will have to wait until after the election. In the meantime it is better to have tough regulation than none at all, and the consumer must have someone who can intervene on his behalf more effectively than in the past. The best intervention is that which is facilitated by information which places the remedy in the customer's own hands.
    As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said, the Bill has missed an opportunity by not allowing the customer to know more about the quality of services. We had a debate earlier about the quality of water. Information on that could have been supplied as part of the information on the accountability of the service. An opportunity has also been lost in telecommunications; if the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) speaks in this debate, I think that he will address that. The Government are still lily-livered in that respect.
    The Government could have scored a few points and won some political friends. They lost the opportunity. The great grey army out there, the growing number of pensioners, saw the legislation as an opportunity to lower unfair standing charges. They also saw it as a chance to reduce the cost of the basic services on which they rely—the telephone, gas, electricity and water. If the Government had wanted to make the Bill an election winner, they would have seen that political advantage. They have lost that opportunity, and it will not come again this side of the election. Perhaps they will live to regret that. At best, the Bill is a marginal improvement. To suggest that it is in any way a radical new Tory revolution for the 1990s is far from the truth.
    9.37 pm
    Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) were dead right when they said that the Bill is a lost opportunity. That is certainly true in the context of telecommunications and, more specifically, in premium rate services. Six years of misery have been caused by these utilities. I have raised the matter many times and while Ministers agreed that legislation was needed, they said that there was no time for it.
    The services should not operate under the present system, which is a blight on the industry. The Government have consistently wrung their hands and said that in the past the services were awful. Parliamentary time has been made for the Bill and for amendment of the 1984 legislation. Ministers have consistently related the Bill to the citizens charter. If any part of that charter could be addressed in that context, it would have to be the part that deals with choice and redress and various other such matters.
    I have been sought redress for people damaged by the utilities, but over the years the Government have pushed my pleas to one side. Choice has not been considered in premium rate services. There are no more excuses for Ministers. By allowing the Bill to pass through the House unamended in respect of premium rate services, they are condoning everything that is being done by those who for the past six years have been offering pornographic "services".
    These so-called services will continue. They will abate only slightly as a result of the recent rules that have been introduced by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Telephone Information Services and by Oftel. Real opportunities have been missed by rejecting our suggestion that a supervisory statutory committee should be formed, rejecting the idea of choice to opt into these "services", rejecting the proposal that the worst of these "services" should be removed and by rejecting the simple principle of direct billing.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) got it right when he said yesterday that Ministers will be regarded as wearers of dirty raincoats before very long.
    Since Second Reading, I have received 150 letters on pornographic telephone "services". They have been written by organisations and individuals including the Women's Institute and the soroptomists. I shall refer to one or two constituents, and the significance of them will not be lost on the Minister. From Bury, North, I received two letters from organisations and four from individuals. Two organisations and two individuals wrote from Bury, South. From Bolton, West I received letters from two organisations and 11 individuals. Two organisations and 17 individuals wrote from Bolton, North-East. From Bath, I received one letter from an organisation and one from an individual. From Oxford, West and Abingdon it was one and four. It was three and six from Stockport. One organisation wrote from Nottingham, South. It was three and one from Wallasey and one and 12 from Congleton. I hasten to say that the organisation was a Labour party branch.
    The public recognise that there has been an opportunity to clean up what they regard as offensive and unnecessary "services". Blame for the continuation of the "services"

    1203
    will be pinned on the Minister and his colleagues. Organisations and individuals in the many Tory marginals to which I have referred will know by the end of next week exactly who is responsible and where responsibility lies. I shall ensure that their names are added to all the complaints that I have been making. As I say, they know exactly who is responsible.
    9.42 pm
    Mr. Morgan: It is always a privilege to speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box, especially towards the end of a Third Reading debate. Relative to the other opportunities that I have had to speak on such occasions, however, this is a lower grade privilege because the Bill has been extremely boring. It is one of those Bills about which it is said, "Where is the beef?" So many hon. Members, including Conservative Members, have told the Minister that the Bill is a great missed opportunity that he may, at last, have got the message. If the Bill is meant to be the beginning of a revolution in the standard of public services to embody the Prime Minister's so-called big idea of a citizens charter, it is a pretty poor start.
    The Minister must realise that the public are not that interested in boring details about procedures—for example, about whether a public utility is supposed to take a maximum of two weeks or three weeks to reply to a letter of complaint. They are interested in why they are paying such a high price for a service and why the company or companies providing it are making enormous profits when they are in a protected monopoly. It is the one-sidedness of privatisation of the monopoly public utilities that has been so apparent since the process started with British Telecom in 1985 that so deeply offends ordinary people throughout the country.
    The Government have created what could be called Frankenstein private monsters. They are not responsible to the general public. They are not bodies against which, through the regulator, members of the public feel that they can secure redress. If they dream up a bright profit-winning idea, even if it involves walking in the dirty waters of pornography as the 0898 service does, the Government are unable or unwilling to do anything about it, even over a six-year period. The Government believe that, if an idea will reduce the profits of a privatised company, it should not be carried out.
    I am afraid that the Government do not have straight in their head the idea that the public will be determined, through a different Government, to obtain proper redress for their complaints against excessive prices or dirty little ideas such as the 0898 service, which was introduced six years ago after the privatisation of British Telecom.
    This is a sad day for the final part of the Bill to be passing through the Houses of Parliament. It has been reported in the press today that gas regulation is in disarray. It involves one of the few regulators that have shown some teeth in standing up to the powers that have been conferred by the Government on privatised British Gas. That regulator, James McKinnon, was knighted on 1 January and kicked in the teeth on 15 January. The Secretary of State for Energy has allowed British Gas to appeal over the head of the regulator, to his fury, because of the difficulty in sorting out the conflict over whether freeing up the industrial market for British Gas will create
    1204
    higher prices for domestic consumers. Ofgas is furious about that, but the Secretary of State for Energy has said, "Oh, that's all right. If you have problems with Ofgas, come to me and I will sort them out." That is the atmosphere in which the Government are determined to work. In the end they will have to give way to a Government who will not work in that way.
    The Government's beer orders were intended also to create extra competition for drinkers, a better standard of service in pubs, more choice and lower prices. They are now in disarray and landlords are being evicted, there is less choice, and beer prices are higher.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said, when Alaric the Goth attacked the Roman empire in 410 AD, he found that it was a piece of cake to sack Rome because the use of lead piping had softened the brains and determination of the Roman establishment. As a result of the problems of lead piping and the other problems mentioned by my hon. Friend relating to the privatisation of the public utilities, the Tory empire will shortly fall and will be replaced by a proper representative Government of the British people.
    9.47 pm
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) spoke about British Telecom standards and service for business and other users. I am sure that those remarks will be read by British Telecom. I think that it was advice to BT, rather than to me.
    My hon. Friend wanted to know about data transmission services. Some of those will be covered by the proposals in this legislation. Data sent by residential and very small businesses will normally be sent on the usual voice line. Therefore, standards set for the voice line will apply. Dedicated data circuits and private circuits, primarily used by large businesses, remain outside the scope of the Bill. They are subject to much more competitve pressure.
    The main data service used by residential and small businesses is fax. That is already mentioned, and specific standards can be set for it. Integrated services data network—ISDN—which provides more than one channel of communication via the same line, can transmit voice and data simultaneously. It is still using a line that provides voice telephony, so standards set for the voice line will apply. I hope that that goes some way to meeting my hon. Friend's points.
    I am glad that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) thinks that our legislation is a step in the right direction. I believe that it is entirely the right direction. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) asked whether the regulatory powers are tough enough. The answer is yes, they are. The regulatory powers can and will do the job. I give the House that assurance.
    There is no shortage of measures in the legislation. The new proposals on water competition were introduced following our discussion in Committee, and they go a long way to improving competition in the water industry. There is also the response to our duopoly review, and many companies are now coming forward with sizeable investment projects and are seeking licences. When those licences are granted and the investments are made,

    1205
    competition will build up and we will see choice in the marketplace improving and the benefits of competition coming through.
    Many of the amendments tabled by the Opposition fail to recognise the duties and regulatory powers in existing legislation and in the licences. Sometimes they even fail to recognise the powers proposed in the Bill.
    I disagree with the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) that this is a lost opportunity on premium rate services—although I hear a rumour that one of the more questionable 0898 lines—the Labour party line—has been withdrawn. That may show that the new tougher regulation is biting. I shall give way if Opposition Members wish to deny that, but I believe that it has happened.
    The hon. Member for Worsley knows that many improvements have been made to the regulatory system.
    Mr. Lewis: I do not know a great deal about the Labour party 0898 line, but I know that the complaints that I have made for many years to the Minister and his predecessors have been not about Neil Kinnock but about the serious pornographic messages that I believe have contributed significantly to the crimes of violence against women that take place outside on the streets. I am convinced that the one-to-one services whereby perverts phone women at night have led to people going out and committing acts of sexual violence against women. The Minister should be taking note of those services.
    I am also convinced that the 10 million abusive calls that BT now admits are made to women every year are the overspill from the 0898 numbers. The Minister should be dealing with that, not making cheap jibes about innocent telephone lines.
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman knows that hon. Members on both sides of the House share his concern about certain kinds of service. Some such services are illegal, and many are against the rules in the toughened regulation. What is needed is enforcement. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as and when abuses are drawn to the attention of the regulator or the prosecuting authorities, the correct action will be taken, as has been happening in recent months.
    I resent the implication that we do not care about those disgraceful services. We do care, and we have taken action. More action will be taken on enforcement under the rules and laws set out. If the hon. Member has more information about illegal services, he should pass it on to the proper enforcement authorities.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) summed up the Opposition's position well. In Committee and on the Floor of the House, the Opposition have made a series of spending pledges with other people's money, and pledges to slash the profits of industries that need profits in order to invest.
    The Opposition have made pledges on free phones and loft insulation—and only today we heard that they proposed to cut the profits of the electricity industry by 37·5 per cent.
    Mr. Henderson: May I bring the Minister back to the discussion that took place in Committee? The Opposition have made absolutely no commitment to provide free
    1206
    phones or to increase public expenditure on telecommunications infrastructure in any way. Our argument was that British Telecom and the other operators should be negotiating with the regulator to make sure that the necessary infrastructure commitments are met.
    Mr. Redwood: Either public money will be spent, so there is a different policy among Opposition Members, or it will not—in which case they agree with our policy. If the hon. Gentleman says that all the costs have to be borne by BT, that will simply mean an even bigger reduction in BT's profits and a bigger increase in its investment programme. It is always the same with Labour Members—down with profits and up with investment, with no comment on where the money is to come from. If they believe that by cutting the salaries of two or three people at the top of the operation they can pay for all those goodies they are living in cloud cuckoo land. They are talking about investment programmes costing hundreds of millions of pounds, compared with salaries in six figures, not seven or eight figures.
    The Bill does the job that it was designed to do. It will deliver the promises made in the citizens charter to extend the powers of the four regulators of the privatised utilities. It is the individual customer who is most vulnerable when competition is lacking, and the Bill concentrates on improving his position and on giving the regulator more powers to stand up for him when he has disputes with the regulated utilities. The Bill puts the customer first by giving stronger powers to the regulators of telecommunications, gas, electricity and water. It provides for the setting of guaranteed service standards and for customers to know the service that they will receive. It provides for compensation where individual performance standards are not met. Would not Opposition Members like to have thought of that idea and put it through in legislation?
    The Bill ensures that there is a clear complaints procedures should things go wrong. Fair competition offers the best guarantee of good services, low prices and choice. The ever-increasing competition in telecommunications is a good example of that process at work. The Bill builds on that by introducing greater competition in gas and water supply services. The combination of greater competition and better regulation will provide the benefits that customers need. The Bill is the right Bill for the job and I commend it to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    STAMP DUTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
    Ordered,
    That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.
    That, in respect of the Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Bill, Notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Wood.]

  Child Abuse (Teachers)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  9.55 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: I am glad to have the chance at a comparatively civilised hour to draw attention to the particular problems facing teachers dealing with allegations of child abuse. I should make it clear at the outset that I act as a parliamentary consultant to the Professional Association of Teachers and that much of what I shall say tonight will be based on the practical experience of PAT members. I should also convey the regrets of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) that he cannot be present this evening. He also advises PAT but is presently abroad carrying out his duties in the Council of Europe. Nevertheless, he has asked me to make it clear that he strongly supports the case that I seek to make.
  In considering the problem of child abuse, we all have the same starting point. Nothing must stand in the way of the safety and well-being of our children. Any acts of ill treatment, harm or abuse must be detected quickly and properly punished. Teachers clearly have an important role in relation to child abuse. They can become personally involved in any of three ways. First, a teacher may discover evidence of non-accidental injuries or other abuse of a child at school. Secondly, a teacher may witness, or be told about, an act of child abuse by a colleague at school. Thirdly, and most seriously, a teacher may be accused of abusing a child under his or her care at school.
  On the first issue, teachers are obviously in a crucial position to detect cases of abuse of children in their care. They are well placed to see the changes of behaviour that may indicate abuse, as well as to observe any physical evidence. Children see more of their teachers than any other adults, apart from their parents. Teachers are often highly respected and children will confide in them. Above all, teachers are trained to listen and to talk to children. After all, that is their job.
  Nevertheless, figures provided by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children suggest that the number of child abuse cases reported by teachers remains comparatively low. Between 1983 and 1987, schools and educational welfare officers were responsible for initiating only 12 per cent. of total registrations of child abuse cases. From 1985 to 1987, only 10 per cent. of all registered children, 14 per cent. of physically abused children and 10 per cent. of sexually abused children were initially referred by schools.
  Clearly, the effective training of teachers to deal with child abuse issues is crucial. The experience of PAT, which seems to be borne out by the NSPCC, is that, while some authorities provide excellent training, others seem to do virtually nothing.
  There is a particular need for teachers with special responsibility for child protection to be trained in multi-agency working and procedures. Many teachers simply do not feel integrated into local child protection networks. The demands for in-service training generated by the many needs of the Education Reform Act 1988 may well have overshadowed the need for training in child protection. There is a real concern that local management of schools will add to these pressures and that training in child protection will be given only low priority.
  1208
  In 1989, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children published a "Guide for Teachers", which said:
  "A child sitting in class today could be 'tomorrow's tragedy'. Teachers must be helped to recognise abuse and have the confidence to know what to do about any concerns."
  Sadly, that remains as true in 1992 as when it was written in 1989.
  That brings me to the next area of concern. A teacher who suspects that a colleague has acted improperly towards a pupil must not be deterred from disclosing his or her concern because of fears about the effect on employment prospects. Protection against unfair dismissal is available only to employees with two years' continuous service; anyone dismissed before then has no recourse to an industrial tribunal—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Mr. Cartwright: Anyone dismissed before then has no recourse to an industrial tribunal, either to claim unfair dismissal or to require the employer to provide written reasons for dismissal. The Professional Association of Teachers has produced details of a particularly disturbing case in which a teacher in the independent sector was summarily dismissed very rapidly after making serious allegations against a colleague. Despite the support of parents, of fellow teachers, of priests and even of two hon. Members, one from each side of the House, that teacher was refused a hearing before the school governors and had too short a period of service to seek the support of an industrial tribunal. That may have been an extreme and, I hope, isolated case, but it underlines the need to ensure that teachers are not deterred from voicing concerns through fear of reprisals.
  I now turn to the third and what I think is the most worrying issue, the position of teachers falsely accused of abusing children in their care. PAT has drawn to my attention a number of cases of teachers whose professional and personal lives have been virtually destroyed as a result of allegations made against them by children, allegations either subsequently withdrawn or shown to have absolutely no foundation.
  The comparatively limited publicity that this debate has already generated has meant that a number of other cases have been brought to me, and the factors in all those are very similar to the ones given to me by PAT.
  The teachers' accounts of what happened to them make disturbing reading. In two recent cases, the first that the teachers involved knew about the accusation was when the police arrived at their homes without warning, searched the premises and took away quantities of personal possessions. That surely cannot be right. I ask the Minister to consider what impact that has on innocent people and their families.
  In every case that I have examined, the police were involved at a very early stage, before any serious attempt had been made either to assess the reliability of the allegation or to give the accused teacher a chance of refuting it.
  In two cases, the matter was given swift local publicity. I quote from the graphic account of the wife of a teacher who suffered a false accusation of this kind:
  "An article about the allegation appeared in heavy type on the front page of the local newspaper and the headline was on

  1209
  the hoardings outside the newsagents. The article gave no names, to protect the child, but my husband was quickly identified. In a town twenty miles from the school the story was that he was guilty and had been sacked."
  In every case the accused teacher suffered a lengthy period of suspension before being told that the allegation had been withdrawn or that no proceedings would be instituted against them. All the personal accounts that I have read convey a sense of isolation, an absence of professional support, and the sheer despair generated by this experience.
  All the accounts underline how difficult it is for a teacher to return to work after such a traumatic experience. As one of them put it:
  "Teaching is all about trust between an adult and children. That relationship must be different now after the experience of being arrested and held in jail for 10 hours."
  Nor should we overlook the impact on the wives and families of accused teachers. One teacher put it graphically:
  "Fortunately we have a secure relationship. Had this not been the case it could have resulted in an empty house for me to return to and a divorce eventually."
  None of the teachers whose cases I have examined are seeking any special protection for teachers; nor is the Professional Association of Teachers. Clearly the safety and well-being of children must be paramount, but it is simply not acceptable that a teacher accused of something as abhorrent as abusing a child in his care should be assumed to be guilty, unless or until his or her innocence can be proved. All allegations made by children, either directly or through parents or another teacher, must be considered seriously. To do less would be a dereliction of duty.
  However, we must also accept that children can distort facts. Not only are children capable of fantasising about reality in an amusing way; young minds are also capable of making serious and damaging allegations against adults. Anyone accused in that way is surely entitled to expect, at an early stage in the investigations, some basic testing of the child's evidence. For example, quick but reliable checks could be made on the basic aspects of the complaint. Details such as the date, time and place of the alleged incident ought to be checked. Such basic initial assessment should be carried out before there is any question of the police being brought in.
  If, as is almost inevitable, the accused teacher has to be suspended, that ought to be confirmed in writing, with the reasons set out. There should also be a clear statement that suspension is without prejudice and does not imply any presumption of guilt.
  There must be strict confidentially. That is an absolutely essential protection for all concerned. Newspaper stories can be both distressing and inflammatory. As we all know, it is all too often the case that the initial accusation is given lurid headlines, while the subsequent clearing of a teacher's good name goes totally unreported.
  Teachers accused of child abuse should be offered support and counselling during what may be a distressing and lengthy period of suspension. Anyone reading the accounts of teachers who have been through that appalling experience cannot fail to be affected by their feeling of being totally abandoned and of their resulting frustration and bitterness. It should be possible for the local education
  1210
  authority to arrange such support, either directly or through a specialist agency, rather than merely ignoring an employee in his or her hour of need.
  Mr. Frank Cook: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and linking what he just said to his statement earlier that 14 per cent. of referrals had come from schools. Is he suggesting that the 14 per cent. of referrals from schools were the result of alleged abuse on the part of a teacher? Surely that cannot be true. Have I misunderstood?
  Mr. Cartwright: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the source of the reporting rather than the source of abuse. I was relating the fact that teachers are in a good position to see abuse that occurs in other situations. It would be a great mistake to suggest that the teacher who reports abuse is responsible for causing it. That is exceedingly unlikely.
  The sort of elementary rights which I have described ought to be laid down in child protection procedures. I appreciate that the Department of Education and Science takes the view that such matters are best left to education authorities or to governing bodies. However, PAT experience has been that, all too often, there are no special arrangements locally to deal with complaints of child abuse. The procedures are all too often simply those which relate to normal staff discipline cases. They are not adequate, especially given cases in which teachers are accused of abuse and found to be innocent.
  It is true that the DES has published revised guidelines about the role of the education service in child abuse cases. Those are laid down in the booklet, "Working Together Under the Children Act 1989", which was published last October. That advice does not tackle the concerns which I have been trying to outline tonight and which PAT expressed during the consultation exercise last summer. I regret that.
  Teachers feel that they are in a vulnerable position on this issue. One teacher, who was subsequently cleared of all charges, was told by the detective inspector who brought him the good news: "You must change your teaching methods. It's the kind of world we live in. You have to watch your own back." If that is true, it is a sad reflection on our society. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some hope that teachers accused of something as abhorrent as child abuse will be able to depend on the system of natural justice.
  I conclude with the final comment of another teacher cleared of all allegations because it is so typical of all the sad cases that I have examined:
  "There was no apology, no public clearing of my name, not even any compensation for the nightmare we had lived through. According to the DES it is an unfortunate consequence that a teacher suspected of child abuse is suspended and subjected to a long wait while investigations are carried out, but if the allegation is a false one, then everything will be put right when the teacher is reinstated. I am now expected to return to teaching as if nothing had happened. But every area of my life has been tainted. A stain has been put on my character; my integrity has been questioned and that will remain with me for the rest of my life."
  That strikes me as an appalling indictment of the way in which we handle an admittedly difficult problem.
  If these injustices are not to be repeated, we must have clearly laid down procedures which ensure that "innocent until proved guilty" is fully honoured in practice as well as in principle.
  10.10 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: I congratulate the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on raising the subject and for doing so very sensitively. As one with teachers in my immediate family and a close involvement with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, I venture to say a few words.
  Alas, there are cases such as the hon. Gentleman has described where children fantasise with the distressing and sometimes tragic results that the hon. Gentleman has told us about. Clearly, every step should be taken to minimise that. Sad to say, there are still thousands of children who are abused by their parents and by relatives. Teachers have an important role to play in identifying children who appear to have been subjected to abuse—physical abuse, sexual abuse or sometimes emotional abuse which is difficult to identify—or simply children who are at risk of such abuse.
  Teachers see a great deal of children. They can spot minor injury, the poorly clothed child, the underfed child, the child who seems reluctant to go home, or the child who has few friends. There are also children with learning difficulties which may have been caused by some form of abuse. I am not suggesting that learning difficulties are caused automatically by abuse, but sometimes that may be a symptom.
  Is the Minister satisfied that teachers receive training in how to recognise signs of child abuse, and do they know what steps they should take in such cases? I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that the NSPCC provides literature, including the guide to which the hon. Member for Woolwich has referred. The NSPCC also runs training courses for teachers and others on this difficult and specialist subject.
  I simply ask the Minister to urge all local education authorities to ensure that all their teachers have adequate training in how to recognise possible cases of child abuse and that they follow the correct procedures in such cases.
  10.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) for affording the House the opportunity to consider the issue of child abuse. Over the last few years, the Government have taken a strong lead in improving the efforts to protect children from abuse. The relevant Departments—notably, the Home Office, the Department of Health as well as my Department—work very closely together, mirroring the co-ordination of effort at local level between the police, health, social and education services.
  The "Working Together" doctrine, to which the hon. Member for Woolwich referred, embodied in published central Government guidance with that title, is widely known and respected. For my Department's part, we made very firm recommendations to the education service in 1988, at the time of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss's report on child sexual abuse in Cleveland. Our paramount concern was then, and has continued to be through various further measures since, with protecting children.
  The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) raised a number of points about training, to which I shall reply in detail in writing, because
  1212
  I wish tonight to concentrate on the particular matter to which attention has been drawn, the position of teachers accused of child abuse.
  Naturally, I have every sympathy for the innocent teacher who suffers personal agony and blight as a result of unjustified suspicion of having perpetrated abuse on a child, and I recognise that that can be a deeply unpleasant experience. But we must start from the position that, sadly, there have been instances where individual teachers have betrayed the trust placed in them and have committed child abuse.
  Where a child makes an allegation, it must be investigated and the correct procedures followed. It is sensible in cases involving an allegation of serious misconduct for the member of staff to be suspended pending full investigation of the case. I am happy to confirm that such suspension is not, and need not be seen as, a disciplinary penalty. It is a prudent measure allowing time for a proper and dispassionate investigation of the charges that have been made.
  I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that it is in everyone's interests for allegations to be investigated without delay, and conclusions reached as soon as possible; but it may be necessary to call on the skills and expertise of a number of different agencies and individuals. In complicated cases, investigations may often—for the best of reasons—take some time. The interests of the individual teacher are best protected if there is a thorough and careful examination of all relevant aspects of the case.
  Miss Emma Nicholson rose——
  Mr. Fallon: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way.
  Those are matters for the employers of teachers and for the investigation agencies. It is for the employer to decide whether disciplinary action is to be taken and, if the offence is serious, for the police to decide whether a prosecution is to be brought. For maintained schools, the Education Reform Act has clarified and simplified lines of management, notably the arrangements that must be followed when a teacher is dismissed.
  I agree that, when a teacher has been suspended pending an investigation—and may be wholly innocent of the charges that have been levelled—it behoves the employer to consider what support and counselling that teacher needs, and perhaps whether alternative work can be found, not involving direct contact with children, while the matter is investigated. But that is a matter for individual employers in the light of the circumstances of the case.
  I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in cases of that kind, ill-informed press reporting is extremely regrettable and can be very damaging indeed. Careless or salacious press reports can cause untold misery. A teacher may subsequently be cleared of the charges laid, but what remains in the public mind, nationally and locally, are the original allegations and innuendos. I hope that certain newspapers will consider much more carefully the wider implication of the way in which they report these cases. If they pander to prejudice and idle gossip and smears, they can do untold damage.
  The Secretary of State takes extremely seriously his particular responsibilities in relation to the protection of children in schools. Where independent schools are

  1213
  concerned, under the Education Act 1944 the Secretary of State has power to serve a notice of complaint if he is satisfied that the proprietor of the school or a teacher employed there is not a proper person to be the proprietor or to be employed as a teacher at a school. He can also serve a notice of complaint if he is satisfied that the proprietor is failing in his duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children at boarding schools.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner rose——
  Mr. Fallon: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. I have a lot to get through.
  We have examined carefully the procedures for protecting children in independent schools following the Crookham Court case and some other widely publicised cases in residential schools. Much of that was in preparation for the full implementation, last October, of the Children Act 1989, but I would also wish to give credit to Ms. Esther Rantzen's programmes about Crookham Court school, which have done much to bring to everyone's attention the horrors which can be perpetrated on schoolchildren. Her campaign on behalf of children at risk of abuse influenced the amendment of the Children Act to impose a duty on proprietors of independent boarding schools to safeguard and promote the welfare of pupils.
  Just before that, in April 1990, the Department's registrar of independent schools wrote to head teachers and proprietors reminding them of their statutory obligation to report dismissals or resignations of teachers on grounds of misconduct. That letter gave guidance about the arrangements for checking the possible criminal background of prospective employees and repeated the Department's strong advice that all schools should make use of the facilities.
  The Education (Particulars of Independent Schools) Regulations have been amended to require proprietors of schools to report the dismissal or resignation, on grounds of misconduct, of non-teaching staff as well as teachers, so that the Department can also consider barring them. The effect of this will be to widen the net to include staff other than teachers who come into close contact with children.
  The Department continues to work closely with the Department of Health to make effective the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of pupils placed on proprietors or those responsible for running independent schools with boarders. In particular, social services department inspectors, during their inspections of schools under the new provisions of the Children Act, which came into force in October, now look for evidence that appropriate checks have been made on the appointment of new staff.
  My Department is today sending all boarding schools copies of the social services inspectorate's practice guide on the implementation of the new welfare duties under the Children Act. It contains further, practical guidance on all aspects of pupils' welfare—including the prevention of child abuse. It emphasises proper training for staff in this matter, as in all other matters.
  Mr. Skinner rose——
  Mr. Fallon: I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
  Mr. Skinner rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Fallon: Records are also being kept to monitor the volume of inquiries from independent schools about the confidential list of barred teachers. This information, together with the records kept by the Department's teachers misconduct division, will in future give us a clearer picture of the use that independent schools make of the facilities to check new staff.
  Where it comes to the notice of the Secretary of State that there is immediate concern about the welfare of pupils at an independent school, we now also consider bringing the known facts to the attention of all parents or of agencies that place pupils in the school. Those measures should help considerably in tightening up on possible child abuse in independent schools.
  The Secretary of State does have a direct role to play in individual cases of misconduct by teachers, but that is different from the employer's role and comes at a later stage. His responsibility is to consider individual cases of misconduct reported to the Department and to decide in each case whether it would be appropriate to exercise his power under the Education (Teachers) Regulations 1989 to bar the person concerned from teaching and from work within schools or the youth service involving regular contact with children.
  If a person is barred, his or her name is then added to the Department's list 99. That is a confidential list of people who have been barred by the Secretary of State, which is circulated to local education authorities, organisations representing independent schools, and other bodies concerned with the employment of teachers. At present, there are about 1,500 names on it.
  All cases of misconduct reported to the Department are given very careful consideration. That is particularly true of cases of offences, or alleged misconduct, involving children. That is only right. Parents have a right to expect that their children will be safe when they send them to school, and the protection of children must be a paramount concern. However, I agree with the hon. Member that that concern must be balanced with the right of the teacher concerned to a fair and objective decision, taking full account of his or her representations and all relevant information about the matter.
  The Department's procedures are very carefully designed to balance the need to ensure that children are protected from unsuitable persons with the need to ensure fairness for the teacher and to observe the rules of natural justice. The Department is not an investigative agency—that is the role of the police and, where appropriate, local social service departments—but where barring is a possibility, we always attempt to obtain as much information as possible about the offence, or alleged misconduct, from those agencies or from the teacher's employer.
  An individual being considered for barring is entitled to submit written and oral evidence and may submit a medical report. These procedures inevitably take time, but teachers who are faced with the prospect of being barred—perhaps for many years—from their chosen profession must have a full opportunity to put their side of the case to the Secretary of State.
  It is also important to recognise that the Secretary of State cannot, and does not, bar anyone without proof. Where the teacher has not, in fact, been convicted of a criminal offence the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the allegations of misconduct are substantiated. He cannot act on the basis of unsupported accusations or

  1215
  suspicions. We need firm evidence to support or corroborate the allegations as a basis for action. But where there is such evidence, and where the allegations are substantiated, we do not hesitate to bar the individual concerned from teaching and from work involving regular contact with children. This is, as I think the hon. Member acknowledged, a difficult and often time-consuming business and I would like to give the House a brief glimpse of it.
  Mr. Skinner: Before we get on to that point, what redress has Kay Black, who worked at an independent Catholic school in the county of Derbyshire, who made allegations about child abuse and who was sacked within six months? There were police inquiries and she has had no redress. The Department of Education has had the case; it has done nothing whatsoever to help her. We have all these glossy booklets, but Kay Black is without a job. That happened in March 1989. She still has no employment. She is in Derby city hospital now having an operation.
  It is high time that the Government were prepared to do something instead of waffling on. They should do something for Kay Black who, because of the Government's own employment laws, was not able to complain of unfair dismissal as a result of making allegations about child abuse. Having made those allegations, she has finished up without a job. The Government must get something done and let us have legislation to allow people like Kay Black to get jobs.
  Mr. Fallon: The hon. Member has made his point and packed a number of allegations into it.
  Mr. Skinner: It is all true.
  Mr. Fallon: It may well be. I shall certainly look into that matter.
  Each year, we receive about 350 reports of misconduct, of which about a fifth concern offences or alleged misconduct involving children. Each is investigated as thoroughly and as fairly as possible by a small team of officials in the teachers' misconduct division. I pay a tribute to them for their dedication and commitment to what is often quite unpleasant work. As a result, in the year ended March 1991, some 54 people were barred from teaching, 41 of them for misconduct involving children.
  I hope that the House will accept that no system, however conscientously and thoroughly it is applied, can
  1216
  be guaranteed either to prevent misconduct or to prevent allegations from being falsely and unfairly made. Our procedures have been considerably tightened up over the last two years, partly in the light of the Children Act 1989 and partly in the light of a specific number of cases, mainly in independent schools and, indeed, mainly in boarding schools.
  I fully accept the statement by the hon. Member for Woolwich that those procedures must be fair, and must be seen to be fair, to the teachers concerned. Equally—and I think that the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst reminded the House of the balance to be struck in these matters—we have to put in the forefront of our minds the paramount concern in these matters, which is the protection of the child. In the way that the agencies co-operate on the ground, in the way that we liaise with the other Departments in Whitehall and in the way that we investigate these cases and apply the procedures that I have outlined, we seek to be as fair as possible to all concerned.
  I can give the hon. Member for Woolwich the assurance that, during each investigation, the interests of the teacher are borne in mind. We always remember that there is a career at stake, a chosen profession at stake; and each case in which an individual is considered for barring comes for ministerial decision. I can assure him from my own experience over the last year and a half that that is not a decision that is taken lightly. It has to balance the interests of the teacher, the seriousness of the allegations, the investigation that has taken place and the interests of the child.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: A teacher who makes allegations about child abuse in an independent school such as the one to which I referred earlier is treading dangerously. I am sure that Kay Black decided to try to make it clear to the people concerned that something needed investigating. But because she worked in an 'independent school, the LEA could not intervene.
  In the last minute of this debate, the Minister should state that any future legislation will cover independent schools as well as LEA schools so that people like Kay Black can get redress—
  The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Repossessions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has concerning the number of repossessions adjudicated in the Crown courts in Wales in each of the last four quarters up to 31 December 1991.

  The Attorney-General
  Possession actions are dealt with in the county court, not in the Crown court. The figures for the number of repossessions are not collected. The only information available on mortgage possession is the number of actions entered and orders made in each county court. The table gives the information for Welsh county courts for the first three quarters, and October and November of 1991, the latter being the latest data available. Not all the orders will have resulted in the issue and execution of warrnts of possession.

  Mortgage possession—actions entered and orders made in the Welsh county courts

  1991

  Total number of actions entered

  Total number of orders made

  January to March

  2,236

  1,644

  April to June

  2,591

  1,754

  July to September

  3,050

  1,990

  October to November

  1,769

  1,455

TRANSPORT

  Freight Terminal, Isle of Grain
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the new freight terminal at Thamesport, Isle of Grain, is to be opened; and what assessment he has made of the benefits it will bring to residents of Medway.

  Mr. Freeman
  I visited Thamesport on 7 January to inspect the start of work on the new rail freight terminal which has attracted a £1·77 million grant under section 8 of the Railways Act 1974. I understand that the terminal will be operational by the end of the year and should enable up to 35 per cent. of container traffic to be carried by rail bringing relief to roads in this part of Kent and in particular the A228 which links the port to the A2/M2.

  Brownhills Roundabout, Iancashire
  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made on the improvement scheme to Brownhills roundabout, A666/A6119 intersection, and the A6119 bridge over the railway nearby; what has caused the delays; and when Lancashire county council will be enabled to go ahead with the scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  Compulsory purchase orders are to be published shortly. Some of the land to be acquired is 608
  public open space and there has been some difficulty in identifying suitable replacement land. We hope that work will start during the 1992–93 financial year.

  Vehicle Statistics
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, using the data in the south-east regional brief published by his Department on 4 December 1991, the number of cars per 1,000 of the population in England excluding the south-east region in 1989 and the number of vehicles per mile of surfaced road in 1989 in(a) the south-east Region and (b) the rest of England.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is as follows:

  (i)In 1989 there were 354 cars per 1,000 of the population in England, excluding the south-cast region;

  (ii) In 1989 there were 149 vehicles per mile of surfaced road in the south-east Region

  (iii) In 1989 there were 122 vehicles per mile of surfaced road in the rest of England.

  Hastings-Ashford Line
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the electrification of the railway line between Hastings and Ashford has been included in British Rail's programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand from British Rail that it is examining proposals for the electrification of the railway line between Hastings and Ashford, for inclusion in its programme of work scheduled to commence in 1994–95.

  Bedford Bypass
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current position of(a) the southern bypass for Bedford including a Norse road connection and (b) the western relief road.

  Mr. Chope
  I hope to be able to make a further announcement shortly.

  Clyde Port Authority
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names of the parties which have formally expressed their intention to seek to acquire the Clyde port authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. That is a matter of commercial confidence between the Clyde port authority, as vendor of the port undertaking, and the parties concerned.

  Speed Limit Order, Essex
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department received the Borough of Chelmsford (A414 Main Road and Maldon Road, Danbury) (Speed Limit) Order from Essex county council for confirmation; and when his Department's confirmation is expected.

  Mr. Chope
  The application for consent to these speed limit proposals which is currently with the Department was effectively lodged in August 1991 when detailed supporting information was received from Essex county council. This followed earlier lengthy discussions and correspondence leading to my Department's approval in principle being given in December 1990.
  609
  There are a number of legal issues in respect of the order itself still to be resolved before the Secretary of State can give formal consent. The Department's regional office has brought these to the attention of the county council.

  Progress is dependent on the county council's resolution of these legal problems and I am therefore unable at this stage to specify a date by which consent may be given. Immediate consideration will be given however to the council's response, when received.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he intends to make to the recommendations made by the International Atomic Energy Agency that no further flights of plutonium should take place until the agency's review panel on safety and security of plutonium transport completes its recommendations for new standards for international carriage.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The International Atomic Energy Agency has made no such recommendation.

  Buses
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to promote the use of buses.

  Mr. Freeman
  I announced recently a series of measures to promote the use of the bus:provision of at least 10 million over the next two years to fund specific local authority bus schemes;
  publication through HMSO of the Department's "Keeping Buses Moving"—a guide for local authorities on the provision of bus priority measures;
  more resources to the traffic commissioners to check that local bus services run in accordance with their published timetables;
  a review by the Department of current arrangements for passenger information with a view to providing guidelines for local authorities and bus operators;
  the Department will seek to fund a local authority demonstration project which utilises fully accessible low floor buses;
  the introduction in 1992 of an instrumented smoke emissions test for in-service vehicles, together with tough road side enforcement.

  These measures have been widely welcomed by the Bus and Coach Council and local authority associations.

  Coastguards
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the amount of money spent on providing the coastguard service for each of the years for the period 1979 to 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 13 January 1992]: The amount of money spent on providing the coastguard service during the years 1983–84 to 1991–92 is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1979–80

  6·99

  1980–81

  7·92

  1981–82

  10·88

  1982–83

  11·91

  1983–84

  14·06

  1984–85

  18·66

  1985–86

  21·57

  1986–87

  21·80

  1987–88

  23·99

  610

  Year

  £ million

  1988–89

  25·85

  1989–90

  28·58

  1990–91

  29·63

  11991–92

  31·00

  1 Forecast.

  The level of past and planned expenditure on Her Majesty's coastguard is consistent with the commitment to provide a modern, efficient and effective search and rescue service for the United Kingdom.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Single European Currency
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement upon the naming of a new single European currency.

  Mr. Maude
  Under the terms of the proposed treaty on European monetary union, the single currency would be the ecu.

  Business Investment
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of GDP at factor cost and in current prices is accounted for by business investment also at current prices; and what was the percentage in 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  At current prices, the ratio of business investment to GDP at factor cost was 14·8 per cent. in 1990 and 14·3 per cent. in 1979.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was Britain's share of main manufacturing countries exports of manufactures in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) in the lastest available quarter.

  Mr. Mellor
  As I said earlier today in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), the UK's share has risen in each of the last three years after decdes of decline, as shown in the autumn statement. Based on a measure that includes the exports of all market economies, the share was 7·2 per cent, in 1979 and 6·1 per cent. in 1985. It is likely to have been 6¼ per cent. in 1991.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the United Kingdom's share of the world trade in manufactured goods; and what has been the trend in recent years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The United Kingdom's share stabilised in the mid-1980s, increased in 1989 and 1990, and looks most likely to have increased again in 1991. Its current level is 6¼ per cent., almost ½per cent. higher than in 1988.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to secure the location of the proposed European central bank in Britain.

  Mr. Maude
  The Maastricht summit concluded that it was not necessary to reach a decision now on the sites of the European central bank; that will be decided at a future date.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the level of manufacturing investment between the third quarter of 1990 and the third quarter of 1991.

  Mr. Mellor
  A fall of 12 per cent. in volume terms.

  Taxation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about tax levels.

  Mr. Maude
  Since 1978–79, the combined burden of taxation and public sector borrowing had been reduced by over 1 per cent. of GDP.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the changes which have taken place in the standard rate of income tax since 1978–79; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Since 1979 we have reduced the basic rate in stages from 33 to 25 pet cent. We will move towards a rate of 20 per cent. when it is prudent to do so.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much a cut of 1p in the pound off income tax would cost; how much the raising of the top rate of tax to 50 per cent. would yield to the revenue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  At 1992–93 levels of income a 1p reduction in the basic rate of income tax would cost about £1·95 billion in a full year. Raising the higher rate of income tax to 50 per cent. would yield about £3·4 billion in a full year.

  These estimates, however, do not allow for any behavioural effects that might result from such changes to the tax system and do not include capital gains tax.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what would be the loss of revenue from raising the income tax threshold for all income tax payers to £100 per week;

  (2) how many extra persons would be exempt from income tax if the tax threshold were raised to £100 per week.

  Mr. Maude
  At 1992–93 levels of income, the cost of raising the personal allowance to £5,200, compared with the amount due under the illustrative assumption of 4 per cent. indexation given in the Autumn Statement 1991, would be about £10½ billion. About 3·8 million people would be taken out of tax by this change.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when was the last time he held discussions with the CBI to discuss interest rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend last met CBI representatives at the National Economic Development Council on 8 January. A number of general economic issues were discussed.

  Economy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage growth in the economy for the last quarter for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  Gross domestic product rose by 0·2 per cent. in the third quarter of 1991, the latest period for which figures are available.

  Inflation
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the business representative bodies regarding the Government's anti-inflation policy.

  Mr. Maude
  I regularly receive representations from business on all aspects of economic policy. They consistently endorse the Government's objective of reducing inflation and keeping it down.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current level of inflation.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell).

  VAT
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much VAT has been raised since November 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  On 1 April 1991 the standard rate of VAT was increased from 15 to 17½ per cent.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an estimate of per capita income in the United Kingdom in 1991 and 1990.

  Mr. Maples
  Data in respect of income per head are published regularly in table 8 in "Economic Trends", copies of which are available in the Library. The latest available data, for periods up to the third quarter of 1991, will be included in the December issue, due for publication later this month. However, this information is already available on the CSO database which can be accessed by the House of Commons Library.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government's policies on the level of house repossessions in 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  Lenders estimate that the measures my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced to the House on 19 December will reduce the number of repossessions in 1992 by about 40,000—half the anticipated number.

  Football Pools Betting Duty
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the Government's total income from the football pool bettings duty for each of the years 1979–80 to 1990–91 and as a total over the same period.
  613
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Receipts from pool betting duty were as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  136·1

  1980–81

  157·0

  1981–82

  176·0

  1982–83

  199·3

  1983–84

  204·9

  1984–85

  218·0

  1985–86

  235·3

  1986–87

  254·2

  1987–88

  277·0

  1988–89

  279·0

  1989–90

  303·8

  1990–91

  303·9

  Total

  2,744·5

  Cigarette Duty
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the increase in duty, including value added tax on cigarettes in the 1991 budget had on the retail prices index.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The RPI impact effect was an increase of 0·3 per cent.

  Bloodstock Industry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current negotiations taking place within the EC Council of Finance Ministers to seek an agreed reduction in VAT for the breeding and sales of bloodstock in the United Kingdom after 1993.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 15 January 1992]: The discussions currently taking place are to decide which goods and services may be subject to a reduced rate of VAT within the European Community after 1992. The present list includes goods and services used and supplied by farmers. It has yet to be decided finally whether horses will fall within any of the reduced rate categories.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list details of any alternative schemes being considered by Her Majesty's Government to assist the bloodstock industry in the United Kingdom after 1993.

  Mr. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 15 January 1992]: Detailed discussions are currently taking place between officials and interested parties on the merits of an agricultural flat rate scheme for the United Kingdom.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cohesion Fund
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which regions of the United Kingdom will benefit from the cohesion fund agreed at the Maastricht summit; and which of the six objective regions in the European Community will(a) benefit from and (b) be excluded from the benefits of this fund.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The cohesion fund will benefit those member states with a per capita GNP of less than 90 per 614
  cent. of the Community average—that is, Spain, Portugal, Greece and the Republic of Ireland. The fund will provide finance for projects in the fields of the environment and trans-European transport infrastructure.

  East Timor
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate discussions with the other countries of the European Community to consider what joint action needs to be taken in relation to the occupation of East Timor by Indonesia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are already in contact with our EC partners on this matter. We continue to believe that the best hopes for a solution lie in the hands of the United Nations Secretary-General.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Portugal regarding the situation in East Timor; and what further discussions he proposes.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs sees his Portuguese colleague regularly and has discussed East Timor with him on several occasions, most recently during his visit to Lisbon on 7 January. We remain in close contact on this issue, together with our EC partners.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the United Nations the continuing repression by Indonesia of the people of East Timor with a view to agreeing appropriate joint action.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This issue will be considered at the forthcoming session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva from 27 January to 6 March.

  Falklands Islands
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Argentina about the future constitutional position of the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There have been no recent discussions; nor is it the Government's intention to engage in any.

  Gulf War
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in obtaining compensation from Iraq for losses suffered by British nationals and companies during the Gulf war.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Work has gone ahead well in the governing council of the United Nations Compensation Commission in Geneva which will administer the fund established by Security Council resolution 687: the United Kingdom is playing a leading role. Very good progress is being made in drawing up criteria for eligibility of claims. The commission has also prepared claim forms for expedited claims by individuals up to US$ 100,000. We are now sending them to claimants who have notified us of their losses. Advertisements will be placed in the national
  615
  press so that the opportunity to make claims is widely known. The commission hopes to begin assessing claims in July this year.

ENERGY

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provisions have been made for the long-term storage, management or disposal of(a) high, intermediate and low-level radioactive wastes arising from foreign reprocessing contracts signed by British Nuclear Fuels plc up to 31 December 1975 and (b) low level radioactive waste arising from foreign reprocessing contracts signed by British Nuclear Fuels plc since 1 January 1976 for processing of spent nuclear fuel in the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  All wastes arising from overseas reprocessing contracts signed by British Nuclear Fuels plc before 1976 will be dealt with in accordance with the United Kingdom's national waste strategy.

  Since 1976, contracts for reprocessing overseas spent fuel have contained options for the return of wastes. The Government intend that these options will be exercised and wastes returned. As envisaged in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on 2 May 1986 at columns 500–01, the option of substituting for less radioactive wastes an equivalent quantity, in radiological terms, of higher level wastes is being considered.

  Any low-level wastes retained as a result of such substitution would be disposed of in the same way as equivalent United Kingdom waste.

WALES

  EC Committee of Regions
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the representatives from Wales who will sit on the Committee of the Regions within the European Community; and if he will consider making hon. Members of Parliament eligible for such positions.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The treaty giving effect to the new Committee of the Regions is not intended to come into force until 1 January 1993. No decisions have therefore yet been taken on membership. The Government will however be considering in the course of 1992, the question of allocation of the United Kingdom seats and how individual members will be chosen.

  Transplants
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients in Wales are now awaiting transplant surgery; and if he will separately distinguish these by organ by district health area and by length of time they have been waiting.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Land Acquisition
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each of the last 12 years, and for each county in Wales, the area of land that has been used for major highway construction and ancillary purposes; and if he will indicate the total compensation paid to landowners.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

  St. David's Hospital, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department received the application for approval in principle for the new neighbourhood hospital on the site of the St. David's hospital, Cardiff; when the reply to South Glamorgan health authority was sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Application for approval in principle for a neighbourhood hospital on the St. David's hospital site, Cardiff, was made by South Glamorgan health authority on 13 November 1991. A reply was sent on 20 December 1991. South Glamorgan health authority is currently reviewing the position in the light of that response.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of Welsh Water to discuss the purity of the drinking water in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment have jointly appointed the drinking water inspectorate to monitor and report to them on water company performance. The inspectorate's report to them of its first round of inspections, including that of Dwr Cymru, was published in July 1991 and confirmed that 99 per cent. of samples taken by Dwr Cymru met the stringent statutory requirements of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989—SI 1989 No. 1147. A second round of inspections, during which Dwr Cymru is again being inspected, is ongoing and the results will be published later this year. My officials are, of course, regularly in contact with Dwr Cymru on various aspects of drinking water quality.

  TB Eradication Scheme
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been paid in compensation in respect of cattle slaughtered in Wales under the tuberculosis eradication scheme in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Payments made under the bovine tuberculosis compensation scheme are detailed in the table. The information is only available on a financial year basis.

  Year

  Total compensation

  (£'s)

  1980–81

  35,911

  1981–82

  7,105

  1982–83

  6,918

  617

  Year

  Total compensation

  (£'s)

  1983–84

  13,626

  1984–85

  28,680

  1985–86

  37,068

  1986–87

  42,491

  1987–88

  58,233

  1988–89

  37,045

  1989–90

  35,785

  1990–91

  86,159

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) in what number of prescriptions, in each of the last five years, Diumide-K (a diuretic with potassium) or a similar preparation has been prescribed; and in what number of cases one of the individual constituents has been prescribed(a) in Wales and (b) in each district health authority or family practitioner committee area;

  (2) in what number of prescriptions, in each of the last five years, Burinex A or a similar preparation (bumetanide with amiloride hydrochloride) has been prescribed; and in what number of cases one of the individual constituents has been prescribed (a) in Wales and (b) in each district health authority or family practitioner committee area in Wales;

  (3) in what number of prescriptions, in each of the last five years, Caprozide or a similar preparation has been prescribed; and in what number of cases one of the individual constituents—Captopril and hydrochlorothiazide—has been prescribed (a) in Wales and (b) in each district health authority or family practitioner committee area in Wales;

  (4) in what number of prescriptions, in each of the last five years, Prempak-C or a similar preparation has been prescribed; and in what number of cases one of the individual constituents—conjugated oestrogens/norgestrel—has been prescribed (a) in Wales and (b) in each district health authority or family practitioner committee area.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Valleys Programme
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the percentage unemployment rate for the valleys programme area, for Wales, for each year from November 1988 to November 1991, inclusive.

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

  Unemployment rates1

  November

  Valleys programme area

  Wales

  1988

  12·4

  9·2

  1989

  9·5

  6·5

  1990

  10·1

  6·9

  1991

  13·1

  9·2

  Source: Employment Department, Welsh Office.

  1 Unadjusted rates, expressed as a percentage of the work force.

  Kinnerton Primary School
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Kinnerton county primary school; and if he will meet(a) the parent teacher association and (b) the staff and governors.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I has any plans at present to do so.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the sale of school playing fields; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Authorities are encouraged to dispose of land and buildings which are surplus to requirements.

  Local education authorities are responsible for taking decisions about the disposal of school playing fields. In view of public concern about the possible loss of playing fields, I shall be asking local education authorities to consider long-term school and community needs before taking disposal action.

  School Land
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales have had portions of their land and buildings sold since 1979.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Local education authorities are responsible for taking decisions on the disposal of school land and buildings. Information about disposals by these authorities is not held centrally.

  Patient Funding
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the funding of out-of-area patients being allocated operations at the four treatment centres in Wales for the period commencing 1 April 1992.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Decisions on how the treatment centre initiative will be taken forward in 1992–93 will be announced shortly.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last visited British Aerospace, Broughton, Clwyd; and if he will visit British Aerospace to meet apprentices in their final year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I visited British Aerospace at Broughton, Clwyd on 30 September 1991 to open the new dispatch wing. No date has yet been fixed for my next visit.

  NHS Value-for-money Unit
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the remit of the NHS value-for-money unit and its programme of work for 1992.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The NHS value-for-money unit operates within the framework of the strategic intent and direction for the NHS in Wales which dedicates the organisation to the pursuit of health gain and the continuous development of people-centred, resource effective health services. Within this framework, the unit's mission is to add value to the use of resources and to encourage enterprise in the delivery of health services.
  619
  The main initiatives which the unit will be pursuing in 1992 include: helping providers of service compare their performance with the best; helping managers improve the monitoring of service delivery by focusing on high level indicators; reviewing progress and adding impetus to cash-releasing cost improvement and income generation programmes; undertaking all-Wales reviews; helping the NHS in Wales develop overseas trading activities and the commercial exploitation of innovative ideas and products; establishing the clinical resource utilisation group; reviewing progress and adding impetus to the market testing initiative.

  More information is provided in chapter 9 of the document "NHS Wales: Agenda for Action 2" published in December 1991; a copy of which has been placed in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive the report from the value-for-money unit on the cost-effectiveness of the treatment centre at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Cardiff; and if he will give the terms of reference for the value-for-money unit's exercise.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The study at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital is part of a wider evaluation of the treatment centre initiative as a whole. The purpose of the study is to assess the potential of treatment centres to deliver health care services cost-effectively and also the options for the future funding of such centres. The aim is to complete this exercise before the end of the current financial year.

  Hospital Services Study
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the terms of reference of the joint study into the supply and demand for hospital services in south and mid Glamorgan, commissioned by South Glamorgan health authority, Mid Glamorgan health authority and the University of Wales College of Medicine.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman o the reply I gave him on 13 January, at columns 510–11

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to clean-up iron oxide and sulphur pollution in streams, rivers and waterways that flow though or close to former mines.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The National Rivers Authority is currently undertaking a study, which includes an examination of the River Pelena in West Glamorgan, to look at the best ways of preventing polluted water from abandoned mines affecting our rivers.

  GPs (Night Calls)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from general practitioners in Wales regarding the problem of excessive night-time calls; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Since the introduction of the revised contract for GPs, one letter has been received from a GP in Wales about increased demand for night visits to patients.
  620
  The reply explained that the GPs' remuneration system has been revised to reward those doctors who provide the fullest range of services to their patients. This includes paying a higher fee where doctors undertake night visits to their patients personally, rather than using a deputising service or a large rota.

  Cataract Removals
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients have been treated for cataract removal at the new treatment centre at Bridgend hospital since its opening in October 1991; how many were from the Mid-Glamorgan health authority; if he will list all other health authorities from which other patients treated at the treatment centre have originated; and how this compares with his Department's agreement with the treatment centre.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Between 1 October and 31 December 1991 the new ophthalmic treatment centre treated 182 patients, of which 54 per cent. came from Mid Glamorgan. The centre is on target to meet the contract agreement that 50 per cent. of the total throughput of 300 patients in 1991–92 should be referred from health authorities other than Mid Glamorgan. In addition to Mid Glamorgan, referrals have been received from South Glamorgan, West Glamorgan, East Dyfed, Powys and Gwent.

  Shotton Steelworks
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last visited Shotton steelworks, Clwyd; and if he will visit Shotton steelworks to discuss the impact of redundancies.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I last visited Shotton steelworks on 27 November. I have not yet fixed the date for my next visit. During my visit, I was most impressed by the determination of both management and work force to maintain the steelwork's position as a world leader in steel coatings technology.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  UK World Trade Share
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the United Kingdom's share of world trade, taking visibles and invisibles together, for each of the last 15 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In terms of the value of overseas transactions, the United Kingdom is the fourth largest trading nation in the world.

  The information is in the table.

  United Kingdom's share of OECD total trade1 1975–90

  (percentage terms)

  Year

  Exports

  Imports

  1975

  9·5

  10·0

  1976

  9·1

  9·1

  1977

  9·3

  9·1

  1978

  9·5

  9·3

  1979

  10·3

  10·0

  1980

  11·3

  10·4

  1981

  11·6

  10·6

  1982

  11·7

  11·1

  621

  Year

  Exports

  Imports

  1983

  11·0

  10·5

  1984

  10·6

  10·2

  1985

  10·8

  10·2

  1986

  10·0

  9·9

  1987

  10·1

  10·0

  1988

  10·0

  10·7

  1989

  10·0

  10·7

  1990

  10·3

  11·1

  1 Visible and invisible trade.

  Source: IMF Balance of Payments Statistics.

  Radio and Television (Interference)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what help is available for radio listeners and television viewers to avoid interference in reception.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department, through the Radiocommunications Agency, provides helpful advice on improving radio and television reception and I am asking the chief executive of the agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Textiles and Clothing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress made on a conclusion of the negotiations within the Uruguay GATT round on textiles.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 15 January 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on 15 January, Official Report, columns 598–99.

  Maastricht
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement outlining the areas of his responsibility in which the EC will have competence following the implementation of agreements at Maastricht.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 17 December 1991]: The treaty agreed at Maastricht contains new chapters relating to industry, consumer protection and trans-European networks. The Community already has competence in these areas. The responsibility for policy on trans-European networks is shared between my Department, the Department of Energy and the Department of Transport.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Football Pool Betting Duty
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the meeting held on 9 January between officials in his Department and representatives of the Football Trust to discuss eligibility of football Premier League clubs for funds released through the reduction in the football pool betting duty; and what further meetings, and on what dates, are planned on this issue involving officials and ministers in his Department.

  Mr. Atkins
  At the request of the Football Trust a meeting was held with officials from my Department and 622
  the Treasury to hear the views of the trust on its handling of grant applications by prospective members of the Premier League and arrangements following the establishment of the league. The trust will be informed shortly of the Government's views. Further meetings will be arranged as appropriate.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science further to his letter of 12 July 1991 to the Football Association, if he will set out the precise conditions necessary for Premier League clubs to be rendered eligible for access to funds released through the reduction of the football pool betting duty.

  Mr. Atkins
  The trust would need to amend its resolution of April 1990 to allow clubs in the Premier League to have access to such funds. My position remains as set out in the letter of 12 July. In supporting such a change I would wish to have regard to how any additional money available to football was to be used for purposes of Taylor implementation throughout the present Football League. I have written to the FA to ask for further information on this objective, together with other relevant matters.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what criteria the national stadiums at Wembley, Hampden park and Windsor park are deemed eligible for assistance through the reduction in the football pool betting duty.

  Mr. Atkins
  Under a resolution passed by the Football Trust in April 1990 the grounds of clubs in the Football League and the Scottish League and the three national stadia are eligible for assistance from the moneys made available by the reduction in pool betting duty for capital works for the safety and comfort of spectators at football grounds in accordance with the recommendations contained in Lord Justice Taylor's final report on "The Hillsborough Stadium Disaster, 15 April 1989". The trustees also resolved to distribute the money fairly having regard to the differing needs of those clubs and the stadia authorities and the resources available to them.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy concerning the repayment of grants made to clubs through the reduction in the football pool betting duty if relegated from the Football League to the Vauxhall conference.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is for the trust itself to decide its grant policy. I myself see no reason why the Football Trust should ask for repayment of grants in such circumstances.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what amendments he intends to make to the statement of case pro forma for school closure proposals to take account of the change in procedure for evaluating possible deficiencies in playing field provision at neighbouring schools; when the amendments will be made; and if he will place a copy of the original and amended statements in the Library.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. and learned Friend will decide what amendments are required to the statement of case pro forma for school closure proposals in the light of any comments received from the local authority
  623
  associations to the consultation letter on the disposal of school playing fields. A copy of the original and amended statements will be placed in the Library.

  Medical Researchers
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the comparative levels of remuneration for medical researchers in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the rest of the EC and (c) the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My Department does not hold details of the levels of remuneration of medical researchers employed by United Kingdom private companies or charities; nor does it have such information covering medical researchers in the rest of the EC or the United States of America. The pay scale for researchers in universities in the United Kingdom extends from £12,129 to £30,447, although some clinical academic staff are linked to national health service scales which range from about £17,000 to £40,000. Clinical academics holding consultant contracts are also eligible for NHS distinction awards.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will make it his policy to increase the funding of research into Alzheimer's disease being carried out at St. Mary's hospital, Paddington;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the funding of research into Alzheimer's disease.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Medical Research Council, the main Government agency for the support of medical research in this country, is funded from this Department's science budget. The MRC's grant-in-aid from the science budget has increased by about 28 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. It is an independent body, however, and our policy is not to intervene in the MRC's judgment of its research priorities. Last month we announced a planned rising profile for the science budget generally over the next three years. That will enable the MRC to launch its "Neurosciences Approach to Human Health", so expanding its programme of research on the treatment of psychiatric and neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's disease.

  Region1

  Kidney

  Pancreas

  Liver

  Heart

  Lung

  Northern

  242

  0

  0

  38

  38

  Yorkshire

  220

  0

  6

  2

  1

  Trent

  354

  1

  0

  9

  0

  East Anglia

  120

  0

  11

  23

  20

  North West Thames

  233

  1

  8

  152

  48

  North East Thames

  466

  0

  5

  16

  2

  South East Thames

  309

  1

  16

  0

  0

  South West Thames

  81

  1

  0

  9

  0

  Wessex

  108

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxford

  93

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Western

  216

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  381

  0

  34

  0

  0

  Mersey

  131

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Western

  340

  1

  0

  32

  2

  Total

  3,294

  5

  80

  281

  111

  1 Based on information provided by the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority as at 3 January 1992.

  624
  In addition to research council funding, substantial public funding for medical and other research at universities is provided by the Universities Funding Council as part of its block grant to institutions, which are free to dispose of it in accordance with their academic and research priorities. The distribution of grant between universities is a matter for the UFC. Research funding is also provided through the health departments and health authorities. The Government welcome, moreover, the very important contribution made by the medical research charities and has introduced a more favourable tax regime to encourage support for charities.

HEALTH

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department holds on the increase of morbidity in any population following the fluoridation of water to one part per million.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 19 November at columns 126–27. There is no evidence that fluoridation of drinking water at the rate of one part per million has any adverse effect on health.

  Accident Victims (Organs)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward legislation to introduce a scheme whereby accident victims would automatically make their organs available for transplantation unless they have specifically indicated that they wish to opt out.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Transplants
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in England are now awaiting transplant surgery; and if he will separately distinguish these by organ by health region and by length of time they have been waiting.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table gives the number of people awaiting transplantation in England by organ and the region in which they expect to be treated. Information on the length of time waiting is not collected centrally.

  Calorie Consumption
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on how many calories(a) employed and (b) unemployed men consume on average daily.

  Mr. Dorrell
  "The Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults" published in 1990 shows average daily calorific intakes for men as(a) employed, 2,520; and (b) unemployed, 2,060. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  Clinical Standards Advisory Group
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work is being undertaken by the Clinical Standards Advisory Group.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales and I have asked the Clinical Standards Advisory Group to undertake studies with the following terms of reference:To advise on access to, and availability of, selected National Health Service specialist services, with particular reference to the referral of patients across District boundaries to regional and national centres. Your investigations will consider, but not be limited to, the effects of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 in a representative sample of National Health Service regions and boards. The four services you have selected are: neo-natal intensive care; cystic fibrosis; childhood leukaemia; and coronary artery bypass grafting.
  To advise on standards of clinical care for patients admitted to hospital urgently or as emergencies. Your investigations will consider the time patients wait for diagnosis and treatment in the 24 hours after arrival at a hospital, and the factors influencing these times including events prior to arrival, in a representative sample of National Health Service hospitals. You will select several clinical conditions for more detailed investigation, including if possible the effect on health outcomes of variations in the time patients wait.
  To advise on standards of clinical care for women in normal labour. Your investigations will include variations in clinical protocols for and practice in the management of women having their first child in a representative sample of labour wards in National Health Service hospitals. You will also investigate the use of cortico-steroids in cases of premature labour.
  To advise on standards of clinical care for people with diabetes. Your investigations will include reviews of existing statements of clinical standards, of the standards specified in National Health Service contracts, and of arrangements for auditing the delivery of services to contracted standards, in a representative sample of National Health Service districts and hoards.

  I have also welcomed the advisory group's intention to undertake preparatory work on hospital acquired infections and on community health care for the elderly before deciding whether the group wishes to propose studies in these areas; and to keep other areas of clinical care under review.

  Brain Injury
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which sites have been selected for the new funding under the Government's initiative to improve national health service rehabilitation services for people with brain injury.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Twelve sites will lead our £l million initiative to improve services for rehabilitation and 626
  long-term care for people with brain injury. Each one will be a model from which others will learn to improve services to this group throughout the country.

  The selected sites are:

  Funds for 1992–93

  (£ thousands)

  Regional Rehabilitation Centre, Hunters Moor Hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  40

  Leeds General Infirmary and Leeds Community Services

  80

  Derbyshire Royal Infirmary and Derby City Hospital

  75

  Nottingham Health Authority

  75

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals

  70

  Regional Neurological Rehabilitation Unit, Homerton Hospital, London

  150

  Rivermead Rehabilitation Centre, Oxford

  70

  Rayners Hedge Physical Rehabilitation Service, Aylesbury

  40

  Stroke and Rehabilitation Unit, Royal Cornwall Hospital (City), Truro

  65

  Frenchay Healthcare Services, Bristol

  200

  Neurobehavioural Rehabilitation Unit, St Edward's Hospital, Cheddleton and Neurological Rehabilitation Unit, Haywood Hospital, Burslem

  90

  Community Unit, Worcester District Health Authority

  90

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in what number of prescriptions, in each of the last five years, Diumide-K—a diuretic with potassium—or a similar preparation has been prescribed; and in what number of cases one of the individual constituents has been prescribed(a) in England and (b) in each district health authority or family practitioner committee area;

  (2) in what number of prescriptions, in each of the last five years, Burinex A or a similar preparation—bumetanide with amiloride hydrochloride—has been prescribed; and in what number of cases one of the individual constituents has been prescribed (a) in England and (b) in each district health authority or family practitioner committee area;

  (3) in what number of prescriptions, in each of the last five years, Prempak-C or a similar preparation has been prescribed; and in what number of cases one of the individual constituents—conjugated oestrogens/norgestrel—has been prescribed (a) in England and in each region and (b) in each district health authority or family practitioner committee area;

  (4) in what number of prescriptions, in each of the last five years, Caprozide or a similar preparation has been prescribed; and in what number of cases one of the individual constituents—Captopril and hydrochlorothiazide—has been prescribed (a) in England and in each region and (b) in each district health authority or family practitioner committee area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not available in the form requested. The available data,
  627
  which relate to the estimated number of prescriptions dispensed in each regional health authority over the last four years, have been placed in the Library.

  Deaths (Certification)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will take steps to ensure that every person authorised to certify a human death has first been satisfied that an ether test or an icard test, or similar, has been administered.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Death is certified by registered medical practitioners in accordance with accepted professional practices. Whether or not a particular test is appropriate will depend upon the individual circumstances of a particular case.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's current policies in regard to the treatment of breast cancer.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Our objective is to reduce morbidity and mortality from all forms of cancer. The aim of the national breast screening programme is to detect cancer at an early stage when treatment offers the best prospect of success. The treatment of each individual is a matter for discussion between her and her doctor.

  Developments in treatment are kept under review by the Department's expert advisers on cancer; and the Government are supporting the "Europe Against Cancer" programme, which pools experience across the Community in the fight against this disease.

  Mortality Rates
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing the(a) perinatal, (b) infant and (c) overall mortality rates by social class in London regional health authorities in 1970, 1980 and for the latest date available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 13 January 1992]: The information is not available in the form requested. The available information is shown in the tables.

  Perinatal and infant mortality by social class of father (as defined by occupation) 1980 (births within marriage only). Perinatal deaths per 1,000 total births. Infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

  Social Class

  Perinatal deaths

  Infant deaths

  North West Thames regional health authority

  All

  10·4

  10·4

  I-V

  10·4

  10·2

  I

  8·7

  7·0

  II

  9·1

  9·5

  III

  11·3

  10·6

  IV

  10·7

  11·8

  V

  12·8

  15·5

  North East Thames regional health authority

  All

  13·1

  11·1

  I-V

  13·0

  10·7

  I

  10·5

  8·3

  II

  13·4

  10·7

  III

  12·2

  9·2

  IV

  14·3

  13·4

  V

  19·2

  21·4

  628

  Social Class

  Perinatal deaths

  Infant deaths

  South East Thames regional health authority

  All

  12·0

  11·5

  I-V

  11·9

  11·2

  I

  4·6

  5·4

  II

  10·9

  10·0

  III

  12·2

  9·2

  IV

  15·7

  15·6

  V

  14·8

  15·4

  South West Thames regional health authority

  All

  10·5

  10·4

  I-V

  10·1

  10·0

  I

  7·1

  7·3

  II

  9·5

  9·8

  III

  10·5

  9·4

  IV

  14·3

  15·4

  V

  9·7

  14·6

  Perinatal and Infant deaths by social class of father (as defined by occupation) 1989 (births within marriage only). Perinatal deaths per 1,000 total births. Infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

  Social class

  Perinatal deaths rate per 1,000 total births

  Infant deaths rate per 1,000 live births

  North West Thames regional health authority

  All

  7·9

  7·2

  I-V

  7·6

  6·9

  I

  6·3

  6·3

  II

  6·3

  5·8

  IIIN

  8·1

  7·5

  IIIM

  7·9

  6·5

  IV

  10·7

  8·8

  V

  115·4

  119·1

  North East Thames regional health authority

  All

  7·8

  7·4

  I-V

  7·8

  7·4

  I

  14·1

  5·8

  II

  7·2

  5·7

  IIIN

  8·3

  8·8

  IIIM

  7·9

  8·1

  IV

  10·8

  8·4

  V

  17·1

  110·0

  South East Thames regional health authority

  All

  8·2

  7·6

  I-V

  8·1

  7·5

  I

  16·3

  15·4

  II

  7·7

  6·7

  IIIN

  7·4

  7·6

  IIIM

  8·7

  7·7

  IV

  8·8

  8·8

  V

  19·2

  112·6

  South West Thames regional health authority

  All

  6·8

  6·6

  I-V

  6·8

  6·6

  I

  5·1

  7·2

  II

  5·8

  6·1

  IIIN

  8·0

  14·9

  IIIM

  7·7

  6·7

  IV

  8·7

  10·5

  V

  111·5

  15·8

  629
  1Indicates rates calculated from less than 20 deaths to warn the user that their reliability as a measure may be affected by the number of events.

  Deaths by social class (as defined by occupation) 1971

  Rates per 1000 population for males aged 15–64

  Social class

  Metropolitan Regional Hospital Area

  Total

  I

  II

  IIIN

  IIIM

  IV

  V

  North West

  5·3

  3·9

  4·8

  5·4

  5·7

  7·4

  9·1

  North East

  5·5

  3·6

  4·9

  5·2

  5·6

  7·1

  8·5

  South East

  4·8

  3·2

  4·2

  4·5

  5·1

  6·4

  8·2

  South West

  4·2

  3·0

  3·8

  4·4

  4·7

  6·0

  7·1

  Deaths by social class (as defined by occupation) 1981

  Rates per 1000 population for males aged 16–64

  Social class

  Regional Health Authority

  Total

  I

  II

  IIIN

  IIIM

  IV

  V

  North West Thames

  4·5

  3·0

  3·7

  4·2

  5·1

  6·1

  8·3

  North East Thames

  4·7

  2·9

  3·7

  4·3

  5·3

  6·5

  8·7

  South East Thames

  4·8

  3·2

  4·2

  4·5

  5·1

  6·4

  8·2

  South West Thames

  4·2

  3·0

  3·8

  4·4

  4·7

  6·0

  7·1

  Notes:

  1. The figures in these tables are based on deaths in the years around the 1971 and 1981 censuses. The top table covers the years 1970–72, the bottom table covers 1979, 1980, 1982 and 1983.

  There was a strike among registrars in 1981 and so no data are available for that year.

  2. Figures in these tables are crude death rates and have not been standardised for age differences between men in different social classes in different regions.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has given evidence to the Bingham inquiry.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Espionage
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Prime Minister what information he has recently received with regard to eastern bloc espionage within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The protection of national security against threats from espionage is a statutory function of the Security Service. It remains my normal practice not to comment in detail on security and intelligence matters.

  Public Records Act 1958
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what reforms he intends to make to the Public Records Act 1958; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have no plans to reform the Public Records Act or to make changes to the provision whereby public records which are selected for permanent preservation are normally made available to the public after 30 years. The only amendment to the Act which is in prospect, when a suitable legislative opportunity arises, is the removal of the statutory requirement for the Master of the Rolls to be chairman of the Advisory Council on Public Records.

  UN Environment and Development Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the steps taken by each Department of Her Majesty's Government, respectively, to prepare for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June.

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of the Environment is responsible for co-ordinating the Government's approach to UNCED. Within this overall framework other departments have set up their own arrangements for contributing on appropriate matters to preparations for the conference. I am taking a close personal interest as I expect to lead the United Kingdom delegation in Rio de Janeiro.

  Amritsar Massacre
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will authorise the release of official papers relating to the Amritsar massacre of 13 April 1919.

  The Prime Minister
  All official papers relating to the Amritsar massacre on 13 April 1919 have been available to the public since 1968, and are currently held at the Oriental and India Office collection of the British Library.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

  Secret Service
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his practice to give information in reply to parliamentary questions concerning secret intelligence services.
  631
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 1992]: It remains my normal practice not to comment on security and intelligence matters.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if privately run prisons will take category A prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There are no present plans for contracting out the management of prisons intended to hold category A prisoners: neither Wolds remand prison nor Blakenhurst prison will hold such prisoners.

  Special Secure Units
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average prisoners spend in the special secure units; what is the longest period a prisoner has spent in a special secure unit; and what was the offence for which he was sentenced.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A figure for the average time spent by prisoners in special secure units is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The longest period a prisoner has spent in special security units is 18½ years, following conviction on charges of murder and possession of firearms with intent.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons prisoners are confined in special secure units; and for what offences they have been sentenced.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The aim of the special security units is to provide a national resource to accommodate the prisoners assessed as category A—exceptional risk—that is, as posing the greatest risks both to the public and of escape, and therefore requiring the very highest conditions of security. Offences for which prisoners currently held in these units have been convicted include armed robbery, murder, drug importation and offences associated with terrorism.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were being held in special secure units in England and Wales on 31 December 1991.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Twenty-two.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the effect, in terms of their prison career, of persons being confined in a special secure unit.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Prisoners in special security units do not have access to prison workshops, but in other respects the regime available to them is comparable to that of other convicted category A prisoners, and includes education, hobbies, exercise, recreation, and association with other prisoners in the unit throughout most of the day.

  Categorisation is kept constantly under review, and any prisoner no longer assessed as category A—exceptional risk—is transferred to some other appropriate part of the prison estate.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the improvements in(a) electoral registration and (b) postal vote availability made since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The number of registered electors in England and Wales has risen from 36,695,180 in 1979 to 38,509,382 in 1991. We provide a variety of publicity material in support of electoral registration officers, and conduct an annual national advertising campaign to encourage people to register. We also carry out annual research into the working methods of electoral registration officers, and produce guidance and advice to assist them in compiling an accurate register.

  We have made it easier to obtain a temporary postal vote for a particular election, by replacing the separate and specific categories listed in the Representation of the People Act 1983 with a single provision entitling an elector to a postal vote if his or her circumstances on the date of the election are such that he or she could not reasonably be expected to vote in person at the allotted polling station. This means that those who are away from home unexpectedly on business, on holiday or visiting sick relatives may now have a postal vote in the United Kingdom. The provisions for postal voting have also been extended to elections for parish and community councils.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many life prisoners who have been sentenced to life imprisonment are currently in prison; and how many of them are held in low-security prisons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  According to the records held centrally about 3,000 persons in prison service establishments in England and Wales were serving life sentences on 30 November 1991. Of these, about 920 were held in low-security establishments, which for adult males are category C or D establishments.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he decided to answer no further questions on the Birmingham pub bombings investigations; and if he will give the reasons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The chief constable of the West Midlands Police is responsible for the conduct of these investigations. It would be improper for my right hon. Friend to comment on them while they are continuing, because this might prejudice their outcome.

  Football Spectators Order
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all persons and organisations with whom ministers and officials in his Department have held meetings, and the dates, concerning the extension of the measures outlined in the Football Spectators (Corresponding Offences in Italy) Order 1990 to cover offences committed in Sweden; and what further measure he intends to take to extend these measures to Sweden.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government are seeking a bilateral agreement with the Swedish Government on
  633
  corresponding offences under the Football Spectators Act

  Date

  Home Office representatives

  Swedish representatives

  18 October 1991

  Officials

  Mr. Jarbourg, Consul General at the Swedish Embassy and Mr. Wibling of the Arlanda Police Service

  28 October 1991

  Officials

  Mr. Sandstrom, Head of the Swedish Police Planning Unit for the 1992 European Championship Finals and Mr. Wibling

  15 November 1991

  Officials

  Mr. Wibling

  2 December 1991

  Minister of State and officials

  Mrs. Hellsvik, Swedish Justice Minister

  Additionally, diplomats in the Stockholm embassy have met Swedish officials.

  Home Office officials will be having further discussions with the Swedish police and with Swedish Ministry of Justice officials next month.

  Rugby
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers on the extension of mandatory all-seated accommodation to rugby league and rugby union grounds; and when he expects to make a statement on the extension of mandatory all-seated accommodation to these sports.

  Mr. John Patten
  The views of the Association of Chief Police Officers on the extension of mandatory all-seated accommodation to rugby league and rugby union grounds was received in June 1991.

  We have now completed our consultation procedures. While we still require Football League clubs to move towards all seater grounds as recommended by Lord Justice Taylor, for other sports we see no reason to depart from a voluntary approach. We do not therefore intend to introduce primary legislation. However, we shall continue to keep this matter under review.

EMPLOYMENT

  Hairdressers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has relating to the average pay for 16, 17 and 18-year-old trainee hairdressers.

  Mr. Forth
  No information is available.

  Emergency Equipment
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, when implementing the workplace directive, he will require the independent certification of all emergency lighting and fire alarms to the appropriate European standard before installation; and if he will make a statement on emergency equipment.

  Mr. Forth
  Independent certification of equipment is not a requirement of the workplace directive and the Health and Safety Commission has made no such proposal in its consultative document containing proposals to implement the directive which was published on 15 January. A copy is in the Library.
  634
  1989. Details of meetings between Home Office Ministers and officials and their Swedish counterparts are contained in the table.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of people registered as unemployed in the Greater London area on 13 January.

  Mr. Jackson
  The latest available data for unemployed claimants relate to 12 December. On this date there were on a seasonally adjusted basis, 385,200 unemployed claimants in the Greater London region. Figures for January will be released on 13 February.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to issue contracts to training and enterprise councils for more than one year to enable TECs to sign contracts with core providers of training for more than one year and to bridge the academic year differential year with the financial year.

  Mr. Jackson
  The process for parliamentary provision of the large sums of public money spent through training and enterprise councils means that it is not possible to agree with them detailed funding for three years ahead. The Department is nevertheless developing a closer understanding with TECs of their longer term activities based on their three-year corporate plans. It is for individual TECs to decide on the duration of contracts with individual training providers.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to ensure that officers dealing with disability living allowance claims during the period February 1992 to April 1993 do not tag computer records with a view to automatically creating subsequent reviews.

  Mr. Scott
  Awards of disability living allowance will be made either for life or for a fixed period. There will be no automatic reviews during the course of an award. As now, clients with fixed period awards will be invited to re-apply towards the end of the period. These arrangements will apply to cases determined during the period of transition and will continue to operate thereafter.

  Heating Costs
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the notional amount for heating costs included in income support.
  635
  Miss Widdecombe
  Benefit rates are not composed of set amounts for specific expenditure items. In April 1992 income support will rise by 7 per cent., nearly 3 per cent. more than the retail prices index for the corresponding period. Those over 80, and younger disabled pensioners, will receive further additions over and above this rise.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in receipt of retirement pensions are caring for dependent members of their family and ineligible for invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not readily available. Invalid care allowance is intended for people who forgo work opportunities to provide regular and substantial care, and is not normally available to those over pensionable age. However, where entitlement to invalid care allowance has been established before pensionable age it continues to be payable subject to the overlapping benefit rules.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to adjust the cold weather payment system to take account of climatic variations in different parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Scott
  The system already fully reflects climatic variation around the United Kingdom, through the links to 63 weather stations. This system of linkages is kept under review, and further refinements were introduced as part of our recent package of improvements to the scheme, introduced in November 1991.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to meet representatives from the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans for such a meeting.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the administrative costs or savings in replacing the current system of cold weather payments by a system of cold weather credits, as recommended by the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits.

  Mr. Scott
  The recommendations of the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits do not contain sufficient details For a proper estimate to be made. They would be likely to be more expensive than the current cold weather payments scheme.

  Retirement Pensioners
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the percentage of retirement pensioners whose total incomes are below(a) £60 per week, (b) £70 per week, (c) £80 per week, (d) £90 per week and (e) £100 per week; and for each of these groups what percentage of their gross income is paid in rent and rates/poll tax.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the tables:636

  Table 1: Percentage of pensioner units with net incomes below the level shown

  Net income level less than

  Married pensioner units

  Single pensioner units

  All pensioner units

  £

  60

  —

  35

  22

  70

  —

  60

  38

  80

  9

  74

  49

  90

  22

  79

  58

  100

  36

  83

  65

  Table 2: Gross rent and rates as a percentage of gross income

  Net income level less than

  Married pensioner units

  Single pensioner units

  All pensioner units

  £

  60

  —

  19

  20

  70

  —

  24

  24

  80

  18

  25

  25

  90

  16

  25

  24

  100

  18

  25

  23

  Notes:

  (i) Net income is defined as gross income less National Insurance and income tax.

  (ii) Pensioner units are defined as single people who are at state pension age or over or married couples where the husband is at state pension age or over.

  (iii) Data source is the 1988 Family Expenditure Survey.

  (iv) Fewer than 20 units in the sample.

  Income Support
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, in the light of Commissioner's decision No. CIS/371/1990, he will amend the Social Security (Hospital In-Patients) Regulations so that nursing home residents are not regarded as being maintained free of charge for the purposes of entitlement to income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to do so.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the protocol of the Maastricht agreement which reverses much of the right to equal treatment in occupational pensions that was established by the Barber decision.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The protocol on article 119 of the treaty of Rome clarifies the retrospective effect of the Barber judgment. The implications of the protocol are still being discussed.

  Benefit Payments (Christmas)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what modifications of benefit payment arrangements are made during the Christmas period; and what evidence he has of the extent to which the modified arrangements meet the wishes of claimants.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Arrangements for benefit payments are a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress the Social Security Benefits Agency has made towards meeting the targets set out in the published business plan for 1991–92; and whether there have been any changes to the targets.
  637
  Mr. Newton
  I am informed by the chief executive of the Social Security Benefits Agency that if current performance is maintained the agency should meet 19 out of the 21 key targets specified in the published business plan with performance improving in the remaining two areas—war pensions disablement claims, where the number of claims has been much higher than expected, and short-term benefits accuracy. This will represent a substantial achievement in the first year of the agency.

  I have decided to revise four of the Benefits Agency's published key targets for technical reasons. Changes to two of the published social fund targets are necessary following the increase in provision for social fund grants and loans in 1991–92 which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced on 6 November. The revised targets are:

  i. to live within a gross budget of £268 million for loans and grants;

  ii. to recover £139 million in loan repayments.1

  The agency's efficiency savings target for the current financial year has been revised to take account of lower than forecast average salaries and a small transfer of savings to the Contributions Agency. The revised target is:
  iii. to achieve cumulative running costs efficiency savings of £182·4 million, reflected in the net Budget figure.

  I have decided to replace the ARMS Phase 2 milestone target. The ARMS—administrative resource management system—project has been subsumed within the FAMIS—financial and management information systems—project which is an overall strategy to integrate and upgrade the Department's finance and management information systems. The new milestone is:
  iv. to complete the FAMIS resource management user requirement by 31 March 1982.

  1The new target represents the higher cash level of loan repayments which the Benefits Agency is expected to achieve as a result of the increased gross allocations for loans. We do not propose to increase the rate of recovery from individual customers or change their repayment arrangements.

  Housing Costs
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what provision exists to enable individuals who leave home to take up places on training schemes to claim housing costs during the period of the scheme;

  (2) what plans he has to make adequate housing costs available through the benefit system to make it possible for trainees to leave home to take up places on schemes in areas of high housing costs;

  County

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Total

  Cornwall

  19

  33

  29

  21

  102

  Devon

  35

  14

  0

  0

  49

  Gloucester

  6

  0

  10

  6

  22

  Wiltshire

  11

  0

  17

  3

  31

  Avon

  9

  9

  8

  10

  36

  Dorset

  9

  15

  16

  9

  49

  Sussex

  33

  0

  0

  0

  33

  Total

  122

  71

  80

  49

  322

  There were no operations in any other county.

  It is estimated that some 20,000 badgers are killed in road accidents each year.
  638
  (3) what research his Department has conducted to establish the level of need to provide adequate housing costs through the benefit system to enable trainees to leave home to take up places on schemes in areas of high housing costs.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 January 1992]: Housing benefit is normally payable in respect of reasonable rents incurred by people for their home. This includes trainees on employment training and youth training programmes. Although housing benefit is not normally paid for a second home, couples who need to maintain two homes because one member is absent on a training course are able to claim housing benefit for both their main home and temporary accommodation occupied during the period of the scheme. Single people are also able to claim housing benefit for rented accommodation occupied while on a training course if no other liability to pay rent or mortgage exists. Housing benefit is generally available to meet reasonable market rents throughout the country. It is for local authorities to decide whether the rent payable is reasonable in individual cases.

  In addition, payment of accommodation costs for people who leave home to take up a training opportunity on a Government training scheme can be made at the discretion of the training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and the local enterprise companies in Scotland. In the case of the Government's priority groups for youth training or employment training, where the trainee can only join in or continue in a suitable training place by incurring certain costs, including housing costs, he is entitled to have these costs met or reimbursed by the training and enterprise council or relevant local enterprise company up to a level which is considered reasonable.

  In view of these provisions, there are no plans to conduct any research into the need to provide further housing costs for trainees through the benefit system.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many badgers were culled by his Department for each of the months of August, September, October and November in each county in England and Wales under the tuberculosis eradication scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of badgers killed as part of official badger control operations in the months August to November 1991 was as follows:

  Beef Special Premium
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average cost per head of cattle for the facilities provided through the intervention board for the beef special premium scheme in markets where there is a throughput of 20 cattle or fewer.

  Mr. Curry
  The estimated average cost per head of cattle for all facilities provided through the intervention board for the beef special premium scheme in markets is £1. Separate information is not available at individual auctions but in general the unit costs at auctions with low throughput would be higher than the average.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many markets he expects to be closed as a result of the intervention board's decision to withdraw facilities from market centres where the average throughput for beef special premium purposes is fewer than 10 cattle units per week.

  Mr. Curry
  The decision to withdraw certification facilities from markets and abattoirs which have an average weekly throughput of fewer than 10 cattle units per week was taken by Agriculture Ministers. It represents the application of long established policy to the circumstances of the ending of the sheep variable premium scheme on 5 January.

  Sheep Exports
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has completed its investigation of the transport and subsequent export of sheep from Kent to Pianella, Italy on 18 September and 24 September 1991: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  An investigation into the transport of certain consignments of sheep to Italy is continuing.

  Fish Hygiene
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the boiling of freshly caught shrimps in seawater would be banned as part of the implementation of the EC directive on fish hygiene; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  It will not. EC Directive 91/493 setting common public health requirements for fishery products contains no provisions on the water to be used for cooking shrimps at sea. It does require shrimps cooked at sea to be rapidly cooled, and states that the water used for this purpose must be drinking water or clean seawater. "Clean seawater" is defined in the directive as"seawater or briny water which is free from microbiological contamination, harmful substances and/or toxic marine plankton in such quantities as may affect the health quality of fishery products".

  Hence, the directive expressly envisages the use of seawater by shrimpers, and recent reports that this will be prohibited are incorrect. The Department of Health has lead responsibility for preparing national regulations which will give effect to the provisions of the Directive by 1 January 1993; the proposed regulations will of course be the subject of consultation.

DEFENCE

  RAF Wittering
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library details of the pilot project at RAF Wittering for the purchase of housing by service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I hope to make an announcement shortly concerning a number of measures affecting provision of housing for service personnel.

  Belize
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Government of Belize about the future of the garrison there; what plans there are to alter the deployment of men or equipment over the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have made clear to the Belize Government that the Garrison will remain for as long as appropriate. The arrangements for the garrison are kept under review; there are currently no plans to make changes to its size or composition.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current establishment of the garrison at Belize; what changes there have been over the past 10 years; what equipment is deployed there; and what substantive changes there have been in major equipment deployment over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details about the Belize garrison were given in the Eighth Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence on British forces in Belize, session 1987–88. There have been no substantive changes in major equipment deployment in the past ten years.

  Antares
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the report from the Commander-in-Chief, Fleet on his consideration of what action should be taken concerning the culpability of members of the crew of HMS Trenchant as described in the board of inquiry report into the loss of the fishing vessel Antares; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Commander-in-Chief Fleet is currently considering the matter and will make a decision in the near future.

  Submarine Reporting Scheme
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the extension of the submarine reporting scheme operating in the Clyde estuary to other fishing areas around the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Work is well in hand and I expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions, with whom and on what topics, he had on his recent visit to Indonesia; and what assurances he
  641
  received that equipment and weapons supplied from the United Kingdom will not be used against the people of East Timor.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Indonesia in September last year, when he met representatives of the Indonesian Government. A wide range of issues of mutual interest was discussed. As regards defence sales, all applications to export military equipment are carefully scrutinised on a case by case basis. We do not allow the export of arms and equipment likely to be used for repressive purposes against civilians. In the case of Indonesia, this covers the possible repression of the population of East Timor.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what licences have been approved for the export of arms to Indonesia in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not our normal practice to disclose details of United Kingdom defence sales to particular countries.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with United Kingdom military equipment and weapons manufacturers concerning exports to Indonesia following his visit there.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  All discussions between my Department and United Kingdom defence suppliers are conducted on a confidential basis.

  HMS Warspite
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the provisions taken for the safe storage of HMS Warspite.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  HMS Warspite has been decommissioned and will shortly be placed in afloat storage at a suitable berth within Devonport naval base pending final disposal. All appropriate safety provision has been made.

  Soldiers (Convictions)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the number of serving British soldiers convicted of offences of(a) dishonesty, (b) involving violence and (c) any other category for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information on soldiers convicted of offences is given in tables 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Tri-Service Manpower Statistics Defence Statistics Annual Return TSM32, a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Rowner Housing Estate
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be in a position to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Gosport dated 19 December in which he asked for a joint ministerial meeting involving Ministers from the Department of Defence and the Department of the Environment in order to discuss the defective housing on Rowner housing estate with a delegation from Gosport.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member shortly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Veal
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will ensure that all veal supplied to the House of Commons Refreshment Department is produced in Great Britain.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Refreshment Department is aware of the Minister of Agriculture's dissatisfaction with the minimum standards set by the recently agreed Community directive on the rearing of veal calves and of his intention to maintain the British legislation which ensures that calves in this country are reared humanely. In the light of that position, the Refreshment Department will seek to purchase only British veal or veal from other countries where production methods are known to meet the required standards.

  Metal Can Recycling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to respond to the offer made by the Save-a-Can scheme of a can collection and recovery service for the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  A number of offers of assistance with can recycling have been made and continue to be received. These have been brought to the attention of the authorities of the House who are investigating what arrangements can be made for that purpose in order that the matter can be considered by the Accommodation and Works Committee.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Tax
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to provide for the registration of council tax payers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  No. There is no need for a register under the council tax.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to run an advertising campaign on his council tax plans within the next six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have still to decide on the timing of a publicity campaign for the council tax but shall observe all the customary conventions concerning Government publicity.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources will be made available for the urban programme in 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I am pleased to announce an urban programme funding package for 1992–93 totalling same £260 million. This figure excludes the resources top-sliced for city challenge pacemaker authorities.
  643
  Initial allocations to the 57 urban programme authorities for 1992–93 total £248 million. An additional £11 million will be made available in 1992–93, through the urban programme, to three police authorities for the urban crime fund. This initiative was announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 26 November 1991.

  Urban programme money will be used to support a wide range of projects addressing the issues of job creation, training, health, education, safety and environmental improvement. In 1992–93, it will be targeted to smaller, defined areas of particular need to achieve greater impact.

  The urban crime fund will target additional funds on an experimental basis to three police authorities to help in tackling crime and providing a better environment in inner cities.

  Urban programme funding demonstrates the Government's commitment to a co-ordinated attack on inner city problems in partnership with the public, private and voluntary sectors. A list of the initial allocations in England for 1992–93 is set out in the table.

  Urban programme allocations 1992–93

  £ million

  Newcastle-Gateshead

  16·207

  Hartlepool

  2·017

  Langbaurgh

  2·050

  Middlesbrough

  5·156

  North Tyneside

  3·371

  South Tyneside

  4·756

  Stockton

  1·686

  Sunderland

  5·052

  Manchester-Salford

  20·789

  Blackburn

  3·819

  Bolton

  3·794

  Burnley

  2·111

  Oldham

  3·785

  Preston

  2·328

  Rochdale

  3·777

  Wigan

  2·638

  Liverpool

  18·278

  Halton

  1·466

  Knowsley

  3·984

  St. Helens

  1·794

  Sefton

  1·665

  Wirral

  3·548

  Merseyside special allocation

  1·000

  Birmingham

  22·496

  Coventry

  4·645

  Dudley

  1·561

  Sandwell

  4·642

  Walsall

  1·748

  Wolverhampton

  5·194

  The Wrekin

  0·961

  Derby

  1·359

  Leicester

  4·728

  Nottingham

  5·087

  Barnsley

  2·064

  Bradford

  4·491

  Doncaster

  2·225

  Hull

  4·884

  Kirklees

  1·083

  Leeds

  5·144

  Rotherham

  2·224

  Sheffield

  5·894

  Hackney

  5·393

  Islington

  8·550

  Lambeth

  8·452

  Brent

  2·660

  Greenwich

  1·534

  644

  £ million

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2·515

  Haringey

  2·930

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·765

  Lewisham

  2·550

  Newham

  3·100

  Southwark

  2·696

  Tower Hamlets

  4·500

  Wandsworth

  3·120

  Bristol

  1·635

  Plymouth

  1·318

  Municipal Bonds
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to give local authorities the right to raise capital finance by means of issuing municipal bonds with a maturity of more than five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Local authorities are already able to raise capital finance by issuing bonds with a maturity of more than five years. We are not currently contemplating any change in authorities' powers in this field.

  Bedfordshire County Council
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to make a statement on his decision upon the Bedfordshire county council structure plan alterations No. 3.

  Sir George Young
  We have completed the consideration of the 481 objections received to the proposed modifications to the Bedfordshire structure plan alterations No. 3, published in July 1991. We expect to publish the approval of those alterations, subject to modifications, early in February.

  Rowner Housing Estate
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be in a position to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Gosport dated 19 December in which he asked for a joint ministerial meeting involving Ministers from the Department of the Environment and the Department of Defence in order to discuss the defective housing on Rowner housing estate with a delegation from Gosport.

  Mr. Yeo
  A reply to my hon. Friend's letter was sent to him on 15 January.

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to require certain local authorities to make a transfer from their housing revenue account to their general fund; if he will list the authorities involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Schedule IV to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 requires a local housing authority to make a transfer from its housing revenue account to some other revenue account if its housing revenue account subsidy calculation results in a negative amount. The transfer must be equal to that amount. An authority not entitled to housing revenue
  645
  account subsidy may also transfer any end-of-year surplus on its housing revenue account to some other revenue account. In 1991–92 the following authorities are expected to transfer an estimated total of £23,286,882 from their housing revenue accounts:

  Barking and Dagenham

  Newbury

  Swale

  Suffolk Coastal

  South Wight

  St. Edmundsbury

  Wandsdyke

  Medina

  Epson and Ewell

  Sevenoaks

  Tonbridge and Malling

  North Bedfordshire

  Broadland

  East Dorset

  Mid Bedfordshire

  West Oxfordshire

  Wycombe

  South Bucks

  Thamesmead
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Local Government Boundary Commission to submit its recommendations on the future of Thamesmead to him.

  Mr. Key
  The Commission has issued draft proposals covering the Greenwich/Bexley boundary. Public comments have been received and are being considered by the commission, after which they will submit their report to my right hon. Friend.

  Inland Waterways
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce the new membership of the Inland Waterways Advisory Amenity Committee.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Shortly.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what legislation exists to control(a) toxic mercury vapours from amalgam tooth fillings, (b) radioactive particles from nuclear powered heart pacemakers and (c) PCB contamination from plastic coffin materials given off from crematoria chimneys.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 January 1992]: Under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, crematoria are subject to local authority air pollution control. The Secretary of State's process guidance on the standards of pollution control to be met by crematoria gives guidance on minimising the emission of potentially toxic substances, for example by ensuring complete combustion (clauses 41–44 of PG5/2, available from HMSO). The holding and use of radioactive material and the discharge of radioactive waste is subject to the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. It is our understanding that heart pacemakers are removed prior to cremation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Crumlin Road, Belfast
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what form of inquiry was held into the bomb explosion in HM Prison, Crumlin road, Belfast; in which room of the prison the explosion occurred; how many prisoners died as a result of the explosion; when he expects to receive the results of the inquiry; how many people have been prosecuted in connection with this incident; and if he will make a statement on the present safety arrangements for remand prisoners at this prison.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Two remand prisoners died as a result of injuries received when a bomb exploded in the recreation and dining hall in C wing, HM prison Belfast, on 24 November 1991. To date there have been no prosecutions in connection with the incident. The police investigation is continuing.

  Following the explosion two inquiries were initiated. A senior governor in the Northern Ireland prison service was requested to inquire into the effectiveness of search and other procedures at Belfast prison and to consider what changes, if any, should be made. While Lord Colville was asked to review the operational policy at Belfast prison for the management of paramilitary prisoners from opposing factions and to make recommendations.

  The internal inquiry, which was completed on 10 December, contained a number of recommendations and these are currently being considered with a view to their urgent implementation. Lord Colville is at present taking evidence and I hope to have his report by February.

  The Government are conscious of its duty to take all practical and reasonable steps to ensure the safe custody of all prisoners in the Northern Ireland prisons and safety arrangements are kept constantly under review. In addition to the changes recommended by the internal inquiry, a number of security measures have been introduced at Belfast prison since the explosion to provide greater protection for remand prisoners.

  Low Achievers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision and resources he has made for low achievers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All schools are funded by formulae which allocate additional resources to schools in respect of children with special needs and social deprivation. In addition, under the Making Belfast Work and Londonderry initiatives, the Department of Education for Northern Ireland has targeted almost £3 million over the last three years at selected primary and secondary schools. This is aimed at improving educational standards and the employability of pupils.

  Roads
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the major capital road schemes and the estimated costs of each scheme which are programmed for the years 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:
  647

  Financial year

  Proposed schemes

  Estimated cost

  (£ million)

  1992–93

  Newry bypass, stage 3 (bridge)

  1·9

  1993–94

  Church street/Scotch street, Downpa trick

  1·6

  Newry bypass, stage 2

  3·6

  Newry bypass, stage 3 (roadworks)

  4·2

  1994–95

  M2 Crosskannan slip roads

  0·5

  Purdysburn road, Belfast, stage 1

  0·8

  A4 Ballygawley/Londonderry improvement schemes

  0·3

  Omagh throughpass, stage 2

  2·9

  1995–96

  Killead bypass

  0·9

  Forster Green, Belfast

  1·6

  Ballymaconaghy road, Belfast, stage 2

  0·5

  Greenmouth link, Coleraine, stages 3 & 4

  0·5

  Strand road, Londonderry, stage 2

  1·0

  Balloo road, Bangor, stage 3

  0·5

  Northern distributor, Ballymena

  2·2

  Great Victoria street/Sandy row, Belfast

  1·4

  Comber bypass, stage 2

  2·6

  A26 Antrim/Ballymena, stage 2

  2·7

  The precise timing of all these schemes will depend on the completion of the statutory processes and the availability of finance at the time.

  University Applicants
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his reply on 19 December 1991,Official Report, column 317, how many applicants from Northern Ireland were refused enrolment for the current academic year, 1991–92, into (a) Queen's university and (b) the University of Ulster.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Republic of Ireland (Education)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost to public funds for students from the Republic of Ireland now receiving their higher education in Northern Ireland as a result of European Community regulations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the estimated cost to public funds of tuition fees for students from the Republic of Ireland in the 1991–92 academic year will be approximately £3·8 million.

  Urban Development Programme
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether all the expenditure on the urban development programme is included in public expenditure totals in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The urban development programme is a scheme of assistance wholly funded by the International Fund for Ireland. Expenditure under the scheme is not included in public expenditure totals in Northern Ireland.

SCOTLAND

  Cold Weather Credits
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has made to the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government are already addressing the issues raised by the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits by making significant improvements to the Department of Social Security cold weather payments scheme which came into effect last November. From January 1992, the Department of Energy introduced the home energy efficiency scheme which replaces and improves on community insulation projects and the home insulation scheme; and the Scottish Office "Keep Warm this Winter" Campaign offers free advice and assistance to anyone concerned about the adverse effects of cold weather.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in support of the introduction of cold weather credits.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have recently received written representations from Citizens Advice Scotland and West Lothian district council in support of the scheme.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on environmental restoration work carried out at the nuclear power development establishment at Dounreay on radioactive waste seepage from the low-activity waste pits since 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1992]: No seepage of liquid containing radioactivity is known to occur from the low activity waste pits and no environmental restoration work is proposed. Leachate from the radioactive waste disposal pits at Dounreay is collected from the pit drainage system and sampled on a regular basis of radioactivity. The leachate is then pumped to the main effluents tanks from where it is discharged to the sea along with other liquid effluents in accordance with the site authorisation.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will evaluate the requirement for a programme to renovate the shallow-level radioactive waste disposal pits at the nuclear power development establishment at Dounreay along the lines of the restoration work done at similar disposal trenches at Drigg in Cumbria.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1992]: There is no evidence to suggest that remedial or additional restoration work is required on the four filled pits, or the two pits currently in use.

  Coastguards
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of coastguards at each station in Scotland and the number for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement on the future of this service.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 January 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  The answer to the hon. Member's question with regard to lists of numbers of coastguards at each station in Scotland for each year since 1979 can only be obtained at excessive cost.
  650
  Her Majesty's coastguard will continue to co-ordinate civil maritime search and rescue from the current 21 maritime rescue co-ordination centres and sub-centres for the foreseeable future, including seven in Scotland. Support will continue to be provided by local sector and auxiliary coastguard stations whose effectiveness and efficiency will be enhanced by the formation of 68 additional auxiliary companies at new locations around the coast, including 33 in Scotland. Numbers of pagers and portable radios are being doubled, and improvements in the remuneration, equipment and training of the auxiliary coastguard service are to be made.

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

Osteoporosis
The Viscount of Falklandasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why osteoporosis was omitted from the targeted conditions in The Health of the Nation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Green Paper—the consultative document, The Health of the Nation—is a first step in the Government's approach to targeting health needs. We recognise that osteoporosis is an important condition, but it was not considered as much a priority as the 16 target areas selected for the consultation process.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. My Question was prompted by the list of specific items in the consultative document. Although they are all very worthy and deserve attention, does not this disease (which for the guidance of noble Lords I shall refer to in layman's terms as crumbling bones) take up an inordinate amount of ward space each year? Is it not reckoned in some medical circles to take as much as £1 billion a year in National Health Service costs? Does the noble Baroness agree that it would be encouraging if she could say whether it could be included in future references to the consultative document?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should point out to the noble Viscount that it was made clear in the consultative document that the areas chosen for consultation would be narrowed down to some five or six areas in the final White Paper, because, to be effective, targeting must be very precise and fulfil the criteria that we have laid down. There are other aspects of the White Paper, including advice on a healthy lifestyle and physical exercise, which are important as regards osteoporosis; but I can assure the noble Viscount that we shall review the key areas over a period of time.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether any research is being done into a disease of which some of us are not perhaps as fully aware as the Minister?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Research is the most effective way forward in that area. The department is currently funding a cost-benefit analysis of hormone replacement therapy, which is due to be reported on in April. We have also commissioned a critical review of screening techniques for detecting osteoporosis, which will also be reported on shortly. The Medical Research
346
Council has a major programme of relevant research and has set up a specialist group to look at the further research required in that area. We are also participating in a European Community programme on prevalence.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the noble Baroness have an estimate of the cost to the nation of the condition? A figure of £1 billion has been mentioned. Does she agree that it is not only a burden in terms of the number of sufferers who take up orthopaedic beds, but that it is a longer term problem for carers if sufferers are not able to continue to live independently?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, we recognise the importance and widespread nature of the condition. One of the problems is that there are no sound epidemiological statistics, and I cannot therefore give the noble Lord an exact figure. However, I can refer to the fact that in 1987–88 there were 45,000 hospital admissions for hip fractures, which can be taken as some kind of estimate in that area. Of those, 35,000 were women and 27,000 were women of over 75 years of age. The cost of hospital stays for fractured hips is estimated at about £126 million a year.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, with the ageing population, it is necessary that the disease should be prevented as women in particular tend to live much longer now than they did 10 or 20 years ago? As osteoporosis has become more obvious in the fractures that women suffer, may I urge the Minister to make this a priority?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can certainly reassure the noble Countess that we give the condition due importance. In addition to the increased awareness, we continue to use channels of education to inform and encourage people to take up screening on an individual, personal basis.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in preventing osteoporosis, probably the most important point is a healthy diet, adequate calcium and exercise and the cessation of smoking; in other words, that it is another DIY job?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as in so many other areas, there is clearly a certain amount of self-responsibility. The thrust of the Green Paper and the effect of the consultation process is to emphasise the importance of a healthy lifestyle and adequate physical exercise. That is also underlined in other government publications relating specifically to areas of women's health and the health of elderly people.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that hormone therapy and certain other therapies have proved dramatically successful in recent years in treating this appalling condition? Does she appreciate that bone density scanning is most effective in pinpointing the women at risk? Will she give the highest priority to the scanning of women who are in the appropriate age bands?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. As I said, we are encouraging people to be screened on an individual, personal basis. We also encourage hormone replacement therapy in the sense that it has a role to play not only in the treatment of menopausal symptoms but also in the prevention of osteoporosis. The noble Lord may be interested to know that GP prescriptions for hormone replacement therapy have tripled over the past 10 years.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the emphasis put on the importance of this condition by the noble Baroness and its wide acceptance in the medical profession, can she now explain why it was omitted from the targeted conditions?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in my original reply, I indicated that we regarded this as an important area. Nevertheless, we considered that there were other priority areas which were even more important. Having said that, clearly some of the steps envisaged in the White Paper will be directed at the causes of osteoporosis.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the House will note the advice from the Government about the need for a healthy lifestyle. No doubt we all accept that. However, are the Government aware of the two-fold problem faced by people suffering from this condition; namely, late diagnosis and inappropriate advice given before a diagnosis has been made? Are they further aware that the recommendation to take exercise may not be the best advice to give to elderly women who suffer from this condition? What action are the Government taking to ensure that, once the condition has appeared, effective diagnosis is made and appropriate advice given?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is not a role entirely for Government. It is also an important role for health care professionals. The Government are doing everything possible on the education front to raise the level of awareness and encourage people to take steps to try to avoid this condition.

NHS: Dental Treatment
3.16 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that people in certain areas are having difficulties in obtaining dental treatment under the National Health Service, and what proposals they have to deal with the situation.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are aware of some pockets of difficulty; but more than three-quarters of the country's dentists accept all patients who seek National Health Service treatment. An even higher proportion accept all children. Over 25 million patients are now registered under the new system with a dentist in England or Wales. Nevertheless, we are in discussion with family health service authorities and representatives of the dental profession further to improve the implementation of the new dental contract.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the welcome details given by the Minister. Is she aware that a recent report issued by her own department, the Department of Health, showed that in parts of London 75 per cent. of dentists refuse all national health patients. Does she agree that if certain dentists want to behave badly it leaves the people in those areas open to some form of exploitation? Can she indicate whether the Government are aware of this situation and whether they will try urgently to resolve it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are certainly very much aware of it. To some extent the findings of the survey and analysis that we made reflect a situation which was already in existence. A number of dentists already offered a mixed service of private and national health treatment and some remained exclusively private, particularly in the central London area. It is true to say that in Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster there are more dentists per capita than in any other family health service authority in the country. Nevertheless, as a result of our survey, I met with the chairmen of the FHSAs in the four worst areas. They assured me that if anybody goes to them they are able to find a suitable National Health Service dentist. We are looking at other ways of communicating to people that when seeking a National Health Service dentist they need to approach their FHSA in order to obtain the information that they require. We are also looking at use of the community dental service and the employment of salaried dentists, where appropriate.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is the high cost areas, such as London, in which the problem exists? Does she agree that the situation was drawn to the Government's attention before the new contract came into force? Will she also confirm that those members of the British Dental Association General Dentists Services Committee who negotiated the contract were not re-elected by the members of their profession because they considered that the contract had not taken into consideration the high cost areas and the inability of dentists, even those who wished to provide National Health Service treatment, to do so? I ask the noble Baroness to confirm that the Government will review the matter with the newly elected committees which may be more aware of the real problems.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are aware of the problems indicated by my noble friend. Indeed she herself drew them very forcefully to my attention during the course of your Lordships' proceedings. We reacted by ensuring that there should be direct reimbursement of rates for all dentists. We are continuing discussions with the GDSC in terms of simplification of the administration and documentation relevant to the new contract. We are looking at other ways of improving its administration.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, even from the figures that she has given us, one quarter of all dentists now deny NHS treatment, and that there are some parts of the country where it is

349
virtually impossible for patients to obtain their dental health treatment on the National Health Service? Is that not depriving them of the choice about which we have been told so much by this Government? Is there not something more energetic and active that the Secretary of State can do to deal with a serious problem?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is simply not true to say on the evidence that we have that it is impossible to find National Health Service treatment in any part of the country. I have already indicated that anyone who has difficulties must approach his or her local family health service authority.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the difficulties in Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster. Is she aware that a number of the dentists who offer comprehensive health service treatment in those areas are in a great deal of doubt about how long they can afford to continue to do so? In reviewing the treatment of high cost areas in the dental contract, will she convey that the anxiety expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is not confined to any one quarter of the House?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I emphasise that in terms of funding and remuneration of dentists, the new contract did not change the level of dentists' remuneration: it simply changed the way that they are paid. It is welcomed by many dentists up and down the country. It gives a stable, regular income from continuing care payments for adults and the capitation fees for children. The proportions of the dental pool allocated to adult and child care were not changed by the new contract.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not a problem for London alone? The survey referred to quoted no less than 15 areas. In Bolton 36 per cent. of dentists and in Surrey 52 per cent. of dentists refused to offer NHS treatment to all their patients. In the Minister's first Answer she used the phrase, "some pockets of difficulty". I am sure that that is an understatement of the problem.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, no. In the department's own survey, which was a sample survey of the 90 family health service authorities throughout the country, it was quite clear that every authority area can provide National Health Service treatment. It is only in certain small areas that there are specific problems which we are now addressing.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, many examples have been cited from both sides of the House of people unable to get to a dentist. Does that not oppose the principle of preventive medicine? Children and grown-ups may not have something seriously wrong, but they believe it advisable to visit their dentist before they do.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the concept of the new contract which emphasises the need for continuing care was to reinforce that preventive
350
approach. We believe that any problems that may have arisen over implementation of the new contract will be, and should be, ironed out shortly.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, has not the combination of the new contract and the charges raised for dental inspections and so on previous to the implementation of the new contract reduced the numbers of dental patients? For example, I can now obtain an appointment with my dentist within a week whereas I used to have to wait six weeks. That seems an indication that he does not have so many patients and that therefore dentists' income is not so high as it was.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have no indication that fewer people are being treated; on the contrary. The figure of about 25 million people who have already registered is over and above the expectations that had been suggested by the profession and estimated within the department.

British Nuclear Deterrent
3.25 p.m.
Lord Mayhewasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it remains their view that the British nuclear deterrent should be capable of penetrating the defences of Moscow.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, it has been the practice of successive governments not to discuss matters of targeting.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I do not believe that the facts are in dispute. Is the noble Earl aware that while it is still necessary to maintain Trident, it makes no sense to continue to spend large sums of money in order to be able, independently of our allies, to penetrate the defences of Moscow and flatten the city?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I really think that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, should understand very clearly that it is not so much a question of our targeting policy as the need always to ensure that our deterrent keeps pace with developments in technology in order to maintain our credibility. The whole point is that we must set our course for the long term. Weapons systems simply cannot be produced out of a hat if in later years we do not have them but wish that we did.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the Government have signed NATO documents under which they undertake to run down their nuclear arms in association with other NATO countries. Why are they increasing them so greatly at the present time?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is true that the NATO stockpile will be run down by about 80 per cent., but certainly we are keeping pace. As I have said before, we are making quite sure that our deterrent nuclear capability is always there at the right time.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Government quite rightly are not saying what any targets will be. Is it not

351
a fact that ownership of the deterrent has meant that we have had peace in this country for the past 40 or so years?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the whole point of the Labour Government re-equipping Polaris with Chevaline was in respect of what has been termed "the Moscow priority"; namely, to be able to penetrate the defences of Moscow if required without allies, and that policy has been continued by the Government? To deny that is quite unacceptable.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, who knows where the next ABM defensive system may be required? There is one around Moscow certainly, but who knows, in this very dangerous world in which we live, where we may have to penetrate that particular system?
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, while I accept that a nuclear component is necessary in an uncertain world in both the British and NATO armoury, is it not sensible for the Government to accept the principle of minimum nuclear deterrence? Does the Minister believe that the very considerable escalation of the strike power of Trident at the same time as the ABM and ground-to-air missile defences around Moscow are going down seems incompatible with the notion of minimum deterrence?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the whole point about Trident is that it still is a minimum deterrent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that this country will not forgive a government of any political colour which allow our defence system to be undermined?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, yes, of course I agree with my noble friend. It is the defence of the realm, the defence of our country, that always keeps us in our seats and here today.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that to put down such a Question and to prolong the discussion of the possible bombardment of the capital of a country with which, at the moment at any rate, we are in friendly relations is no help to our diplomacy, whatever it may do for the self-esteem of those who wish to wave that particular wand?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. As I said, we never discuss our targeting policy. But it is important that we are vigilant at all times across all parts of the world.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister concede that it might be more profitable to co-operate with France, our neighbour, instead of having a separate independent deterrent?
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords, we have always said that we should deliver an independent system to NATO and that continues to be our policy.

Unemployment: Current Figures
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total number of people unemployed at the latest convenient date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in December 1991 seasonally-adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,546,000.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is not that figure disgraceful by any standard? Is the Minister aware that long after this Government have ceased to exist they will be remembered in particular as being the Government of high unemployment? In view of yet another substantial increase in unemployment announced today, will the Minister confirm that during the past 12 months there has been an increase in unemployment of 800,000 and that according to an OECD figure 10.2 per cent. of the workforce in this country is unemployed? That is well above the average for the European Community of 8.9 per cent. As the Minister frequently tells the House that this country is doing so much better than the rest of the EC, would he care to comment on those figures?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the rate of the increase in unemployment eased considerably during 1991. In the last three months of that year the increase was only one-third of that recorded in the first three months. However, more importantly the December rise in the stock of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres was the biggest since records began in January 1980. The number of new vacancies notified to jobcentres during December was the highest monthly total for seven months.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while in a period of high unemployment there may be a case for increasing government borrowing on a temporary basis, as has been done, there is no case for increasing personal direct taxation? Has my noble friend noticed that there appear to be some slight indications that the British people might be a trifle reluctant to endorse a proposal to increase the maximum rate of personal effective tax from 40 per cent. to 59 per cent.?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it comes as no surprise to me because, as we all remember, a Labour Government are a government of high taxation. That is no help in these circumstances, and neither is the suggestion of a national minimum wage. The only two countries in Europe which have a national minimum wage such as that proposed by the Labour Party are France and Spain. France has just published its highest recorded figures for unemployment. Spain has an unemployment record of 16.3 per cent., which is the highest of the European Community.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the Secretary of State for Employment said when releasing last month's unemployment figures:
"There are many encouraging signs that the recession is coming to an end"?
How does the Minister square that remark with the monthly figures announced today showing that another 80,000 are on the dole, that during the past 12 months 800,000 have been placed on the dole and that employment in manufacturing industry has fallen by 354,000 compared with 94,000 last year? Was that not double talk by the Secretary of State? Is there not still an industry and job crisis?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord considers that this country can operate in a vacuum, in isolation from the rest of Europe and from the rest of the world. As I have said previously, rising unemployment is not unique to the United Kingdom. In recent months it has risen in all European countries except the Netherlands. Today unemployment is higher than it was a year ago in every EFTA country and in every G7 country apart from Japan. Indeed, the latest United States jobless figures are the highest for five years. The noble Lord says, "Excuses, excuses". I have already indicated that the rate of increase has fallen considerably and that the number of vacancies is higher than it was seven months ago. I believe that indicates that the economy is beginning to surge again.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the repeated treatment of this serious problem in purely party political terms is beginning to pall upon the public?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend. I believe also that the Government have a wide range of assistance to help those people who unfortunately have lost their jobs.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, may I raise with the Minister a special problem based on the unemployment figures that have just been issued? They show 13.9 per cent. unemployment for Northern Ireland, the highest in the United Kingdom. I believe that is a general figure because in some troubled areas it is as high as 50 per cent. Is that not a large contributory factor to the problems that we now face and is there not a case for giving the matter special attention?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes, the problem with Northern Ireland has been with us for some time. I am sure that the noble Baroness realises that the rate of unemployment has risen by only 0.8 per cent. in a year and that we have been faced consistently with the higher unemployment figure in Northern Ireland. However, it contributes to our average percentage figure.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is common ground that unemployment has a considerable cost to public funds. Will the Minister accept the estimate of the
354
unemployment unit of a net cost to public funds, including lost revenue, of £14 billion per annum? If not, is he in a position to supply a better figure?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not familiar with the figures that the noble Earl has given. However, it is important to ensure that the people who become unemployed have the best possible opportunity to seek work again. That is what the employment service and the TECs are endeavouring to do.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that this is the 21st consecutive month in which unemployment figures have increased? He glossed over that worrying fact. Will he also accept that the construction workers whom we discussed in our debate yesterday are not bored by the fact that we often mention the plight of that important industry, the construction industry? If the Minister reads yesterday's debate he will learn that adequate money and labour are available to start building again. The workers are certainly not bored by the prospect of work but they are bored by the prospect of continued unemployment. Will the Minister say how soon the Government will release some of the money in order that at least the construction workers can get back to work?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in a time of recession which is obviously upon us just as important is the fact that there are almost 2.5 million more jobs than in 1983. The Government have taken firm action to defeat inflation and the number of stoppages is at its lowest level for 60 years.

Business
3.38 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 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment a Motion for resolution in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone will be taken.

Protection of Badgers Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Badgers Act 1973, the Badgers Act 1991 and the Badgers (Further Protection) Act 1991. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 22nd January
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

355
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Cumberlege and the Lord Laing of Dunphail set down for Wednesday 22nd January shall each be limited to 2½ hours.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
3.40 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
There is only one paragraph of the report to which I shall draw your Lordships' particular attention; it is paragraph 2, "Accommodation". We should congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House on his success in obtaining additional finance for this House in order to lease accommodation on the third floor of No. 7 Millbank. That could well be a considerable contribution to solving the many problems which we face in the field of accommodation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to. (HL Paper 25).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. BLACK ROD
The Queen has approved the appointment of Admiral Sir Richard Thomas as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and Serjeant-at-Arms in succession to Sir John Gingell from 13th January 1992.
The Committee has agreed to the appointment of Sir Richard Thomas as Agent to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee to carry out on its behalf control of accommodation and services in the House of Lords area of the Palace of Westminster.
The Committee wishes to record on the occasion of his retirement its gratitude to Sir John Gingell for the assistance which it has received from him during the seven years he has served as Agent to the former Administration Sub-Committee.
2. ACCOMMODATION
The Leader of the House informed the Committee that additional funds have been made available to the House of Lords to lease accommodation on the third floor of No. 7 Millbank, where the House of Commons is arranging to lease certain other floors.
3. REPORT FROM THE FINANCE AND STAFF SUB-COMMITTEE
(1) Works Services and HMSO Expenditure
The Memorandum of Understanding approved by the House in July (3rd report, Session 1990–91, HL Paper 69) has now been signed by the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees on behalf of the two Houses. The Memorandum deals with the funding of works and the terms of reference and employment of the Director of Works. It provides for the House of Lords to pay 40 per cent. of the cost of joint works and of the Director and his staff. A space audit of the Palace of Westminster has confirmed that a 40:60 split between the Houses is appropriate.
The Committee has endorsed a proposed overall structure for the staffing of the Directorate of Works.
The two Houses will assume responsibility for funding expenditure on works and printing, publishing and office equipment from 1st April 1992. Negotiations on supply and service agreements with the Department of the Environment and HMSO are in progress.
It is expected that a Bill will be introduced this Session to make provision for the two Houses to hold property and enter
356
into contracts, by conferring the status of corporations sole on the Clerks of the two Houses, who would thus be able to act on behalf of their respective Houses.
(2) Financial Management
Initial proposals to introduce new financial monitoring and control arrangements in this House have been put forward in the light of the Ibbs Report to the House of Commons Commission (HC(1990–91)38). These involve decentralisation of the House of Lords Vote and delegated control of budgets, giving senior staff more responsibility for financial management. The Finance and Staff Sub-Committee has endorsed these proposals strongly. The Sub-Committee will be considering proposals for delegation of authority to the Clerk of the Parliaments in respect of certain categories of expenditure, thereby enabling the Sub-Committee and the Offices Committee to concentrate on policy issues rather than on the approval of items of expenditure which raise no novel issues.
The Offices Committee intends to keep the House informed of progress made and the part which Members of the House can play.
(3) Financial provision etc.
The Committee has agreed to the following recommendations from the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee—
(i) Works services and HMSO expenditure
Future arrangements for expenditure on works services and printing, publishing and office requirements.
(ii) Staff of the House

(a) Creation of a post of sandwich student and

(b) Extension for one year of a temporary post of Hansard word processor operator.

(iii) Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit
Provision for a 22 per cent. share of the salary and administrative costs of the Joint Supervisor of Parliamentary Broadcasting and his office.
(iv) Education Unit
Provision for a 22 per cent. share of the staff costs of the Education Unit of the House of Commons Library.
(v) Judicial fees
(a) Fees payable on judicial proceedings as follows—

£

Petition of Appeal

60

Notice of Appearance..

7

Waiver of Security for costs

15

Petition not referred to Appeal Committee
(including incidential petition to conjoin or consolidate)

30

Petition referred to Appeal Committee (including report thereon)

35

Joint Petition (from each party thereto)

15

Application to set down for hearing

320

Final Judgment

35

(b) that fees payable to Nautical Assessors should in future be the same as those payable in the Admiralty Court and the Court of Appeal.
(vi) Official Shorthand Writer
A revised scale of fees for the Shorthand Writer, subject to the continuing longer term review of the arrangements for shorthand writing in both Houses.
(vii) Hansard Reporting Staff
A revised scale of charges for the supply of an agency word processor operator.
(viii) Uniform allowances
An increase in the allowances paid to Clerks at the Table, the Gentleman Usher and the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod and Doorkeepers for the purchase and maintenance of dress cloths.
(4) Appointments
The Committee took note of the following appointments by the Clerk of the Parliaments—Mr. D.L. Jones as Librarian from 1st August 1991.
Mr. P.G. Davis as Deputy Librarian from 1st August 1991.
Mr. D.J. Johnson as Clerk of the Records from 17th November 1991.
Mr. S.K. Ellison as Deputy Clerk of the Records from 17th November 1991.
Mr. D.A.W. Dunn as Staff Adviser from 1st November 1991.

357
Mrs. M.B. Bloor as a Clerk in the Committee Office from 31st October 1991.
Mr. J. Grist as the Supervisor of Parliamentary Broadcasting, a joint appointment with the House of Commons.
On the retirement of Mr. H.S. Cobb CBE as Clerk of the Records the Committee expressed its warm appreciation of his long and valuable service.
(5) Revised scales of pay and allowances
The Committee confirmed the application of the following Civil Service memoranda to staff of the House of Lords—

(i) DEO letter dated 3 May 1991—Pay of Legal Officer.

(ii) DEO letter dated 17 May 1991—Pay of Clerks at AT and HEO(D) level.

(iii) CM/956—Pay of Administrative Staff below Grade 7 and automatic data processing allowances.

(iv) CM/960—Responsibility allowances.

(v) CM/965—Pay of staff linked to IPMS grades.

(vi) CM/967—Pay of Grades 4, 5, 6 and 7.

(vii) CM/968—Subsistence and meal allowances.

(viii) GM/463—Fees to Specialist Advisers.

(ix) IM91/2—Industrial staff pay.

(x) GC/375—Performance related bonus to staff employed under fixed termed appointments.

(6) Superannuation
The Committee was notified of the following awards made under the House of Lords Staff Pension Scheme—

(a) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. M. Jones, Cleaner, who retired on 20th April 1991;

(b) Pension and lump sum to Mr. R.H.V.C. Morgan, CBE, Librarian, who retired on 1st August 1991;

(c) Preserved pension and lump sum to Mrs. G.A. Morgan, Reporter, who resigned on 19th October 1989;

(d) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. K. Wills, Cleaner, who retired on 26th October 1991;

(e) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. J.A. Seager, Cleaner, who retired on 26th October 1991;

(f) Pension and lump sum to Mr. J.H. Davis, Senior Doorkeeper, who retired on 1st November 1991;

(g) Pension and lump sum to Mr. W.A. Titmarsh, Judical Doorkeeper, who retired on 3rd November 1991;

(h) Pension and lump sum to Mr. P. Reardon, Nightwatchman, who retired on 3rd November 1991;

(i) Pension and lump sum to Mr. H.S. Cobb, CBE, Clerk of the Records, who retired on 17th November 1991.

4. VEHICLE ACCESS AND NEW PASS OFFICE
The Committee has approved a recommendation from the Finance and Staff and Administration and Works Sub-Committees that provision be made within the parliamentary works programme for design studies and consultations with regulatory and other interested bodies on improved traffic access into the Palace of Westminster via Black Rod's Garden and for a new security gate house there.
The Committee has also authorised an investigation into ways of improving parking facilities for the House of Lords.
5. CHAIRMAN'S ADVISORY PANEL ON WORKS OF ART
The Committee has agreed that the following Lords should form the Chairman's Advisory Panel on Works of Art—

M. Cholmondeley V. Hood

L. Fanshawe of Richmond

L. Crathorne L. Morgan

B. Trumpington

B. David L. Palumbo

L. Gibson (Chairman)

B. Ewart-Biggs L. Renton

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I raise the question of paragraph 3(2) of the report which refers to financial management. The last sentence of that paragraph states:
"The Sub-Committee will be considering proposals for delegation of authority to the Clerk of the Parliaments in respect of certain categories of expenditure, thereby enabling the Sub-Committee and the Offices Committee to concentrate on policy issues rather than on the approval of items of expenditure which raise no novel issues".
I am sure that the House would be glad to know just what are the certain categories of expenditure which the committee has in mind.
358
At present I believe that certain proposals are being considered about the work of the Select Committees of your Lordships' House, particularly the Select Committees dealing with EC affairs and various other Select Committees. I should like to be assured that if expenditure on those committees is included in the term "certain categories", your Lordships' House will have the opportunity to consider the report which, I understand, is now being prepared as a result of questionnaires that have been sent out to Members of your Lordships' House concerning the functions of the Select Committees to which I have referred.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, most of those matters will go to the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee of the Offices Committee. It is only the Offices Committee itself which we hope will be able to deal with matters of major principle. All matters of finance will be considered in detail by the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am greatly obliged.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, if some of your Lordships are to be accommodated at 7 Millbank, how much time does the committee think should be allowed for your Lordships to get into the Division Lobbies?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am afraid that that matter still has to be considered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting: Select Committee
3.42 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne be appointed to the Select Committee on Broadcasting in the place of the Viscount Davidson.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.43 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 12 [Provision of further education in maintained schools]:
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 10, leave out lines 33 to 42.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in moving this amendment we return to a point which I raised in Committee. It relates to what is known popularly as family education. The Bill as drafted

359
excludes the possibility of parents and children being taught together. Indeed, in proposing the amendment in Committee I cited the case of children with low literary skills of parents who perhaps also have low literary skills. If taught together their motivation might mutually support one another. However, that is excluded by the Bill.
When the Minister responded to me, he responded graciously as always. For one moment I thought that he was giving me a skilful tour of how to get round the provisions of the Bill. I recognise that it was not quite that. In fact the Minister was showing how narrow and precise is the exclusion. I fully recognise that.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is a case for making it at least possible for children and parents to be taught together. It seems needless to exclude it. Some useful experimentation has taken place in that respect. I have no knowledge of there being any abuse of that. The Minister may have a different view, but I know of no abuse. If there is no abuse and it is found to be of benefit to children and parents, it seems to me unnecessary specifically to exclude it from the Bill rather than leaving the matter free, at least for the time being, to enable further work to be carried out. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 78.
Baroness David: My Lords, I support what the right reverend Prelate said. Perhaps the Minister does not realise what a strong prohibition the Bill contains. Looking at Clause 12(3), Section 16A(2) states:
"It shall be the duty of the governing body of any such school which provides such education to secure in the case of a primary school, that such education is not provided at any time in a room where pupils are at that time being taught; and in the case of a secondary school, that such education is not provided at any time in a room where pupils are at that time being taught unless the majority of the pupils are over compulsory school age".
I agree with the right reverend Prelate. I do not believe that there has been any abuse of that. Adults do not join classes very often but when they do, it is extremely beneficial. It would be a great shame if because of lack of understanding, the amendment were not allowed.
At Committee stage I read a letter from somebody who was very much involved with this work. I sent her a copy of Hansard and I received a response. I should like to read some of what she said. She thought it would be helpful to list a few of the provisions so that they could be considered in the light of the Bill. The letter stated:
"Many Family Workshops take place in Primary and Secondary schools where parents and school age children learn together. The subjects offered range from Family French to Computer Studies. These workshops can take place in school hours, after school and in school holidays".
Of course, we are talking about those taking place in school hours. She continues:
"They can consist of "one-off" Family Days or they can extend over a much longer period, e.g. one afternoon per week over a number of years.
360
They are often taught jointly by school teachers and adult education tutors or by parents themselves and can help to break down barriers between professionals and parents and give an opportunity to share a wide range of skills …
A number of schools welcome adults in school classes where there are vacant places and adequate resources. This is always done with the full co-operation of the class teacher and in most cases has proved most successful. School age children also take part in classes run by Adult Education on school premises where it is felt that the child would benefit from being in an adult environment or where there are resources or skills on offer that the school may be unable to provide. e.g. craft facilities".
Those are examples of what goes on. It takes place infrequently but can be extremely helpful both to the children and to the parents, perhaps in areas of deprivation. I hope that the Minister, who seemed quite sympathetic to the whole idea in Committee, will this time be prepared to accept the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I find that this subsection of Clause 12 is very strangely worded and, indeed, obscurely worded in a way. If we look at subsection (2), which is the one to which the right reverend Prelate referred, we find the words, "any such school". In order to find what kind of school that means, we have to turn back to subsection (1) which refers to:
"Any county, voluntary or maintained special school".
I assume—and I stand open to correction—that the expression "special school" governs the words "county, voluntary or maintained", and there are such special schools. We have to assume that we are here dealing only with special schools. If that is not so, rewording is necessary. That is my first difficulty. My second difficulty is that, in the new subsection (2) (a) of the new Section 16A to be added to the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, we find these words,
"such education is not provided at any time in a room where pupils are at that time being taught".
We find that reference in both subsection (2)(a) and (2)(b). It does not specify what pupils.
The right reverend Prelate may have rightly assumed, for all that one knows, but it is not clear from the wording, that the pupils referred to are those of school age and that the people with whom they might be educated are those referred to in subsection (1) of the new Section 16A; namely, those who are to receive part-time education and who are,
"over compulsory school age; or full-time education … who have attained the age of nineteen years".
The right reverend Prelate has referred to the possibility of children and parents being educated together. I shall come to that matter in a moment, but I am not certain whether that is desirable. Parents are not referred to at all in this respect. If it is the intention of the Government that parents should be referred to, then it is better for that to be made clear and stated.
Let us assume that adults are to be educated with children. The right reverend Prelate has said something with which some noble Lords may agree, but I have doubts about it and for this reason. The interests of children must always be paramount when we are legislating as regards education. In some cases it might be to the advantage of children and parents for them to be educated together. However, it would be a very rare situation.
It might be that in some cases such an arrangement would be advantageous to children. If adults other

361
than parents are to be educated with children I doubt whether that could be to the advantage of children. It might embarrass them; it might cause problems for the teacher because necessarily the teacher would have to communicate with adults and children in slightly different ways. If parents and children are all to be in the same class, is it really going to be in the interests of children for adults to be present? This is a very difficult subsection. I hope to hear from one of my noble friends on the Front Bench that, in view of what has been said, they will reconsider the whole subsection. It is full of obscurity in drafting and obscurity of intention and yet could have rather strange consequences.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, leaving aside for one moment the question of construction with which my noble friend Lord Renton has dealt, perhaps we may consider briefly the point of principle at stake. I accept that the main principle is the interests of children, though in this context one must not forget the legitimate wishes of parents. I agree, not only for the reasons that were given by my noble friend Lord Renton, but for other reasons, too, which I shall not take up your Lordships' time to express.
The firm statement of principle in this part of the Bill is neither necessary nor apt. It seeks to establish a principle that is breached in practice and apparently to no harmful effect—some might say to beneficial effect. This whole passage is adrift. What are we to do about it? I suggest that that depends on the attitude of the Government. If my noble friend the Minister is prepared to accept that this passage is not apt and is willing to take it back, take on board what has been said in your Lordships' House and reconsider the position, then there is no object in taking this passage out of the Bill. I totally agree that in a sense it is incomprehensible, but let the Government have a chance to make it right.
Lord Addington: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly pass some comment on this amendment. The idea of using the time for educating children also in a supplementary manner for educating adults is not one on which we should turn our backs. It is a very sensible idea. There may be considerable benefit to children if they have parents, or the friends of parents, with them in the classroom. It will enhance the teacher's control because the teacher will be able to see that the parents, who have considerably greater control over a child than any teacher ever will (or should have) are seen to be teaching and learning as well. It can only enhance the position of the teacher and also the respect which children have for their teacher.
As regards the drafting of the Bill, I did not understand it either, but that is nothing unusual. I have always found such material rather difficult to follow. However, this matter was particularly perplexing. I would appreciate some clarification on the point.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, what we have heard from noble Lords in general must surely be correct. As the Bill stands—even if we are not too
362
perplexed by the difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has raised and which I certainly could not solve; and even if we stand aside from those difficulties for a moment—to have this blanket embargo which the Bill proposes does not make sense. As we have heard, there are clearly cases where children and adults are appropriately educated together. In certain cases parents of primary school children are taught with those children and no doubt there are many other cases where this is successful in practice. With this Bill it would be absurd to abolish what is current good practice in schools.
At the same time, the amendment seems a little too sweeping. With all deference to what we have heard, there is a general principle in education that, other things being equal, one educates by age segments and key stages. One does not want simply to abolish that principle and return to the mediaeval schoolroom where the entire age range is educated in a single classroom with a single teacher. However, that is not the proposal. What is needed here is something which is more carefully considered than this amendment and certainly more carefully worded. Therefore, I echo what noble Lords have said. This is a case where the Government will have to think again. The Bill as it stands is inadequate, but I am not sure that the amendment as proposed is going to solve the problem.
4 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, as mention has been made of the wording of the Bill and the drafting, perhaps I may take the opportunity of making what is a forlorn but routine protest regarding the drafting of the clause. It seeks to amend Section 9 of the 1944 Act, Section 13 of the Education Act 1980, Part III of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and for good measure the Education Reform Act 1988. According to my calculations that means that any member of the education world who has the quite absurd ambition of trying to understand what Parliament intended and what Parliament has done, needs to have a whole mass of volumes in front of him or her.
I find the deaf ears upon which these pleas fall frustrating, but it will not stop me repeating them. As a legislative habit it is shabby, sloppy and misleading. I hope that the Government will learn better habits before long.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, this amendment removes the requirement on the governors of schools to secure that, where they provide further education to post-16 year-olds, such persons may only sit in a classroom alongside registered pupils of a secondary school if the majority of pupils in the room are over compulsory school age and that, in primary schools, they may not share a room at all with registered pupils of the school.
I thank noble Lords for their constructive contributions to this subject, which is difficult. Perhaps I may first deal with the comments of my noble friend Lord Peyton. I shall certainly not be deaf to what he says and will pass on, adding to the voices

363
no doubt passed on before, the comments regarding this kind of legislation. We would like our legislation to be more easily understood.
I shall begin by explaining the underlying reasons for the requirement in the Bill. Our aim is to protect pupils below compulsory school age from possible risk. I hope that I do not need to spell out today what those risks are. At one end of the spectrum there is the risk of distraction and at the other end the risk of child abuse in all its forms. I hope that noble Lords will agree that our aims in the matter are entirely laudable.
Some noble Lords said that they were unaware that the system was being abused—using that word in a different sense. However, the intentions of the provisions in the Bill are to avoid that happening. Perhaps I may explain also that the clause concerns the provision of further education by the governors of a school. It has no effect on activities which are not further education. There is nothing in the clause to prevent adults and children from coming together for informal activities which, with regard to the adults, do not constitute further education.
I heard what the right reverend Prelate said in regard to family or parent education, and support those activities. However, from what I have heard I do not believe that we are talking about the provision of further education in the case of these classes and there is no reason therefore why those activities should not continue.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to make sure that I understand correctly what he is saying. Following the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I assumed that we were discussing the wording in the Bill as it is before us. There is a straightforward question which I hoped the Minister intended to address; namely, whether parents and children—in the case of parents probably for remedial purposes—can be taught reading at the same time.
I read the Bill as prohibiting that because teaching parents remedial reading is further education. I understand why the Government thought that they should get into this—though I think it is wrong—but can the Minister say categorically, since I read the Bill differently, that parents and children can be taught reading together in the same room at the same time in school hours? I think that the words of the Bill say that they cannot. That is why the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is important. We need to know exactly what the Bill says rather than what the Government hope will happen. Will the Minister answer that point?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I have not got far into my speech, if I may say so, and nor do those comments have much to do with what my noble friend said, which concerned the general drafting of Bills.
The clause deals with the provision of further education by the governors of a school and what can and cannot be done under the definition of "further education". I have also heard—not this afternoon but generally—about the desirability of parents of children from ethnic minorities among others being
364
able to come to the school with their children, to assist them, for example, with interpretation. Again, there is nothing in the clause to prevent that continuing, nor does the clause have any effect on provision being made by others—for example, by a further education college or adult education institute—on school premises.
In direct answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, the provision will prohibit the teaching of reading as further education in schools. I have already given the reason for that; namely, the protection of the children. That is why it will not be allowed.
I do not believe that there are grounds for the anxieties expressed regarding the position of family or parent education or the ability of parents to come into classes to help their children or the teacher. However, I must agree that the clause as drafted would prevent post-16 year-olds from joining GCSE classes in schools unless the majority of the pupils were over compulsory school age. I explained the background to the restrictions imposed by the clause, which were included for the reasons I explained and were designed with the protection of the child in mind. I accept that it would not make sense to prevent post-16s from joining GCSE or other public examination classes in schools. That is already happening and appears to be generally regarded as desirable.
My noble friend Lord Renton suggests that the Bill refers only to special schools. I am sorry that he, with his experience finds it obscure. In fact Clause 12(3) refers to the governing bodies of county schools, voluntary schools and maintained schools; that is, special schools maintained by local education authorities.
Since it has been said repeatedly that this part of the Bill is thought to be obscure and for the reasons I have given, I am pleased to assure the House that we will consider the clause further with a view to bringing forward an amendment to enable, among other things, post-16 year-olds to join classes in schools for courses leading to public examinations. As a number of noble Lords raised the question of obscurity in the Bill, we will at the same time look at that.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I can take up a couple of other points with him. He mentioned that there would be nothing to stop parents participating in a class with either primary or secondary school pupils where the object was to help their children. The concept of the community school involves parents taking part in the activities of the school with the aim of helping themselves and not just directly helping their children. Am I right in assuming that the clause would basically undermine the concept of the community school in that respect? For example, will it prevent parents joining in a GCSE class in history, geography or computer science? As I understand it, that would be the result of the clause. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that for us.
The other question is whether the Minister can give an illustration of how child abuse could take place as a result of parents or other adults participating in a class with teachers present. It seems to be a rather absurd and far-fetched example. I am grateful that the

365
Minister agreed that the Government will come back with something better than what is before us. However, perhaps he will answer my question.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows more about education than I do. However, it has been long accepted that certain categories of ages are vulnerable—and we are not talking about the child and parent here but rather of young adults with very much younger people. If she cannot imagine the risks attached to that, then she is not using much imagination. Bullying is an example that might spring to mind. If she thinks that that can he stopped by a teacher being present, I would have thought that everyone's experience would demonstrate that that is not so. In spite of her first question, I do not think that it would undermine the spirit behind the community school. I have given the House an undertaking that I shall look at this part of the Bill again. I am very pleased to do so. I have listened very carefully to what has been said, and I hope that in those circumstances the right reverend Prelate might feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the Minister deals finally with this matter, perhaps he would explain something. I was one of the people who taught in a village school during the war. We taught all ages. Age was not the important factor that people seem to make it now. Some children at seven are not the same as other children at seven. Some children at 11 are not the same as other children at 11. It was quite usual to have all ages in a school. That is now very heavily criticised.
It seems to me that the Minister is insulting people when he suggests that someone who is interested enough to go along to a class would then abuse the children. That must not go unchallenged on the record because it is a rather frightening concept. Most people who take the trouble to attend classes for further education at the same time as 16 and 17 year-olds must be people who are totally dedicated to the idea of being educated to the same level as their children. It would be wrong to leave this point.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness asking a question before the Minister sits down? Because if not, I am afraid that at Report stage she is out of order.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I do not worry about that. I have expressed my opinion.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Earl is right. My noble friend is not out of order. What is out of order is to speak more than once, which the noble Earl has done.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps it would help if I spoke at this particular moment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for agreeing to reconsider this matter. Support has been demonstrated from all sides of the House—and I have had support from quarters that I had not expected. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for pointing out considerable difficulties in the clause as drafted. In the context of education, I
366
certainly wish for priority to be given to the children. But the Government have gone on record as saying how they want parents to take increasing responsibility for their children. When parents do so by attending school with their children in order to increase motivation, it seems absurd then to exclude what is happening.
I do not think we need to discuss the matter further. We have had an undertaking from the Government for which I am extremely grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Davidmoved Amendment No. 78:
Page 10, leave out lines 35 to 42 and insert:
("(a) in the case of a primary school that no pupil shall be taught for more than one tenth of any school week in a room where such education is at that time being provided;
(b) in the case of a secondary school that no pupil shall be taught for more than one fifth of any school week in a room where such education is at that time being provided unless the majority of pupils present are over compulsory school age; and
(c) that the provision of such education in a room where at that time pupils are being taught is without detriment to the education and welfare of the pupils.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 78, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 79. These two amendments deal entirely with the same subject; it was just a different method of dealing with the problem. As the Minister has said that he would look again at Amendment No. 77, if, when considering that, he will also consider this method of changing the Bill, I shall be very happy. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for abbreviating her speech. It is true that the amendments concern exactly the same matters. I shall be pleased to undertake to give them exactly the same treatment.
Baroness David: My Lords, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Provision of further education in grant-maintained schools]:
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Clause 15 [Initial incorporation of existing institutions]:
The Lord Bishop of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 80:
Page 13, line 31, leave out (", controlled school").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 80, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 81, 87–90, 100, 101, 105, 106. I return to a matter which I raised at Committee stage. Since then, I have been able to discuss the matter with the Minister, and also our respective officials have met. However, I am sorry to say that I am still not satisfied. Although this point is in large measure technical, there are some significant consequences. For that reason, I feel I must return to the matter and attempt to explain the position to your Lordships.

367
The Bill provides for voluntary-aided schools to come into the further education sector by designation under Clause 28, but for all other voluntary schools, or former voluntary schools, by incorporation under Clause 15. However, what distinguishes voluntary schools is not the cash provided by a voluntary body, but the trust deeds. It may be easier to get at the point by taking an example. Let us suppose that there is a controlled school—a voluntary school—owned by the Church, but nonetheless a Church-controlled school. We do have to remember when we use that phrase that the word "control" does not mean controlled by the Church but controlled by the state, though in the ownership of the Church. Let us suppose there is a Church controlled school which, by this Bill as it is drafted, becomes a body corporate. Supposing that subsequently the Church decides that it wishes to invest money in this school, let us say in order to make a special development and to build a chapel because of its voluntary and Church status.
This will become precarious and probably unacceptable under the Bill as drafted, because there will be lack of clarity about whether the new building belongs to the trustees as such under the trust deed or belongs to the body corporate as a secular body. Because of the risk of confusion I think the net result will be that Church money will not be able to become available except under considerable risk. It is for these reasons that my own technical advisers say that the present system of dealing with voluntary schools does not meet the requirements that I think both the Government and I have in mind.
The Minister may reply that what is proposed here is not in substance different from what already obtains under the 1988 Act whereby if a controlled school becomes grant-maintained, then it has become a body corporate, and under that mechanism we have exactly what is proposed here. That is true. But under the 1988 Act, where such a thing happens it is automatic under that Act that there shall be a majority of foundation governors, so that both the trustees and those who are responsible for the body corporate are in majority. In that way, there is not the same confusion as to who is owning what for which purpose.
So far I do not think that the Government have given any reason why they want in this instance to act out of line with what they agreed in 1988. When writing to me, the Minister referred to his officials meeting with our board of education officials and he said that the Church officials agreed that there is no legal impediment to the Bill's proposals. That is true. We recognise that there is no legal impediment. My understanding is also that the officials of the Department of Education and Science agreed that there was no legal reason why we should not proceed by what I am proposing. Therefore I do not think that there is a clear cut legal argument either way. I ask the Government to look again at this matter. Why introduce a pattern different from that which was worked out in the 1988 Act? Why introduce legal and
368
administrative complexity? Why put at risk some future co-operation between voluntary bodies and the state authorities?
I hope that even at this stage, in spite of the discussions that have already taken place—or perhaps because of them—the Minister will agree that this matter should be looked at again and we should reach amicable agreement if possible outside the Chamber. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter. I beg to move.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I support in the simplest terms the right reverend Prelate. Under the 1988 Act the former aided sixth form colleges were allowed to have their voluntary character preserved. I should like to see preserved the voluntary character of all existing voluntary or former voluntary institutions.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the overall objective of these amendments is, as the right reverend Prelate clearly explained, to place all voluntary sixth form colleges, whether aided or controlled, and any future special agreement sixth form colleges or grant-maintained sixth form colleges which were formerly voluntary schools on the same institutional footing in the further education sector. That is, as institutions designated as eligible to receive funds under Clause 28.
We went over this ground in Committee and I have met the right reverend Prelate to discuss this and other matters affecting the Churches. I have listened very carefully again this afternoon to the right reverend Prelate's arguments for a single route to the new sector for all voluntary schools on the grounds that this would be neater and simpler. I have to say that we, on the other hand, remain committed to a broadly coherent institutional structure in the new sector and wish only in exceptional circumstances to depart from the principle that further education colleges will be conducted by further education corporations. We see no reason to treat voluntary controlled sixth form colleges differently from county sixth form colleges, subject of course to safeguards with respect to the trust deed, to ownership of property and to the preservation of the existing character of the school.
I listened carefully to the right reverend Prelate's example. He said that if the Church of England wished to invest money in a voluntary controlled school which became, as the Government would wish, a body corporate under the Bill there would be a lack of clarity as to whom the new building would belong. The right reverend Prelate also said that the position of the voluntary controlled sixth form colleges is not, as it were, all that far from the position under the Education Reform Act 1988 where the voluntary controlled schools became grant maintained except that the voluntary controlled schools that went into the grant-maintained sector had a majority of foundation governors. When we come to a subsequent amendment—I apologise for the fact that I cannot remember which one it is—I shall be in a position to give an assurance to the right reverend Prelate that if application is made by denominational schools, or indeed other voluntary controlled schools, for a majority of foundation governors, such application will be looked at sympathetically.

369
The reason why I do not think I shall be able to go further and write something on the face of the Bill is that in talking about voluntary controlled schools we are not talking entirely about denominational schools, as the right reverend Prelate will be the first to remind me. Some of them might not wish to squeeze out other members of the governing body by increasing the number of foundation governors. I shall be in a position later this afternoon, when we are talking about the number of foundation governors in voluntary controlled schools, to say that an application for increases in numbers in order to give a majority in voluntary controlled schools will be looked at very sympathetically by my right honourable friend.
I shall say no more on that except to express a certain degree of sadness that we did not reach agreement outside the Chamber before we came to the Report stage. In the few remarks I have made in answer to the right reverend Prelate I have laid out the desire to stick to incorporation so far as concerns the voluntary controlled schools. As noble Lords who have taken an interest in the Bill will be very well aware, in recognition of their unique position under the state system we have made an exception in the case of existing voluntary aided sixth form colleges, which will be designated under Clause 28 as eligible to receive funds from the further education funding councils. We expected the Churches to welcome that. Indeed the right reverend Prelate welcomed it at previous stages of the Bill. We are not convinced that we should depart further from the principle of incorporation so far as concerns the treatment of voluntary controlled sixth form colleges or any special agreement schools which might become eligible for the new sector.
Having said that, I shall accede to what the right reverend Prelate has said and look once again very closely at this point with the Department of Education and Science in order to see whether investment in a capital project might be put at risk and whether there are any other angles that we have not thought of. I knew that the right reverend Prelate felt that it would be neater and simpler to go for designation but I had thought we had reached agreement on the technical watertightness of the matter. I am sad that we have not. In that context, having laid out what the Government believe is the right way of going about it, which is incorporation for the voluntary controlled sector and not designation, nonetheless I am happy to look at this once more.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that generous and, if I may say so, gracious response. For my part, I am sorry that we have not yet reached agreement but I hope that we can pursue the matter. I am reassured by his undertaking not just to look again at this point but as regards favourable consideration of any application for a majority of foundation governors in a controlled school. We shall deal with that matter when we reach it.
370
I am grateful for the information that all the noble Lord's speeches begin with that admirable phrase which refers to my speeches. On that happy note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Baroness Davidmoved Amendment No. 82:
Page 13, line 32, at end insert (", and
(c) each consortium of educational providers which appears to him to fall within subsection (2) below.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85. In respect of Amendment No. 85, I tried to have deleted the words "in advance of the appointed day" but, not surprisingly, the Public Bill Office had a great deal to do and missed deleting those words. That may make no difference to the Minister's reply but I thought I should clear up that point before moving on.
The purpose of the amendments is to extend the FEFC sector to include major institutions/providers of adult education which are at present excluded form direct membership of the FEFC sector by virtue of having no full-time students. The Bill as it stands excludes from incorporation in the new FE sector institutions without full-time students no matter how high a proportion of their part-time students are studying Schedule 2 courses, which are the Government's priority. Preserving a distinction by mode of study in the definition of a college is actually more exclusive of adult education colleges and institutes than was the 1988 Act. The present Bill discriminates between full-time and part-time learners in a way which is unnecessary.
The Government increasingly recognise the serious and vital contribution made by adult education services, colleges and institutions. The inclusion of all major bodies providing substantial elements of Schedule 2 work can be said, properly and publicly, to acknowledge that fact. Increasing numbers of people will be studying part time, even for clearly and strictly vocational reasons. The bias in the Bill towards full-time study is outmoded and unnecessary.
The Government argue that the major adult education colleges will be protected. But as it stands that protection will depend upon the good will and enlightened attitude of new bodies—the FEFCs. Given the extent of parliamentary concern on the issue, is it not safer to deal with it on the Floor of the House?
The amendment has been reworded. I hope that in that way we have got away from the difficulties to which the Minister referred in Committee. I should like to point out that a significant proportion of LEAs with freestanding adult services are already in a position to group them into consortia of the kind envisaged.
Incorporation in the new FEFC sector has been sought by the largest adult education colleges and services on the grounds that they are just as large, or larger in many cases, and certainly no less serious educational institutions than the FE colleges. The amendment would secure that aim. However, it would mean severing their links with the local education

371
authorities which have supported them in the past. The purpose of the addition to the last part of Amendment No. 85 is to allow the governors of the college to decide in the interests of the students whether it is necessary to take that step. It would give them the right to incorporation and parallels the suggested amendment to Clause 28 on designation. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Combermere: My Lords, I fully support the amendment as it will allow major providers of adult education to make their bids direct to the FEFCs. Underlying the amendment lies the concern that major providers of adult education which are outside the FE colleges will have to apply for funds for Schedule 2 work through an FE college. That raises the same objection which was put forward in Committee. If the FE colleges largely cater for 16 to 19 year-olds, and indeed may not be at all familiar with the special needs of adult education, how can they decide if the work at the AE colleges is to be properly addressed?
In addition, it is absolutely vital that various progression routes involving access to higher education be guaranteed. If the amendment is rejected, there will be no such guarantee at least so far as concerns one progression route. I should like to give the House an illustration. An adult education college may offer basic French at levels 1, 2 and 3 to GCE level. That then becomes a springboard for students to go on to higher education. However, under the terms of the Bill the adult education college would have to apply for funds through its neighbouring FE college which would act as an intermediary and would in turn pass on the request for funds to the FEFC. If the FE college rejects the request for any reason, then one route of access for an AE student to higher education would not be available. The students in question may indeed then decide to go to a neighbouring FE college, but not all mature students would wish to do so. In fact, the great majority of them would probably not want to follow that particular route for perhaps a variety of reasons.
In any case, in more general terms, how will the FE colleges be able to assess the level of demand at adult education colleges? Their expertise is in the provision for 16 to 19 year-olds. Further, if unamended, the Bill could well introduce an element of confrontation between FE and AE colleges. For example, the FE college may reject a bid by an AE centre for any number of reasons, including lack of funds. I accept the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that the Secretary of State would come down like a ton of bricks if subjectivity enters into its rejection. However, that seems to me rather like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But if the rejection is due to lack of funds, the AE college would go to the local education authority; but the LEA may well reply that it is ratecapped and therefore has no funds for adult education in any event.
Therefore, what would happen is that an important progression route for adult education students from basic to higher education would be blocked; that is,
372
unless the LEA received earmarked funds. Through damaging one progression route, the total provision for higher education itself could be adversely affected. That would be the very thing, as I understand it, that the Government do not want to happen. There are large numbers of adults in higher education. The question needs to be asked: how did they get there? In supporting the amendment I do not believe, as was suggested in Committee, that I am overstating the case. Amendments to Clauses 15 and 18 are unanimously supported by AE colleges and in my view they are crucial for the health of adult education. Moreover, I do not know of anyone in adult education who is against them.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps he could explain an expression which appears in Amendment No. 82. I refer to the phrase "consortium of educational providers". I cannot find reference to it in any previous legislation, and there is no definition of it in the Bill. I wonder whether the noble Viscount can enlighten us as to what it means and what it includes.
Viscount Combermere: My Lords, as I understand it, so far as concerns Clause 15, it applies to a major single adult education college which uses other buildings for a variety of purposes, including courses which it might like to lay on. I believe that the word "consortium" applies more to Clause 28. It refers to a variety of smaller adult education centres within one major county—for example, Essex or Northumbria—which would come together in order to present one bid, as in this case and as the Bill stands, direct to the FE college. It would also apply to the 28 short-term adult residential colleges which would come together as a consortium to make one bid. That is my understanding of the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should just like to say briefly that we on these Benches support the thrust and aim of the amendment. We hope that the Government will be able to look upon it favourably.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady David, put forward a powerful case for the special claims of the various different institutions, including the consortia of colleges to be included in the process of incorporation under the Bill. Although this is by no means the first time that we have discussed the matter both in previous stages of the Bill and on Report, the amendment is nonetheless important. If your Lordships will forgive me, I shall for a few moments endeavour to go through the points made by the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere.
First, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that under Clause 15 the criteria for automatic transfer to the further education sector will work by the Secretary of State making an order specifying for transfer colleges 15 per cent. of whose students attend on a full-time, sandwich, day or block release basis. We are confident that a good proportion of students enrolled at all such colleges will be following courses of the kinds for which the funding councils will be responsible. We have not introduced that threshold

373
arbitrarily; we have done so because we believe that it is the best way we can make the process work. I say that because there is a purely technical issue involved.
The Bill's present provisions will allow the Secretary of State to decide which institutions are eligible for transfer on the basis of publicly available and well-validated information. That information may be obtained from the annual statistical returns such colleges make to the Further Education Statistical Record. Other institutions do not make returns to the FESR; nor is it possible to establish on the basis of the FESR as it stands precisely how much of a college's provision falls within Schedule 2. Returns have not been classified on that basis. Therefore, we must use the statistical information that we actually have. We believe that the 15 per cent. threshold that has been chosen is the one that would not exclude colleges which should be in and would not include colleges which, arguably, should not be in.
Secondly, Clause 16 already allows other institutions which do not meet the automatic criteria to be included in the sector. In other words, Clause 16 provides a safeguard. If an institution is not covered by the criteria for transfer, and if it concludes that its interests would be best served by joining the new sector, it will be possible for it to apply directly to the funding councils to recommend its inclusion. My right honourable friend will ask the councils to consider all such applications as a matter of priority.
Before making applications to the funding councils, colleges would obviously want to consider whether inclusion in the new sector is right for them. The adult colleges make provision which falls to the duty of the funding councils but the majority of their provision falls to the duty of the local education authorities. They may therefore feel most comfortable staying with their maintaining local education authorities. It is right that such colleges should think in an informed way about the sector which they feel is the right one for them. They should not have incorporation, as it were, thrust upon them by the Secretary of State.
Having said that, I am puzzled by the proposed new subsection (2A) in Amendment No. 85. It provides that transfer to the new sector should not take place before a decision of the relevant governing body to request incorporation has taken place. Consequently, the incorporation of those colleges would not in fact be automatic. It is right that proper consideration of their position should take place, but that can be achieved adequately through the procedures in Clause 16. I do not think it would make sense to set up a procedure for automatic transfer which is then found not to be automatic. Many colleges would be sad about that provision.
The amendments refer to consortia of providers. It is an important point and one which has arisen many times in Committee and on Report. I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton was justified in questioning what the word "consortium" means. Despite the fact that the noble Viscount gave him a pretty good reply, if I may say so, it is unclear what the size, shape and composition of such consortia would be and what status they would have in law. While the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount may be able to
374
enlighten us on those points, it is doubtful that a further education corporation could sensibly run such an amalgam of institutions.
I should also remind your Lordships that under the new arrangements adult colleges and centres will be able to apply to FE colleges for funding for that part of their provision which comes within Schedule 2. At the risk of being tedious—I apologise to your Lordships—this point has arisen again and again. Under Clause 6(5), they can ask the FE colleges to forward that application to the funding council and FE colleges will be under an obligation to do so if the provision in question is inadequate in the locality. There are two things I shall say here. First, the FE colleges cannot do that in a subjective way. They must do it objectively. There is no mention of the view of the FE colleges. On receiving a bid from an adult education centre, for instance, the FE college must look objectively to see whether that course is being provided adequately in the locality.
The noble Viscount said that it was difficult to know what would be the criteria. We should not forget that provision in that sector must be at such places, of such character and with such equipment as to be suitable for the needs of the people in the area. There are criteria to determine whether a course is being put on in the right way. If, as the noble Viscount was good enough to say, it is clear that the FE college has looked at the matter in a way in which is should not look at it—in other words, it has not looked at it objectively—then it is open to the Secretary of State to come down like a ton of bricks on that FE college for having acted outside its powers.
Clause 6(5) is a real way of reaching in to the new FE sector. In that context perhaps I may cross swords with the noble Viscount on one matter. He said that he felt that the FE colleges which would be dealing with many of the bids do not know as much as they might about the education of adults. There are over 1 million adults in further education colleges. They constitute the majority of students in that sector, and so I do not agree that FE colleges do not have much expertise in dealing with adults.
I am sorry to appear to be so negative on the amendments. I know that they reflect deeply held views and some apprehensions about adult education centres and the local authority sector and institutes. That is why I have gone into some detail when answering the amendments.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he confirm that if the amendments were accepted it would result in large adult education centres becoming incorporated into the new sector. If consortia of the small adult centres were also taken into the new sector, that would take out of local authority control a large number of institutions currently controlled by the local authorities which make local provision for the needs of those adults within the local authority sector for which they are responsible.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend because—speaking off the cuff—I believe that she is right. The whole thrust of my remarks over the past 10 minutes has been that when one is talking about the larger adult education centres or institutions—if I may chance my arm—it is almost certain that they will find that a great deal of their Schedule 2 provision will be funded by the new funding councils. They will have to go through the mechanisms about which I have reminded your Lordships this afternoon.
The likelihood is that the larger adult education centres and institutions will be successful in reaching into the new FE funding council sector. At any rate, we shall have to see. From what I have heard and learnt, I do not believe the idea of a consortium will be a runner, for the reasons that I have given. There are legal difficulties about forming consortia. That will mean that the idea of forming consortia—this is only a view that I can give from the Dispatch Box—to be able to achieve incorporation is one that it is difficult to entertain.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister reflect a little upon what he has just said? Clause 15(2) is not about size in the absolute sense, and so I am afraid that the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, was not germane; it is about ratio. It refers to at least 15 per cent. One can have 15 per cent. and be big or small. It follows—does it not?—as a matter of elementary arithmetic that if the ratio of the consortium were 15 per cent., it must include some institutions which have more than 15 per cent. to offset some with less than 15 per cent. It is all about ratios. It has nothing to do with size.
The Minister may be right—I was wondering whether he would care to reflect upon the point—about the complexity of forming a consortium. The point about the consortium is that if the institutions get together the correct ratio can be achieved. In other words, if there is an institution with a ratio below 15 per cent. that can be offset by an institution with a ratio above 15 per cent. As I understand it, that is the whole point of the consortium idea.
The Minister did not address himself to the ratio question. I do not suggest that his other arguments were erroneous because I well understand the problem of consortia generally, plus the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that he cannot find the word "consortium" in the Bill. That may not be a fundamental flaw if the idea is good. Will the Minister reflect upon the point that it is all about ratios rather than about big versus small?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may have leave to reply. I shall certainly reflect upon the ratio aspect, but I kept away from it because I had put forward—not for the first time on the Floor of the House—the fact that there are other considerations about the consortium idea which may mean that at the end of the day it is not an easy one to entertain.
Baroness David: My Lords, of course I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. I wish to thank the noble Viscount for his support. It is useful to have someone who works in the area, with his personal and
376
special knowledge, speaking in favour of the amendment. The Minister admitted that there was a strong feeling, but his point about the statistical returns is rather petty and he previously made it at col. 718 at the Committee stage on 10th December 1991. If he wants statistical terms, I am told that they can be found quite easily and this need not be a point of objection.
I am sorry that the noble Lord objected to the last part of Amendment No. 85; it was inserted because we thought that it would please him. However, it clearly did not. He mentioned Clause 6(5) over and over again as being a help, but it is not considered to be sufficient—that is the difficulty. I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about the LEA perhaps losing some of its authority and power. I am a great supporter of LEAs, but the fear of the adult colleges is that they will not have enough money and there will be inadequate funding because, as we well know, LEAs are always in difficulty as regards funds. When we tried to get it more certain that they would have the funds under Amendment No. 70, on which we voted on Monday, we did not succeed. That is why in this case I support what the adult education colleges want.
It was interesting that the Minister made no reply on the part-time issue which was one of the main points of the amendment. I do not believe that we shall get any further on this matter. The objections are held very strongly by the Government and, although technically the amendment may be faulty in one or two places, I shall test the opinion of the House.
4.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 82) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Adrian, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Airedale, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Aylestone, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Blackstone, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Blease, L.

Hughes, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hunt, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Combermere, V. [Teller.]

Mallalieu, B.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Desai, L.

Molloy, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mulley, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkender, B.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Phillips, B.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

[Teller.]

Rea, L.

Grey, E.

Redesdale, L.

377

Richard, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Rochester, L.

Tordoff, L.

Russell, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Seear, B.

Underhill, L.

Serota, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Shackleton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wharton, B.

Stallard, L.

White, B.

Stedman, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Ampthill, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Astor, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Auckland, L.

Mancroft, L.

Balfour, E.

Marlesford, L.

Barber, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bauer, L.

Mersey, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Middleton, L.

Beloff, L.

Morris, L.

Belstead, L.

Mottistone, L.

Birdwood, L.

Mountevans, L.

Boardman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Munster, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Nelson, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Norfolk, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Norrie, L.

Butterworth, L.

Onslow, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Orkney, E.

Carnock, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Palmer, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Colwyn, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pender, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cross, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Quinton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Reay, L.

Denham, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renton, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renwick, L.

Elles, B.

Romney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandford, L.

Elton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Faithfull, B.

Selsdon, L.

Ferrers, E.

Shannon, E.

Fortescue, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Slim, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Haig, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Hayter, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

L.

Hives, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hood, V.

[Teller.]

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Howe, E.

Terrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Teviot, L.

Ilchester, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Trumpington, B.

Killearn, L.

Ullswater, L.

Kimball, L.

Waddington, L.

Kimberley, E.

Weir, V.

Knutsford, V.

Westbury, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wigram, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Windlesham, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wise, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wolfson, L.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 86 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Orders incorporating further institutions]:
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 90 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Calculation of Enrolment Numbers]:
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 70, line 39, at end insert ("no such order being 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, your Lordships may think that two Henry VIII clauses in one Bill savours of carelessness. If so, I can only plead that the carelessness was not mine. However, as Henry VIII clauses go, this is not a particularly objectionable one and the provisions of the amendment extend only to making it subject to the affirmative resolution.
We had an excellent debate on this amendment in Committee, which I hasten to reassure your Lordships I shall not repeat. However, I was asked when leaving the House after we had risen on Tuesday to explain again what a Henry VIII clause is and I think that perhaps I ought to do so now. Therefore I hope those to whom this is particularly familiar information will forgive me for spending a minute on it.
A Henry VIII clause permits the Minister, by regulation, to change the provisions of the original Act. It is a clause which allows the regulation to change the provisions of an Act of Parliament. It is, therefore, the only exception that I know to the principle that it needs an Act of Parliament to change the law. The ordinary regulation-making power is using a power delegated by the parent Act. It does not change the parent Act. But under a Henry VIII clause the primary Act itself is changed. It may thus appear to some people, although it is subject to the rudimentary parliamentary control on the use of statutory instruments, to represent nevertheless some risk to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
The case that we are discussing is not particularly heinous. It authorises the Minister only to change the multiplier in Schedule 3 to the Bill. We accept that that is something which must be subject to change from time to time. However, we consider that where the law is changed, Parliament should directly he informed by the use of the affirmative procedure, and should be able to take account of it.
There is a question which was not answered in Committee and therefore I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I ask him about it again now. The matter concerns why it was necessary to put the multiplier into statute law in the first place. The more things that are put into Acts of Parliament, the more Acts of Parliament are needed to repeal them. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, when discussing another Henry VIII clause on Tuesday, raised the point of the pressure on parliamentary time caused by increasing amounts of legislation. We agree in every quarter that that is a truly serious problem. However, when we consider the length of time that this House has spent discussing Henry VIII clauses over the past year, we can appreciate that it is by no means entirely clear that their insertion in Acts of Parliament has saved time. There is also the matter of whether it is a

379
good idea to free the Executive from the constraints involved in the need to get its programme through in parliamentary time.
It is arguable that the length of the parliamentary Session, like the size of the stomach, is a necessary check on greed, and that the desire of the Executive to carry out more and more things should be subject to control. It is arguable also that the amount the Executive can do by parliamentary processes in one parliamentary Session is perhaps about the maximum amount they can really think through seriously, and therefore is as much as they should perhaps do.
In Committee I asked the Minister whether he would consider making this matter subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Minister replied with classic brevity, "No". Rather than push the matter further at this moment, I ask the Minister to justify that answer to me. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl on this amendment. Your Lordships are once again concerned with Henry VIII clauses, of which there have been a great number in recent years. They are an important but by no means exclusive part of the current surge of bureaucracy. In this respect the surge of bureaucracy is in derogation of the normal parliamentary processes—in this case its legislative process.
The noble Earl has clearly explained what Henry VIII clauses generally do, and what such a clause would achieve in this case. I respectfully agree with him that this is not a particularly heinous example. With respect, I think he was right not to try to expunge it from the Bill. However, for the reasons he gave, it is most important that any such clause as this should be subject to parliamentary control by way of affirmative resolution. I say any such clause as this, but I can hardly conceive of any Henry VIII clause which would not merit that degree of parliamentary control. I suppose that there might be one of a purely procedural nature, but that is not the case here.
Your Lordships are well aware of the superior parliamentary control vouchsafed by the affirmative resolution procedure. In another place orders which are subject to the negative procedure only are rarely reached. When they are reached it is generally at an extremely inconvenient hour from a parliamentary point of view. Generally they are not reached because the time for their annulment has gone by before they can take their place on the Order Paper. That is what happens in another place, but in both Houses the affirmative resolution has a definite advantage and that is that the Minister introduces it and explains what he is about and why the procedure is necessary. It thereby differs from the negative procedure which has to be raised by a private Member of Parliament and which the Minister replies to, generally to the dissatisfaction of his interlocutors, at the end of the debate.
The matter is really completely concluded by the report of the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments of 1972–73 which went into this matter in great detail. The members of the committee laid down three major criteria according to which an instrument
380
should be subject to the affirmative resolution. They were cumulative and I need only mention the first. An extremely powerful committee whose report was accepted by both Houses said that the matter should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure if it is important. The committee went on to recognise that that is a very grave criterion and it explained what it meant by it. The matter is important unless it can be dismissed as consequential, transitional or trivial. Obviously, there is nothing here that is consequential or transitional. I do not suppose that anyone considering the matters that have to be considered if there is to be an alteration in the law by the direction of the Minister could possibly say that your Lordships are concerned with triviality. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the noble Earl.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must say at once that I agree that, within the definition of "importance" given by that committee, we could not say that anything in Schedule 3 was consequential, transitional or trivial. However, I had a good deal of sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he doubted whether it was necessary to have the contents of Schedule 3 written into the Bill at all. That could quite easily have been done by statutory instrument because the contents of the third schedule relate to purely administrative detail of a complicated and technical kind, not the kind of matter that it is easy for Members of either House of Parliament, however closely we concentrate and apply our minds, to deal with by amendment in detail. I should much rather have seen Schedule 3 excluded from the Bill altogether and dealt with by statutory instrument.
It is a well-established fact and has been so for years that, if there are matters which must form a consequence of legislation but which change from time to time—for example, in social security, matters that change with inflation—the Minister should be given power to deal with those matters whether they have been put into primary legislation or have been dealt with by statutory instrument.
However, in relation to that, bearing in mind that the multipliers may have to be altered from time to time, it would be within the usual principles for the matter to be dealt with by statutory instrument. I hope that that point is conceded even by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The question is whether altering the multiplier is of sufficient importance to require an affirmative resolution. I have some doubt. I should be interested to hear what my noble friend says. For all I know he may be prepared to accept the amendment. One can but express one's own views, but I doubt whether it is a suitable case for an affirmative resolution.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I listened to the noble Earl with care and I hoped that he might say something with which I could find it possible to disagree so that I could support the Government in opposing his amendment. In the event, there was nothing in his remarks with which I found that I could begin to disagree. I do not wish to repeat everything

381
that my noble friend Lord Renton has said, but I find myself in entire agreement with him. Suffice it to say that I am surprised that those who conduct the legislative machine in our country are constantly surprised that Members of either House of Parliament object to being asked to express an opinion while at the same time being asked to surrender that right so that someone else may make a change with a stroke of a pen whenever it suits them. I am sorry, but I find that quite unacceptable.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, confident in the knowledge that my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil will go through the opposite Lobby to me on this occasion, but saddened because I attach importance to what he says, particularly on matters of procedure in the House, perhaps I may say that the reason why we are embroiled in this discussion on the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that the matter was put on the face of the Bill. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for pointing out that there is perhaps some contradiction in the noble Earl's otherwise entirely lucid explanation of the merits of the amendment when, on the one hand, he said that he was surprised to find it on the face of the Bill at all, but on the other hand he was was quite clear that it was a matter of such great importance that it was a first cousin to a Henry VIII clause and should certainly be subject to affirmative resolution.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, surely there is no contradiction. The noble Earl finds it on the face of the Bill and therefore has to deal with it. It is sufficiently important in the Government's view to put it on the face of the Bill and that is the basis of the noble Earl's argument.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, I do not agree with that. I should have thought that one must look at the importance of the provision in deciding whether it should attract affirmative resolution if it is to be changed. I would not for one moment venture that as being my own opinion. That was the opinion of the joint committee which the noble and learned Lord quoted to us only about five minutes ago.
The problem here is that we felt that it would be genuinely helpful to try to set out on the face of the Bill the basis of our best estimate of what the multiplier in the regulations should be. Incidentally, it also follows what was done in Schedule 9 to the 1988 Act.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the system of calculating enrolment numbers gives a weighting to each mode of attendance—full time, sandwich, day release or open learning. Those are set out in paragraph 2 of the schedule on which we all have our eye. Those weightings have been developed over time by Department of Education and Science statisticians in consultation with the institutions, local education authorities and others who have an interest, so this is not something that is done in a hole in the corner manner. I assure your Lordships that it is a matter that must evolve over time. It was therefore thought that, as it evolved over time, there would be a need—again, I do not give this as my view; I am
382
quoting my noble friend Lord Renton, who is an expert in these matters—for a parliamentary order. Provision for a parliamentary order was therefore put into the Bill. We disagree as to whether it should be subject to affirmative or negative resolution.
I hesitate to cross swords with the noble and learned Lord about whether "importance" is the peg on which we should hang this debate. Although he quoted the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments of the 1970s, the only quotation that he gave was its very first recommendation: namely, that the guiding light should be the question of importance.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his invariable courtesy in giving way. The Joint Select Committee went on to explain exactly what it meant by "importance"; namely, something that was not transitional, consequential or trivial. That is the point that the noble Lord must face.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is quite right to have a go at me on that point. However, this is a technical matter and, if I may say so, time has moved on. We are 20 years on. We are also 20 years on so far as concerns the weight of work on this House. If we are to bring a technical matter to the Floor of the House for an affirmative resolution every time, it will not reduce the weight of work on this House. I am afraid that once again this is an amendment to which I must give a negative reply.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that I have had from all quarters of the House. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I agree entirely with what he said about the difference between the affirmative and negative procedures. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I are within a whisker of agreement. We agree that it is a pity that this provision was put into the Bill. I accept what the Minister said about letting the House know how the multiplier was to he calculated. I am grateful for his words and appreciate them. However, it is possible—there is precedent—to publish draft regulations at the same time as the Bill and let the House see them. That would have met this point very well. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his exposition of circumstances in which a Henry VIII clause might be permissible, and the uprating is a classic example.
However, I thought it a little ungenerous of the Minister to say that my argument included a contradiction because I said that the matter was on the one hand too trivial to be in the Bill and on the other hand too important for the negative resolution. The argument that I put forward was that this matter derives its importance from the fact that it is law. I thought that the view that the law is important was one which the Government shared. If this measure were not the law—an Act of Parliament—it would not be necessary to argue that we need an affirmative resolution to change it.
Changing an Act of Parliament, even a trivial section of an Act of Parliament, is not to be

383
undertaken lightly. It is not something done in isolation. After all, opinions may, and indeed do, differ on which parts of which Acts of Parliament may be regarded as trivial. Any decision taken on this matter will set a precedent. It will authorise the Executive to use Henry VIII clauses to alter any piece of any future Act of Parliament which they may regard as trivial. That view may be far from being shared in other quarters of the House.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I were within a whisker of agreement. But we have here a debate which will have to continue. I do not intend to divide the House because I do not feel angry enough about the alteration of the formula in Schedule 3. However, we have a problem of continuing importance. There are 22 minutes showing on the clock. I ask the Minister whether he has saved parliamentary time by using a Henry VIII clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 ["Further education corporation" and "operative date"]:
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 91:
Page 15, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) The "operative date" appointed by the Secretary of State shall be a date not before 31 March 1994").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is in no sense a delaying tactic. There is a great deal of concern among those working in the further education sector that the proposed implementation date of 1st April 1993 will not allow sufficient time for the preparation that is needed. It is not much more than a year away and we have to remember that the Bill must be considered in another place before it can be enacted.
The amendment would ensure that, while the funding council and corporate governing bodies could be established without delay, the new funding regime would be delayed for one year. That would allow adequate time for the funding councils to consult, as they must do, over the key task of devising coherent funding methodologies, which will be a very complicated and complex task. The corporate governing bodies could be brought into being and allowed to start work planning for the changeover. In the meantime, the continuity that would be provided by the extension of current arrangements for the financial year would allow colleges to receive students in September 1992 and maintain a smooth operation while plans for incorporation were worked out.
The main argument for the amendment rests on the comparison between the task facing the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council on the incorporation of the polytechnics, following the 1988 Education Reform Act, and that which will face the further education funding councils. The PCFC inherited the staff and a consistent national funding methodology from the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education (which noble Lords will remember was known as "the NAB") which spent six years working with 30 polytechnics and another 50 major colleges in developing an agreed and coherent approach to funding in the relatively tightly defined world of higher education.
384
I need not remind your Lordships that the further education funding councils will inherit responsibility for over 500 institutions, some of which, such as the sixth form colleges, for legal purposes are at present schools. Those institutions currently operate according to some 150 different funding schemes which differ not only in structure and methodological approach but in their levels of historic funding. The task of the councils will be further complicated by the fact that the duty to fund further education will be split between the funding councils and local authorities on a dividing line that has not previously existed. In many cases therefore there will be no reliable data that could indicate to the funding councils exactly what proportion of a particular institution's budget was devoted to the areas of work that the councils will have a duty to fund under Schedule 2 to the Bill.
I readily admit that the amendment which I moved at Committee stage to delay the establishment of bodies corporate until 31st March 1994 was technically flawed and allowed the Minister to argue quite cogently that it might introduce an unnecessary element of delay into the necessary work of preparing institutions for corporate status. I believe that the new amendment overcomes those difficulties by focusing on the operative date, which is the point at which the newly funded corporations legally take over responsibility for the institutions.
It will therefore be possible for the new funding councils to be set up and the corporation for each individual institution to be established on the timescale envisaged by the Government. But what the additional financial year will provide is the opportunity to ensure that the procedures adopted by the new funding councils are workable before the colleges have to live with the decisions that they have made.
If the Government are correct in their optimism—I believe that they are being somewhat optimistic—about the ability of the funding councils to arrive at sensible decisions on the allocation of funding by the beginning of 1993, they will be able to make that information available to institutions, which would then have time to prepare themselves properly for the following year or make appropriate representations in advance. They will not have that time if they are to go ahead on the Government's present proposed timetable. On the other hand, if the funding councils are unable to deliver on the exceedingly tight timescale proposed by the Government, institutions and students will despair of the chaos that would otherwise ensue.
A further advantage of the amendment is that it would encourage co-operation between the local authorities, the funding councils and the new corporations. On a number of occasions in Committee and at Report the Minister has said that the Government favour such co-operation. In most cases the local authority will still be responsible for funding some of the activities in the newly incorporated institutions. The professional managers of institutions will be largely the same people before and after incorporation and the new corporations are likely to have a number of members in common with the

385
existing governing bodies. The year of parallel running afforded by the amendment would allow all of those people to work together to make incorporation a success.
Because local and central government funding arrangements are geared to the financial year, a date for incorporation other than 1st April of any year would, I am sure, be resisted by the Government on technical grounds; and I would understand that. For that reason, the amendment does not propose the date of September 1993 but April 1994. The amendment will not create any delays in the work that is necessary to make incorporation a success. However, it will allow a number of difficulties that might cause its failure to be overcome.
A number of responses to the White Paper from further education colleges that supported the proposals in the Bill in principle nevertheless indicated that 1993 as a deadline was much too tight. I hope that the Government will therefore not put unnecessary pressure on the further education colleges and the new funding councils. There does not seem to be a tearing hurry about it. Surely it is better to implement the Bill in a way that guarantees success rather than in a way that could jeopardise an orderly transition. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I support the amendment. I do not believe that the Government envisage what a complex process they are setting in motion in creating the further education sector under the funding councils. It is a defective imagination of the Government. In order to address that, I ask the Minister to imagine a proposal to merge the two Houses of Parliament and consider the amount of time that we would need to set up and work out an agreed procedure for the two Houses meeting jointly. Decisions would have to be made whether to have a Committee of the Whole House or Standing Committees upstairs and whether to have a stage that the Bill do now pass. I do not need to go on.
However, it is a matter as complex as that that the Government seek. They ask for it at a time when by their own wish there is fairly considerable expansion taking place. That means that the amount of time taken up with teaching is rising considerably. In many places it is becoming very difficult to find time to combine the necessary amount of teaching and meetings. I believe that the amount of meetings envisaged in the Government's timetable, apart from any other confusion, is likely to have a damaging effect on people's teaching. For that reason if for no other, I hope that the Government will consider the amendment with favour.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness and the noble Earl said, a lot of complicated administrative work will have to be undertaken in order to get these corporations going. I should have thought that that work might well be completed before three years are up. Let us assume that the Bill achieves Royal Assent by, say, 31st March. Perhaps some of the preliminary work has already started for all we know;
386
sometimes that happens before Acts of Parliament are passed. Surely it would be wrong to prevent those corporations coming into existence if the gentlemen and ladies in Whitehall have shown such expedition that they can get the work done more quickly.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Will he explain where he gets the three years from? It is now 1992. The Bill is expected to come into operation in 1993. I make that only one year.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should have said two years from now. After all, we would not have had such detail put into the Bill unless the Department of Education had been giving a great deal of thought to it and perhaps the various institutions too. To say that nothing will happen until the Bill attains Royal Assent seems to me a wrong assumption. It is sometimes possible to get some of the most complicated procedure completed in a short space of time. If that can be done, surely the noble Baroness would not wish to see achievement frustrated and progress delayed.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I acknowledge the magnitude of the task that lies before the colleges. I recognise that the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, springs from a genuine concern. Getting everything ready by April 1993 will certainly mean working to a tight timetable. Indeed in her remarks the noble Baroness included the work that has to be got through by the funding councils when they are set up. However, I do not believe that it will be impossible to achieve.
One ingredient was missing in the noble Baroness's remarks —the disadvantages of the delay that such an amendment could inevitably imply. Having decided that there should be structural change in an organisation, and on the assumption that the Bill becomes law, it is not to the advantage of that structural change that there should be delay provided that the right arrangements can be made.
My noble friend Lord Renton said that doubtless the Department of Education and Science has been giving thought to those matters. Only today the Minister of State announced a major consultancy study which will help further-education and sixth form colleges prepare for independent status. The study, called Getting Colleges Ready, will establish the present state of college management and provide practical guidance and recommendation on what the colleges need to do to prepare for independence. Mr. Eggar, the Minister of State, among his other remarks said that he knew that colleges would welcome the study, which would provide the guidance that they need to get fully to grips with independent operations and that the study would include advice on establishing financial controls, the preparation of final accounts, the setting up of personnel departments, asset management and the control of capital projects. The study, which will be conducted by the consultants, Touche Ross, will be completed by March. The department will then issue guidance to colleges based on the findings.

387
We ought not to forget that the colleges have acquired valuable experience in assuming greater control over their own affairs over the past couple of years under the local management of colleges. I do not believe that they would welcome the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he clarify the point made? It was to the effect that the Bill will not come into force until 1993. As I understand it, it will get Royal Assent this year in a few months' time. If various provisions are not being brought into force until 1993 that is understandable. But will he not agree that the relevant factor is that the Bill will be on the statute book before many weeks have elapsed?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend initially had a slight slip of the tongue. After that he was absolutely right. The effect of the amendment, broadly speaking, would be that there would be a delay of two years in bringing the Bill into effect.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am amazed by some of the Minister's remarks. I am sorry to put it quite so strongly.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am delighted that I give the noble Baroness some cause for amazement.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was equally surprised by some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I do not believe that he has understood the points that I have tried to make. Of course I am aware that the Bill will be on the statute book by about Easter, depending on how much time is given to it in another place. However, legislation of this kind requires an enormous amount of complex administrative and structural change. Anyone who has been involved in running education institutions or local authorities or in the setting up of funding councils will be fully aware of that. Such provisions cannot be rushed through without causing damage to the system.
I am concerned that hundreds of thousands of students in further education colleges should be able to continue with their courses and to benefit from them rather than the institutions having difficulty in delivering the education that they are required to provide because of the pressures that are put on them. I must repeat that the principals of further education colleges are concerned about the timetable that the Government have brought forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, implied that the necessary work will be carried out by civil servants in the Department of Education and Science. That is simply not true. Most of the work must be carried out by the funding councils. We have yet to know who the chairmen, members and chief executives of the funding councils will be. All those people must be found and appointed. We must also have a regional structure. The Minister made something of that fact on Report earlier this week because he said that the
388
regional committees would be important. Again, we must find people to sit on the regional committees and set up a bureaucracy to support them.
The amendment will allow all those provisions to be made as soon as the Bill is enacted, but they will take time. I find most surprising the Government's suggestion that all the work can be carried out, the new governing bodies for the corporations can be established and the funding methodologies and transfer with respect to property and assets can take place in about six months. I cannot believe that it will be easy to do that.
The Minister referred to a study. Initially I was delighted to hear him say that a study would be undertaken in order to facilitate these changes. It is important that no change should take place until the study has been completed. I have experience of undertaking studies of this kind. His comment that amazed me the most was that a study that has been announced today will be completed by March. As a social scientist who has carried out a great deal of applied research on policy recommendations I cannot believe that this is anything other than quick and dirty consultancy. The study cannot be rigorous and well carried out if it is completed in such a short period of time.
In the light of what the Minister has said, which was extremely disappointing and showed that the Government are being unrealistic, I have no option but to test the opinion of the House.
5.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 91) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hunt, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Blackstone, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Combermere, V.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Desai, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkender, B.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Whaddon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

389

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Adrian, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Mancroft, L.

Ampthill, L.

Marlesford, L.

Arran, E.

Marshall of Goring, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Astor, V.

Mersey, V.

Auckland, L.

Middleton, L.

Balfour, E.

Milverton, L.

Barber. L.

Morris, L.

Bauer, L.

Mottistone, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Belstead, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boardman, L.

Munster, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Nelson, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Norfolk, D.

Butterworth, L.

Norrie, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Onslow, E.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Coleraine, L.

Pender, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pennock, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Craigavon, V.

Perth, E.

Cross, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Denham, L.

Reay, L.

Elles, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Romney, E.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Erroll, E.

Seccombe, B.

Faithfull, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Haig, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Henley, L.

L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hives, L.

[Teller.]

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Howe, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trumpington, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kimball, L.

Waddington, L.

Kimberley, E.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Knutsford, V.

Warnock, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wharton, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Wigram, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Windlesham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.52 p.m.
Clause 19 [Supplementary powers of a further education corporation]:
Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 91ZA:
Page 16, leave out lines 30 to 34.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall try to deal with this amendment as quickly as I can. It was suggested to me that I had the line numbers wrong, but I believe that I have them right.
I move this amendment because I am slightly puzzled as to why subsection (5) is there. I understand that in the FE sector the Government are trying to make the new corporations more independent than they are now or were hitherto.
390
Secondly, the funding councils are meant to be, in modern jargon, "facilitators" and not controllers. If one looks at Clause 19(4) (c), which defines the borrowing powers of a corporation, it states that the corporation can:
"borrow such sums as the corporation think fit",
and I underline the words "think fit". It states also:
"for the purposes of carrying on any activities they have power to carry on".
In other words, the subsection states that the corporations can borrow only in appropriate circumstances for appropriate ends.
I assume that "borrow" means to borrow on the open market. In other words, the corporations will go out and borrow. If they do that on the open market then the open market will act as an appropriate constraint. It will ensure that they are unable to borrow unless the market believes that they can service the loan in the normal way. Therefore, given the Government's wish that the corporations should have independence and should not be controlled but facilitated by the council, I cannot understand why subsection (5) exists. I shall not divide the House on such a technical matter but I should like an explanation as subsection (5) seems to contradict the whole purpose of the Bill. Why is it there? Why cannot it be taken away?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is a normal part of the arrangements for centrally funded bodies that any powers to borrow are prescribed in the financial memoranda covering their funding. In the case of the further education corporations, subsection (5) sets the statutory basis for the borrowing arrangements for the new sector. We believe that the inclusion of that subsection is a prudent step which ensures by statute that any borrowing by the colleges does not take place without the consent of the further education funding councils, which are responsible for the overall funding of the colleges. That reflects the fact that the colleges are substantially funded from public funds. The payments for borrowing which they incur would have to be met from those funds. That is a fairly major part of the reply which I shall give to the noble Lord on this matter.
Subject to any guidance from the Secretary of State the councils will be free to give consent for particular borrowing or a particular class of borrowing. As the noble Lord said as part of his question, the powers in subsection 4(c) are quite wide.
I should add that the inclusion of this subsection does not imply a lack of confidence in the ability of the institutions coming into the new sector. There is more than enough evidence of our confidence. We are giving them freedom from local authority control and in Clauses 18 and 19, we are giving them wide powers to manage their own affairs. However, the sector will be made up of institutions of varying maturity and experience of managing budgets. The Government consider that in the case of that particular new sector, a statement of this nature is a necessary framework for prudent financial management. It is really a long-stop power to allow the councils to ensure that borrowing which may be to the detriment of the students in colleges does not take place.

391
I hope that that covers the ground which the noble Lord expected or half expected me to cover.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I was rather surprised to hear the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in the universal prudence of the open market in this sphere. In recent months and years we have had experience of perfectly respectable financial institutions sometimes making imprudent loans.
I do not wish to suggest that a further education institution would be an inappropriate recipient of a loan. However, one suspects that if a bank were making such a loan, part of its notional confidence in the probity of the institution would be, at the last resort, that the funding council would be expected to bail it out. For that reason there is certain logic in the proposition that the funding council should be consulted before considerable loans are drawn upon.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I probably have more faith in the market than many noble Lords opposite. If they have heard me speak on such matters, they may have heard me say such things. I add that I have had some experience of governments lending money in a profligate way, so I am not quite as starry-eyed about governments as are my colleagues on this side of the House. I tend to be fairly objective about both those matters.
I am not surprised by the noble Lord's answer in the sense that it was the answer that I expected him to give. However, he did not convince me. One matter which puzzles me is whether or not a subsection of this kind is normal. I do not believe that it is normal. One reason for raising this matter was to find out why the back-up power is necessary. It may be that the noble Lord will wish to write to me on this matter giving me other examples of such clauses.
The funding councils do not underwrite borrowing under this Bill. It would be a mistake if that were understood to be the case. Unless I have misunderstood the Bill, even if this subsection applied, it does not mean that because the funding councils have granted permission for the borrowing, they will then will bail out the corporations.
It is in a genuine spirit of inquiry that I ask whether subsection (5) is normal or whether, as the Minister rather implied, because this is such a new departure it is included as a fail-safe provision, but it is abnormal. I do not press the noble Lord to reply to me now, but when he has time perhaps he will enlighten me about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Clause 20 [Constitution of corporation and conduct of the institution]:
Lord Addingtonmoved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 16, line 42, after ("Act") insert ("subject to the inclusion of at least one student nominee on the governing body of the corporation where 'student nominee' means a student at the institution, nominated by the students of the institution.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are once again addressing the issue of student representation, this
392
time in the colleges of further education. I shall try to be comparatively brief when introducing the issue, because it is one that is reasonably straightforward.
Amendment No. 91A proposes that at least one student nominee shall be appointed to the corporation and that he or she shall be nominated by his or her fellow students. The last time the matter was debated we heard a great deal of praise for most student bodies involved in councils and the running of their institutions. Indeed, the overwhelming body of opinion was in favour of them, saying that those who take on the option do a good job and contribute in a positive manner to the running of such institutions.
I can see no reason for not including students on the councils. The point that there should be at least one means that if there are two or more students on the councils they can cover for each other. Should one be ill or have an examination, the other will be able to attend the meeting. I suggest that the Government will be losing nothing by accepting the amendment or bringing another forward to meet its aims. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I support the amendment for three reasons. The amendment involves one of the most basic principles within the entire Bill. It goes to the heart of what both further and higher education are about.
First, it seems to me to be no more than simple natural justice that any governing body—except perhaps for a Benedictine monastery or a battalion of the Coldstream Guards—should include at least one representative of the constituency for whose benefit the entire institution exists. Colleges and universities are democratic bodies; they are not administered in an authoritarian way. Democratic procedures surely require the basic concession on the part of the Government that the student body—the customers, the consumers, whose money pays the bills at the end of the month—should at least have some representation at the highest level. It is no more than common sense.
Secondly, such representation is education in the broadest sense. It is part of the educational procedure which these people attend colleges to receive. Education is not confined to the lecture room, the seminar room or the laboratory. It is a total experience of living in a community and taking part in it. That is what colleges and universities have been ever since Paris and Bologna.
Thirdly, it is surely in the interests of good management to have open lines of communication and a kind of lightning conductor through a student presence on the highest councils of a university or college. Over the past 20 years it has been a means of establishing and maintaining good relationships. The proof of that particular pudding has surely been in the eating; since we have had extended student representation there has been far less student activity pulling down gates or occupying halls of residence or vice-chancellors' rooms. That has become self-evident to those of us working in any way in universities or colleges of further education.
I am slightly worried by the Government's present position, which appears to have undergone a complete

393
turnaround over a period of 12 months. I have in mind a statutory instrument issued as recently as 1st April 1990 called, Education (Governing Bodies of Institutions of Higher and Further Education) Regulations 1990, which appears to take for granted that there shall be student governors in colleges of further education. It talks quite openly of students being governors and members of the institution concerned. It defines a student governor as,
"a person elected by, or chosen to represent, students of a relevant institution of which he is a student as a member of the governing body thereof".
I should like to know when, if, how and why the Government have suddenly turned their back on what appeared to be their unquestioned stance on the matter as recently as a year ago. Many of us are concerned that unless the amendment is accepted students may no longer be able to play a full role on the governing bodies of further and higher education institutions. Current custom and practice reinforced by legislation and guidance from the Department of Education and Science ensures at present that legitimate student nominees are involved in discussions at all relevant levels of college administration. To remove them from the highest level is to risk—nay, I would say to invite—suspicion and unrest. Any college which voluntarily did so would surely be unwise. The Government could at least advise the colleges not to act unwisely in that way.
When we last debated this matter the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said,
"I have sat on the hebdomadal council in Oxford for six years with them [students] and in that time they never put a foot wrong".—[Official Report, 16/12/91, col. 1129.]
I can go one better. I have sat with students on university committees in several universities at all levels for more than 20 years. In my experience they have often put a foot wrong, every bit as often as the professors, the lecturers and the vice-chancellors. But students have also frequently made useful, helpful and sometimes brilliantly creative contributions. The point is this. They have a unique contribution to make at the highest level of colleges of further education. It is as true in further education as it is in higher education and I hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I cannot hope to support the amendment with the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. Nonetheless I support it very warmly indeed. Everything in my experience too indicates that students make an important contribution to committees and universities at the highest level, and not only at the highest level. It is extremely important that they should be there.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, there may be some confusion in some of the discussion. Many of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, referred to university students. Separate amendments come later—Amendment No. 158, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Morris—to deal with university students. It is helpful that the two issues are divided so that we can focus on them with some clarity. I am not sure that all the arguments we
394
have heard this evening are entirely relevant, if I may say so with respect. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Addington, did not relate the two issues and was speaking of the further education sector, which is the issue before us.
I have considerable sympathy with the amendment. It is also convenient that on this occasion it is not grouped with amendments which are to follow, for which the arguments are perhaps different. However, I have two reservations. The first is that the amendment refers to more than one student without any restriction. It may be appropriate to set an upper as well as a lower limit. There is no reason to imagine that those who draw up the appropriate statutes will pack the appropriate body with students but it might have been a more persuasive amendment for those on this side of the House who are a little cautious on the matter had an upper limit been stipulated.
My other reservation is that this is in the further education sector and therefore many of the students will be in the younger age range; that is, they may be in the 16 to 18 age range. Many of us on this side of the House have been emphasising that we see a clear distinction between school and sixth form college, which is now in the further education sector. If we insist that sixth form colleges are in the further education sector—I have been warmly supporting the Government in this matter—there is a distinction between sixth forms in schools in the schools section and sixth form colleges in the further education sector. Perhaps the logic then is that we see the force of their being in the further education sector and therefore that there should be such representation on these bodies. Ultimately, this argument leads me to believe that the amendment has a great deal of logic in it. I wish to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say before deciding my position. I believe that the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is an effective one.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that as regards the 18 year-olds, at that age one is allowed to vote and take part in the democratic process. Therefore, I do not see why one should not be able to be part of the governing body of the institution of which you are a member. The point I wish to bring out about the amendment is that it puts on the face of the Bill that a student nominee should be a part of the main governing body. I recall that when we were debating higher education and university students and whether they should be on the governing body, the argument was that they can be but that there was no need to put that on the face of the Bill.
I argue the other way round. At times of trouble within these institutions when there is difficulty between the students and the governing body, as there can be in many instances such as with rent increases, it is precisely at those times that the students' voice must be heard on the governing body. It is precisely at those times that it would be easiest to neglect the students. It would be easy to say, "As you do not have a right to be on the body we can easily neglect your point of view. We are sorry, but you are not on the

395
governing body and therefore you cannot deal with these matters". That is why this amendment is so important.
I do not see that an upper limit is applicable because the amendment mentions a "student nominee". The minimum would be one. There does not need to be many more than one student nominee, but that nominee could be vital in the smooth running of the institution of which he is a member.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not wish to disagree with my noble friend, who is much nearer to student politics than I am these days, but I disagree that there need not be more than one nominee. It is very important that there should be more than one. We have argued this matter before. The problems are very real and there will not be very effective representation if membership is limited to one. One does not need a horde of representatives, but more than one is needed.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, from these Benches I support the amendment. I am glad that it has been tabled without, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said, a string of following issues saying that everyone else should be represented. It needs to be clear that the students are the college. There is no entity without students. Therefore, in that respect, they are not to be considered alongside the administrative and all the other staff who may or may not be represented on the governing body. Therefore, the fundamental principle that students should be represented on the governing body of an institution in the further education sector should be accepted and it should be on the face of the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, usually we discuss this issue on the basis that if it is not on the face of the Bill then Parliament is against students being on the governing body. I shall listen very carefully to what my noble friend Lord Cavendish has to say because the amendment is suggesting that there should be,
"at least one student nominee on the governing body … nominated by the students of the institution".
Presumably, that means that it will be the president of the students' union or an office bearer of the union. If the Bill is worded like that then I believe that is what will happen. I hope that the governing body of a new college—
Lord Addington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Surely it would be possible to arrange an election of some kind or some other form of nomination. The president of the students' union would probably have more than enough to do without being on the governing body.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever been president of a students' union, in which case he will know more about the matter than I do. But my perception of the value of college governing bodies on which I have sat is that the president of the union valued greatly being
396
on the body. Incidentally, it was done very well. It will be very difficult to carry out the function in another way under the terms of the amendment. If the governing body itself decided on how the students should be elected or left it to the students to decide, then in many ways that would be a better approach.
I want to hear what my noble friend has to say. I feel that students must be there. I cannot conceive of a college where it would be a good thing to have a governing body with no student representation. It is a question of how one arrives at that representation. If this amendment were accepted it would automatically result in the president, or whatever office bearer of the union, being on the body. Student unions are not always totally satisfactory in arriving at who their representative should be.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps I may add a word of support to the amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I am very glad that this amendment has not been tabled with Amendments Nos. 158 and 158A. We must stick to further education at this stage of the Bill. I cannot see any logic in separating colleges of further education from colleges of higher education. I should like to apply the principle that students should be represented on the boards of governors and corporations across the board.
Perhaps I may ask for clarification, although I believe that I know the answer. As the Bill is drafted, can the Minister say whether it is possible for students to be elected to boards and that there is no bar to the election of students? I feel that it would be possible, if that is so, for the Government to issue some kind of circular or directive saying that it is desirable that students should be elected to the body. However, that is only a second best course to an effective amendment to the Bill which empowers the body to have at least one student member.
I am quite satisfied that there should be at least one student member. I would not like to specify a greater number and neither do I believe that there is any necessity to put a limit on the number of students. It is a general principle as to whether or not it is desirable. We have heard what I believe to be the unanimous voice of those in this Chamber who have knowledge, both as recent students and as dons. I believe that the authoritative opinion is on the side of this amendment, which I am very happy to support.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, this amendment would require the Bill to specify that the instrument of government for each further education corporation shall provide for the corporation's membership to include at least one student nominee. Your Lordships will recall that we had a very full debate in Committee on the desirability of prescribing in the Bill the membership of FE corporations. The Government remain of the view that it would not be appropriate to do so.
As regards the question of students, I made our view clear then about students on governing bodies. There is no hostility by the Government towards students in those positions.

397
In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I can confirm that there is no bar in the Bill to students being elected to these bodies. Model instruments of government will be set out in regulations to be made under this Bill, and we shall be consulting on the draft regulations. Under the regulations, it will still be open to corporations to propose changes to the composition of their membership to suit their individual needs. We believe that it is important to give corporations some flexibility in their membership.
We also debated the desirability of including certain representatives in the membership of the corporations. So far as concerns student representation, it is our intention that the model instruments of government for further education corporations will provide for the membership of the corporation to include a student representative to be elected by the students at the institution. The position in relation to student representatives on the membership of FE corporations will therefore mirror the current position with regard to student representation on FE college governing bodies. Guidance issued to LEAs in connection with the reconstitution of FE college governing bodies under the Education Reform Act 1988 stated that:
"Should an authority decide not to allocate places to representatives of the students the Secretary of State would expect the colleges' articles of government to provide for the students to make representations to the governing body on matters of proper concern to them".
We propose to issue similar guidance to further education corporations.
I hope I have conveyed to your Lordships that this Bill does not propose any change to the current position of student representation on further education college governing bodies. I hope that it can be agreed that there is no need for this amendment and in consequence that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord before he sits down. I thought that what he was saying sounded rather important. Did he say that Schedule E will be introduced by a statutory instrument, and that within that statutory instrument the model regulations would be specified, and that they would contain in them the statement that the model would include at least one student representative? In other words, do I understand that the model regulations—which will of course only be dealt with by a negative instrument —will include what is already incorporated in this amendment, or did he not say that?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I said just that.
Lord Addington: My Lords, we have had a full debate on this subject, and the noble Lord has gone asme way towards meeting the anxieties. But it is a case of: "we expect"; "normally there should be"; "probably"; "under most circumstances". I thought for a minute that the Minister would have met all the points here, but I am afraid that we are returning to the very fundamental point that students are these institutions. They are what goes on inside them; they
398
are what makes them work. Everything else is a periphery round it. If you do not have students, it is a bit like having a body without blood in it—it just will not work. Surely, we should be saying that they are entitled to representation on the governing body. We have a very wide-ranging sector. It has been my experience in further education that you will have a better cross-section of ages.
I listened to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Is the Minister effectively saying that there will be an almost guarantee of representation here? That is the only thing that is good enough. Unless we get that sort of guarantee, we are denying representation to a group of which the majority will be adults. It must be remembered that part-time students will be brought in as well, and the vast majority of those part-time students will be over 18. Unless we have a rock solid guarantee, I cannot withdraw this amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, let us be absolutely clear. I am not giving a rock solid guarantee, as the noble Lord would like. We have gone as far as we can. I hope that the noble Lord understands that there is no hostility, as I have said. In fact it is very much the reverse. However, I do not want to pretend there is any guarantee offered here.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. It has cleared things up. I appreciate that he has gone some way towards meeting us, but I am afraid that there is still a gap between us which is a very important one. Much as I dislike doing so, especially when the Government and the noble Lord have made some movement towards us, I am afraid that I have no real option but to seek the opinion of the House as this is such an important principle.
6.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 91A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 78.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Adrian, L.

Hughes, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Birk, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lawrence, L.

Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McNair, L.

Combermere, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pennock, L.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Guildford, Bp.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Thurlow, L.

399

Tordoff, L.

Wharton, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

White, B.

Underhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Warnock, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Astor, V.

Mancroft, L.

Balfour, E.

Marlesford, L.

Barber, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bauer, L.

Mersey, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Milverton, L.

Belstead, L.

Morris, L.

Boardman, L.

Mottistone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mountevans,L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Nelson, E.

Coleraine, L.

Norrie, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Rees, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Seccombe, B.

Haig, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Stockton, E.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Howe, E.

L.

Huntly, M.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

[Teller.]

Jeffreys, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Tryon, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ullswater, V.

Liverpool, E.

Waddington, L.

Lyell, L.

Wigram, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Windlesham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.33 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Instruments and articles of government for further education corporations]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 71, line 8, at end insert ("and such membership shall include a person with expertise in or experience of a Training and Enterprise Council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will notice that I am dealing under Schedule 4 rather than in the main body of the Bill with the membership of governing bodies of further education corporations. It may well be that the Minister will be able to reply in terms similar to those of his earlier reply on student membership. When we discussed the membership of funding councils the Government were reluctant to include the words,
"with expertise in or experience of a Training and Enterprise Council".
However, they made it clear that they assumed that the rubric to the Bill would in practice always mean that such people were included. Although I argued at the time that I would rather have the words,
"membership or connected with a training and enterprise council",
400
I fully understood the Government's position. We agreed to differ.
We ought to be talking about the model instruments and articles and what will be contained in them. What I am trying to get over to the Government is the thought that what is contained in my amendment should appear in the model instruments and articles. Alternatively, although I would prefer my version, there should at least be something corresponding to "membership of a funding council", which the Government have already put into the Bill. That would then encourage corporations to have this kind of membership. I am looking for some clarification or reassurance along those lines.
I take it for granted that there is nothing between us on the desirability—whether explicitly or just taking it for granted—that more than one person with expertise in or experience of a training and enterprise council should be on governing bodies. I assume that there is nothing between us and that it is purely a question of method.
Perhaps I may draw one other matter to the attention of the House. In the detailed notes on Clause 21, which covers how initial instruments and articles will be dealt with, we are told that such orders and regulations will be made by statutory instrument subject to the negative resolution procedure, which is dealt with in Clause 85. That means that noble Lords have been right to emphasise these matters while we are dealing with the Bill as we shall not have any other opportunity to voice our opinions on them. Normally we do not debate matters to do with the negative resolution procedure. Therefore I have taken a few minutes of your Lordships' time because this is my last chance to emphasise before the House that aspect of the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I hope that I have the right amendment. I do not think that there is anything in Amendment No. 92 specifically about TECs.
Lord Peston: My Lords, Amendment No. 92 states:
"and such membership shall include a person with expertise in or experience of a Training and Enterprise Council".
Does the noble Lord have that version of my amendment? I am reading only what I have in front of me and what I have prepared for. That may be completely irrelevant, but it is my amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the confusion arose because at one stage it was intended to take several amendments together. I apologise to the noble Lord.
The amendment would require the Bill to specify that the instrument of government for each further education corporation shall provide for the corporation's membership to include,
"a person with expertise in or experience of a Training and Enterprise Council".
We debated in Committee the desirability of including certain representatives in the membership of the corporations. As announced in the White Paper, Education and Training for the 21st Century, all FE corporations will include at least one representative of the local training and enterprise council. That is in

401
recognition of the close relationship between the colleges and the training and enterprise councils through the core funding which the TECs will continue to provide for work-related further education.
The model instruments of government for FE corporations will specify that the membership must include at least one representative of the local training and enterprise council. That is one aspect of the membership which colleges will not be able to apply to change. In nearly every respect—the noble Lord is right—it follows the same formula as before. I hope therefore he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I was hoping to get an answer of that kind. It will be included in the model instruments and articles and there will be no deviation from what the Government announced earlier. Subject to what I think was a fully reassuring answer which covers the point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 93:
Page 71, line 8, at end insert ("and such membership shall include a person with expertise in or experience of a local education authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 93, I am not certain, given the Government's previous position, whether I shall receive quite as positive an answer. I do not need to repeat what I have said. If I apply to Amendment No. 93 everything I said to Amendment No. 92 and substitute the words "a local education authority" for "a Training and Enterprise Council" my argument will hold yet again. I am asking whether the model instruments and articles of government will include this point as well. Again, I raise it now and in this form because I do not believe I will have a chance to discuss the statutory instrument regarding model instruments and articles when it comes forward. Therefore, I do not apologise for raising the matter again. I can assure the Minister, and noble Lords generally, that this is my last throw on the subject. I look forward to hearing the response. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the amendment would require the Bill to specify that the instrument of government for each further education corporation should provide for the corporation's membership to include a person with expertise in, or experience of, a local education authority. I am sure that the membership of FE corporations will include such a person. It is not unusual for college principals to have worked in LEAs. I think that most principals could claim to have expertise in, or experience of, a local education authority by virtue of their regular dealings with the authorities.
Of course, the governing bodies will be able to co-opt two LEA people in a personal capacity. That was an undertaking given in the Government's White Paper, Education and Training for the 21st Century. I repeat that undertaking this evening.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I think that that was a helpful reply, although I am not
402
sure that it was quite as positive as that given in respect of the training and enterprise councils; but at least it was something. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 71, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) An instrument shall provide for the members of the further education corporation to include a person who is elected as a member of the further education corporation by teachers at the institution and who is himself a teacher at the time when he is elected.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in my view this is an important amendment. It asks that the members of the further education corporation should include,
"a person who is elected as a member of the further education corporation by teachers at the institution and who is himself [or herself] a teacher at the time when he [she] is elected".
It is extremely important that the governing body should have the benefit of having a teacher at the institution definitely included in the body. It is no use just having the principal; the principal may not always know the views of the whole teaching body and in fact may have a different view. For the benefit of the institution as a whole, it is extremely important that a teacher should automatically be there and be elected by the teachers at the institution.
I hope that we receive a more positive answer at this stage. The amendment reflects the provision made in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 for school governing bodies. Therefore, there is a precedent. As I said, I hope that we receive a positive response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I strongly support the aim of the amendment that there should be a teacher on the body. We should not rely solely upon the principal. As the Minister said in reply to the last amendment, some principals have worked in local education authorities; but they may not necessarily have been teaching people. It is most important that there should be someone on the body who is a professional practising teacher and who is involved in the profession.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Government were to resist the amendment they would remind me of the college secretary at the first college in which I served. He said that the academic staff were employees just like the garden staff, although probably not such useful ones. It was a view which did not commend itself to the teaching staff of the college. Communication between teachers and governing bodies is not always of the best. It is worth improving. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the amendment would require the Bill to specify that the instrument of government for every FE corporation should provide for the membership to include a person who is elected as a member of the further education corporation by teachers of the institution and who is himself a teacher at the time of election. It

403
is our intention that the model instrument of government will provide for the membership of the corporation to include up to two members representing the staff of the college. Those members would be elected by the staff of the colleges and will have to be on the college staff.
As with preceding amendments, we take the view that it would not be appropriate to prescribe in the Bill that certain categories should be included in the membership of FE corporations. I hope that the noble Baroness will find that to be a positive response and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to ask a question. Does what he said mean that the model instrument of government has definitely to be followed by the new set-up?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not think that the model has to be followed. However, I understand that the institution can apply to vary the model instrument.
Baroness David: My Lords, that was not a totally satisfactory answer. However, I am glad to hear that the model will include a teacher, or perhaps two teachers, elected by the teaching staff. I do not intend to divide the House at this time of night, but I believe this to be a most important matter and I hope that the model will be referred to so far as is possible. In my view it would be absolutely disastrous if it were not. I say that because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said—and I am grateful for her support and that of the noble Earl—the principal may not be a practising teacher and may not previously have been one. Indeed, such people are often brought in from outside. Therefore, the views of the actual teaching staff are especially important. In view of the comforting remarks that have been made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Transfer of property, etc.: institutions maintained by local education authorities]:
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 96:
Page 19, line 15, at end insert:
("(8) On the operative date—

(a) all land and other property which, immediately before that date, was property of the former governing body, and

(b) all rights and liabilities of that body subsisting immediately before that date,

shall be transferred to and, by virtue of this Act, vest in the corporation.
(9) In subsection (8) above "former governing body" in relation to an institution means the governing body of the institution immediately before the operative date.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Belstead. It would require that all property, rights and liabilities acquired by governing bodies of institutions prior to incorporation would transfer to the corporations.
It is the Government's understanding that, in the vast majority of cases, the governing bodies of institutions (which will in the new FE sector be
404
conducted by FE corporations) will not have acquired or incurred any rights or liabilities of their own. However, it has come to the Government's notice that, in certain circumstances, some governing bodies may have acquired rights or incurred liabilities, in particular regarding the use of property. The governing body may have entered into an agreement regarding the use of premises by others outside school hours. We are particularly anxious that any such liabilities should not remain with the old governing bodies, but should transfer to the new corporations. We are concerned not least because these liabilities will have been assumed in a personal capacity.
I am sure your Lordships agree that it is unacceptable that individuals who served on the old governing bodies should have liabilities resting with them when they no longer have any control over the institutions to which the liabilities relate. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Provisions supplementary to section 23]:
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 97:
Page 19, line 42, leave out from beginning to first ("the ") in line 43 and insert:
("(3A) Where such arrangements are for the supply to others as well as to the institution—

(a) those arrangements shall have effect as mentioned in subsection (3) above only to the extent that they relate to the institution in question, and

(b)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 107. These are technical amendments. As it stands, Clause 24 provides that contracts made by means of the competitive tendering process shall have effect from the operative date as if they were made between the local authority and the further education corporation.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to make provision for handling potential disputes between local authorities and the corporations. The schedules to compulsory competitive tendering contracts do not always put costs against particular institutions to which the goods and services supplied relate. In such circumstances, it is possible that disputes may arise in the search for an acceptable apportionment of charges for the new corporations.
The proposed government amendment to Clause 24(3) would provide for local authorities and the education assets board to have a duty to identify and agree what rights and liabilities should transfer. In that way, the interests of the colleges transferring to the new sector are protected. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Transfer of staff to further education corporations]:
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 98:
Page 20, line 45, after second ("authority") insert:
("( ) in relation to a corporation established to conduct an institution which, on that date, was a voluntary aided or special agreement school, the governing body of the school").

405
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment provides for the transfer from the governing body to a further education corporation of contracts of employment of staff in any voluntary aided or special agreement school which might enter the new further education sector after April 1993 as an institution conducted by a corporation.
Although existing voluntary aided sixth form colleges will enter the new sector in April 1993 as institutions designated as eligible to receive funds from the further education funding councils, we expect voluntary aided schools which in the future meet the conditions for transfer to the sector to do so as institutions conducted by further education corporations. Any special agreement schools which might also meet the necessary conditions will be required to do so. That as we said in earlier discussions about voluntary schools, is to preserve so far as is possible the coherence of institutional status in the new sector.
Clause 26 as it stands does not provide for the necessary transfer of contracts of employment of staff in voluntary aided and special agreement schools to the further education corporation. The amendment is intended to remedy the deficiency. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Designation of institutions]:
[Amendment No. 99 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 103 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 30 [Special provision for voluntary aided sixth form colleges]:
The Lord Bishop of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 104:
Page 23, line 37, leave out ("aided school") and insert ("school or a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school before it became grant-maintained").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the amendment relates to Clause 30 and the governing bodies of voluntary aided sixth form colleges. The Minister will be aware, because I have had discussions with him, that in our view the provision of a majority of foundation governors should apply not just to aided schools but to all voluntary schools or former voluntary schools.
The arguments are well known to the Minister. In an earlier exchange on another amendment, he said that he would be able to give some assurances in that connection which might enable me to withdraw the amendment. I move it at this stage to give the Minister the opportunity to make that statement so that we can be clear as to what is the position. I need not therefore detain the House longer at this stage. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, at present of course the instruments of government for voluntary aided sixth form colleges provide for the foundation governors to be in the majority. The Bill proposes to preserve that position. However, the right reverend Prelate is putting forward a different point; namely, that a
406
majority of foundation governors for former voluntary controlled sixth form colleges should prevail. I believe I am right in saying that currently foundation governors comprise some 25 per cent. of the governing body of voluntary controlled sixth form colleges. The position of foundation governors of former voluntary controlled sixth form colleges will not be affected adversely when they become FE corporations. Those colleges will continue to be conducted in accordance with any trust deed, and their religious ethos and their character will be reflected in the articles of government where no trust deed exists.
Model instruments of government for the former voluntary controlled sixth form colleges, like those for all institutions which are to become FE corporations, will be prescribed in regulations to be made under the Bill. There will be a separate model for former voluntary controlled colleges. All further education corporations will be able to apply to my right honourable friend to amend their instruments of government to suit their particular circumstances. I repeat the assurance that I gave earlier this afternoon, that any request from the voluntary controlled sixth form colleges to amend their instruments to provide for a majority of foundation governors will be considered sympathetically.
I believe that I owe the right reverend Prelate an explanation of why I seek to give an assurance and am not offering to put something on the face of the Bill. There is a problem here in that there are, as the right reverend Prelate would be the first to tell me, non-denominational voluntary controlled colleges. I can only hazard the thought that they might not necessarily want a majority of foundation governors squeezing out other interests. I do not say that pejoratively. I am not in any way being critical. I repeat the assurance that I have just given. If the denominational sixth form colleges or the non-denominational sixth form colleges feel that, come what may, they want a majority of foundation governors, any request from the voluntary controlled sixth form colleges, be they denominational or non-denominational, to amend their instruments to provide for a majority of foundation governors will be considered sympathetically.
The amendment refers also to a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school before it became grant maintained. There are no existing grant-maintained sixth form colleges. If in the future the balance of work at a grant-maintained school that was a former voluntary school were to change and it became eligible to join the new FE sector, such an institution would be able to keep a majority of its foundation governors. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel that the assurance I have given him is of some value and that it will not be necessary to pursue the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response and assurance. The amendment relates also, in some measure, to the other amendments to Clauses 15 and 28 which I withdrew earlier; and therefore is a part, so

407
to speak, of some unfinished business. In the light of the Minister's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Transfer of property, etc., to designated institutions]:
[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]
Clause 36 [General provisions about transfers under Chapter II]:
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): My Lords, I call Amendment No. 107.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, in view of the fact that the discussion on the following amendments will be of some length, I move that further consideration on Report be adjourned until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Coal Industry Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice
6.58 p.m.
Lord Mottistonerose to move to resolve, That the amendment to the code of practice under the Mental Health Act 1983 laid before this House on 29th November be withdrawn.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this story of the English and Welsh code of practice is a sorry one. It needs some explanation, but I shall try to be brief. As I explained when moving a Motion to withdraw that code of practice nearly two years ago on 29th January 1990 (Hansard col. 68) the code had two false starts in 1985 and 1987. The final version, against which my earlier Motion was directed, was nothing like so good at meeting the requirements of Section 118 of the 1983 Act as was the Scottish code of practice produced at the same time.
The main failings of the English and Welsh code were in its relative verbosity and its departure from the text of the Act about which it was intended to provide guidance. That is still the case. The sooner the authors of the English and Welsh code swallow their pride and adopt the wording of the Scottish code, the better.
I turn now to the amendment to the code of practice, which is the subject of the Motion. In January 1990, I pointed out that in paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7 of the code it is not made clear that a person can be admitted to hospital in the interests of his own health as well as his safety and the protection of others, as is provided in Section 2(2)(b)of the Act and in the Scottish code.
The experience of members of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship is that even though the 1983 Act has now been in force for over seven years, some
408
doctors and social workers do not know what it says about the admission criteria. I gave examples of this confusion in the debate on 29th January 1990. Since then, the last president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists has confirmed that it still exists. The mistake was to say that compulsory admission is only possible if a person is a danger to himself or to others.
The need to overcome this misunderstanding is thus still very important. The amendment which we are debating technically does this by sending the reader back to the Act to discover the statutory criteria. One might say that because it says nothing different, it might be necessary to go back to other Acts as well, but it just says "statutory criteria" without giving a reference.
The whole point of the code is to provide guidance on interpreting the Act, so the proposed amendment not only does not achieve the aims of Section 118 of the Act but makes matters worse because busy people will not wish to hunt for the Act or go anywhere else to see what are the statutory criteria. A simple repetition of Section 2(2) (b) of the Act, as in the Scottish code, as an introduction to paragraph 2.6 would have been much better. I hope that the Government will take notice of the urgent need to provide a useful amendment to this part of the code.
I was also disappointed that the Government, having at last decided to make an amendment to the code of practice, failed to do the job properly. During the 1990 debate on the subject, my noble friend Lady Blatch—then speaking for the Government—agreed that the wording in paragraphs 2.27 and 2.30, was "very definitely ambiguous"; that appears in col. 85 of Hansard for 29th January 1990. As a result, when the code was issued, in a covering circular carefully marked,
"This circular is not part of the Code of Practice",
a reference was made to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Blatch together with an interpretation of them. There is, however, no cross-reference to the covering circular in paragraphs 2.27 and 2.28, so that busy medical practitioners and social workers are most unlikely ever to learn of the wise words of my noble friend who is now the Minister for Heritage Matters. Surely, when the Government decided to issue an order amending the code of practice, the sensible action would have been to include an amendment incorporating what had already been agreed as necessary, to correct paragraphs 2.27 and 2.30.
However, that amendment is not the only one to be overlooked by the Government. On 27th March 1990, my honourable friend Mr. Roger Freeman—then the Minister with responsibility for mental illness—saw a delegation from the National Schizophrenia Fellowship led by myself and my honourable friend Mr. David Atkinson, MP. While agreeing to the amendments which I have already mentioned, he encouraged the fellowship to put forward any other amendments to the code which it felt would be helpful. These were sent to him on 29th May 1990. In July 1990, the present Minister responsible, my honourable friend Mr. Stephen Dorrell, informed the NSF that

409
the suggested further amendments had been forwarded to the Mental Health Commission. The commission had been asked to comment by the end of 1990. Nothing was heard from them from July 1990 until well into 1991, although in the meantime I tried to persuade my honourable friend Mr. Dorrell that they should get a move on.
In March 1991, the NSF heard that the Mental Health Commission supported my proposals about paragraphs 2.6, 2.27 and 2.30 and that the Minister proposed to put them to Parliament. That was nine months ago. I have already told your Lordships what a mess he made of that, and it was eight months before the amendment which we are now discussing.
What I find disgracefully cavalier, in addition, is that in all the time since July 1990 nothing has been done about the further NSF amendments then sent to the Mental Health Commission which now seem to have disappeared without trace. It is a sorry story and I hope that it is only incompetence that caused it. I beg to move.
Moved, To resolve, That the amendment to the code of practice under the Mental Health Act 1983 laid before this House on 29th November be withdrawn.—(Lord Mottistone.)
7.8 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, before coming to the code of practice, I wish briefly to put on record that many of us on these Benches warmly welcome some of the improvements that have been made with a view to the better implementation of the Mental Health Act, particularly recently. It is reassuring that the Centre for Mental Health Services Development has been set up to help to plan and implement a comprehensive range of services for care in the community, keeping in close touch with the Department of Health. We wish the centre well.
Further, we warmly welcome the degree of monitoring that we understand is at last being arranged through the Social Services Inspectorate as a result of or in response to the representations of the Select Committee on Social Services in another place of October 1990. Those representations are helpful and we welcome them.
In spite of the sorry story of the code of practice, perhaps we may at least congratulate the Government that most of the code of practice is extremely helpful and clear. However, it does not in any way diminish our surprise, indeed dismay, at the failure of the department to bring forward amendments which are brief, clear and to the point, to cover the representations that have been clearly made over a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has categorised these and I have no desire to go over the same ground.
However, to anyone like myself who has been a civil servant, it is peculiar that, against the background of all our uneasiness about the way in which the code of practice has come into being, more trouble has not been taken to get it right at last. How much longer are we to go on in this way? The department seems to be disregarding and flouting Parliament, paying little attention to the injunctions of its Ministers. We hope
410
that now at last the opportunity will be taken to correct the failures of the past. We hope that the present amendment will be withdrawn and that fully satisfactory amendments will be introduced to cover the question of health.
The amendments should make it absolutely clear that patients may be formally admitted on the grounds of their own health alone. Further, the amendments should seek to add to the code directions concerning the rights of nearest relatives. There is nothing difficult about that. Like others, I am confused as to why your Lordships' House has to devote its time and energy to going over this ground. To put the most charitable interpretation one can on the matter, one must conclude that the present position has arisen simply because of incompetence.
I wish to go beyond the question of the code of practice and refer to the uneasiness which so many of us continue to feel in relation to the implementation of the Mental Health Act. That uneasiness stems from the fact that the Government are not prepared to give Parliament a complete picture of what is happening, and what has happened, as a result of the closure of hospitals. There has been what can be regarded as an abdication of responsibility to Parliament by taking refuge in statements such as, "This is a matter for district health authorities and local authorities".
We have been told time and time again that the statistics are not centrally available. We all know that these kinds of statistics must be recorded on computers all over the country. It cannot be a difficult administrative operation for the Department of Health to keep up-to-date on what is happening. That department retains its overriding responsibility for this important area of the nation's health. To ask the Department of Health to keep up-to-date on this issue does not seem to me to be a matter that is beyond the department's reasonable administrative capacity.
It would be uncharitable to infer that the Government take cover behind the responsibilities of district health authorities and local authorities for fear that exposing the facts would be likely to trigger widespread public demands for greater resources. I dare say that would be the result, but let us not have a cover up. I urge the Government to do all that they can to speed up the monitoring which we are glad to hear is being arranged through the social services department. I urge the Government to make it possible for Parliament to obtain a full and comprehensive picture so far as that is reasonably possible.
7.14 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mottistone proposes an alteration to the code of practice of the 1983 Mental Health Act. From what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, have said, it appears that these grave matters have not so far been well handled. My noble friend believes that the wording of the present amendment is unclear and that it causes frequent misinterpretation. That is of particular concern where patients who need hospitalisation are allowed to escape treatment and medication.

411
During a previous debate on this matter I joined other noble Lords in expressing my anxiety over the matter of compulsory admission. At that time the main requirement to compel admission was that the patient should be found to be a danger either to himself or to others. Our view was that wider and clearer powers were needed. However, several of your Lordships were anxious to avoid a situation where there might be questionable intrusion into the liberty of the individual. Therefore the opportunity to come to a general agreement about clearer wording which would be more in line with the law in Scotland was not taken.
Since then there have been increasing complaints. Even in Scotland, where the code of practice is more clearly phrased, there has been a lack of awareness on the part of doctors about the admission criteria. What is needed is a document which sets out to give clear guidance to doctors, to approved social workers and to relatives about the criteria concerning compulsory hospital admission.
Tonight I am able to identify with far greater compassion with the complaints about the vagueness of the criteria. That vagueness often contributes to slowness in deciding whether or not to compel admission. Since our previous debate a member of my family who was in need of hospital treatment had rehospitalisation delayed for a long period. The main reason for that was because his doctor took the view that the patient's condition was not bad enough. This was in spite of urgent appeals for hospitalisation both from members of his own family and from the police. The doctor misunderstood both the criteria and the nature of the illness. I blame myself for not bypassing him earlier. It was only when the situation developed to an alarming extent that it became obvious that steps had to be taken to compel admission. There had been a delay of some nine months.
I find it appalling that such a delay could have happened when there was obvious need for hospitalisation and when there was clear evidence that compulsory admission was needed. In my view this delay was detrimental to the patient's welfare and caused him unnecessary extra suffering. The longer the delay the harder it is for any patient to climb back towards recovery. The decision to compel admission is painful for everyone concerned. However, as the saying goes, "It is right to be cruel in order to be kind".
We no longer live in an age where conditions in mental hospitals are horrific. Humane and skilled treatment is available and early release is encouraged. The rights of the patient and of the relatives are written into our laws. What is needed is greater clarity in the wording of the code of practice and for the code of practice to be widely circulated among the medical profession. Schizophrenia—the illness to which I refer —requires medication to remedy inactivity in the brain. Before medication can be given, an assessment must be made. That assessment is in the hands of the psychiatrists. The quicker general practitioners refer their patients to psychiatrists the better. Too often there are delays. Even then, psychiatrists can be slow to hospitalise. That happened recently with tragic
412
results at Tweedbank. Too many patients are falling through the gap between psychiatrists and general practitioners. By some means the division between the general practitioners and the psychiatrists must be diminished. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will respond to the Prayer of my noble friend Lord Mottistone with some urgency. I strongly support my noble friend Lord Mottistone in his anxiety to get things moving.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, some noble Lords may feel that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, doth protest too much as, underlying his Motion, is the one word "and", which he wishes to change to "or". That is apparently a small change, but we are a revising Chamber and, speaking as a practising doctor who from time to time finds himself in the difficult position of having to decide on the compulsory admission of a patient, that one word can make a very great difference.
Having re-read the code of practice just before the debate, I was struck by its clarity and humanity as a whole. The Mental Health Act of 1983 was an important improvement on previous law and is very much a patient-centred Act. The wording of the 1990 code of practice in paragraph 2.6 which we are discussing—I refer to the phrase,
"the health and safety of the patient"—
has resulted in some reluctance among professionals to invoke—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I do not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is referring to the words "and" and "or". I am not saying anything about those words. I am saying that the amendment before us is not what was needed in order to meet what was proposed in 1990, but there is no question of "and" and "or". It is question of other words altogether.
Lord Rea: My Lords, if the noble Lord will listen to me, I shall explain what I am driving at. The word in the original Act is "or". The word in the code of practice is "and". The provision for compulsory admission in the 1983 Act refers to,
"the health or safety of the patient".
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am sorry to press the matter, but we must get it clear. If the code of practice is amended by the amendment against which I am praying, the question of "and" and "or" does not come into the matter because the amendment deletes the first three lines of paragraph 2.6 and inserts another version. The "and" and "or" argument does not apply once the code of practice has been amended. That is what I am arguing against. If you ignore the amendment that I am praying against and compare what I was asking for in January 1990 with what is in the code of practice, the noble Lord is talking sense, but we are not arguing about that.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I must continue with this argument because the amendment which was put before the House on 29th November refers the reader of the code of practice back to the original Act when

413
deciding whether a compulsory admission should be made. The noble Lord said that the busy practitioner will not have the original Act at his disposal. I contend that the amendment is inappropriate in the same way that the noble Lord says that it is inappropriate; although it uses the "or" version, it does so in a devious way. I was eventually coming round to support him on that.
Perhaps I may ask noble Lords to consider the situation in which one makes a decision about a compulsory admission. The health professional is often uncertain whether he should invoke the Act if the health of the patient alone is the reason for the admission and where the safety of the patient or of other people is not an issue. When the health of the patient alone is at issue much effort is often taken to persuade the patient to go in informally. I can say from my own experience that the great majority of patients agree to go in informally, but, in some cases even if they are admitted informally, if they do not agree to take treatment a compulsory order must be invoked once they are in hospital. That is occasionally difficult to arrange and sometimes it would have been better if the person had been admitted compulsorily under the Act in the first place. If the word "or" had been clearly included in the code of practice as the noble Lord suggests, it might have brought about earlier compulsory admission.
The amendment laid on 29th November is unhelpful because, although it changes "and" to "or", it does so in an obscure way. Surely the purpose of a code of practice is to explain the operation of a law or regulation in more easily understood language than the language of the Act itself. The amendment throws responsible professionals back to the original Act. I should like to know whether we could not have a summarised version of the Act's intention in the clear language that characterises the code as a whole; in other words, could we not call an "or" an "or"?
One suspects that there may be a gremlin at work here; in other words, though this be madness, there is method in it. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would explain why the amendment is worded as it is. If professional pressure or pressure from any other quarter is the explanation, I hope that she will take the House into her confidence and tell us about it.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it is rare that I come to the assistance of an embattled Baroness when she sits on the Front Bench and I am sure that she will say that she does not need me to protect her. So far all those noble Lords who have spoken would have the provision changed. I do not feel the same. I have tried to refresh my mind as to the debate that was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in this House on 29th January 1990. Certainly, none of those noble Lords who took part in the debate then had any doubt that this was an important document. I recall that I warmly commended the document to the House when the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, wished it to be withdrawn. I acted on the basis of my own experience, just as he acts on the basis of his experience. I acted on my experience in government and my experience on
414
the Standing Committee on the 1983 Bill, knowing what I thought Parliament intended when it prepared the Bill, and subsequently with my work in MIND.
In the previous debate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and other noble Lords criticised paragraph 2.6 of the code because it did not exactly follow the language of the Act. That is fair enough. Until I heard my noble friend, it seemed to me that the amendment put that right and referred specifically to what was said in the Act. The idea that one can somehow or other have a little summary of an Act is not a very good one. There is a suggestion that there may be particular references upon which we can draw in the code of practice, but I do not think that it would be a good idea either to withdraw it or to have a summary of the Act as suggested by my noble friend.
The Mental Health Act makes it clear that an application for admission for assessment may be made in respect of a patient:
"in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons".
Paragraph 2.6 of the code of practice did not make it clear that health or safety should be considered. I agree that the "or" is an important part of it. Instead, it states that:
"In judging whether compulsory admission is appropriate, those concerned should consider not only the health and safety of the patient".
That is fair enough, too.
Since the adoption of the code of practice, I am informed that the officers of MIND have travelled up and down the country advising social workers, doctors and nurses on the terms of the code of practice. MIND is firmly of the view that the proper implementation of the code by local and health authorities across England and Wales can only assist patients to receive the care and treatment that they require.
There is always a difficult balance to be held between the rights of an individual suffering from mental illness and the need to protect that person from the consequences of the illness. Certainly MIND believes that the code of practice and indeed the Mental Health Act 1983 maintain that difficult balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, particularly in the previous debate, was concerned about the position of patients' families and urged that the interests of families should be respected. Paragraph 2.6 does that very fully. It refers to the patient's family circumstances and what may be known about the patient by his nearest relative or any other relatives or friends; it deals with the needs of the patient's family or others with whom the patient lives and the need for others to be protected from the patient. It seems to me that paragraph 2.6 has the balance right in considering both the needs of the patient and the patient's family.
I understand that there has been a good deal of discussion within other organisations about the code of practice. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has comments that it wishes to make. Certainly MIND has comments to make and we know from the debate this evening that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship has proposals to make. I understand that the Mental Health Act Commission has taken all

415
those bodies into account. It will shortly be coming forward—perhaps the Minister will tell us a little more about this—with proposed amendments and there may be several of them. They may form the basis of an interesting debate in this House.
I am sure that once those amendments have come forward from the Mental Health Act Commission there will be a period of consultation. I hope that we can have a very comprehensive debate in this House. However, at this stage, I believe that it would be irresponsible of this House to seek to remove an amendment which has been honestly brought forward and which in my view does what some critics wanted it to do; namely, to make quite specific in the very first sentence of paragraph 2.6 that it was all done within the terms of the provisions of the Act.
I hope that my support of the noble Baroness's case does not embarrass her. Perhaps she will find another way to present her case so that that support will not embarrass her.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I apologise to the House because my name did not appear on the list of speakers. Foolishly I thought that this matter was to be dealt with under the procedures for statutory instruments, since it addresses a statutory instrument, and that there would not be a list on which to put my name. I am reassured in my approach by the fact that the noble Lord. Lord Ennals, supports the Minister because it is my reluctant duty to add a featherweight to the difficulties of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I felt that I had to speak because of my interest as the Minister who put through the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 in its first House of consideration and that legislation was absorbed into this Act—the principal part of it—on consolidation.
It is only necessary to endorse the importance of this issue in the briefest of words after the speech of my noble friend Lord Haig. Many noble Lords will have heard and seen in the media painful instances which show how important it is that the correct criteria should be observed when patients are considered for admission under Section 2 of the Act. It seems to me that the rights and wrongs of the issue are clear and my interest is principally in the mechanics of what we are doing and how it ought to work.
The statutory instrument at which we are now looking takes its authority from Section 118(1) of the 1983 Act which states that:
"The Secretary of State shall prepare, and from time to time revise, a code of practice—

(a) for the guidance of registered medical practitioners [and others] in relation to the admission of patients … and

(b) for the guidance of registered medical practitioners [and others] in relation to the medical treatment of patients".

The important words are "for the guidance".
Following the chain of authority into the code of practice itself we come first to the preface which says:
"This Code of Practice offers much detailed guidance on how the Mental Health Act 1983 should be implemented".
In the body of the code, at paragraph 1.2 one finds:
"The code imposes no additional duties on statutory authorities. Rather it provides guidance to statutory
416
authorities, Managers … and professional staff working in health …and social services on how they should proceed when undertaking duties under the Act".
That is the purpose of the document at which we are looking.
We know that the provision in the principal Act that we are now addressing is Section 2(2), in which we read:
"An application for admission for assessment may be made in respect of a patient on grounds that … (b) he ought to be so detained in the interests of his own health or safety".
The code mentions "health and safety" and there is a difference in law which would be recognised by the courts.
Reading the report of the debate which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway instituted on 15th January 1986 with regard to codes of practice and their status, and looking at the words of the Lord Advocate in reply to that debate, we find that indeed in cases in which Parliament has a statutory right to look at and oversee codes of practice, as is now the case, they may be taken into consideration in courts of law. So this matter is important both in law and in practice and the code is different from the Act. That has been generally accepted and my noble friend has been instrumental in bringing it to the public gaze and should be congratulated on that.
Looking at paragraph 2.6 and what the Government have done in order to clarify this point and put it right, we see that in effect they have removed the words "the health and safety" and replaced them with the words "statutory requirements". In other words this is a document which everybody must have to tell them what the Act means and when one comes to the difficult bit it says "Read the Act for yourself".
The department—rather I should say the Government—has described that as clarification in the Explanatory Note, which states:
"This amendment is to clarify the information in paragraph 2.6 (page 4) of the Code of Practice".
It does no such thing; it removes the information and tells the reader to look instead at the Act of Parliament for himself. I am sure that my noble friend is well aware of these difficulties. I do not want to make her burdens heavier. I am encouraged to see on page vii of the code of practice (which comes between the preface and the text but which has no name except "Department of Health" and "Welsh Office") in paragraph 2:
"All those using the Code of Practice should be aware of the statement made by Baroness Blatch on behalf of the Government during the debate on the Code in the House of Lords on 29 January".
The Government listen to what this House says. While the court cannot take it into account, the department can do so.
I hope that we have all said enough to ensure that the department will not throw up its hands and say, "It is too difficult. You must read the Act for yourself", but that it will put in this simple and easy to understand amendment which has been referred to but is not included in the Motion before us. All that is asked is that the language of the Act can be used in a context which is understood by laymen. I hope that my noble friend will undertake to do that.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for introducing this Motion. It is a difficult and sensitive subject because it involves agonising decisions by doctors, relatives, social workers and patients.
There is no need for me to rehearse the arguments at length. They have already been well explained by previous speakers. I shall be brief and restrict my remarks almost entirely to the specific Motion on the Order Paper. The code of practice is a useful document and expresses the intention of the Act with some clarity except in respect of the subject which we are discussing today.
The argument seems to turn on the exact meaning and value of the new wording of the amendment in the code of practice as judged against the original wording. I shall return to the point. However, before doing so, I shall ask the Minister —as did other noble Lords—why the opportunity was not taken, when paragraph 2.6 of the code of practice was being amended, to deal with the ambiguity regarding the rights of relatives. As has already been pointed out, the ambiguity is specifically mentioned in paragraph 2 of the circular, but that is not a part of the code of practice. The Government admitted to the House in January 1990 that there was ambiguity, and took the trouble to put it in the circular at the beginning of the code of practice. If they intended to introduce an amendment to the code of practice it would be interesting to know why the opportunity was not taken to remove that ambiguity.
There has been, and still is, considerable misunderstanding about the matter. Mental health professionals, text books and other documents tend to misinterpret the Act as a result of the original misinterpretation in the code of practice. That misinterpretation has now been put right, but I would say in a rather obscure way, by the amendment to the code of practice. I am sorry to labour the point but the "and/or" distinction is extremely important. It is the central point. The Act refers clearly in Clause 2(2)(b) to the interests of a patient,
"of his own health or safety or with a view to protection of other persons".
In the normal meaning of the English language that means that any one of the three criteria—health, safety or protection—can be a sufficient condition on its own to compel admission. The code of practice unamended stated that the health and safety of the patient are to be considered, thus conjoining the two criteria and relegating the protection of other persons —as set out in the Act as having equal importance with the other two criteria—to one of 11 other subsidiary factors to be considered. Paragraph 2.7 of the code—which is still unamended—refers to the health and/or safety. That is even more confusing.
Since the wording in the Mental Health Act seems to be accepted and understood and not capable of misinterpretation, why was that actual wording not used in the amendment to the code of practice instead of the rather obscure reference back to the statutory criteria?
418
The original wording in the code picked up the wording of the Act but then mis-stated it. Why not correct the original mis-statement in the code by correcting the wording in plain language? Let us put it another way. Why not amend the code of practice, picking up the words of the Act and thereby clarifying it? In amending the code, why was there no attempt to deal with the vexed question of the rights of relatives in the matter?
The House debated the code of practice at length some two years ago. There is therefore no need to go over that background again. We are concerned today with the effect of the specific amendment to paragraph 2.6 of the code of practice and the proposal before us to withdraw the amendment. I have already said that the wording of the amendment seems to be unnecessarily opaque, referring back, as it does, to the statutory criteria without spelling out those criteria. Surely the purpose of the code of practice is to explain and amplify rather than to obscure.
Having said that, we must ask whether the code of practice would be improved if we remove the amendment. Surely not. We would be back in the situation where the words in the code unamended would be ambiguous and would be seen to be contradicting the statutory criteria, not allowing the health of the patient as a criterion on its own, but requiring the health and safety of the patient to be considered. I am not entirely sure why the noble Lord has not proposed an amendment to the amendment rather than seeking its removal. If the amendment is removed we return to the position where the code of practice is wrong when compared with the principal Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, raised a point regarding obscurity, a point made by a number of speakers. However, that obscurity will not be resolved by withdrawing the amendment and thereby returning to the original wording which I believe is wrong. Will the point about obscurity be taken into account?
A number of points have been made about the code of practice and referred to by my noble friend Lord Ennals. If the amendment is withdrawn we shall be back where we started with a misleading statement in the code of practice. Obscure as the amendment is, it at least directs the user of the code of practice back to the statutory criteria which express the will of Parliament. The House will appreciate the Minister's assurance that the extremely important points that have been made in the debate will be taken fully into account when the code of practice is next reviewed.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I too welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government to my noble friend's anxiety about our proposed amendment to paragraph 2.6 of the Mental Health Act 1983 code of practice. In doing so, I wish to acknowledge the importance of the close interest and knowledge of the subject that is consistently shown by my noble friend and indeed has been shown by everyone who has contributed to the debate. I of course fully subscribe to the apology which has been given by my honourable friend in another place to my

419
noble friend for our failure to let him know in advance about the terms of the amendment. My noble friend has been good enough to write to us explaining the grounds of his concern as well as expressing himself clearly on the subject today. However, I hope that I shall be able to persuade him and others who have participated that the amendment fulfils the purpose that he seeks. At the same time I hope to respond to other issues raised in the debate as appropriate.
We are dealing here with an important issue of some complexity and much sensitivity; namely, the circumstances under which it is proper for someone to be admitted compulsorily to hospital. Depriving someone of his or her freedom is a very serious thing to do. The Mental Health Act reflects Parliament's considered view of the criteria to be satisfied and the procedures to be followed before such a step is taken.
Despite the fact that the code is the product of extensive consultation—two formal rounds and subsequent informal soundings over four years, and careful deliberation by people with direct, practical experience of working within the Act—Ministers quite understand that there are aspects of it that some would wish to see amended. My noble friend has referred to some points that are of concern to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. We know that other bodies would also prefer that some sections had been drafted in different terms.
Perhaps I may first refer to the background of the amendment although it has already been dealt with fairly extensively. Paragraph 2.6 of the code deals with the factors to be taken into account at assessment—that is for the compulsory admission to hospital. It was one of three issues which my noble friend Lord Mottistone raised in the House just under two years ago in the debate on his own Motion to have the code which was then before Parliament withdrawn. The Government undertook to seek the advice of the Mental Health Act Commission on those three specific criticisms and on the operation of the code as a whole. That undertaking is recorded in the circular covering the code by the Department of Health and the Welsh Office which is printed in the booklet.
The three specific criticisms were duly considered by the commission and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the other place wrote to my noble friend last March about the outcome. He reported that the commission had accepted two of the criticisms but not the third. The points which were accepted were those on paragraph 2.6 of the code—with which we are concerned today—and paragraphs 2.27 to 2.30 which deal with the obligations of professional staff to the patient's nearest relative. The third point was not accepted.
My honourable friend said that he accepted the commission's advice. But he added that he would refrain from asking Parliament to consider any amendments to the code until the commission's final report was received.
However, my noble friend departed from that course because the National Schizophrenia Fellowship has represented to us strongly—and my noble friend has given us evidence of that tonight—
420
that amendment of this particular paragraph was especially urgent because it was leading to the Act being wrongly applied by GPs, psychiatrists and social workers. Without necessarily accepting that there is widespread misunderstanding, we have accepted that this particular paragraph could be misleading. That is why we have brought forward the amendment ahead of the more general revision of the code. The answer to the criticism that we have not addressed the issue of the nearest relative is that this is covered in a different part of the code and will be embraced in the amendments resulting from the more general review.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. If the amendment was brought forward specifically to meet the concerns of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship I am surprised that the department did not ask the fellowship whether it was satisfied with the amendment being put forward on its behalf.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes, and it is for that omission that I have offered an apology, as has my right honourable friend in another place. Those apologies are most sincere. We hope that such an omission will not occur again, but I hesitate to guarantee that.
I turn to the wording of the amendment. A great deal has been said about the question of whether it is "health and safety" or "health or safety". The problem with the existing wording is not only the use of "and" instead of "or", which has been referred to fully, but the fact that the Act to which the amendment refers the practitioner reads:
"health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons".
The present code omits that provision completely. Separate criteria must be satisfied as regards the health of the patient. They are in Sections 2(2) (a) and 3(2) (a). Therefore, we do not believe that it is realistic to try to gloss all the relevant sections of the Act. As my noble friend Lord Mottistone has pointed out, the wording of the amendment refers simply to:
"the statutory criteria for admission under the Mental Health Act".
There is no attempting to paraphrase them. I certainly have some sympathy with the view that all essential information should be put together in a handy form.
Ours is the approach that was recommended by the Mental Health Act Commission and we believe that it is the right way of dealing with the matter. I must stress here that the code is directed primarily at the mental health professionals who have to operate the Act. Social workers who are approved under the Act have to undergo 60 days of special training in its application. This is the only area in which special additional training is laid down for social workers beyond their qualifying training. Against that background we do not believe that it is an unreasonable assumption that professional staff will have a working knowledge of the key provisions of the Act.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we accept the point that the statutory criteria are scattered throughout the Act. Why not put in the glossary to the code the sections of the Act in which the statutory criteria are contained?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was about to deal with that matter. While bearing in mind the ever-present danger of misrepresenting a statute in attempting to paraphrase it, the reference to the statute could be more specific and refer to the relevant sections of the Act as appropriate to paragraphs of the memorandum which appear in other parts of the code. Having referred to the professional use of the code I accept that it needs to be reasonably accessible to patients and families. However, even in that case I do not believe that the answer is to reproduce sections of the Act or to paraphrase them. That would add considerably to the length of the document and we want a document that is handy, usable and clear. Most noble Lords who have spoken believe that in general the code is clear.
In short, we believe that the amendment that we are proposing is the right way to meet the concerns that were expressed to us. I repeat that I accept that we were at fault in not letting my noble friend and the fellowship know how we proposed to deal with the matter. I repeat my apology to him for that.
Perhaps I may also make it clear that we are not just making the amendment and leaving it at that. We shall be sending it to health and local authorities with a covering circular. That will explain the background to the change and in particular will correct the alleged misunderstanding about the words "health and safety". I will be happy to let my noble friend and the fellowship see a copy of our letter before it is circulated.
Finally, I have referred to the wider review of the code by the Mental Health Act Commission. We have just received from the commission its first report on this which includes proposals for amending a number of chapters. We shall be consulting widely about these proposals and considering carefully all the views we receive on them before bringing forward any proposals of our own for further amending the code. As part of that consultation process we shall look again at any views that are put to us on the wording of the paragraph that we are discussing this evening. We shall also look again at the other amendments proposed by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship to which my noble friend referred. The comments that your Lordships have made this evening will also inform the decision making.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, about monitoring. The SSI is monitoring comprehensively the implementation of care programmes by health and local authorities. The results of that process will be made public.
8 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps she will answer two questions. First, in their consultation with the Mental Health Act Commission, was the advice of the commission that
422
the Government should use the language of the statute, or that they should refer to it? In fact, they have "referred" and my noble friend and everybody else asks that they should "use". If the words in Section 2(2) (b) were incorporated in an easily understandable context, the problem would disappear.
Secondly, is it intended to honour the undertaking given at paragraph 3 on page viii of the introduction, which states:
"If Parliament agree to make amendments, the Code of Practice will be reprinted in full and will be available through HMSO"?
Would it not be very expensive to do that if, as we all hope, another larger and better amendment is to follow close behind?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that the commission has advised us to "refer". I have mentioned already in my remarks that the present amendment before your Lordships had the approval of the commission. That covers also the references to the statute in other parts of the code.
However, as regards reprinting, that is why we felt that on the whole any amendments should be taken together. That will take place after the consultation process to which I have referred, at which time all amendments proposed by the Mental Health Act Commission as a result of its review will be taken into account.
Although the present amendment may be deficient, it is nevertheless an improvement on the wording of the code which is being amended. With the assurances that I have been able to give, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his Motion.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I believe that she has not mentioned any forecast of when the amended amendments are likely to be brought before Parliament. It would be extremely helpful to have some idea about that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that that should take place before the end of this year.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does that mean before the end of the calendar year or before the end of July?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, before the end of the calendar year.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, that is disgraceful. There was a failed code of practice in 1985, a failed code of practice in 1987, an unsatisfactory code of practice in 1990, amendments which were promised in 1991 but which did not come into being until 1992 and now we are told that it will be 1993 before something is brought before Parliament. That is 10 years after the Act became law. That is disgraceful.
However, I am grateful to my noble friend for what she has done and said even if I am not at all happy about the almost unbelievable incompetence of her department.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have joined in the debate. I am sorry that I did not allow the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to complete what he was saying before I questioned him. However, I believe that our argument

423
pointed to the fact that it is difficult to escape confusion in interpreting what is in the code of practice. That is what this debate is all about. The fact that two quite intelligent people, one of whom is a general practitioner, were at cross purposes demonstrates that that could happen elsewhere.
My noble friend gave us examples of the training of social workers which would make them competent to understand the Act, the code of practice and everything which goes with that. However, general practitioners do not have that training and they are an important element in the whole picture. They need to have matters made easier for them.
As regards cross references, at page 113 of the code of practice one cannot find paragraph 2.6 at all. It does not have a cross reference into Section 2. That is completely inadequate. There is much more room for improvement. I could go on and on.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why I did not table an amendment to the amendment. One cannot amend a statutory instrument, so I have taken the only course open to me. Even if I do not agree with the present wording, I believe it is better than saying something like, "Look at the Act of Parliament". Very reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
8.6 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 36 [General provisions about transfers under Chapter II]:
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 107:
Page 28, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) Where arrangements for the supply by a local authority of goods or services for the purposes of an institution to be conducted by a further education corporation are to have effect as from the operative date in accordance with section 24(3A) of this Act as if contained in an agreement made before that date between the local authority and the corporation, paragraphs 2 to 5 of Schedule 5 to this Act shall have effect as if the rights and liabilities of the corporation under the agreement were rights and liabilities of the local authority transferred to the corporation under a transfer to which this section applies.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Remuneration of employees]:
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 109:
Before Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Denominational institutions
.—(1) In this section "denominational institution" means a further education institution which, when it became a further education institution, was a voluntary school or a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school before it became grant-maintained
(2) The governing body of every further education institution except an institution which on the appointed day was a college of further education shall ensure that at an appropriate time on at least one day in each week during
424
which the institution is open an act of collective worship is held at the institution which persons receiving education at the institution may attend—

(a) in a denominational institution such act of collective worship shall be in such form as to comply with the provisions of any trust deed affecting the institution and shall, in particular, he conducted in accordance with the practices and reflect the tenets of the denomination or denominations concerned:

(b) in all other further education institutions such act of collective worship shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character in that it shall reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief but need not be distinctive of any particular Christian denomination.

(3) If the governing body of a further education institution considers it appropriate to do so it may in addition to the act of collective worship referred to in subsection (2) of this section provide for acts of worship which reflect the practices of some or all of the other religious traditions represented in Great Britain
(4) In this section "the appointed day" means the day appointed under section 90 of this Act for the commencement of subsection (4) of section 15 of this Act.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 110. They deal with rather different matters but I recognise their interconnection.
Before I begin I should point out that I am not responsible for the marginal headnote which in this and the following amendments seem to be wildly misleading. Since the amendment was tabled it has been pointed out to me that there is a technical defect in the opening subsections of both amendments. I recognise that now that it has been pointed out to me but here we are debating the principle rather than the technical details of the amendments.
In 1988 an agreement was hammered out about the place of RE and worship in education. The noise of that hammering echoed well beyond the walls of this House. The proposals of this Bill require us to look again at that agreement, although I hope it will not be necessary to cover the same ground again.
At present the provisions of the 1988 Act apply to sixth form colleges; namely, that RE, as part of the basic but not national curriculum, and a daily act of collective worship must both be provided. By transferring the sixth form colleges from the school to the FE sector, the Government remove the requirement for religious education and worship in those colleges. In Committee I sought to maintain the status quo in that respect but the Minister was not content and other noble Lords expressed reservations. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, suggested a compromise and my amendments follow that suggestion.
I now propose that the educational institutions concerned should provide religious education and worship but attendance should not be compulsory. Under the 1988 Act parents can withdraw their children from religious education and worship. Under these amendments the students will make that decision.
Thus the amendments would make clear on the face of the Bill the importance of that dimension in education while at the same time recognising the more mature ethos of the sixth form colleges. The 1988 Act refers in its opening section to the:
"spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society".

425
At all times we must keep that broad aim in focus. Young people are more than empty vessels waiting to be packed with information and discipline which will make them useful for the labour market. People have rich and diverse gifts and qualities and we should ensure that they have space in which their potential can mature. The spiritual aspect of humanity is an enrichment giving sense and purpose to life. I suggest that we should not lightly abandon now what was recognised as valuable in 1988.
The amendment on worship, like the one that follows, is modest in its requirements. Some may say that it is too modest. First, the act of worship has to be provided but attendance is not required. Secondly, it is not a daily act of collective worship but at least once a week. Thirdly, it recognises that in some institutions there may be people of non-Christian faiths and their needs also should be respected.
I recognise that logic and consistency argue that if what I say is true for sixth form colleges, then it applies equally to further education colleges. My preference would be that the requirements of the amendments should apply across the whole sector. But idealism and logic must be tempered by reality. I anticipate that it would not be acceptable at this time to pull the existing further education colleges into the provision. The amendment therefore indicates that it should apply to sixth form colleges where school regulations are at present in force anyway and to any new institutions which may in due time come into the sector.
In preparing Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 I wish to assure the House that I have been in touch with representatives of other Churches. Had there been more time I would have wished those consultations to be more thorough. As the Minister is aware, he was not able to give me the Government's view till 8th January and that left little time for serious planned discussion. Even so, I assure him and the House that I did what I could within the time available to ensure that what I say represents a fairly wide Christian consensus.
Perhaps I may turn for a few moments to the matter of religious education, which is the subject of Amendment No. 110. Because of the interrelationship of the two it may be helpful to speak to that also. First, I do not conceive that religious education is just straight instruction in the Christian religion. I view it as being part of promoting the,
"spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school",
and preparing them, as the Act says,
"for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
In the sixth form context religious education should reach out towards what many secondary schools do under the heading of personal and social education. I still believe that there are four reasons why religious education, broadly understood, should feature in our education system. First, we want to avoid over much narrowness and specialism in the young. The students need to see their academic work in a setting which enables them to evaluate that work in the context of the moral, cultural and spiritual dimensions of life. Under the curriculum guidance for 16 to 19 year-olds,
426
they are currently entitled to relevance, depth and balance. To meet that colleges in my area provide courses under the heading of "complementary studies". It is in that context that they can pursue moral and spiritual values. Religious education is clearly related to that and in my view should not be edged out.
Secondly, supernatural and spiritual experience is widespread. Research has been done on it in Cambridge. It is not an aspect of life which can be disregarded as quaint or eccentric. More obviously, the power of religious conviction is a force to be reckoned with. In recent years we have seen a revival of that power not only in Iran and Algeria but also in this country among people of many different religions. That power of religious conviction needs recognition, analysis, understanding and, if necessary, redirection.
Thirdly, Christianity is a core element in our history, tradition and culture. We may accept or reject the Christian faith; what is undeniable is that it has been formative in our national history. If we want educated people to be aware of who and how we are they need that understanding. Fourthly, there is a case for securing religious education as an academic and examinable subject, among other things in order to acquire qualified RE teachers. Taking RE seriously as an academic subject is linked with how it is viewed in the context of the curriculum.
Amendment No. 110, like Amendment No. 109, requires the colleges to provide religious education but does not compel attendance. The sixth form colleges with which I have been in touch are already doing valuable work in that direction but it is not always secure. To require that RE should be provided ensures that the matter is not overlooked or ignored; it strengthens the hands of those who see the value of this element in education, although it may not be universally acknowledged. I underline that the amendment to do with religious education, like the one providing for worship, applies only to sixth form colleges and to new institutions because that is what realism dictates.
These are modest amendments and I suggest that if what we hammered out in 1988 was right, then they are the least that we should accept in 1992. There are many of us who want to secure the spiritual dimension in education. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I should like to support the right reverend Prelate most particularly in Amendment No. 109 which asks that those colleges moving into the sector shall be required to offer, on a voluntary basis, an act of worship. The right reverend Prelate spoke also to the wish that they should continue to provide religious education.
The amendment asks that we should focus our attention for a little while on what the Bill is doing almost accidentally to the status of colleges which, when coming under the schools regulations and curriculum requirements, were maintaining the Christian presence and making provision for

427
academic religious education. It seems wholly wrong that almost by accident that kind of provision should be removed.
I am pleased that the right reverend Prelate tabled his amendment in a way that requires the provision without requiring the attendance or take-up of that provision. During the Committee stage of the Bill many telling remarks were made in regard to the unfortunate effect on young people of requiring them to do something that they may be disinclined to do. The amendment is well worded and I support it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I speak first to Amendment No. 109. I too have a great deal of sympathy with the aims expressed by the right reverend Prelate. I too feel that the reform introduced in 1988, which I strongly supported, could and should naturally be carried forward into further and higher education, especially into further education.
Having said that, I wish the amendment were acceptable in its present form. I am sorry to say that as I find for two reasons it is not. The first was referred to broadly by the right reverend Prelate and arises from the definition of "denominational institution" in Clause 9(1). It makes it exceedingly wide. The amendment refers to any,
"voluntary school or a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school before it became grant-maintained".
The difficulty is that not all voluntary or grant-maintained schools are denominational or were so; there were a great many which were not. Therefore, that definition would have to be considered further with a view to making it more specific and narrower.
There is a further drafting difficulty. I invite the attention of noble Lords to subsection (2) (a), which states:
"collective worship shall be in such form as to comply with the provisions of any trust deed".
The trouble is that there are quite a number of old schools and institutions which may have no trust deed at all, but which have just grown up through the years. That could include some of the Jewish schools that we have in this country. It would also cover various non-denominational schools. Subsection 2(b) goes on to say,
"in all other further education institutions"—
that is to say, those without a trust deed—the form of worship shall be "broadly Christian". Therefore we have reached the stage at which any institution which has not got a trust deed shall be assumed to be Christian. Alas, I do not believe that that will do.
Although I am fully in favour of the spirit of this amendment, I do not see how we can add it to the Bill. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will consider that the case which the right reverend Prelate has made out is one which is worthy of support in principle.
I now turn to Amendment No. 110, about which there is a further difficulty. The same difficulty of definition arises, but the other problem concerning a trust deed does not arise. Subsection (2) of this amendment states that:
"religious education is provided at the institution for all persons attending the institution who wish to receive it".
428
It will surely be the case that many people will attend institutions of further education on either a whole- or a part-time basis, with a view to receiving specialised training, and sometimes that will include vocational training. For it to be insisted that religious education should be provided for such people may lead to a problem for the governing body. I put it no more strongly than that. It is a point which raises some difficulty. Although I am sympathetic I have less enthusiasm for Amendment No. 110.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, these amendments refer to the governing bodies of every sixth form college as regards offering collective worship and religious education for the future, but on a voluntary basis, for the student population. I believe that I am right in saying that the amendment would also apply to any newly established institution in the former sixth form college sector.
I recognise that these are very sensitive issues. Following our discussion in Committee, I offered to take them away and give them further thought. I have looked at them with great care and I have had further discussions with the right reverend Prelate. We have corresponded and I must apologise to him that the final correspondence from myself had to be at a late stage.
Although, hitherto, sixth form colleges have been treated as part of the school sector, in many ways they are closer to the college sector, where the curriculum is a matter for decision by institutions in the light of local demand. This Bill will clarify their position by bringing them into an integrated new FE sector with the responsibilities and flexibility that go with that status. The Government believe it right that curriculum decisions in all FE colleges should be for their governing bodies, and should not be dictated by parliament. There will be nothing to stop a former sixth form college from continuing to provide religious education and collective worship.
In former voluntary aided colleges, foundation governors will continue to be in a majority on the governing body. All further education corporations will be able to apply to the Secretary of State to amend their instruments of government; for example, to increase the proportion of foundation governors. I repeat the assurance I have given on two occasions today that any such request from former voluntary controlled colleges will be considered sympathetically. Any provisions relating to religious education in the articles of government for voluntary aided colleges will be retained. Provision will be built into the articles of government for voluntary controlled colleges to ensure that religious instruction is given in accordance with the trust deed. Where the trust deed is silent on religious instruction it will be our intention that the articles will provide that it must be given in accordance with the practice observed by the college before incorporation. I do hope that the assurances will, in the right reverend Prelate's view, safeguard the religious nature of the voluntary institutions.
I appreciate the concern expressed not only by the right reverend Prelate but by my noble friend about the future of religious education in former sixth form colleges. For the reasons I have given we do not feel

429
that it would be appropriate for these colleges to be subject to statutory requirements relating to worship or the curriculum once they become part of the new sector. For the same reasons neither do we believe that it would be right to apply these requirements to new colleges, which is the effect of the amendment. In the light of the assurances that I have given, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel it right not to press this amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify one point? He said that he did not believe that the question of religious education needs to be written into statute. Can he confirm that there would be nothing to prevent the governing body from introducing voluntary religious education if it wished to do so?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the governing body of a former maintained sixth form college—quite apart from the former aided and controlled sixth form colleges—not only from providing religious education but also from arranging that every day there was a collective act of worship which was available for those students who wished to avail themselves of it.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I take the technical points that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made about the way in which certain phrases in the amendments would probably need further adjustment. However, both these amendments refer to an important aspect of our educational system and I cannot give up on the issue. I do not think that it would be welcome to the House to divide at this stage of the evening. Because of the technical difficulties, I propose, with your Lordships' leave, to withdraw the amendments, but I believe that I shall want to bring them back at Third Reading. If they are not to be included in the Bill, I shall want to be quite sure that that was being done at the wish of the whole House rather than on the basis of one or two or only a few speeches. The speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, were very welcome. With the expectation that I shall bring back an improved version at Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Clause 44 [Variation of trust deeds]:
The Lord Bishop of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 111:
Page 35, line 24, at end insert ("and (c) the trustees.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 112. Amendment No. 111 deals with the Secretary of State having power to vary a trust deed. There are two points here. The first is that if the Secretary of State is to vary the trust deed, it should be a requirement on him that he should consult the trustees who may not be necessarily the same group of people as are referred to in the earlier part of this
430
clause. It is the trustees who have the responsibility. There is also some sensitivity about what the Secretary of State may do when he modifies a trust deed.
We have already heard of the anxieties about the Secretary of State's powers in relation to Clause 64 and Clause 77, but there are other places where he seems to be taking fairly considerable powers. I shall therefore move Amendment No. 112 where it restricts the powers of the Secretary of State to interfere (if I may use such a word) in the religious aspect of the trust deed. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, Clause 44 empowers the Secretary of State to modify by order the trust deeds relating to or regulating an institution in the further education sector or relating to the land and other property held for the purposes of the institution. Before making such an order, the Secretary of State is required to consult the governing body of the institution and the persons empowered to replace the trust deed. Amendment No. 111 proposes the addition of "the trustees" in subsection (2) to the description of people to be consulted by the Secretary of State before he makes an order under this clause. Amendment No. 112 would prevent the Secretary of State, as the right reverend Prelate has said, from making an order to amend a trust deed that would affect the denominational character of an institution. I think it is fair to say that there is an equivalent provision in the Education Reform Act 1988. But may I first say a few more words about these amendments.
With respect to the right reverend Prelate, Amendment No. 111 is unnecessary. The description in subsection (2) of persons to be consulted by the Secretary of State is based, as I said, on section 157 of the Education Reform Act 1988. This relates to the variation of trust deeds of institutions with the polytechnics and colleges funding sector. It does not refer specifically to trustees. I have to say that I am not aware of any complaints from trustees about the way in which this is operated.
I can appreciate the wish of the right reverend Prelate that the Secretary of State should not interfere with the religious provisions of trust deeds. However, a requirement that the denominational character of the institution should not be affected is very wide indeed. This could create problems in moving the sixth form colleges into the new sector. I can give an absolute assurance that it is not the Secretary of State's intention to interfere with the fundamental religious character of an institution in using powers under Clause 44. It is difficult to go further than that. I put that to the right reverend Prelate and hope that it may meet with his approbation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell me any circumstances in which the Secretary of State could wish to take powers to change the denominational character of an institution? If there are no such circumstances, why does he need the power?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the power is needed for the similar reason that it is needed in the Education Reform Act 1988. There is perceived to be a necessity

431
to change the trust deeds when a denominational college is moving from one sector to another. The reverend Prelate has every right to move the amendment; but it comes as some surprise to me from what I have heard about the negotiations and the exchanges of views so far as concerns the Church of England, that this should be causing trouble. The Education Reform Act is there as a precursor. It is necessary to make certain that the religious ethos or religious character of the college concerned is not changed under the power in Clause 44. I have given an absolute assurance about that this evening.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. In relation to Amendment No. 111, I am advised that there is some anxiety on the part of my Roman Catholic colleagues in particular, because in those cases the governing body and the trustees are not always coterminous. It seems improper for the Secretary of State to have power to alter a trust deed without consulting the trustees. I find it astonishing that the Government hesitate about such a provision.
I hope that the Minister will at least be prepared to consider further discussions on this matter and to review the position. If in Amendment No. 112 the position is as absolute as the Minister was prepared to give in his undertaking, I am not quite clear why it cannot be written into the Bill. There seems to be a slight inconsistency in the Minister's response. I am anxious that we should not be at variance on this matter. Before he sits down, I ask the Minister if he will give me an assurance that we can continue discussions on this matter rather than foreclose the issue here and now.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps the House will give me leave to speak briefly once again. So far as concerns the necessity—and this arises from the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also—one needs to look at Section 157 of the Education Reform Act 1988 to see why the variation of trust deeds was thought to be necessary in 1988. There are a whole series of reasons relating to land and one thing and another which are set out in what is in fact quite a long section of the 1988 Act. Therefore I think there is a legislative reason why there is a need for Clause 44 in this Bill. It is because I was convinced of that that I felt it was necessary to give a very firm undertaking, which I have given this evening, about not affecting the fundamental religious character of the colleges concerned.
I understand why the right reverend Prelate puts the point to me about the trustees and the governors. I do not question the right reverend Prelate's information about their responsibilities not necessarily being coterminous. I take that as being a fact, coming from the right reverend Prelate. Without actually accepting it here and now, I should like to look as carefully as I can at the point that the right reverend Prelate is making in Amendment No. 111. This is no more than a consultation point but it is an important one to see whether I can meet it.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. On the strength of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Statutory conditions of employment]:
Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 113:
Page 36, line 14, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) Nothing in this section shall authorise the variation of the terms of any contract of employment otherwise than in accordance with arrangements established by the representatives of the relevant parties to such contracts for the negotiation of their terms and conditions of employment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this amendment. I have no difficulty, broadly, with Clause 46. I interpret it to mean that the statutory conditions of employment and all related matters of staff in an institution which then changes from being an educational institution whose staff are employed by a local authority to an institution in the further education sector shall carry over. I have no difficulty with the clause as it stands. However, we have tabled the amendment because we do not understand subsection (3):
"Nothing in this section affects any right to vary the terms of any contract of employment".
The whole point of Clause 46 is that there should be no change in any contract of employment: so what is the purpose of subsection (3)? What does "any right" mean? What right are we talking about? It may be one of those technical points that lawyers always throw in which turn out to have no meaning whatsoever.
Clause 46 seeks to ensure that if a member of staff was employed in the institution as it was before the passing of the Act, he ought to be employed in the institution in exactly the same way after the passing of the Act. That is the purpose of the clause. I merely require some reassurance that subsection (3) is not a covert way of changing that position. I do not believe that it is meant to be a covert way of changing the position, but I should like an explanation of what subsection (3) is supposed to mean.
Perhaps I should rabbit on for a moment or two longer in order to enable a possible answer to appear. The amendment is important to those working in one of these institutions who want their conditions of employment to be unchanged. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I am not qualified to answer the technical questions posed by the noble Lord. However, I understand why the clause is written as it is and I understand the purpose of the amendment. The clause as drafted protects continuity of service and remuneration, which are important factors, but also protects the right of management in institutions to be able to make variations to some other terms and conditions when an institution becomes a different kind of institution, as may well happen under this transfer.
Certain conditions of service are inappropriate to the kinds of work towards which an institution may wish to move. There are restrictions in some of the existing contracts which may make it difficult for an institution to cope with its independent status. It may well wish to change the contracts of employment of

433
some of its staff. That freedom is an absolute right of management. To require, as the amendment does, that no one's contract can be changed in any detail without full negotiation with representatives would be a dreadful inhibition on an institution wishing to move into its new character. I would therefore resist the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not accept the amendment. First, it appears to inhibit and put a fetter on the right of the employer to contract as he wills. Secondly, it ties into agreements established by trade unions. That is really going a little far in a statute to do with higher education. I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this amendment would be in substitution for subsection (3) of the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the effect of subsection (3). It safeguards the right of both staff and employer to vary the terms of any contract of employment. Put more colloquially, subsection (3) ensures that contracts are not set in stone and can be varied subsequently. The amendment would tie the hands of both parties through binding them to arrangements entered into by their predecessors for varying contracts of employment; for instance, in requiring them to negotiate with particular trade unions ("arrangements established by the representatives").
We are seeking to establish an efficient and flourishing new further education sector. There is no reason to suppose that the new managements would put at risk a good relationship with employee representatives through adopting inappropriate arrangements on the shape of future negotiations. I agree with what has been said from this side of the House that their staff must be free to decide for themselves and not be constrained by what has happened in the past. For that reason, I resist the amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I am astonished that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who takes an interest in employment matters, should support the Government on this issue. A contract is a contract. Contracts should not be varied just like that. I entirely accept what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, that if we move into a new era we have to reconsider matters. There is nothing in the amendment to say that one cannot reconsider matters. It does not say that everything is set in stone. One can always say that one would like to renegotiate. I had assumed that subsection (3) had a specific meaning. In fact, without subsection (3) it is still, to my certain knowledge of the law of these matters, up to both parties to renegotiate if the original contracts are inappropriate for the new purposes.
I am concerned both by what has been said and by the Minister's reply. There is nothing in the amendment about trade unions. I have looked at it several times and I cannot see the words "trade
434
unions". If one is a member of staff, prima facie when one moves into a new institution one's first job is to guarantee that one's original position is maintained. The Government categorically maintain that it is. The Government are quite right on subsections (1) and (2) but they have added this rather strange subsection (3). I ask the Minister to think again. There is nothing to stop both sides discussing matters again. If that is all it means, there is no problem. However, it does not have to be there if that is all it means. I assume that it means something in addition—I cannot see what it means.
Perhaps the Minister will reflect on the matter. I feel that I ought to write to him on a matter of this kind. I am not seeking to get involved in trade union affairs. I am simply saying that there are some teachers who would like to feel that their position is as reasonably protected as it can be in the world in which we live. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 [Information with respect to institutions within the further education sector]:
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 114:
Page 36, line 44, leave out from ("achievements") to ("and") in line 46 and insert ("qualifying their students for entry to the institution and the educational achievements of their students while at the institution (including in each case the results of examinations, tests and other assessments),
( ) the financial and other resources of the institution and the effectiveness of the use made of such resources").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Belstead. We had a useful debate in Committee on Clause 48, which gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations to require governing bodies to publish certain information. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, brought forward amendments to extend that information to include information about the educational achievements of students prior to their enrolment at an institution and information relating to the effective use of financial and other resources. As I said in Committee, the Government accept the principle underlying their proposals.
Following that debate the Government have given very careful consideration to the suggestions made. The amendment which I am pleased to bring forward today is indeed based on those proposals. I should like, however, to make a couple of points. The first part of the amendment concerns the publication of information about the educational provision made by the institution and the achievements of students. The Government's objective is to require the publication of information which will be useful to young people, parents and employers. There is a great deal to be said for keeping that information as simple as possible, to allow the users to form their own judgments.
The purpose of the amendment is to give the Secretary of State the power to require the publication of information showing the value added—in terms of student qualifications—by the institution. I do not, however, want to give any commitments today as to when we might bring this requirement into effect. I

435
think that noble Lords opposite will accept that we need to look very carefully at how that might be done. We need to ensure that the information can be presented in a coherent and reasonably straightforward way. I would stress, therefore, that by introducing the amendment, the Government are not committed to requiring the publication of such information.
In particular, we want to reflect a little further on whether the power proposed in the amendment is sufficiently wide in scope for the purpose. We have been anxious to avoid going too wide. However, there is some doubt as to whether this amendment is sufficient. I should like to propose that the House approves the amendment now; if we conclude that we can improve the drafting, I suggest that we return on Third Reading with a further amendment.
The second part of the amendment concerns the publication of other information which might be used as performance indicators. The Government have already called upon colleges to produce some of the information proposed by the amendment for colleges' own management purposes. As we said in Committee, many colleges will want such information to be published to enable them to evaluate their own performance in relation to that of similar institutions.
Having said that, we are also concerned about the consequences for colleges of any immediate call for the publication of the full range of such information. Before making appropriate regulations, we shall have to be sure that colleges have systems in place—and preferably computerised systems at that—which are capable of generating the information required in a cost-effective manner. I hope that your Lordships will welcome the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly thank the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for responding to our pleas in this direction. I should also like to say that I entirely agree with him that we must proceed rather cautiously. We need to accept—and I believe that we do—the value-added concept as our method of measuring efficiency. Those of us who have had any experience in such matters, know full well that that is not at all easy to do in practice.
I am delighted to discover that the Government realise that this is the correct way forward; that is, if we can only move forward. I am also delighted to hear that they will, for their part, look again at the matter to see whether the drafting can be improved in time for Third Reading. I can only say that we on this side of the House will also look at it again in a most careful way to see whether we can make any helpful suggestions.
Taking the longer view, I think that those of us on this side of the House would be committed to publishing such information at such time as we are convinced that it is the right information. I doubt whether the Government would disagree with that position. But my broad point in this respect is to be supportive.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morris of Castle Morrismoved Amendment No. 114A:
Page 37, line 1, leave out ("after") and insert ("immediately upon").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I am asking for clarification, pacification and reassurance. As it stands, Clause 48(1) (c) could be read as entitling the Secretary of State to ask for, and requiring the governing body to provide, information about the careers of any student from graduation to the grave; from his degree to his demise.
Every responsible education institution takes an interest in the careers of its students after they leave. But it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect institutions to collect and provide for the publication of information about the eternal ongoing careers of their former students. While it is sometimes possible for institutions to have records of the immediate destinations of their students, it would be an absolute bureaucratic nightmare if they were expected to record details of the careers of students after that immediate period. The amendment seeks to define that the careers information which institutions are required to provide can only extend to such information as immediate destination or first employment where known. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I imagine that the amendment before the House enjoys the support of every departmental secretary in the country; it certainly enjoys mine.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I should like to speak to the sense of the amendment. In Committee, I felt able to oppose an amendment put forward by the other side of the House which seemed to give rise to a number of bureaucratic requirements and necessitate far more paperwork than was productive. I am sure that it is the Government's intention in this context —that is, in such reports—that sufficient information should be conveyed and not a great deal more. I imagine that what is required is essentially "leaving" information, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, suggested.
The wording of the Bill may be open to various interpretations. But when it refers to,
"the careers of their students after completing any course or leaving the institution",
certainly the notion of the word "career" by any dictionary definition implies trajectory. It has a point of beginning that may be birth or, in this case, it is after completing any course or leaving an institution. But what is the terminus? The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that it may indeed be the demise or the decease of the student. Clearly some earlier terminus is intended here, but it is not defined in the Bill. It could be six months or one year. Indeed, someone may change their employment very rapidly. It may be interesting to know that.
It is possible that the precise wording in the proposed amendment is not the only wording which could be followed. But I am confident that the Government do not require institutions to keep and publish an elaborate record of the entire career of each

437
of its graduating pupils. I am also confident that my noble friend will be able to give us that assurance and perhaps set our minds at rest.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the amendment would have the effect of limiting the information which the Secretary of State may require the governing body of an institution to publish about the subsequent careers of students. The Secretary of State's power would only extend to information about careers immediately upon completing a course or leaving the institution.
I understand, and sympathise with, the concerns which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and other noble Lords that we should avoid putting an excessive burden on further education institutions. I hope that I will be able to give some reassurance on the matter. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, to recognise the fact that there will inevitably be a significant number of students who, immediately on leaving the institution, will not have taken up employment; indeed, some will have gone on holiday. The limitation imposed by the amendment would therefore make it more difficult to produce information about the next steps in the careers of students which is of use to other students, parents, employers and the wider community.
We would wish to leave open the possibility of a requirement to provide information about careers which reflects the decisions students have made once they have been away from the college for a period. Clearly, the regulations to be made under this clause will need to strike a careful and sensible balance between the need to obtain useful information on the one hand, and the need to ensure that the exercise is manageable for colleges on the other. It is certainly not our intention that colleges should be required to keep track of students over a long period of time.
I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. I hope that the reassurance I have given covers the points which were raised, otherwise I should feel inclined perhaps to look again at the matter and write to noble Lords. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, is satisfied with my response and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, 1 am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Indeed, I am reassured; I am pacified; and my mind is clear and serene. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Clause 49 [Publication of proposals]:
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 115:
Page 37, line 28, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 116. The purpose of the amendments is to place on the funding councils a duty to consult LEAs before going ahead with a proposal to open or close a college. A similar amendment was considered in Committee. Decisions to establish or
438
dissolve an FE funding corporation will have a major impact on local authority provision in the area where a corporation is to be closed or established. That will apply to the authorities' schools and to the further and adult education activities that remain within their responsibility.
The amendment was resisted by the Government on the basis that many institutions and organisations would have an interest in the effects of such proposals and all would have an equal opportunity to be aware of them and make comment as a result of the general duty to publish proposals. The Minister did not consider a special statutory procedure should be accorded to LEAs. While of course it is true that a number of other bodies could be affected in any particular case where it is proposed to set up or close a corporation, the LEA is the only one of those bodies that will be inevitably affected. Local authorities seem to me to be different from all other bodies that might have an interest in so far as they have a broadly defined statutory responsibility that exists side by side with that given to the funding councils.
Clause 11 makes it clear that those duties wrap around the responsibilities of the funding councils. The Bill thus gives LEAs a certain statutory prestige. It is therefore right and proper that the Bill should be consistent in providing for proper consultation between funding councils and local authorities on matters that touch upon them both in the exercise of their respective duties.
In addition, another point puzzles us on this side of the House. Clause 5 of the equivalent Bill for Scotland includes a requirement to consult the education authority in the event of the Secretary of State proposing to open, close or merge colleges. It is unclear to us why Scotland should be treated differently from England and Wales. Perhaps the Minister will explain why there is a difference between the two Bills in that respect. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not dissent in any way from the principle of consultation which underlies the amendments. I fully accept the need for local consultation on proposals to open or close local colleges. For the reasons I gave in Committee, however, in responding to almost identical amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, the Government believe that the clause as drafted already provides adequately for consultation to take place, not just with LEAs but with other local interests as well.
Clause 49(2) (a) provides that their proposals must be published and Clause 49(2) (b) provides that the funding council must consider any representations. I take the point, although with respect I do not wholly agree with it, that the LEA is primarily interested in these matters. If the noble Baroness had said that the LEA was vitally interested in these matters, I would agree, because the opening or closure of a college, as of any other educational institution, is a matter of vital interest to the LEA; but, my goodness me, it is also of vital interest to wide sectors of the population.
I am not saying this merely as a matter of rote, but I believe that the provisions which are to be found in Clause 49(2) (a) and (b) for publication and

439
representation are as clear as could possibly be wanted and are the same as found in other education legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore forgive me if I resist the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he answer my point on the difference between this Bill, which relates to England and Wales, and the Scottish Bill?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sorry, I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that question. Perhaps it is the exception which proves the invariable rule.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should be grateful to have an answer to that question at some point.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the House will allow me, I shall write to the noble Baroness and place a copy of the letter in the Library so that other noble Lords can see the answer.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I thank him very much. I am afraid that I do not feel altogether satisfied with what he said about local authorities. Of course it is correct that many other parties will have an interest in a college being opened or closed, but the LEAs, as I have said, have a statutory responsibility for providing education for the same age group, albeit in a different form in schools, and their position is somewhat different. However, at this time of night I do not intend to divide the House on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Clause 52 [Duty to give information to the funding councils]:
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 117:
Page 38, line 30, at beginning insert ("(1) As specified in subsections (2) and (3) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 118, 119 and 121. The purpose of the amendments is to create a duty for the further education funding councils and their institutions and committees to provide information to LEAs in parallel to their duty to acquire information. Again, the amendment was discussed in Committee. The basic arguments in its favour are straightforward and need to be repeated.
Since LEAs will continue to be involved in the provision of some further education, it is surely important that they should have the same statutory rights to receive information as the funding councils and their institutions. The amendment was resisted by the Government on the grounds that it was not needed, but I believe that the Minister conceded that local authorities have an equal need for the information. However, I think that he felt that they would be able to obtain it because of their "well-established working networks", whereas the
440
funding councils needed the legislative power to ensure that they were able to obtain the information quickly.
That reply seems to be somewhat disingenuous: local authorities can currently obtain the information that they need because the institutions that provide further education are at the moment almost exclusively under their direct control. They are the funding bodies and the Education Reform Act gives them the exclusive power to require governing bodies to provide such information.
The removal of the further education colleges from the control of local education authorities and the repeal of those sections of the 1988 Act will fundamentally alter that relationship. Without some additional statutory powers which are put forward in the amendment, local authorities will not be guaranteed the information they require to carry out their statutory duties. Once again this Bill will be inconsistent if the powers given to local authorities are not consistent with the duties imposed upon them. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, in replying to this group of amendments perhaps it would help your Lordships and especially the noble Baroness, Lady David, who is not in her place, and the right reverend Prelate, if I say that if and when Amendment No. 123 is discussed, I shall be giving an identical answer and deploying identical arguments. I shall leave it at that for the moment and see whether the matter needs to be addressed later.
Clause 52 imposes a requirement on the bodies listed to give the further education funding councils such information as they may need for the purposes of the exercise of their functions under Part I of the Bill. This amendment would impose a requirement on the councils and on certain other bodies to provide local education authorities with such information as they may need to exercise their functions under this part of the Bill.
Despite what the noble Baroness said about the need for a parallel duty, we do not believe that this is necessary. Local education authorities, colleges and many other further education organisations have been working closely together in a spirit of co-operation for many years now and they have established their information networks.
Further education funding councils, however, will be new bodies on the further education scene, and will not have had time to build up the contacts they need to obtain information in order to carry out their functions as effectively as possible. The councils will have to get to grips with their new duties very quickly, and that is why we are introducing a legal requirement that certain bodies supply them with the information they need to carry out their functions.
We recognise that there will need to be a particularly close relationship between the councils and LEAs where colleges in the new sector make provision for the further education of adults which falls to the duty of the local education authority. However, we would expect LEAs and colleges to have been involved in contracting for this provision, and

441
therefore to be able to obtain information about it without the need for a statutory requirement on the councils to provide it.
I am conscious that these are the same arguments as have been rehearsed before, but that is the Government's view. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I regret that I seem unable to persuade the Government that this is a helpful amendment, designed to increase co-operation between funding councils and local authorities. It seems to us on this side of the House that we should be even-handed on the exchange of information. I fear that one of the Government's problems is their deep-seated prejudice against local authorities and their unwillingness to legislate in a way that will help the authorities to carry out their statutory duties. However, again I have no intention of dividing the House on the matter and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 120:
Page 38, line 34, after ("any") insert ("institution maintained by a local education authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 120. Clause 52 lays a requirement on a number of bodies to give the further education funding councils such information as they may need for the exercise of their duties. This amendment includes among the listed bodies the governing body of any institution maintained by a local education authority. It will clearly be necessary for the councils to have the power to obtain information from such institutions to enable them to carry out their duties. I commend the amendment to the House.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am a little concerned about this amendment. As I understand it, it gives the funding councils the right to demand information directly from local authority maintained schools and for that matter from adult education institutions, rather than via the local authority.
The amendment does not specify the type of information that can be demanded, nor is there any limitation on the demands that could be made under the provision. The problem about the amendment is that it could impose quite unnecessary burdens on the schools to provide directly to the funding councils information which they have already submitted to their maintaining local authority. As well as imposing an unnecessary burden of work on schools and their governing bodies, it could possibly also undermine the relationship between the authority and the institutions it maintains and make it rather more difficult for the local authority to negotiate sensibly with the funding council over the exercise of their respective powers and duties under this legislation. I hope the Minister can respond to those difficulties.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Baroness has advanced two or three objections to this
442
amendment. 1 hope may reconsider this matter and write to the noble Baroness. To save the time of the House, perhaps the best way forward is to accept the amendment on the understanding that I shall be pleased to give full consideration to the points raised.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful for that reply. I look forward to hearing further details of what is intended on this issue and whether there are somewhat better ways of achieving the aims and objectives of the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 122:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
Inspection etc. of local education authority institutions, other than schools, and advice to Secretary of State
(".—(1) The chief inspector shall have the general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about—

(a) the quality of education provided in local education authority institutions,

(b) the educational standards achieved in such institutions, and

(c) whether the financial resources made available to such institutions are managed efficiently.

(2) When asked to do so by the Secretary of State, the chief inspector shall—

(a) give advice to the Secretary of State on such matters relating to local education authority institutions, and on such other matters relating to further education, as may be specified in the Secretary of State's request, and

(b) inspect and report on any such local education authority institution, or any such class of local education authority institution, as may be so specified.

(3) In connection with the duties imposed on the chief inspector under this section, his powers, and those of his inspectors, in relation to the inspection of schools under any enactment shall extend to the inspection of institutions under this section.
(4) In relation to any local education authority institution maintained or assisted by them, a local education authority—

(a) shall keep under review the quality of education provided, the educational standards achieved and whether the financial resources made available are managed efficiently, and

(b) may cause an inspection to be made by persons authorised by them.

(5) A local education authority shall not authorise any person to inspect any institution under this section unless they are satisfied that he is suitably qualified to do so.
(6) A person who wilfully obstructs any person authorised to inspect an institution under or by virtue of this section in the exercise of his functions shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.—
(7) In this section—

(a) in relation to institutions in England, "chief inspector" means Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England and "his inspectors" means Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in England,

(b) in relation to institutions in Wales, "chief inspector" means Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales and "his inspectors" means Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in Wales, and

(c) "local education authority institution" means an educational institution, other than a school, maintained or assisted by a local education authority.").

443
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already discussed quality assessment arrangements to be made by the new further education funding councils. The clause completes the picture on quality assessment in further education. It could not be brought forward earlier because it necessarily follows closely the terminology of the Education (Schools) Bill, which is currently under consideration in another place.
Further education institutions within the new further education sector will be assessed under arrangements made by the further education funding councils under Clause 9. Further education provided in schools will be inspected under the Education (Schools) Bill. This leaves educational institutions maintained or assisted by local education authorities, other than schools, which are the subject of this new clause. They include, in particular, adult education institutes.
This clause gives the new office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector the same powers of inspection in relation to these institutions as he will have, under the Education (Schools) Bill, in relation to schools. It also gives him, in respect of such institutions, the general duty set out in the parallel provision of the schools Bill; namely, a duty to keep the Secretary of State informed about the quality of education provided, the educational standards achieved and whether the financial resources made available to these institutions are managed efficiently.
The clause also enables the Secretary of State to seek advice from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector on any other matters relating to further education. This would enable the Secretary of State to seek advice in the event of a complaint, for example, about the adequacy of the provision made or proposed to be made by the funding council for a student with learning difficulties.
Finally, the clause deals with local education authorities' continuing powers of inspection of these institutions; namely, educational institutions other than schools which they maintain or assist. The Government do not propose to set up a system of registration of inspectors for the purpose on the lines of that proposed in the schools Bill. Nonetheless, in recognition of the importance of ensuring that inspectors are qualified for the purpose, the clause provides that inspection is to be carried out by persons appointed by the LEAs who are suitably qualified. It only remains for me to apologise, for the reasons I have given, that this clause could not be included in the original Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the new clause is helpful in that it makes clear the duties of Her Majesty's Inspectorate and local authorities with regard to quality in LEA institutions. Those duties are expressly set out and provided for. I thank the Government for introducing this new clause. There are, however, a couple of points I wish to raise.
First, the funding councils have wide powers to fund activities outside their own sector, but the activities of their quality assessment committee are to be restricted to the further education sector. While the amendment deals with local education authority
444
provision, there is potential for much activity to go uninspected that is neither under the remit of LEAs or the new further education sector. I refer, for example, to the work of the further education staff college. I presume that will be funded by the further education funding councils. That work is currently supervised by the local authority associations. However, they will probably cease to be the main funding agency under the new arrangements.
The second issue I wish to raise relates to the schools Bill, which is currently in Committee in another place. That Bill expressly repeals Section 77 of the 1944 Education Act and removes the powers of LEAs to inspect schools. Local authority associations are currently in correspondence with Ministers over the implications of that repeal. I believe Ministers are saying local authorities will retain sufficient general powers to fulfil their overall duty to secure the national curriculum and the quality of education within maintained institutions.
However, I must inform the House that the view of the local authority associations and their professional advisers is that the repeal of Section 77 would severely undermine the local authorities' ability to fulfil their statutory duties. The inclusion of the new clause in the Bill tends to reinforce the argument that general powers will not be adequate. Again, perhaps the Minister would care to comment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her general welcome to the new clause. First, the powers that I described in my opening remarks do not extend beyond the boundaries that I outlined. Secondly, no decision has yet been taken on future arrangements for the further education staff college. As the noble Baroness correctly said, that is currently funded by the local education authorities. Thirdly, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness on the point that she made about the schools Bill removing the powers of local education authorities as regards inspection of schools. Perhaps I may be forgiven for that as it is in a different piece of legislation, but I undertake to write to the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Clause 53 [Directions]:
Lord Kilmarnockmoved Amendment No. 123A:
Page 38, line 40, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as has been said on a number of occasions, Clauses 7 and 53 are the counterparts in Part I of the Bill of Clauses 64 and 77 in Part II. I would have tabled an amendment to Clause 7, but unfortunately I was abroad and did not return in time to table anything for the first day of Report stage. However, these amendments to Clause 53 only will serve me just as well for my main purpose, which is to probe the Government on the degree of intervention that they plan to exercise in the FE and sixth form college sector.
As a result of the debate in Committee—I believe that it was the last day of the Committee stage—on Clauses 64 and 77, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead,

445
offered to come forward with government amendments in an attempt to satisfy his university critics. He has done that in the shape of Amendments Nos. 145, 170 and 171, which will be debated although not this evening. When I asked whether he would bring forward similar amendments for the further education part of the Bill, he told me on 16th December that he would discuss the matter with his right honourable friend. As I am sure he must have fulfilled that undertaking, the result can only have been negative as no such amendments to Part I have appeared. I have accordingly taken the liberty of applying the Government's own formula for Clause 77, slightly modified, to Clause 53 as a means of returning to this matter.
On Second Reading I pointed out that the White Paper, Education and Training for the 21st Century, endorses what one might almost call a Robbins-type approach to further education, saying that:
"The council's main responsibilities will lie in securing enough provision for further education, ensuring that suitable full-time courses are available for all young people who want them."
That suggested, I think correctly, that further education would be demand led. In post-compulsory education the applicants, armed with careers guidance and market information, must be the people best qualified to decide which courses they want to follow.
However, the Bill follows a rather different course. In apparent contradiction to the White Paper, the Secretary of State arms himself with what are in effect extensive manpower planning powers. Those are strongly entrenched in Clause 7, to which I have referred, and in Clause 53. In Clause 53, he has a power of direction,
"in respect of activities carried on by any particular institution."
Presumably that means that he can instruct the council to withhold funds from courses of which the Government do not approve or to steer them toward those which, in their wisdom, they believe to be more useful. That does not seem to me to be sensible. As I said before we are in a post-compulsory market in which students should make up their own minds about their careers. Those institutions will flourish which meet their demands and not the Government's directions. As the Government have not come up with any amendment to limit their present unnecessary powers in the Bill, I have taken the liberty of doing it for them.
There is another aspect to this matter on which I should be grateful for clarification. It relates to training credits. They are mentioned in the White Paper, on page 26 at paragraph 6.2 as one of the sources of income of the further education sector. I understand that they are to be awarded through the TECs. A House of Commons research note states:
"Some will offer credits to all 16 and 17 year old school leavers in the area. Others will offer them on a selective basis (e.g. for apprentice or technician level training only).
If that is correct, it appears to me that funds provided by training credits to FE colleges will be subject to local agreements between the TECs and the FE colleges. Can the Government say what proportion of the income of the further education sector is expected to come from that source? If the plan is to respond to
446
local labour market needs, is it not even more inappropriate for the Secretary of State to reserve to himself a power of direction where local signals are much more appropriate? I go even further and suggest that students themselves should be given the benefit of the labour market information in their careers advice, enabling them to make up their own minds rather than have the choice of courses dictated by either the TECs or the Government.
However that may be, I am clear that the whole point of transferring power to independent corporations fuelled by a funding council would be lost if the Government were constantly to be sticking in their oar in the interests of notional manpower planning objectives. I am aware that there is some difference between the higher education sector with its academic and research requirements and the further education sector with its more directly vocational orientation. Even so, I do not believe that the latter will flourish if constantly prodded and harried to produce this that or other skills which will probably be outmoded by the time they come on stream.
On those grounds I believe that the principle of non-interference, except in the case of gross mismanagement or abuse of the system—for which the Government already have powers under Clause 7 as it stands—should apply just as much to further education as to higher education. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose these amendments. Amendments Nos. 123A and 123B are in identical terms to the amendments to Clause 77, Amendments Nos. 170 and 171, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Belstead.
I oppose Amendments Nos. 123A and 123B and in principle support Amendment No. 124 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, which proposes to leave out Clause 53. Unless Clause 53 were substantially amended along the lines of Amendment No. 169B, standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and myself, there would be no way that it would be appropriate for Clause 53 to stand at all.
It will be seen that Clause 53 as amended by Amendments Nos. 123A and 123B and Clause 77 as amended by Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 would not be acceptable. Such clauses, as amended, confer far greater powers on the Secretary of State than have ever been conferred previously. Apart from there being no precedent in the statute book for any such grant of power, there is the matter of whether it is necessary. The first question that arises—it will arise also when I seek to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, as I have said I shall do—is whether there is any need for Clause 53 having regard to the provisions of Section 219(2) and (3) of the 1988 Act which extends the provisions of Sections 68 and 99 of the 1944 Act to institutions maintained by an LEA which provides higher or further education or both. If one adds Amendment No. 169C and transposes it to Clause 53, and if it were accepted, could there be any need for Clause 53?
We shall not know the position until Monday. In my submission there would and could be no such need

447
if Amendment No. 169C were accepted by your Lordships either in respect of Clause 53 or Clause 77. The Motion that Clause 53 do not stand part was not moved. The Motion that Clause 77 do not stand part was withdrawn at Committee stage at the suggestion of the Minister so that he could consider his position. Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 to Clause 77 proposed by the Minister to meet the argument adduced at Committee stage, although tabled in good faith, assuredly do not meet the full thrust of the argument and are therefore, with respect to my noble friend, entirely unacceptable.
The next question that arises is whether Clause 53 and its sister clause, Clause 77, as implemented by Clause 64—again for which there is no precedent—could be acceptable to your Lordships' House as an absolute unfettered derogation of power to the Executive, so to speak, to rule by decree. The answer again is assuredly, no. No amendment has been tabled to Clause 53 which will be acceptable. It has certainly not been tabled by the Government.
One moves then to the third question which is whether Clause 53 should stand, albeit substantially amended along the lines of Amendment No. 169C, and albeit perhaps with modifications to suit Clause 53. However, until the position as regards Clause 77 has been considered and one hopes resolved by your Lordships on Monday, it is not easy to resolve the issue as to whether Amendments Nos. 123A and 123B should be taken to amend the clause or whether Amendment No. 124 to Clause 53 should be considered today (in the sense of being divided upon) or whether Clause 53 should be left out. In a sense the two clauses are sister clauses. The same basic considerations, albeit with modifications, apply to both.
The position on Clause 77 will not be known until after the debate on Monday. If that is right, a consistent alignment may well have to await Third Reading and could not be resolved by a Division on Clause 53 today. That is a matter for your Lordships' House.
It is absolutely plain from Amendments Nos. 169A to 169C that it was impossible to accept that Clauses 53 or 77 should form part of this Bill. Indeed, I said in Committee that the powers of direction sought under the conglomerate powers—that is, Clauses 53, 64 and 77—were far more extensive than those conferred by the 1988 Act. They were in effect an overkill and never ought to appear in any statute.
The final point of considerable importance is that the position under the 1988 Act to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor then referred is not the same as would obtain under Clauses 53, 64 and 77 of this Bill. In particular, the essential safeguard of Clause 124(7) of the Act has been removed from this Bill. Clause 64(2) (a) of the Bill also constitutes a substantial departure. Therefore, as I pointed out in Committee, it cannot be said, as my noble friend Lord Belstead said on two occasions, that Clauses 53 and 77 merely restate the law as accepted by Parliament in the passage of the 1988 Act. Assuredly they do not.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I agree entirely with the general statement of the position put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I have read carefully the debates that we had in Committee, in particular the contribution made by the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, tabled an amendment in Committee to make any special directions under Clause 53 subject to affirmative resolution. The Minister replied that that would have the effect of making the resulting instrument hybrid, and that would give rise to a long and complicated technical procedure involving the right to be heard by counsel and a great deal more. That would of course be inconvenient from the Executive's point of view.
I am also well aware that, being a sovereign body, Parliament possesses the power to waive the hybridity provisions on any particular occasion. I recall an occasion at the very fag end of the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill when we passed such a provision for the assessment of railway signal boxes. I remember then asking the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who was in charge of the Bill, for a promise not to make a habit of that, which he freely gave.
That power exists but I am a little doubtful about whether it should be used. I believe that the restrictions on the hybrid Bill exist for a very good reason. They have existed since 1626 and probably longer. The point of the restrictions on hybrid Bills is that it should not be possible, as it used to be in the traditional bills of attainder in the old days, to use the whole power of the legislative juggernaut to crush a single individual. One person or institution facing the panoply of an Act of Parliament arrayed against him ought to have the right to be heard by his counsel. That is one of our liberties and it is an important one. Therefore, I should view with a great deal of misgiving any restriction of the procedure on hybrid Bills. Of course that procedure on hybridity and the great care with which it has been built up and the thought which has gone into constructing it illustrates clearly why some of us believe that the powers which the Government are claiming in Clauses 53, 64 and 77 to give directives to an individual institution are an abuse of executive power and the legislative process.
The power which the Government are claiming is very much the same as the kind of power which Parliament in its wisdom has always wished to restrict and fetter by the use of the hybrid procedure. An institution subject to a ministerial directive with the force of law behind it stands in need of exactly the same protection for its legal rights as an institution subject to an affirmative instrument directed to an individual institution. The legal needs of the institution in one case are the same as in the other. Therefore, morally the right to legal protection should be the same in one case as it is in the other.
In fact, by saying that an affirmative instrument under this clause would be hybrid, the Minister was confessing that whatever is the legal position—and although I have been taking advice on that, so far I have not yet received a resolution on it—this clause, even if it is not legally hybrid, is morally hybrid. That is why it should not remain in the Bill.

449
I ask the Minister whether the Government have taken advice before introducing this Bill on whether the power to give special directives renders it hybrid, in which case we shall be with it for a very long time.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, are identical to the amendments which the Government have tabled to the parallel clause in Part II of the Bill, Clause 77. I can well understand noble Lords wondering why the Government have not tabled the same amendments to Clause 53.
I emphasise that the Government greatly respect the achievements of many of the colleges which will transfer to the new further education sector. Indeed, the fact that we are giving the colleges independence is evidence of our confidence in their ability to manage their own affairs.
However, it is quite a big step from there for the Government to say that we have the confidence to limit our long stop powers to intervene in the event of something going very wrong with one of the colleges and the funding council accounting officer failing to fulfil his responsibilities. For that would be the effect of these amendments. They would impose very important constraints. They provide that the Secretary of State may not frame directions by reference to particular courses of study. That includes an institution's ability to offer particular courses or programmes. It applies to their content and it covers the way in which they are taught, supervised and assessed. Those are all objectives which I undertook to bring to the House as regards Clauses 64 and 77 but not as regards this clause. In the case of higher education, where most of the institutions are of long standing, the Government feel confident in limiting their power to give directions in the way I have just described.
In further education, however, it is a fact that, successful as they have been, many of the colleges are not long-standing and do not have a track record which can compare with that of our historic universities. The Government do not feel, therefore, that they should limit their power in the way proposed by these amendments.
That is not to say that the Government expect to have to intervene in these areas, except as a last resort in the event of things going badly wrong. The main purpose of Clause 53 is to provide a long stop power to protect the taxpayers' interests in the sum of some £2 billion that is spent on further education every year. The power of direction-making is needed to protect against the remote possibility of what I have described on a previous occasion as a nightmare scenario where the funding council has not taken the necessary action and the Secretary of State needs to give a direction. It is most likely that what I have in mind would involve an institution getting into financial difficulties. However there may be other problems as well.
It is for those reasons that I urge the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, to withdraw the amendment. But first perhaps I may make two points. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked the direct question of whether legal advice was given by the department that Clauses 53 and 77 render the Bill hybrid. It will not entirely
450
surprise the noble Earl when I answer that question by saying that we have not received any advice that there is any hybridity rendered to the Bill by those clauses.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to elaborate on that a little further. I appreciate that he has not received advice that the Bill is hybrid. Has he received advice that it is not?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me, I do not wish to add to what I have said. The other point I wish to make is that in reply to the speech of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I followed carefully what he said. I agree, with regard to the mechanisms of his speech, with what he said. I hope that he will forgive me when I say that I did not agree with his evaluation of the merits of the amendments to Clause 77. However, my noble friend staked out a position of the way in which he felt the House should proceed. If the House proceeds like that by not reaching a decision on Clause 53 this evening and seeing what we do on Clause 77, I shall certainly not cavil.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can ask him a straight question. Has he any knowledge of any precedent of what he calls a "long-stop provision", which is in this form and which is wholly unspecific as to the type of situation in which it will be used? Has he any knowledge that that has ever been asked of any Act of Parliament even in emergency or war time?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my answer is that I have not. However, I remind my noble friend that when introducing the Bill on Second Reading, I reminded the House in the context of Clause 77 that no less a Member of your Lordships' House than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made the point that under Clause 77 we were talking about an extreme situation—I realise that we are now on Clause 53. It was a situation where directions would only be given in an extreme situation. For instance, in the way I put it under Clause 53, where the funding council has not taken the necessary action and the Secretary of State feels that there is need for direction. I could have been more downright than that and said that there may be a situation where relations between the funding council and the Secretary of State may break down in the context of a serious situation occurring with a specific college. We are talking of an extreme long-stop power. But the answer to my noble friend is no.
Perhaps before I sit down I can apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. With regard to training credits I cannot give a precise sum but it will cover part-time students only. The income will account for a relatively small proportion of a college's overall income compared to the college's core funding.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he will undertake to examine the hybridity case put forward by my noble friend and perhaps agree to write to him about it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not wish to be unreasonable or unhelpful. I do not think that I can help. I shall look to see whether I can be more helpful than I have been. But my answer is as clear as it can possibly be. The legal advice that I received is that Clauses 53 and 77 do not render the Bill hybrid.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. I agreed with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, especially when he said that Clauses 53, 64 and 77 are overkill. He went on to say that we shall not know the position until Monday, when the result of the debates on the Government amendments to Clauses 64 and 77 are declared.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has indicated that the Government do not intend to treat the two sectors on all fours or on a level basis. In his reply the noble Lord said that the Government needed this power in case something went very wrong—the accounting procedures got out of hand or something of that nature. However, as I understand it, that is not what this clause addresses. I believe that the Government already have that power in Clause 7. We are talking here about directions on matters of an educational and not a managerial nature.
The noble Lord also said that the Government felt more inclined to trust the higher education institutions because of their long-standing track record and that some of the colleges would have a very small or no track record. That is questionable. Further education in this country has a proud record. There are some institutions which have been in existence for a very long time. Therefore, I am not sure that the noble Lord's point entirely holds water.
On many occasions during debates on this Bill he has said that the Government do not expect to have to intervene; they simply regard these clauses as an extreme longstop power which they require in order to protect the expenditure of £2 billion of public money. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply which was as courteous and as well phrased as we always expect from him. However, he took no account of my points on the desirability of local judgment being best on what courses should be offered. Neither did the noble Lord deny my suggestion that the Government wanted manpower planning powers up their sleeve, which is in effect what these measures are. That does not provide a route to healthy pluralism in this sector which is what I am sure we want. It is a very exciting sector and it can be developed very well indeed. It does not need the Government's long arm to plunge into the academic or training pot.
I am not entirely satisfied with what the noble Lord has said. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is right. We shall have further debates on a closely related topic on Monday and we shall see how we come out of that. Depending on the results of the debates on Monday, it will be my duty to return with these matters at Third Reading. I shall seek some kind of diminution of the Government's power in the further education sector, but possibly not as extensive as that in the higher education sector. That is a necessity.
452
On those grounds I shall not press the amendment this evening. I am pleased in that I believe I have succeeded in my objective, which was to get a debate going and to find out the Government's view. I shall await events and reserve the right, which I believe I still have, to return to the matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123B not moved.]
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 124:
Leave out Clause 53.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have had something of a rehearsal of the merits and demerits of this clause in the debate which we have just had concerning the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I wish to oppose the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. It is an unnecessary power which allows the Secretary of State to interfere in an unprecedented way in the work of the funding councils and in the activities of individual educational institutions. Under the democratic traditions of this country we have in the past favoured pluralism. We have favoured giving as much autonomy as possible to public bodies consistent with proper accountability as regards public funds. We have opposed Government by diktat from the centre, and we have always worked hard to constrain the powers of Ministers in the interests of devolving responsibility to those directly concerned with the running of public institutions.
We had a long debate in Committee on Clauses 64 and 67 of the Bill. Clause 53, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has already said, has exactly the same effect with respect to the further education funding councils and the institutions for which they are responsible, as Clause 77 has with respect to the higher education funding councils and the universities. There was anxiety on all sides of the House about the undesirability of Clause 77. I believe there were no speakers, apart from the Minister, who felt able to defend the inclusion of that clause in the Bill.
One of the important purposes of establishing funding councils is to establish an arm's length relationship between the Government and the education institutions responsible for providing tuition for students at various levels. Clause 53 destroys that arm's length principle and allows for a Secretary of State with malign intentions—I am not saying that the present Secretary of State has such intentions but there may be one who has such intentions in the future—to interfere in the content of courses and how they are taught.
There are Government amendments to Clause 77 which we shall debate on Monday, but unfortunately I do not believe that they meet the many anxieties that have been expressed. There are no such amendments with respect to Clause 53, yet the same problems arise.
Some members of your Lordships' House may wish to argue that the same issues in relation to academic freedom do not apply to further education. I beg to differ. There are many courses in further education of a quite advanced nature. Freedom of ideas is as essential in the teaching of such courses as it is in the universities. Further education colleges should be

453
providing a broad and varied curriculum. In a free society the principle of academic freedom is indivisible. There is in any case no need for draconian powers of this kind.
In attempting to justify the inclusion of Clause 77, in Committee the Minister argued that the Secretary of State needed a power of last resort, or what he called a longstop power. In particular, he argued that the Secretary of State needed such a power if relations with the funding council were to break down and to provide protection for the tax payers' interests with respect to considerable sums of public money. He went on to refer to the possibility that either an institution or the funding council might go completely off the rails—a nightmare scenario, was the term he used.
Nightmares very occasionally actually happen, but not very often. The gothic quality of the Minister's imagination in conjuring up this nightmare suggests to me that he has slightly lost touch with reality. He has now just repeated this nonsense. Can we imagine a situation in which a publicly-appointed body of people, people of considerable knowledge and experience—I assume with an eminent and experienced chairman, and no doubt with a chief executive of considerable expertise—will go off the rails and do so at the same time as one or more institutions? I am sorry that the Minister has seen fit to repeat these far-fetched arguments with respect to Clause 53.
Since the chief executives of the funding councils are the accounting officers, they are under an obligation to ensure that public money is properly spent. The Secretary of State therefore has no need to have a last resort power to intervene in this way. Moreover, if the funding councils were to fail to carry out their responsibilities properly, the chairman and the members can be dismissed on the grounds of being unfit, and replaced by the Secretary of State with a new chairman and new members.
Clause 53 is not just unnecessary, it is also dangerous. It should be dropped from the Bill. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, as I indicated a moment ago that I would do and as I stated in Committee that I should do. Although we are at completely disparate ends of the political spectrum I agree with every word she said and the way that she put it. It is interesting that that measure of agreement could come in your Lordships' House.
What on earth got into the Government to make them produce these so-called draconian powers? Why did they do it? I made some inquiries. I do not know whether what I have been told is right or wrong but they must have some reasons for doing it. It is unprecedented. It has never happened before either in peacetime or in wartime. What on earth is going on?
I am advised that the proposed conglomerate powers—in Clauses 53, 64 and 77—came about in this way. There was a decision of Mr. Justice Simon Brown on judicial review in which he made certain observations in his judgment. They were not part of
454
the essential reasoning in the case. They were what we call obiter dicta, which as such do not stand as authority. They were to the effect that the way in which the Secretary of State understood the exercise of his powers under the 1988 Act in this context was erroneous. There was no appeal by the Secretary of State against the decision of Mr. Justice Simon Brown for the simple reason that the Secretary of State won. Noble Lords are laughing. This is no laughing matter. It is a most astonishing affair. I am advised that Clauses 53, 64 and 77 were drafted so as to seek to ensure that the way in which the Secretary of State understood he could exercise his powers was in fact rubber-stamped in this Bill by Parliament. If that analysis and advice are correct, it is astonishing.
I am also advised that the Secretary of State received legal advice to the effect that the 1988 Act was not drafted in such a way as to enable him to exercise the degree of power of control which he wished to exercise. It comes to much the same thing. There it is. I cannot say whether it is right; I cannot say whether it is wrong. I was not there. Perhaps that is just as well anyway. But there must be some reason. What is the reason? I support the noble Baroness.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said in justification of these powers. I take the Minister's point that he is talking about what he calls a nightmare scenario. But these are subjective phrases. One man's nightmare is another man's waking.
The phrase used was "if the funding council should go completely off the rails". In Committee, I said that the phrase, "completely off the rails" was not statutory language. Since that time, I have discovered that the phrase originates with Mr. Kenneth Baker. Whether that commends it to your Lordships is a question that I shall not pursue further. During the Recess, I was asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to translate the phrase, "go completely off the rails" into statutory language. I came back with the reply, "failed to discharge his duties to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State".
I think that we have here the real trouble with the clause; namely, the purely subjective sense in which these powers will be used. They will be used to stop things which appear unreasonable to the Secretary of State. No doubt some things which appear unreasonable to the Secretary of State are unreasonable. Similarly, there is no doubting the fact that some things which appear perfectly reasonable to other people are in fact unreasonable. However, I do not think that a Parliament which is still told that it is its duty to control the Executive can assume a priori that the Secretary of State's judgment of what is reasonable should be taken entirely at face value and indeed should have the force of law.
In Committee, the Minister referred to institutions getting into financial difficulties. He said that there were three instances among universities. One which I will concede to the Minister was happenstance; the second was coincidence; and there might be those who think that the third was enemy action. We have here an issue where there are two strongly held views. I express no opinion and I think that the House should

455
express no opinion on this occasion about which of them is right. But what I cannot see that the House can do is to endow one of these views with the force of law before it is even formed, and indeed before the issue upon which it is to be formed has even arisen. That seems to me to be an abuse of power.
It is my understanding that it is difficult to delete a clause from a Bill on Third Reading. If I am right, then this is in fact the last occasion upon which we can move to delete the clause from the legislation and ask the House to vote on it. However, if that is not the case, I am hugely relieved.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the leave of the House and with respect as I see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is present in the Chamber, I question whether that is right.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if that is not right, I am glad to hear it. I do not wish to mislead the House. But at some stage or other before this clause leaves the House, I believe that we shall need to vote on it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should like to associate myself most strongly with the remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that academic freedom is indivisible. She put it in a nutshell. Whatever is agreed on what I shall call in shorthand "the university end of the Bill", I can assure the noble Lord that it will not be acceptable if the further education sector is simply left out in the cold. I am relieved to hear from more expert opinion that this is not in fact the last occasion upon which we can consider the matter. We shall certainly do so when we reach the next stage of the Bill's proceedings.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I shall certainly be happy if the noble Baroness is content to withdraw the amendment at this stage. Indeed, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give her some encouragement to do so. If we are talking about nightmare scenarios, it seems to me that it would behove the Secretary of State to be more specific about his nightmares. It is my appreciation of the matter that most of the Secretary of State's nightmares in the field of education are financial: his concerns are primarily that something may go wrong with the finances and he requires the power to intervene when something is clearly going wrong in that respect. In that case, it seems to me to be appropriate that he, or his advisers, should have drafted a clause which gives him the power to intervene when he has good reason for thinking that something is going wrong with the finances. If he or his advisers had framed a clause in that form, we should have had no difficulty in accepting it. It is the untrammelled licence of the Secretary of State's potential nightmares that gives us such anxiety.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the Minister replies, there is a logical point missing: it is not merely that the nightmare has to include the failure of the individual institution plus the council; we must also assume the correctness of the Secretary of State. Given that choice, I see no reason to believe that the Secretary of
456
State who claims to have the nightmare is, as it were, totally compos mentis. In other words, there is no reason to believe, given the choice—it is a logical problem here—that the DES, of which I had the great honour to be the main adviser for some time, would be right in such circumstances; and so I do not believe we can accept logically the nightmare argument.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made some fairly harsh comments about the powers contained in the clause and referred to them as an abuse. He said that they are purely subjective. The first point that I should like to make is that the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to Parliament and to the taxpayer for the Government's further education policy and the funds provided by Parliament which for the further education sector amount to some £2 billion a year. I say on behalf of the Government that it is inconceivable that my right honourable friend should not have available to him a long stop power of intervention to protect the taxpayer's interests in this considerable sum of money. With great respect, I have not this evening heard a considered view put forward as to whether my assertion on that point is right or wrong.
In debate in Committee it was argued that for the Secretary of State to hear about a situation in which a direction-making power was needed he would have to have been advised by the funding council. It was also suggested that it was unimaginable that relations between the Secretary of State and the funding council would have deteriorated to such a point that a direction-making power would be needed. Perhaps I may say a word about those two points.
First, perhaps I may stress that, as I explained in Committee, the power of direction-making is needed against the remote possibility of what I have, indeed, described as a nightmare scenario. If the power were to be needed, it would be in a situation in which normal relations had broken down.
How would the Secretary of State have come to hear of such a situation? His main source of advice would be his assessor on the funding council. I remind your Lordships that the value of the Secretary of State having an assessor on the council was recognised by your Lordships in discussion in Committee. It would in any case be likely that if, say, an institution were in such financial difficulties that the nightmare scenario was indeed in view, the news would have found its way into the press. Even if it had not, my right honourable friend might well have been informed by other institutions within the sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, queried whether the Secretary of State might have summed up correctly as to whether a situation had reached a dangerous and difficult moment. My answer to the noble Lord is that through his assessor at any rate my right honourable friend would rightly have first-hand information.
In moving that the clause should not stand part of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in effect asked how relations between the Secretary of State and the funding council could have reached such a low point. She said that it was virtually inconceivable that matters could reach that stage. We are talking about a situation in which the funding council accounting

457
officer is, in the Secretary of State's judgment, failing to fulfil his responsibilities. That could be the result of all sorts of circumstances or differences of approach; but it would add up to a position where necessary action is not being taken by the funding council in an especially severe and difficult situation and where the Secretary of State's responsibility for huge sums of money in the further education sector comes into play.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew intervened in the debate at this point to say, "Ah, if that is the case, then why haven't the Government put down an amendment?" Modestly, my noble friend did not suggest an amendment of the kind to which he put his name, but I shall identify it as being one such as my noble friends Lord Renfrew, Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, put down which addresses the point. The answer is, as I revealed on the previous amendment, that we believe that the direction-making power should be unfettered so far as concerns the further education sector.
The question has been raised by a number of noble Lords as to why the Government have not tabled the same amendment to this clause as we tabled to Clause 77. I have not been inactive in the matter and, as your Lordships know perfectly well, I put down an amendment to Clause 77 on the Government's behalf which preserves academic freedom in relation to the direction-making power. I know that I am going over familiar ground, but I do so for completeness. The answer is that much as we respect the achievements of many of the colleges in this sector, some are not long-standing and do not have a track record which can compare with that of some historic universities and which can give us the necessary confidence to limit our power. That is not supposed in the least to be a snide remark. I have in mind the ultimate power of the Secretary of State in respect of literally huge sums of money.
Finally, the Secretary of State must act reasonably in the exercise of the direction-giving power under the clause. I recognise and respect the strongly held views which have been expressed on this clause, but I have to say that for the Government it is an important clause, providing a long-stop power in the new further education sector.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not intend to make a long speech at this time of night in response to the Minister. He said that it was inconceivable that the Government or the Secretary of State should not have long-stop powers, but he was unable to give a single example of where he has previously needed such powers. Nor was he able to demonstrate why he suddenly needs them with respect to this Bill and these institutions. In any case, he already has a long-stop power: he can replace a funding council which turns out to be unfit.
The Minister also said that the Secretary of State would have first-hand information about things that were going wrong. I am not quite clear from where this first-hand information would come. The Secretary of
458
State has many duties, responsibilities and obligations. He cannot have eyes in the back as well as in the front of his head. Presumably he must rely on a single assessor who is appointed to the funding council.
Again, it seems to me far-fetched to assume that the funding council itself would not be able to have the kind of information that is necessary and would not take the action that is needed, were something to go badly wrong with respect to the financial accountability of particular institutions.
The more the Government try to defend the clause, the less convinced I become. The remarks made as to why the same amendment on Clause 77 was not tabled to this clause were, if I may say so, a little insulting to the further education colleges. The fact is that many have a long track record. Even if their track record is short, that does not in any sense imply or mean that they will be irresponsible in the way in which they spend the money allocated to them or the way in which they run their courses.
Yet again, I return to the point that has been made on a number of occasions. I reiterate what I said: it is the funding council's responsibility to ensure that the track record is adequate.
I have no intention of dividing the House on this clause at this time of night. However, I wish to retain the opportunity to return to the matter on Third Reading. I hope the Minister will accept that that course is necessary on this occasion although normally one would not necessarily return to issues of this kind on Third Reading. We need to hear, however, how the Government will respond to amendments that have been tabled to the identical Clause 77 with respect to higher education and then make up our minds about what we should do with respect to this clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Reorganisations of schools involving establishment of further education corporation]:
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 125:
Page 39, line 35, leave out ("Subsections (2) and (3) below apply") and insert ("Subsection (2) below applies").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I wish in moving this amendment to speak also to Amendment No. 126. This amendment removes subsection (3) from Clause 55. Clause 55 makes provision regarding the site of a school which is closed as part of a reorganisation scheme where that site is to be used by a further education college established in connection with the scheme. Subsection (3) provides that where the land in question is held on trust for the purposes of the school being closed it will henceforth be held on trust for the purposes of the new further education college.
It has been pointed out to us that there are circumstances in which the provisions of subsection (3) could result in the appropriation of Church property for use by a secular institution in the new sector. This would occur if a secular college were to be established on land used by a voluntary school which was closed as part of a reorganisation scheme associated with the setting up of the college. That was certainly not our intention. Removal of subsection (3)

459
ensures that where a voluntary school is closed as part of such a scheme, the land will continue to be held on the existing denominational trusts. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to express my gratitude to the Government for meeting the point that has been put to them. These amendments are most welcome. I support the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furnessmoved Amendment No. 126:
Page 40, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 127:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
Saving as to persons detained by order of a court
(" . No function conferred or imposed by this Act on a further education funding council shall be construed as relating to any person who is detained, otherwise than at a school, in pursuance of an order made by a court or of an order of recall made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides that no function conferred or imposed on a further education funding council by the Bill should relate to any person detained in pursuance of an order made by a court or of an order of recall made by the Secretary of State. That would mean, in particular, that the funding councils' duties to secure the provision of facilities for further education under Clauses 2 and 3 would not apply to prisoners. The existing statutory position in relation to the education of prisoners would be preserved. The issue of prison education was first drawn to the attention of the House by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, in Committee. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for spotting the deficiency which this amendment is intended to remedy. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has asked me to say that he is extremely glad that the Government have been able to table this amendment. I join in those sentiments.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendment. I am extremely glad that the Government have been able to table it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [The Higher Education Funding Councils]:
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendments Nos. 128 and 129:
Page 42, line 17, leave out from ("State") to ("persons") in line 19 and insert:
("(a) shall have regard to the desirability of including").
Page 42, line 22, after ("education") insert ("and, in appointing such persons, he shall have regard to the
460
desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of higher education or in carrying responsibility for such provision").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 131. During the debate in Committee on 12th December a number of noble Lords spoke in favour of amending Clause 58 to require the Secretary of State to take account of the desirability of including current practitioners in the membership of a higher education funding council. In responding to these comments and in particular to amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers, I said that I believed that there was some cogency in the arguments put forward. I undertook to consult the Secretary of State and to report back to the House at the next stage of the Bill.
Following such consultation I move these amendments which would preserve necessary flexibility in appointments by not fixing quotas for particular categories of member or requiring all members from higher education backgrounds to be currently engaged in the provision of higher education. But they would require the Secretary of State in appointing members from higher education backgrounds to a higher education funding council to have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of higher education or in carrying responsibility for such provision.
In practice, I have not the slightest doubt that, even without these amendments, the new higher education funding councils would include a substantial number of members from higher education backgrounds who were current practitioners. I believe these amendments provide the statutory underpinning that noble Lords were looking for. I beg to move.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I should like to give my support to Amendments Nos. 128, 129 and 131. If, as I hope, they are agreed by your Lordships, I am sure that we can be clear that any discussions that take place within the council will never be deprived of that most vital and essential component; namely, members who have up-to-date, practical experience of the key processes of teaching and research in the universities and, equally important, the administrative infrastructures which are necessary to support them. It is no exaggeration to say that, without that component, the council would be bound to fail in the proper discharge of the duties laid upon it in the Bill and would have no credibility with the universities. I sense from the debates that your Lordships would wish to agree if only because of the nature of the debates on similar amendments in Committee.
In conclusion, I should like to express my personal gratitude to the Minister and, through him, to the Government for this concession. I am sure that it will never be a cause for regret.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 not moved].
Schedule 1 [The Further and Higher Education Funding Councils]:
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 132:
Page 66, line 6, leave out from ("shall") to ("as") in line 7 and insert ("as regards any member in whose case the Secretary of State may so determine, pay or make provision for the payment of such sums by way of pension, allowances and gratuities to or in respect of him").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which would bring the provisions concerned into line with previous legislation. Its effect would be to remove an ambiguity in the present text. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 not moved.]
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment Nos. 135 and 136:
Page 68, line 18, leave out from ("accounts") to ("and") in line 19.
Page 68, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) The statement of accounts shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury as to—

(a) the information to be contained in it,

(b) the manner in which the information contained in it is to be presented, or

(c) the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared,

and shall contain such additional information as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury require to be provided for the information of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are technical amendments which will bring the provisions concerned into line with previous legislation. Their effect is to remove small ambiguities which exist in the present text. I beg to move.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I rise to seek clarification on one point. Amendment No. 136 clearly states that:
"The statement of accounts shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State"—
in practice, that would be the Secretary of State for Education and Science—
"with the approval of the Treasury".
Does that mean the permanent officials at the Treasury or that it will be within the political control of the First Lord of the Treasury? That latter phrase is also repeated later in the amendment. Perhaps my noble friend can explain that to me.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is not an unusual reference and ultimately it means the First Lord of the Treasury.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 61 [Administration of funds by councils]:
[Amendments Nos. 137 to 138A not moved.]
Lord Addingtonmoved Amendment No. 139:
Page 45, line 8, at end insert:
("(c) make grants, loans or other payments to the governing body of any Higher Education Corporation in respect of specific expenditure to ensure that the standard of student support services is adequate and comparable to those of universities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment and it is rather unfortunate that it happens to have come up for consideration at
462
this time of night. When we discussed a similar amendment on the same issues in Committee, we faced the same dilemma regarding the clock.
The basic thrust is that the new universities should have their support facilities for students brought up to a standard that is regarded as adequate in the university sector at present. The main impetus behind this amendment is the fact that universities are traditionally thought of in England and Wales as having more to do with the experience of total education than with simply passing examinations. Moreover, as a result of the pressures placed upon them for such things as student accommodation, universities generally find themselves bearing a far higher proportion than other institutions of the costs of keeping their students. Accommodation provided by the universities is cheaper and generally better organised than other accommodation.
I should like to explain further the logic of the amendment. Going to university is generally regarded as a fun experience. That is often why people go there. At this time of night it may seem a little out of place to bring forward such an argument in view of the entrenched arguments that we have heard, but the fun element of going to university is a very important factor.
If we bring the facilities of the new universities up to the standards of the old universities, we shall be removing one of the aspects of the old binary divide. A very real factor to be taken into account when going to a university was that one generally had better student union facilities, better sports facilities and accommodation where one's money went further. I defy anyone to have a good time on an empty pocket.
All that forms an important part of the process of learning from student activities outside the lecture room. I believe that it is very obvious. That is why it should be considered. It is one of the last aspects of the binary divide to remain. It has nothing to do with academic standards. Certainly the polytechnics have won the argument on that score one hundred times over. Not for one minute would I suggest that their academic standards are not up to the level of the universities.
Unless we deal properly with the problem, we shall retain a part of the binary divide. I therefore suggest that this amendment should be considered very carefully. I hope that the Government will have something sympathetic to say on the matter. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I do not in any sense wish to turn down an offer of increased funds which the noble Lord seems to be making in respect of the polytechnics. But I am not at all sure that that is what the amendment will produce. First, the wording is rather strange, in that it suggests that the council should:
"make grants, loans or other payments to the governing body of any Higher Education Corporation … to ensure that the standard of student support services is adequate and comparable to those of universities".
My understanding is that the new higher education funding council will make grants to the universities

463
—new ones and old ones—and to some higher education corporations, which will be smaller colleges that are neither universities nor former polytechnics. I have difficulty in understanding exactly what the noble Lord intends. If he argues that the polytechnics should be brought up to university standard in respect of their student support, it seems to me that that is not exactly what the amendment says.
As it stands, the amendment would seem to recommend that every small college, including former colleges of education and other small specialist colleges, should have student support that is considered adequate in comparison with that of any university. That would be a utopian recommendation which it would be very difficult to accept. It would be ideal, but extremely expensive.
In relation to the comparison between the student services of polytechnics and those of universities, I can only repeat what I said at Committee stage; namely, that I do not believe that there is that uniform difference on both sides of the binary divide. Some polytechnics have better examples of student support than some universities.
The wording of the amendment is very efficient if it wishes to ensure that all higher education institutions have equally good facilities and are brought up to the standard of the best. We should all say amen if the money were available. I cannot support the amendment in its current form, although I support entirely the spirit in which it is tabled.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the amendment deals specifically with the issue of student support services. I would not be able to agree completely with all that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said. Although I believe it indisputable that some polytechnics have excellent student support services which are better than those of some universities, if we were to compare all with all we would find that universities do rather better financially than polytechnics.
Two years ago the university college which I had the privilege to command decided to revise and re-issue its undergraduate prospectus. We had no funds to research that project, not even enough for a quick and dirty consultancy by Touche Ross. We had to make our own inquiries and put out our own questionnaires. What emerged first-hand from that was that our student services were manifestly superior to those of many polytechnics which we took the care to consult at some depth and to visit.
Students choose institutions at which to study for a wide variety of reasons. But it emerged from our research that they tend to evaluate carefully the quality of student support services when they make their choice of where to spend three years. That is not surprising. Student unions, which offer a wide variety of good quality services such as counselling and financial advice—we are not talking about sporting facilities and games of chance and so on; we refer to serious issues and serious services—find that they are a good selling point and that they are a means of attracting students in a competitive situation.
464
Polytechnics have been with us for several decades. Their academic activities have blossomed and prospered. On the other hand, their plant has grown old and decayed. Much of it was put up rather quickly in the fifties and sixties at a time when flat roofs were much in evidence. Many of those have leaked—and how we know it! A great deal of the resources of polytechnics have necessarily had to go to keeping the water out and the roof up; and student services have not been among the highest priority in all of the polytechnics. Many of the polytechnics have inherited buildings and facilities that are too old, too small, too worn out or simply not designed for the various new activities that are being carried out in them. The ending of the binary divide is not simply a matter of changing names. It must bring about a proper levelling up between institutions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, stated during Committee stage that she did not believe that there was necessarily an uneven distribution of facilities. There is some evidence about student support services which does not appear to support her contention. Work carried out by the professional association of managers of student unions for 42 universities and 40 polytechnics for the 1991 finance survey found that there was an uneven distribution of funding between polytechnics and universities. The ratio of student union block grant received per student clearly seems to favour the universities. Although some universities have a lower ratio than some polytechnics, broadly speaking, across the band the trend is for universities to obtain the better deal.
With a future which includes reduced grants, student loans, bank overdrafts, escalating rents and reduced facilities in, for example, libraries—which some of us believe to be fairly close to the centre of what higher education is about —students need all the help that their support services can provide. The amendment—perhaps in certain respects infelicitously worded—seeks to ensure a fair and just distribution of what will inevitably be increasingly scarce resources. I hope that the Government will look kindly on it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, to take this amendment a little more seriously and bring a little more imagination to bear in considering the fears behind it. In any merger there are inevitably fears. If those fears are not understood on either side they tend to fester. They were not in 1707 and we are still paying for it.
Inevitably there is inside universities a certain fear that what we may be seeing is not the abolition of the binary line, which we should welcome, but the shifting of it a little higher up so that rather more institutions come below it. Therefore, there is no Tyrolean anxiety coming to the merger from the university side that it should not be used to devalue the standards, facilities and qualities associated with the name of "university". I am sure that there are equivalent fears on the part of the former polytechnics. I shall not put words into the mouth of the noble Baroness and I shall not try to say what they are. I am prepared to listen when told about them and I am sure that I shall need to do a great deal of listening.

465
The student support facilities are one area where this type of fear may exist. They easily come under pressure when rapid expansion is going ahead. Who stops to say, "We cannot take in another thousand students because there is not room in the refectory"? But often there is not room in the refectory. Therefore, where will they get their lunch? They are left with the alternative either of going out and paying a great deal more and finding that their money runs out well before the end of term or of going without lunch, in which case their afternoon's work is greatly impaired. That is only one example among many.
There are many places in polytechnics and in universities where student support facilities are strained to the limit. Unless we have some way of spelling out that some protection is needed they will be forgotten. If they are forgotten I am afraid that we might have to pay for it. I would much rather foresee the danger and do something about it now.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, whatever sympathy there may be for the amendment from different parts of the House views have been put forward that it will not do. It will not do from the Government's point of view because it would be invidious to single out one specific purpose for funding on the face of the Bill.
If the funding councils come to the view that there is any need to improve student support facilities in certain institutions they could do so by, for example, making available specific funding and invite institutions to bid for resources on the basis of need. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would not see this as a priority for the councils. That is because the amendment appears to be based on the assumption that student support facilities in higher education corporations (by which I take it the noble Lord, Lord Addington, means polytechnics and colleges generally) are inferior to those in universities. In principle there are no differences between universities and other institutions of higher education in the arrangements concerning student support services. In both cases it is for the individual institutions to make provision from within the resources available to them according to their own needs and priorities. A certain amount of evidence has been called to aid this evening. Recent HMI evidence on polytechnics and colleges of higher education shows that the standard of student support services is generally satisfactory.
If that view sounds complacent I turn to my noble friend Lady Perry, who made a wise remark. She said that in some cases the support services would be better and in other cases they would not be as good as the university sector. I should have thought that the probability is that there lies the truth and not the special case put forward by the noble Lord this evening. Even if there is a special case, I do not believe that it is possible to put a particular funding objective on the face of the Bill. On that basis, I resist the amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, listening to the Minister's reply, I regret that we are discussing this amendment at such a late hour because it did not address the real issue.
The amendment seeks to bring all student support services up to the standards which are found in universities. It is worth remembering that the English model is that university students do not live at home. That is probably a historical accident for which Oxford and Cambridge are responsible. University students live away from home and therefore they place an extremely high emphasis on student support facilities. Where students do not have those support facilities and the back-up of their homes, they find that they are not so well off. That is why the older and better endowed universities have such a big advantage and such a major drawing point.
My intention was to improve the support services of some of the universities which are less well off in that regard. As a rule of thumb, the polytechnics are not so well endowed. They were originally created as establishments for more locally based students. They have now drawn in students from other areas because of the increase in the academic courses which they offer. Unfortunately, they only get the second bite of the cherry as regards students with good examination results. We are trying to get rid of that binary divide.
I must read the noble Lord's reply on this matter. However, I give no guarantee that I shall not return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthornmoved Amendment No. 139A:
Page 45, line 18, leave out ("subject to that").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in my view this is not merely a drafting amendment. If I am assured that it is, that will be fine. However, I should like to try to explain why I do not believe that that is so.
I moved an amendment in Committee which I withdrew when the Minister gave a reply which I did not fully understand. I have read the reply several times and I still do not fully understand it. I have reached the conclusion that perhaps the noble Lord did not understand the point which I was making, although that was no doubt my fault.
This is not a trivial matter. The three words "subject to that" are not in the equivalent section of the Education Reform Act 1988 nor—it is interesting to observe—are they in the equivalent position in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, which is at present under discussion in another place.
The only way in which I can try to make myself more clearly understood than I was able to do in Committee is to try to sketch out a scenario. I hope it will not be a nightmare scenario, but that remains to be seen.
First, let us imagine that a funding council makes a grant to a department of medicine in a university for certain defined research purposes. Secondly, let us suppose that a philanthropist millionaire has made a munificent benefaction to that same department for

467
the purposes of cancer research —a well defined purpose. Thirdly, let us suppose that the department of medicine does not carry out the research in a manner which is to the satisfaction of the funding council or the Secretary of State so that a question arises as to repayment being made, in whole or in part, of the sums paid by the council because the terms and conditions under which the sums were paid are not, in the council's view, complied with.
What does the department do in those circumstances? It may try to make economies from further grants derived from the funding council; it may borrow; or it may seek to raise other resources in order to make the appropriate repayment. However, it is conceivable that it could in fact lay hands on the benefaction of the philanthropist millionaire. What is disquieting is that it might be required by the council to lay hands on the benefaction—the golden egg—of the philanthropist millionaire. That would be highly undesirable. First, it would be wrong in itself; secondly, it would be counterproductive.
All of us in the university sector at the moment are anxious to raise money from independent sources for research and other purposes, and of course we have the warm encouragement of the Government for doing so, which is quite proper. It would therefore be most unfortunate if money with a specific benefactory purpose were used in this way. It would certainly be counterproductive in securing further benefactions. I would find it difficult to continue raising money for my department and my university if I could not look a benefactor in the eye and assure him or her that the money would be used for the purposes for which it had been given to the department.
The 1988 Act gave an unqualified restriction which would prevent such an eventuality. Here the restriction is qualified by the words, "subject to that", which, on my readings is a subordinating phrase. I shall be happy to be corrected by legal opinion; there are noble and learned Lords present who may be able to do that, but I have not so far been authoritatively corrected on that. The phrase "subject to that" suggests—if I may use that verb—beta to alpha, so that beta is no longer an absolute obstacle. The phrase "subject to that", as I read the clause, empowers the funding council to lay its hands on the benefaction or direct that the benefaction be used for this purpose.
I hope that the Minister can assure me that I am wrong, but I hope that he will do so perhaps more analytically than he was able to do last time. If the phrase "subject to that" has no such purpose, why is it inserted in the Bill when it was not in its predecessor Bill? Why was it not inserted in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill? If the Minister can persuade us that these words are completely immaterial and unnecessary, well and good. But if he does so persuade us, then surely the omission of those words would scarcely be deleterious. Either way, they could safely be omitted. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. It surely cannot be the intention of the Government to kill or discourage the benefactory
468
goose. Perhaps one can proceed on common ground that that cannot be the intention. If that is so, what is the meaning of "subject to that"? It imports a qualification; it imports a priority. What is it?
If it imports a priority, as has been pointed out, it discourages the benefactory goose. We therefore need an assurance also that it is not intended to create a priority. But we do not know what it is intended to create. If it were deleted, it would make sense according to what I believe is the Government's intention. We require a measure of assurance on the matter. We wish to know why it was introduced into this Bill, not existing in other Bills, and exactly what it is supposed to mean.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew and Lord Campbell, though I regret I do not possess their analytical powers. I am trying hard to follow subsection (4) but I find it difficult. I fear that it establishes the right of the council to recover payment, in whole or in part as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew said, if any terms or conditions which the council attached to a grant which it had made are infringed by the recipient. Then the subsection goes on to state that the terms and conditions cannot relate to grants received from other sources.
All that is splendid until one comes to those three little words "subject to that" which, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has pointed out, are not in the equivalent Scottish Bill and neither are they contained in the FE part of the Bill before us. I would like to be reassured that it is a wrong interpretation to say that those words open the door to the council being able to claim back some money unless the university used its money from other sources in some particular way laid down by the council.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, gave a vivid illustration. He has drawn our attention to the fact that this provision was not in the 1988 Act. Like the other two noble Lords, I cannot really believe, if my interpretation and theirs is correct, that that is intended by the Government. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in replying can agree to some wording which will place moneys which a university receives from non-council sources completely beyond the grasp of a council. If that can be done beyond peradventure, I shall be quite content.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, perhaps I may join the company of those noble Lords who have been profoundly puzzled by the meaning and intention of this particular clause and for the same reason. The words "subject to that" seem to be otiose if one assumes that the Government's intention is what it has been assumed to be by various noble Lords who have spoken. If they are not otiose, then the intention seems to be, as stated, to subject the last part of subsection (4) to paragraphs (a) and (b). That does seem to be acceptable. I very much hope that the Minister will be prepared to let the three words "subject to that"

469
disappear. I do not believe that they make the slightest difference to what was intended in that clause. I hope that they do not.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in responding to a similar amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Renfrew in Committee, I assured him that these words do not represent any change of policy. In passing I thank my noble friend who, in what I believe to be the politest way I have ever heard, told me quietly that my answer was incomprehensible on that occasion. I repeat the assurance that I then attempted to give my noble friend.
These words are certainly not intended to enable the new funding councils to interfere with institutions' private income. Their sole purpose is to acknowledge the possibility that where an institution has to repay grant or pay interest on such repayment, it may be that it resorts to funds that the council has not provided. Where a council requires repayment of grant or the payment of interest, an institution has a number of options. It may be able to use funds provided by the council for other purposes provided that the council agrees. It may be that the institution will borrow. Both of those are examples given by my noble friend Lord Renfrew.
It may be that the institution will resort to some form of reserve fund of its own. None of those options is closed off by the words in the subsection. However, the institution may choose to use income from private sources provided—and I emphasise the proviso—that to do so would not be inconsistent with any conditions subject to which that income was received. As regards the example given by my noble friend, the funding council could not require the department of medicine to repay funds from a particular source. If the money from the benefactor had been given on trust for a particular purpose it would not be available for any other purpose. In practice the department of medicine would be part of a larger institution from whose general funds the repayment could be made.
In those circumstances the conditions under which a repayment is made could be said to relate to income derived from sources other than from the council. It is surely not unreasonable to require an institution which has received public money for a particular purpose and which has not used it for that purpose to repay it and, where it has delayed repayment, to pay interest. It would be unreasonable for that institution to claim that it should not repay because it had exhausted the funds provided by the council and in consequence would have to resort to funds from some other sources.
These are the circumstances against which the words "subject to that" are designed to guard. Those words are not designed to block off finding repayment from various sources of funding, which my noble friend Lord Renfrew suggested in his words and which I have repeated.
I hope that this explanation has satisfied my noble friend of the very limited but, as the Government believe, necessary purpose served by these words. I have today looked carefully into this once again and I hope that I may have satisfied your Lordships.
11 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He has given a much fuller explanation on this occasion than he was able to give on a previous occasion. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for his support. I am very much aware that in matters of definition and of reading legal documents, he is a person of vast experience. I am grateful to noble Lords opposite.
I am not a lawyer and so I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to try to make coherent off-the-cuff remarks. However, I should like to make this point. The Minister said that an institution or the department in question may choose to repay funds from one source or another. I am sure that it would be entirely acceptable if, for instance, the benefaction was not one with narrow terms, and if the department genuinely chose to repay sums owing to the funding council from the benefaction. If that was the choice of the department, I could see merits in it. However, I would draw the attention of my noble friend to the verbs in the clause. The clause states:
"The terms and conditions on which a council may make any grants, loans or other payments … may in particular—

(a) enable the council to require the repayment … and

(b) require the payment of interest in respect".

There is no element of choice there. "Require" may well include choice, but the power is one which requires. I am afraid that I remain unable to follow the full logic of the explanation which my noble friend purports to have given.
It would be inappropriate to divide the House at this hour of the night. However, what I should like to do—I hope my noble friend will find this reasonable—is to ask some noble and learned colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to be so kind, if they would, as to give this clause further attention. It would be helpful if my noble friend would do so. I certainly do not want to set my readings against those of himself or of the Government; but I do not believe that the matter has been entirely clarified. Therefore, in withdrawing the amendment, I must give notice that I think it likely that it will have to come back at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 [Administration of funds: supplementary]:
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 140:
Page 46, line 6, leave out ("particular") and insert ("religion or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 142:
Page 46, line 11, leave out ("particular") and insert ("religion or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
472
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past eleven o'clock.

  URBAN PROGRAMME ALLOCATIONS 1992/93
  URBAN PROGRAMME ALLOCATIONS 1992/93